In the book Sleuthing the Alamo, by historian James E. Crisp we are faced with some surprising truths about the Texas Revolution as he draws attention to many facilities that have been said to be truths over the years. These facts are often covered by tales of racism and political correctness. Over the course of this engrossing interpretation of the Texas Revolution this historian works like a detective to bring light to the more difficult truths behind all the tales that many believe. I believe James E. Crisp’s thesis to be fairly straightforward. This historian wishes to bring truth to the light. He has done much research and his book is to enlighten people on the misbeliefs in some very important matters throughout history, specifically …show more content…
Crisp goes on to explain many incorrect facts he had found in documents which had been inaccurate, biased, or censored. Spending a lot of time focusing on the truths, he first studies new information based on the text in front of him, and his previous opinion and knowledge on the matter. Once he asses the information, if he does not agree Crisp will search for proof and other facts to supplement why his beliefs are this way. For example, on page 39 Crisp offers his opinion on Houston’s speech which supported the argument for Texas’s independence from Mexico. Crisp says “I was stunned and disbelieving. The words seemed so unlike Houston.” Crisp believed that this speech he heard in its entirety in 1992 to be nothing like the man he grew up learning about in history as a child. He quotes Eugene C. Barker when questioning if the Revolution is the product of racial and political inheritances of the two sides, yet goes on to say this is not what he believes despite what others think. “It seemed to me that conflict between the two groups was not as much an immediate cause as it was an eventual consequence of Texas’s separation from Mexico.” (p. 41) Here you see Crisp laying out all the facts on this important date of the war, yet explaining to us his opinion of the matter and why it is that way. A few pages later (p. 49) he then walks us through his trail of documents he had followed to prove …show more content…
He presents his opinions based on facts and reasoning, and enlightens his readers with many truths that had been buried and hidden behind false beliefs. While digging deeper into myths surrounding the Alamo, Crisp uncovers hidden truths involving other historian’s information about facts like Davy Crockett’s memorable death (p. 65), the misquoted Houston speech (p. 49), and the validity of the de le Peña
“In exchange for his freedom, Santa Anna signed a treaty recognizing Texas’ independence” (Battle of San Jacinto, 2015). General Houston and his army were heavly inspired for victory following the massacres at the Alamo and Goliad. Santa Anna lost the Battle of San Jacinto due his previous viciousness, arrogance, and misuse of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets effectively. Had Santa Anna not made these mistakes, the Battle of San Jacinto would have turned out differently and Texas may have not won its independence from Mexico (Wright, n.d.). Introduction
This evening, the camp received a copy of the violent General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s speech to his soldiers, and it as absolutely nonsensical! He disrespected our proud Texans by claiming us all as killers and wretches! The half begotten, son of a leprous donkey doesn’t realize how he idiotically spoke of his country in such a guiltless and faultless tone. It had been they who abolished the federal system and supported a tyrannical ruling! He even had the nerve to call his country generous!
Oakes argues that as America went to war with itself, Lincoln’s antislavery politics and Douglas’s abolitionism gradually converged. James Oakes vivid political analysis chronicles the transformation of two of America’s greatest leaders as Lincoln embraces the role of the “radical” and Douglas embraces the role of the “republican” (104). The Radical and the Republican is set in the Antebellum period when the United States was divided by the great struggle between liberty and slavery in the North and the South. The Antebellum Era in American history was a time of economic, political, and social change.
The Mexican American War started in 1846 because of Mexican resentment caused by the 1836 loss of Texas and the American’s desire for Mexico’s more northern territory. “On September 9, 1847 after two years of fighting, the Mexican American war essentially ended when the American Army captured Mexico City after the Battle of Chapultepec”( 6). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war. United States leaders then acted morally superior in their negotiations of the treaty 1. During negotiations, United States officials viewed the “forcible incorporations” (1) of almost one half of Mexico’s land as an “event foreordained by providence and Manifest Destiny” (1).
Thus in second chapter Haynes describes the matter of on-going pro-bank and contra-bank debates and collision of the interests of supporting groups that were involved in B.U.S. case. In seventh chapter, the author gives detailed account on annexation of Oregon and Texas. He explains the basis of the disagreement between England and America about Oregon territory. Haynes thoroughly analyzes the status of Texas at that time, and the claims that Mexico and the United States had over it. Further he discusses possible consequences for every country involved into conflict, if England decided to
Everyone knows what the Alamo is and most know the story of it, how the Texans, led by William Travis, James Bowie, and Davie Crocket, had to try and fend off the Mexican soldiers led by Santa Anna. Being outnumbered all the Texans rebels had to fight for was for the pride of Texas and that is what they did and from that some famous myths about certain things were created during the fight like Travis’s line in the sand or Davie Crockets willingness to fight to the death. Randy Roberts and James S. Olson are able to relate the well-known story of the Alamo to the readers and really get into both the Mexican and American perspectives. In “A Line in the Sand the Alamo in Blood and Memory”, Roberts and Olson are able to separate what really happened
The Mexican government believed they still owned Texas, so they treated Texas ' citizens like Mexicans, so America came in to protect the rights of the Anglos. " Texas is now ours...." (Doc. A) "Texas had determined... to annex herself to Our Union; and under these circumstances, it was plainly our duty to extend our protection over her citizens and soil." (Doc. B) Texas belonged to the US, therefore it was only right that the United States defend them.
After many fatal encounters between the two, America had gained control of the territory. They applied for annexation into the United States twice, but congress did not want to aggravate Mexican officials. Although, after James K. Polk was elected president in 1844, congress voted to annex Texas. The United States was not justified in the war with Mexico because they didn’t follow their laws, undisputed territory, and the idea of manifest destiny. To begin with, The United States was not justified because they didn’t abide by Mexico’s
Accordingly his proposition was to purchase distributed lands on the Nueces River and Rio Grande. More so, the Mexican government refused the proposition to give up the land. So then, the president James Polk sent out U.S troops, but the result didn’t come out as planned. Mexican troops attacked the American outpost and killed 12 soldiers, then capturing 52 of the
Thirdly, a second reason the Mexican War was not justified because US soldiers were in a disputed area. According to Jesus Velasco Marquez from “A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States,” he states that “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” As well as, “The American government acted like a bandit who came upon a
As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with
Knowledge of course, is always imperfect, but it seemed to me that when a nation goes to war it must have reasonable confidence in the justice and imperative of its cause. You can 't fix your mistakes. Once people are dead, you can 't make them undead” (38-39). Because O’Brien had witnessed so much death and destruction he knew how important it was to have all the facts first.
The claim that it was the Americans who were wronged in the border battle was deeply seeded within the propaganda published by the American newspapers. Statements such as the one stated in Document B, “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory, and shed American blood,” exhibit the dramatic retellings of the fight to reflect upon Mexican savageness while neatly avoiding American flaws. It was also rooted into American morale that it was correct to annex Texas from the “imbecile and distracted, Mexico [who] can never exert any real government authority,” according to Document A. Ultimately, the question of which country was justified in the Mexican-American War is debatable. However, to side with the Americans would mean disregarding the blatant disrespect displayed by the settlers, the betrayal of the American government for the annexation of what was still viewed as Mexican land, and the ambiguity of the border dispute for both.
In the novel Insurgent Mexico, John Reed travels south of the border to experience the Mexican Revolution first hand while traveling in the year 1914. Reed was a journalist writing for Metropolitan and was ordered to bring back his work to publish in the United States. During this time Reed travelled to many places and met all different types of people from war generals, to peones, to Indians and many others. Reed has described his time in Mexico as the “most satisfactory period” in his life (Publisher’s Note), and it can be reflected through the stories he shares in Insurgent Mexico about his traveling companions and his experiences. Some moments were very serious, and at times even dangerous, while others were light hearted and amusing for
Although the United States war against Mexico resulted in the gaining of America’s most valuable land, the war itself wasn’t legitimate because of the revolution in Texas, motivation for superiority, and the U.S. government’s actions. To begin, the Texans began an unreasonable war because they didn’t follow Mexico’s laws and conditions. When Mexico started selling cheap land, they set conditions for the people moving in. The people had to convert to Catholicism, learn Spanish, become a Mexican citizen, and have no slaves. Many Americans didn’t like being told what to do, and disobeyed the rules and laws.