![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Remembering the Alamo, part 2
May. 31st, 2023 03:08 pmWhen I visited the Alamo in Texas a few days ago I thought a lot about how to frame what happened there in terms of a larger history. The popular story is about American heroes choosing death over defeat and the enemy's brutality making "Remember the Alamo!" a powerful rallying cry for independence. But independence from what, and why? The way those parts of the story are framed at the Alamo itself raised my skepticism because I could see the tool marks of recent politics on them. Sure, simplified us-versus-them stories are winners with most. But not with me. I wanted to dig deeper.
One way to frame what happened at the Alamo is as part of a larger independence movement in the US. Of course, Texas wasn't part of the US back then. Texas was a state in Mexico, which had won independence from Spain in 1821. But a good many of the settlers of Texas were from the United States. In fact Mexico encouraged Americans to come settle in Texas. Arguably one of the lessons is that Mexico should've known better than to invite Americans in; they'd revolt and demand independence. 😂
Politically Mexico was a mess back then. The following independence were rocky, politically, as different schools of thought and different factions collided over how to structure the national government. Some wanted a decentralized government, similar to the confederacy of the US under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the US Constitution. Others wanted a strong centralized government. And others proclaimed a third way, balancing the first two.
The 1824 Constitution of Mexico had created a federal system in which many rights were devolved to states. But over the years the central government asserted more power, including passing anti-American laws that limited immigration from the US and taxed US imports heavily. These were unpopular with the influential Anglo-American population in Texas. Mexico officially abolished slavery in 1829. That, too, pissed off the American immigrants as most of them were from the American South, where slavery remained legal, and had brought their slaves— and their view of slavery as the natural condition for Black people— with them. The final straw came in 1835 when the new president (there had been several in just a few years), Antonio López de Santa Anna suspended the constitution, replacing it with a series of articles that gave him strong, centralized power. Texas revolted, as did many other states.
One fair question is if many states revolted, why was there only fighting in Texas? One answer is that Texas was more revolting. Texian soldiers sacked some Mexican outposts, infuriating Santa Anna. In addition, Santa Anna believed the US was orchestrating the revolt against his power. He led his army to Texas to punish the American ex-pats there. Ultimately, though, when Santa Anna was defeated, no other states demanded independence, only Texas.
One way to frame what happened at the Alamo is as part of a larger independence movement in the US. Of course, Texas wasn't part of the US back then. Texas was a state in Mexico, which had won independence from Spain in 1821. But a good many of the settlers of Texas were from the United States. In fact Mexico encouraged Americans to come settle in Texas. Arguably one of the lessons is that Mexico should've known better than to invite Americans in; they'd revolt and demand independence. 😂
Politically Mexico was a mess back then. The following independence were rocky, politically, as different schools of thought and different factions collided over how to structure the national government. Some wanted a decentralized government, similar to the confederacy of the US under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the US Constitution. Others wanted a strong centralized government. And others proclaimed a third way, balancing the first two.
The 1824 Constitution of Mexico had created a federal system in which many rights were devolved to states. But over the years the central government asserted more power, including passing anti-American laws that limited immigration from the US and taxed US imports heavily. These were unpopular with the influential Anglo-American population in Texas. Mexico officially abolished slavery in 1829. That, too, pissed off the American immigrants as most of them were from the American South, where slavery remained legal, and had brought their slaves— and their view of slavery as the natural condition for Black people— with them. The final straw came in 1835 when the new president (there had been several in just a few years), Antonio López de Santa Anna suspended the constitution, replacing it with a series of articles that gave him strong, centralized power. Texas revolted, as did many other states.
One fair question is if many states revolted, why was there only fighting in Texas? One answer is that Texas was more revolting. Texian soldiers sacked some Mexican outposts, infuriating Santa Anna. In addition, Santa Anna believed the US was orchestrating the revolt against his power. He led his army to Texas to punish the American ex-pats there. Ultimately, though, when Santa Anna was defeated, no other states demanded independence, only Texas.
