[Restorer]

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.

[hillyes]

And don't forget a couple of years ago when Dubya as Gov. removed the plaques from the court building regarding Robert E.Lee's praise of Texans. "I know I can depend on the Texans if a place has to be taken"(or something like that). Dubya's men removed the plaques at night. He did not want anyone "offended".

[El Gato]

More or less by definition, there is no such thing as a "lawful revolt."

Sure there is. It all depends on which "laws" and "lawmakers" one is revolting against. If the laws are contrary to the higher laws, ie. the Constitution, be it of the US or the then existing Mexican one, then revolting against those "laws" and "lawmakers" would indeed be a "lawful revolt".

[A. Pole]

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.

Opressive Mexican/Spanish authorities were going to deprive the Anglo settlers their right to own slaves. See the Slavery in Texas

[Cleburne]

None dare call it treason and all that! Which is why we Southerners can't say "Remember Stonewall Jackson!" or something to that nature in our textbooks...