Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

quaffi0 t1_ja2j90o wrote

Reply to comment by DoomGoober in TIL of the Battle of San Jacinto. Just six weeks after the Texans terrible loss at The Alamo in 1836. The Texans regrouped under Sam Houston, and surprised the Mexican forces and overwhelming defeated the Mexicans. The Texans had 11 soldiers killed and the Mexicans lost 650. by triviafrenzy

Very succinct. The Alamo was lost against orders. Retreat to better redoubts was the subjectively better action at the time. Regardless, it was turned into a rallying cry to this day. Most people, including Texans, do not understand the nature of the sacrifice that was made.

79

the_orig_princess t1_ja3dbgl wrote

Growing up, we talked about it a lot. But since it was Texas we just talked about the “rumor” of Houston abandoning the Alamo, because to say it as truth undermined Texan identity. It was a weird thing that even as 9 YOs we treated it like that.

31

MN8616 t1_ja5gk8u wrote

Houston didn't reign in his troops at the final stages of San Jacinto because of all the Texian troops put to the sword at the Alamo & the lesser known Battle of Goliad.

5

pizza_engineer t1_ja42rct wrote

Remember, the Texians & the Alamo defenders were fighting to preserve slavery in Texas.

I wouldn’t call that a “sacrifice”.

3

will0593 t1_ja4m71h wrote

they really were. they wanted independence from mexico because the mexican 1824 Constitution prohibited slavery and of course all those southern US transplants didn't want to live anywhere without their good old chattel slavery system.

19

signal_lost t1_ja62ydr wrote

Care to explain why the first Texas revolution flag was the 1824 flag demanding a return to the constitution?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1824_Flag.svg

Santa Ana ignored the 1824 constitution (actually repealed it!) and turned Mexico into a military dictatorship.

Austin may have been pro slavery, but Houston wasn’t.

7

waiv t1_jacqmmy wrote

Mexico wasn't a military dictatorship, there was a huge public reaction against federalism and the elected Congress decided to change the constitution.

1

will0593 t1_ja652jm wrote

I'm not talking about Austin OR Houston- I'm talking about the vision for Texas.

−4

signal_lost t1_ja6729w wrote

Pre-Revolution you had 4 people arguing who was in command.

After the Revolution was rapidly changed by the people who moved there. Hell, poor Juan Seguin had to flee because of transplants moving to San Antonio being assholes (and Santa Ana’s men).

Pretending there was a singular motivation before, during and after I think is a bit much.

Also pretending Santa Ana was a good guy, is the weirdest Reddit retcon of history I’ve seen. Seriously, I’ll buy you a plane ticket to Chiapas to go around and tell people you think he was a good guy, and was someone everyone should have been willing to live under his rule!

For unrelated reasons can you fax over your dental records first.

Santa Ana put people to the sword who surrendered under a white flag. He was a war criminal and a despot.

6

waiv t1_jacwb5i wrote

Yeah, that was the law in Mexico, foreigners who raised weapons against the Mexican nation should be treated as pirates and summarily executed. They captured a newcomer group in Copano and since they surrendered and didn't fight they were spared.

The law was repealed before the battle of San Jacinto, where the Americans shot people who surrendered under a white flag.

Mind you, Santa Anna's army treated civilians better than the American army in the Mexican American war, there were plenty of atrocities against civilians back then, including the rape and pillage of Huamantla.

0

signal_lost t1_jadahu4 wrote

Calling it a law that Santa Anna demanded when he was a despot and had control of the government is a bit of a stretch. Hitler had all kinds of laws passed that didn’t make them fairly unethical war crimes.

Goliad was a massacre that even the Mexican commander didn’t want to commit and begged Santa Anna to back down on.

0

waiv t1_jadr81w wrote

See, the problem here is that you already decided that Santa Anna was a despost in ,when any cursory knowledge of Mexican politics and history would tell you that back then Santa Anna wouldn't even exercise the authority he had as the elected president, preferring to spend his time between his Hacienda or in military campaigns. When the Tornell Decree was voted for Congress he was already in San Luis Potosi organizing the Texas campaign. The law was repealed a few days before the battle of San Jacinto.

Also treating filibusters as pirates was the standard back then. Wasn't worse than what happened in San Jacinto.

1

signal_lost t1_ja62keh wrote

It bought 13 days for the rest of the Army to go north and burn supplies behind them. Santa Ana divided his army as he went north and was having supply chain challenges. Probably true a retreat was a better idea but they were trying to control moral. Sam Houston was forced to fight or he was going to be removed as commander, and the scrape was at risk of becoming a poorly managed shambolic retreat to Louisiana.

1

e_keown t1_ja6h0f1 wrote

Wasn't the retreat towards Louisiana an attempt to bait Santa Ana to follow the Texian army into the United States where Sam Houston and Andrew Jackson had arranged the U.S. military to be waiting?

1

waiv t1_jacwie9 wrote

They started moving North AFTER they heard of the Alamo falling.

1

TTVmeatce t1_ja41f3z wrote

yeah a sacrifice was made in the name of slavery fuck all those dudes

−10

pizza_engineer t1_ja43et2 wrote

Yep.

Sherman’s only mistake was not turning west after Savannah.

13

Recipe-Opposite t1_ja4j6rc wrote

Prove it.

−25

Jeramus t1_ja5eio2 wrote

Prove what? Mexico had already abolished slavery and the Texas white colonists had slaves. Texas also joined the Confederacy 30 years later. The Texas Revolution was in large part a fight to preserve slavery.

5