Remember that the Texican revolution was a lawful revolt against Mexico, and that most of the people defending the Alamo were Mexican citizens, and this makes absolutely no sense, except to denigrate the winners of the Texican revolution!
It will fit right in with the "argument at Bunker Hill" or is "argument" too harsh?
Remember that the Texican revolution was a lawful revolt against Mexico, and that most of the people defending the Alamo were Mexican citizens, and this makes absolutely no sense, except to denigrate the winners of the Texican revolution!Ahem.
More or less by definition, there is no such thing as a "lawful revolt." Revolts are against the laws and/or those who make them. Justified revolt, certainly.
If most of the men in the Alamo were Mexican citizens, it was only because they had undergone a less than whole-hearted naturalization required to get a landgrant. Most considered themselves more "American" or "Texan" than they did "Mexican."
There ought to be a warning in there somewhere for us about immigration today.
Aside from these minor points, I agree with you.