Hey Moon

[TBrennan]

Here's a photo I took yesterday at the battlefield of Palo Alto outside Brownsville Texas.

This was the first big fight of the U.S.-Mexican War back in 18 and 46. An American army of about 2000 men, all Regulars under Zack Taylor, defeated a Mexican force of about 5000.

The Americans here were noted for the speed and flexibility of thier light horse artillery and the steadiness of thier infantry which was probably about 25% Irish immigrants, many of whom had served in the British Army previously.

The American army in the Mexican War though small was probably the finest we ever put in the field.

[Vavoline]

Yup, that looks like the Brownsville area all right. Good deer country.

[m00n]

Hey right on! I've missed your war history lessons! Not got too interested in our battles with Mexico, but I do have "The Alamo" sitting on my DVD player waiting to be watched.

Does not look like a very friendly battle field. You trip over your shoelace and you're gonna have a catus thorn somewhere you don't want it.

[TBrennan]

Moon---You want the Alamo, you got it. This picture is from what was the southwest corner of the enclosure, where the biggest gun, an 18 pounder was mounted.

The Alamo was a very large place, considerabley larger than shown in the new movie. Only a single building and part of another are still left. Where Travis was killed is now inside the Post Ofice at the north end of what was the enclosure. Bowie was killed in a room where the flower bed on the far side of the road on the right of the picture is.

I urge you to watch the movie though, despite some liberties taken with the size and layout of the set it is by FAR the most accurate Alamo movie made. I think it's very good.

[Joe Shmoe]

And where was it that Ozzy took a leak? LOL.. J/K

[edwinr]

I'm looking forward to watching The Alamo. 200 men against 5000? What courage did it take to fight a battle knowing it would end in their deaths?

[Tom Adams]

First of all....am I missing something? I don't see any photo of the Palo Alto battlefield.

Second....Tom, why do you think the set for the Alamo movie is not to scale? I'm not challenging you, I'm just wondering because when I rented the DVD, the "extras" had a "making of the movie" thing. And in it they were very emphatic that they built the set exactly to the same scale as they knew it to be. In fact the director is from Texas and he said that accuracy was a major player in making the movie for the last thing he wanted was for his high school and college teachers to call and give him grief for something not being right. They also mentioned that the set encompassed 52 acres IIRC.

Lastly....I spent well over a week in San Antonio a few years back and I was totally shocked when I saw the Alamo. One gets the impression that you'll drive up to this historic setting and see the Alamo's remains in a large open area. Not so. The city has literally grown up right next to the Alamo. In a way, it's a crying shame. I understand that originally the Alamo was just another element of the city and it follows that the city would grow up around it. However, one would think that there would have been some effort to limit how close the growth would come to the actual grounds of the Alamo. Well - to me anyway.

Tom

[TBrennan]

Tom---I don't know, there was an attachment with a photo of Palo Alto last night, now it's gone (scratching head)

It's wierd that the set for the new movie is so truncated, especially as they took very great care with certain details such as the earthworks outside the main walls. But the enclosure is much smaller and the chapel is WAY out of alingment, being put even with the convento (the other remaining building) instead of considerably east of it.

When the Mexicans evacuated San Antonio after the Texian victory in 1836 they slighted the Alamo by tearing down some of the walls and filling in the protective ditches. Some of the buildings that were incorported into the west wall were restored and used as dwellings. Eventually as San Antonio grew the buldings and walls were destroyed until only the chapel and convento remained and only the thinnest shell of the convento at that.

At one time a fella added a second story to the convento and used it as a dry-goods store. Meanwhile the United States Army had bought the chapel from The Church and used it as a warehouse. It was the army that roofed the chapel and added the distinctive hump to the front facade.

It was only around the beginning of the 20th Century that Texans took an interest in the remains of the Alamo and thier preservation.

[m00n]

Right on. I'll definitly watch the movie this weekend. My history on this subject is not good. What was the reason for the battle at the alamo?

[TBrennan]

Moon---Spain owned Texas but for various reasons was unable to settle it. The Spanish encouraged immigration to Texas from The United States as a way to settle the territory, in retrospect a bad move.

In 1824 Mexico won independence from Spain and Texas became part of Mexico. The Mexicans continued the policy of encouraging immigration from the U.S., in retrospect a bad move.

To make a long story short the American settlers (called "Texians") had most of the religious and racial prejudices of American southerners (most Texians were from the South) of the time and never became "Mexicanized". Eventually revolt broke out in 1835. A Texian force captured San Antonio de Bexar and garrisoned the town with the Alamo, then outside town, as a base fort.

In early 1836 the Mexican presidet, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, led an army into Texas. He destroyed the garrison of the Alamo and moved northeast into east Texas driving the panicked Texians before him, an incident known as The Runaway Scrape. Another Mexican army, under the highly capable General Urrea, was also moving north farther east and destroyed a large Texian force at Goliad.

During this time the Texians had formed a government and declared independence as The Republic of Texas. Sam Houston, who'd been a Regular United States soldier, (as well as governor of Tennessee, protoge of Andy "By God" Jackson and a part time Cherokee known as "Big Drunk") was placed in command of the Texian army.

Houston withdrew into the tangled bayou country near present-day Houston and at San Jacinto caught ole Santa Anna off balance and defeated and captured him. Santa Anna, to save his skin, sold his country down the river and ordered all Mexican forces out of Texas and granted Texas it's freedom, an act he actually had no authority to do.

Anyway the Mexican forces, at the end of a very long and tenuous, logistical tether, obeyed and withdrew. Thus the birth of The Republic of Texas. In 1846 Texas joined The United States, thus helping to setoff the Mexican War.

[Tom Adams]

There were several reasons that ranged from the relatively legit wish to quell the "rebels" to the ego driven reasons of Santa Ana wanting to kick Sam Houston's butt for the whipping he put on Santa Ana's army before.

I'm sure Tom Brennan has some thoughts.

BTW - The Alamo is one movie I would own.

Oh - and if ever you're in San Antonio and want to hear some local music in a locals haunt, check out Tequilla Mockingbird. Just make sure either you or your companion(s) plan on drinking beer or Tequilla 'cause that's all they got. And boy do they have the Tequllia. Hic

Tom

[TBrennan]

Tom---Well actually Santa Anna never fought Houston until San Jacinto. But the Mexican army driven out of San Antonio had been commanded by his brother-in-law, General Cos. The Texians who captured San Antonio were an anarchistic force led by whoever could shout the loudest at a given time, mainly Burleson, Bowie and Milam.

Milam was shot dead by a Mexican rifleman (it's possible the Mexicans actually had more riflemen than the Texians did, another sterotype bites the dust, maybe) while leading an attack, having encouraged the Texians by hollering "Who will follow old Ben Milam into San Antonio".

[Tom Adams]

In re-reading my post Tom, I can see why you thought I was saying that Santa Ana was whipped by Houston earlier. My bad on the sentence structure. What I was trying to say in a condensed way was what you said, that Santa Ana's Mexican army (under different leadership) had gotten beaten before by the Texians. So when Santa Ana himself showed up, he was out for some serious payback. AND....was dissapointed that Houston was not there as he was led to believe.

BTW, during my stay in San Antonio (I was there for a conference), we had this guy show up for one of the conference events that did a renactment "talk" as Jim Bowie. Can't remember the guys name, but he was a retired Texas history professor that had written a couple of books about Jim Bowie as well as books/articles about the Alamo. He was quite entertaining and did a very good job of re-creating what I'd always imagined Jim Bowie to look and be like. And naturally, he had a Bowie knife. The most interesting part of his act was the telling of the sand bar fight he had that landed him his fame. The guy was definitely "in character" and answered quite a few questions in the same manner - i.e. one guy joking asked if he preferred McDonalds or Burger King. Jim Bowie responded that the only McDonalds he knew were good folks from Mississippi and that he never took a liking to no King, so he recond he'd go with the McDonalds.

Tom

[TBrennan]

Tom---Yeah, Bowie was quite a character and a somewhat unsavory one at that; slavedealer, landswindler and duellist. But he was also a natural leader of men and no mean small-unit tactician. And he "walked the walk" sure enough.

Militarily his decision to defend San Antonio was a bad one (he'd been ordered by Houston to pullout but decided to stay) but of such decisions is History made. Had he obeyed he'd be like Neill, Burleson and Rusk; good men that only those who dig deep ever hear of.

It's possible that the thirst for revenge given the Texians as a result of the bungling of Bowie, Travis and Fannin(and Santa Anna's disastrous overreaction of giving them no quarter) was the best thing they could have done for Texas. Had the Texians not been desperate AND vengeful they may have simply quit Texas.

Much better land was opening at the time in Illinois and Iowa and no Mexicans to fight. Of course there was no slavery up there, slavery being another important issue of the Texian revolt.

[ignorance_is_not_bliss]

----------------

On 1/25/2005 8:58:13 AM Tom Adams wrote:

....I spent well over a week in San Antonio a few years back and I was totally shocked when I saw the Alamo. One gets the impression that you'll drive up to this historic setting and see the Alamo's remains in a large open area. Not so. The city has literally grown up right next to the Alamo. In a way, it's a crying shame. I understand that originally the Alamo was just another element of the city and it follows that the city would grow up around it. However, one would think that there would have been some effort to limit how close the growth would come to the actual grounds of the Alamo. Well - to me anyway.

Tom

----------------

When I did basic training in San Antonio, (Air Force) they allowed us a weekend pass, during which I took a tour bus, to "see the sights." The driver/tour guide announced several times throughout the trip, "..and now we're passing over the Mighty San Antonio River.." while I'm trying to find this river which is "famous" in my eyes.

....Now please realize folks, I grew up southern Mississippi, and New Orleans... when you say river, I think of a large mass of water, with banks and levee's, akin to the Mississippi, or the Ohio...

We finally arrive at the "Riverwalk" in downtown San Antonio, and.... its a ditch. I could leap across it, without getting my feet wet. Biggest disappointment while I was there.

[SilverSport]

"Where's the basement?"

Bill

[m00n]

Finally just got a chance to watch The Alamo. It was very good movie.

[IB Slammin]

Tom, I always believed that the majority of the Texians who fought at the mission were Mexican and that this war was about land, not politics. Am I wrong? ( Texas History, Grade School 1958)