It in no way compares to Thermopylae and was not a significant battle.
Sherman and Grant would not have been fooled and would have destroyed the fort and its men had they not been occupied in more important areas.
Texas history would not have changed in any way except that Blacks may have had a brief period of freedom and a degree of power as they had when the murderous vengence of the Slaveocrats was prevented by the victorious Union army from exercising its full power over them. As far as I am aware there weren't thousands of Blacks murdered after the war there as there were in the Deep south. Since the Slaveocracy was not as strong in Texas the ex-slaves could always go to the west where the cotton culture was non existent. This moderated the need for Union forces which were required to stop wholesale slaughter by the Red Shirts and the KKK in Tenn., Ga., La., and S. Carolina.
Texas turned its back on its greatest citizen when Sam Houston was forced by the Slaveocracy to resign his Senate seat because he believed in and supported the Constitution against those determined to wipe their @$$es with it.
As if he was supposed to do otherwise?
and did nothing until the ships were within that range.
A smart and effective move that won him the battle.
When they steamed past it the men were ordered up from under the fort and the guns opened fire hitting the boilers of the ships which killed most of the men killed.
As I said, heavy fire and precision hits won the battle.
The soldiers never became relevent since they did not land.
And that precisely is the impact of the victory. 44 men with six guns, two of them immobilized, in an earthen fort stopped a 5,000 man invasion flotilla accompanied by 4 warships with over 20 ships total.
It in no way compares to Thermopylae
It does indeed and your simply saying otherwise, which is all you've bothered to do so far, does not make it any more so than you calling your car and airplane gives it the power to fly. As an interesting sidenote, the battle itself earned the nickname the Thermopylae of the war between the states among its contemporaries and in its own time. They evidently saw enough similarity to make the comparison, and who better knows the battle than those who participated in it?
and was not a significant battle.
Again, your simply saying so does not establish anything, and that's all you've done so far. I asserted earlier and continue to maintain that, were it not for that battle, Texas history would have been significantly altered.
Sherman and Grant would not have been fooled
Why not? What did Sherman and Grant know about Dick Dowling and his dockworkers in an earthen fort that Butler did not?
and would have destroyed the fort and its men
Exactly how could they have done so and how do you know they would have done so? You made the assertion, now defend it. Neither Grant nor Sherman were invincible against surprise attacks or attacks waged against the odds. Or need I remind you of what happened at Cold Harbor?
Texas history would not have changed in any way
And as I earlier noted, you simply saying so bears no relevance onto what actually happened or would have happened. So what's your point?
except that Blacks may have had a brief period of freedom and a degree of power as they had when the murderous vengence of the Slaveocrats
You mean the ones that accounted for something less than 5% of the Texas population?
was prevented by the victorious Union army from exercising its full power over them.
That's funny. Last I checked, slavery continued in many areas held by the north until 1866, long past the war. I also recall Lincoln rescinding several individual orders by his generals that had sought the freeing of slaves under areas they had conquered. Simply having the union army around was no guarantee of emancipation no matter how hard you want it to be.
As far as I am aware there weren't thousands of Blacks murdered after the war there as there were in the Deep south. Since the Slaveocracy was not as strong in Texas the ex-slaves could always go to the west where the cotton culture was non existent.
If you admit the slave institution was not strong in Texas, why then do you appear to take some perverse joy in the fact that the yankees tried to invade and subdue by force a state where over 95% of the population was slave-free?
Texas turned its back on its greatest citizen
To some degree. More than anything else, it was a policy disagreement. Houston was a constitutional unionist and finished second to John Bell for that party's nod for president in 1860. The majority of Texans favored secession. Houston led a political campaign to keep the state in the union and lost. It's as simple as that. And as an historical side note, Houston's son fought for the confederacy and the general himself eventually came around to the confederate side before his death.
when Sam Houston was forced by the Slaveocracy to resign his Senate seat
Not so. Houston left the senate when his term expired in 1859 to run for Texas governor, the office which he held until 1861 when Texas seceded and formed a confederate state government under which the governor's office went to Edward Clark. Prior to secession, Houston twice declined offers from Lincoln of the use of federal troops to prevent it by the point of the bayonet rather than the democratic process (as Lincoln did in Maryland). Following secession, Houston gradually became a public supporter of the confederacy until his death in 1863.
Or in other words, learn some history before you shoot your mouth off again.