William B. Travis, in a final dispatch from the Alamo

Today is Alamo Day in Texas. Today we commemorate the bloody battle at the San Antonio de Valero Mission (aka “The Alamo) on March 6, 1836 that marked the end of the siege of the Alamo.  From the Handbook of Texas:

On March 5, day twelve of the siege, Santa Anna announced an assault for the following day. This sudden declaration stunned his officers. The enemy’s walls were crumbling. No Texan relief column had appeared. When the provisions ran out, surrender would remain the rebels’ only option. There was simply no valid military justification for the costly attack on a stronghold bristling with cannons. But ignoring these reasonable objections, Santa Anna stubbornly insisted on storming the Alamo. Around 5:00 A.M. on Sunday, March 6, he hurled his columns at the battered walls from four directions. Texan gunners stood by their artillery. As about 1,800 assault troops advanced into range, canister ripped through their ranks. Staggered by the concentrated cannon and rifle fire, the Mexican soldiers halted, reformed, and drove forward. Soon they were past the defensive perimeter. Travis, among the first to die, fell on the north bastion. Abandoning the walls, defenders withdrew to the dim rooms of the Long Barracks. There some of the bloodiest hand-to-hand fighting occurred. Bowie, too ravaged by illness to rise from his bed, found no pity. The chapel fell last. By dawn the Centralists had carried the works. The assault had lasted no more than ninety minutes. As many as seven defenders survived the battle, but Santa Anna ordered their summary execution. Many historians count Crockett as a member of that hapless contingent, an assertion that still provokes debate in some circles. By eight o’clock every Alamo fighting man lay dead. Currently, 189 defenders appear on the official list, but ongoing research may increase the final tally to as many as 257.

Though Santa Anna had his victory, the common soldiers paid the price as his officers had anticipated. Accounts vary, but best estimates place the number of Mexicans killed and wounded at about 600. Mexican officers led several noncombatant women, children, and slaves from the smoldering compound (see ALAMO NONCOMBATANTS). Santa Anna treated enemy women and children with admirable gallantry. He pledged safe passage through his lines and provided each with a blanket and two dollars. The most famous of these survivors were Susanna W. Dickinson, widow of Capt. Almaron Dickinson, and their infant daughter, Angelina Dickinson.q After the battle, Mrs. Dickinson traveled to Gonzales. There, she reported the fall of the post to General Houston. The sad intelligence precipitated a wild exodus of Texan settlers called the Runaway Scrape.

What of real military value did the defenders’ heroic stand accomplish? Some movies and other works of fiction pretend that Houston used the time to raise an army. During most of the siege, however, he was at the Convention of 1836 at Washington-on-the-Brazos and not with the army. The delay did, on the other hand, allow promulgation of independence, formation of a revolutionary government, and the drafting of a constitution. If Santa Anna had struck the Texan settlements immediately, he might have disrupted the proceedings and driven all insurgents across the Sabine River. The men of the Alamo were valiant soldiers, but no evidence supports the notion-advanced in the more perfervid versions-that they “joined together in an immortal pact to give their lives that the spark of freedom might blaze into a roaring flame.” Governor Smith and the General Council ordered Neill, Bowie, and Travis to hold the fort until support arrived. Despite all the “victory or death” hyperbole, they were not suicidal. Throughout the thirteen-day siege, Travis never stopped calling on the government for the promised support. The defenders of the Alamo willingly placed themselves in harm’s way to protect their country. Death was a risk they accepted, but it was never their aim. Torn by internal discord, the provisional government could not deliver on its promise to provide relief, and Travis and his command paid the cost of that dereliction. As Travis predicted, his bones did reproach the factious politicos and the parade ground patriots for their neglect. Even stripped of chauvinistic exaggeration, however, the battle of the Alamo remains an inspiring moment in Texas history. The sacrifice of Travis and his command animated the rest of Texas and kindled a righteous wrath that swept the Mexicans off the field at San Jacinto. Since 1836, Americans on battlefields over the globe have responded to the exhortation, “Remember the Alamo!”

Today, “Remember the Alamo!”

It is a day unique to Texas:

On the frozen morning of March 1, 1836, forty-four men shivered in an unfinished house in the tiny hamlet of Washington, Texas. They and fifteen other men who later joined them, representing all the municipalities, declared the Mexican province of Texas to be a free and independent republic.

Many people could name several signers of the American Declaration of Independence. But, can you name three signers of the Texas Declaration?

Chances are, you cannot. And, did you know that many, many of the signers of the declaration were in their late 20s and early 30s? One man, William B. Scates, was a mere 23-years-old when he signed the Texas Declaration.  Humanities Interactive has up information on other signers as well.

I’ve written about Texas Independence Day every year I’ve been a blogger. My favorite post on the topic is one I did for BOR in 2005. You can read it here.

So, this year, I’m going to direct you to some other writings I just came across…

In arguing the justice of their cause to the world and to history, the 59 men who signed the instrument came to that moment from a variety of backgrounds and motivations. There were Tejanos who believed they had seen the liberties won in the Mexican Revolution and the Constitution of 1824 subverted by the dictatorship of Santa Anna. Chosen Vice-President of the Republic was a Yucatecan legislator who had sought refuge in the one Mexican province (Texas) that still resisted Santa Anna’s armies. There were Anglo-American colonists who believed that the deal they had struck with the legitimate Mexican government had been betrayed by the destruction of the democratic process. And there were American latecomers, some of whom simply sought to make new lives for themselves, and others who wanted to protect the fortunes they had invested in land speculation.

…and remind you that the spirit that was alive and well in 1836 remains alive in us all.

May we all remember the sacrafices of these brave pioneers and strive always to make Texas the best it can be. I leave you with this quote:

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.
[...]

When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves one of the case’s enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on Kennedy’s back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the report fabricated.

This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous “single bullet” theory — the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas. However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where the bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to have inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second assassin.

For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy’s suit had bunched up during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt also had to have been raised.

Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed Kennedy’s jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to measure minute distances between Kennedy’s hairline and his shirt, what they dubbed the “hair-to-in-shoot distance.”

The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady, Kennedy’s suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy’s suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet’s entry point.

You can watch the new film, the Jefferies Film, here (.wmv).

Of course, this op-ed was written by Gerald Poser, who wrote Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J.F.K., a book I have read not once but twice, so obviously it’s biased. However, the position of Kennedy’s suit coat, something that seems so mundane to the average person, is something very familiar to anyone who has spent any time studying or researching the assassination. And, this footage could well spawn more of the never-ending conspiracy theories:

The footage is sure to be new fodder for conspiracy buffs who have long maintained Kennedy was the victim of a sinister plot orchestrated by shadowy elements in either the government, the “military-industrial complex,” the Mafia or communist Cuba.

“I’ve already seen the footage on a conspiracy Web site — it’s interesting for the conspiracy researchers to study Kennedy’s coat which appears to be bunched up on his back,” Mack said.

He said since Kennedy’s jacket was riding high on his back, the entry wound in his body did not match the expected position in his coat — grist for the conspiracy mill that charges more than three shots were fired.

Investigators maintain the shooting was carried out by Oswald acting alone. The most complete and best-known film of the Kennedy assassination to come to light was taken by bystander Abraham Zapruder.

I’ve never really come down on one side or the other when it comes to JFK assassination conspiracies. The entire saga has fascinated me for more than a decade. I was interested in it even before Oliver Stone made JFK. For that reason, I almost hate to see that this film could cause assassination “scholars” to decide a final conclusion has now been reached.

I kind of tend to agree with the House Select Committee On Assassination’s conclusion in regard to the Kennedy Assassination:

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

“Probably,” but who knows. I don’t think we’ll ever know the real answer. That’s a very sad thing, but it is nevertheless a very thought-provoking mystery to examine. At any rate, I won’t be divesting myself of my collection of assassination books, newspapers, and magazines, anytime soon.

Tags: Kennedy+Assassination, Jefferies+Film, Zapruder+Film

But, there is another, though less famous, letter penned that day the General Land Office is working to preserve.  This is one of those stories that, as a huge history buff (complete with a degree with the same major), facinates me to no end.
John C. Logan, a Kentuckian fighting at Goliad, wrote a letter to a friend that describes other events of the Texas Revolution:

Logan’s letter was more personal, and heavily peppered with misspellings and grammatical errors. “Most Respected Friend,” he writes. “I again take the liberty of adressing a few lines to you to let you know That I am well at Present whoping that these Few lines may find you in the same.”

But Logan was not fine. He writes that his company has just returned from San Patricio and was preparing to move toward Bexar and the Alamo. They have had a “hard time” on the Texas frontier, he writes, and they have had no corn nor flour for their rations. They have eaten only beef.

“We are all most naked as we are cuting Up tent cloth to make us Panteloons & Every man is his own Taylor in this Army & a good many of us are bare footed,” he writes. “Worst of all the the Schooner that was bringing provision & clothes has been wrecked.”

The men are fatigued, he continues, and in what was clearly a moment of despair, he writes, “all for the chance of us tripping up a few mexicans.”

Logan, a member of the Louisville Volunteers, says he was planning on coming home, back to the United States, but his plans have changed. “There is a force from mexico of about 7000 men marching to retake this Country again & our whole force at this time dont Exceed 800 men but we are willing to meet them when Ever the arive.”

Logan’s letter is made more poignant by the knowledge that he was serving with Col. James Fannin. On Palm Sunday, March 27, a little more than a month after he wrote his friend, Logan, along with more than 300 other soldiers, was executed in what became known as the Goliad Massacre.

Logan’s name could have drifted away from history, but his letter allows it to remain a part of the public record. He will never have the identity of a Fannin, but he won’t be lost either.

This is one of 35 million documents in the GLO archives (yes, thirty five MILLION) that are important parts of Texas history and are in dire need of preservation:

Patterson is putting a spotlight on Logan’s letter because it is one of 35 million documents in the Land Office archives that need professional conservation. Those documents include maps, land grants, surveys and field notes.

They bear the signatures of Stephen F. Austin, Jim Bowie, and others. Patterson is urging all Texans to help preserve these documents by donating to Save Texas History this March and honor 171 years of Texas independence.

The Texas Land Office can take donations online, or people may purchase prints of historical maps housed in the state archives.

So, if you have some change to spare, please head on over to Save Texas History and make your donation today. You’ll be glad you did, and you’ll be helping preserve an important part of Texas History.

On the bright side, Patterson had some very reasonable things to say and handled it nicely even if you don’t agree with him chapter and verse on each item.

Check out this one:

Q. A few years back, you filed an amicus brief backing the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their quest to restore plaques commemorating the Confederacy that were removed from the Texas Supreme Court building in 2000. What about Texans who are offended by these symbols?

I’m willing to say that we don’t have to fly the battle flag. We can fly another flag, like the (Confederacy’s) First National, also known as the Stars and Bars, that has not gained the offensive quality and has not been co-opted by racists like the Klan. … People say we shouldn’t fly the Confederate flag at the Capitol, but we do! Nobody knows that it’s the Confederate flag. It’s almost like a secret handshake. It’s not the Confederate battle flag. The Stars and Bars flies at the Capitol, and Bob Bullock Museum and at Six Flags Over Texas. People don’t find it offensive because they have no clue what it is.

I, for one, know the difference between the flags and discussed that some time ago in context with Ted Nugent and all of this uproar. I don’t have a problem with the First National flag, but terribly dislike the “Rebel Flag” for the reasons Patterson mentions: that it has been co-opted by racists. I do, however, have a problem with Nugent and his shenanigans. That was offensive to me.

The Rebel flag is offensive to me because it has become, as Patterson noted, co-opted by white supremicists. Otherwise, it’d just be another flag, and the Confederacy had hundreds of those for its various units. In its modern context, the Rebel flag doesn’t symbolize “history of the Confederacy” as much as it symbolizes “racism.” It is unfortunate that any piece of history can be so co-opted, but it is a fact that it has taken place. However, I also recognize that it is a part of history and when it is put in its appropriate historical context, I have less of a problem with it.
The other thing I wanted to point out is some more issues relating to monuments. As someone who has studied history extensively (History major, thank you!), I’ve always had that inner tug-of-war over removal of monuments versus whether to “revise and properly interpret” them.
Even though I’m a liberal, I’ve come down on the “revise and interpret” because I’ve always viewed the monuments themselves as historic artifacts more than “monuments” since public perception has changed so much over the years. I am mindful of the fact that some are offended by the fact that there are confederate monuments on the capitol grounds. But, removing the monuments won’t remove history. It is better that people see the monuments and understand why they are there, the mood of the nation and state when they were erected, and get a full sense of history rather than remove them. We are doomed to repeat history if we don’t learn from it. The monuments can teach us a part of history when properly interpreted.
Check this one out [Emphasis in Patterson's remarks mine]:

Q. Should monuments to the Confederacy be removed?

If you have statuary and monuments that were placed at a certain stage of the history of an institution, then I think those are regretful but valuable statements about the past … and probably in some cases should be allowed to stay. … I don’t, however, think they should stand alone. They need to be modified and explained with competing and alternative symbols. … On the UT campus, our idea is there needs to be competing symbolage. There’s a statute of MLK out there and there’s an effort to (honor) Barbara Jordon and César Chávez.

Are the (Confederate leaders) the only folks we should be celebrating? If they are the only people we celebrate, then I think we should not celebrate them. It’s better not to celebrate anyone than to celebrate only certain parts of our past …

It’s unusual for me to be in agreement with a Republican on pretty much anything including whether the sun is shining or not, but here I find myself once again saying that Patterson has articulated his feelings very well and that I’m pretty much in agreement.

In most cases, the monuments should stay with appropriate interpretation.

Now, as to why the MSM decided to yank this issue out of the blissful slumber it had finally found (seriously, how many photos of Ted Nugent can you look at?), I’m puzzled. If it was to give Patterson the chance to expound on his previous statements, then that’s a good thing. If it was just pot-stirring, it’s probably not appropriate, especially in the middle of Black History Month, when we should be focusing on people like Barbara Jordan and others and their contributions to Texas rather than re-hashing a month-old debate.

I noticed a story about this in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and then found Patterson’s press release about the donation.

Given it is only a $250 donation (not that every dollar doesn’t count), I wondered why it merited a press release and coverage by the MainStream Media.

It is my assumption that the donation is being made so public because it could be considered offensive to some. Although I don’t think Patterson made the donation less so by mentioning Confederate Heroes Day and how some want to remove Confederate statues in the release, I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with the state accepting the donation.
That said, I realize I’m entering politically charged waters here, especially for a liberal such as myself. I also want to note that, since not a one of my ancestors was in America before 1880 (or Texas before 1888), I’m not descended from anyone who was on either side in the American Civil War. (One quarter Polish, one quarter Czech, one quarter Irish, one quarter Russian Jewish, thank you very much.)

Because I believe my liberal bona fides are fully intact, I hope people won’t personally attack me for saying that I’m against removal of the vast majority of Confederate statutes. Those that have language that is overtly favoring slavery or is downright offensive, sure: move them to a museum. As for the rest, while I as unfond of that part of Texas History as anyone, I’ve always looked on the statutes themselves as pieces of history and art. That they were erected in a time when the state was still proud of the side we were on in the Civil War is itself history, given that we are not in the same position today and erecting a Confederate Statue today would be looked on universally as unnecessary if not offensive. They are artifacts of our past and we should learn to interpret them properly and explain what Texas once was and what it is (or, at least, strives to be) now. While I’d like to see us erect more statues of people like Barbara Jordan and Martin Luther King, Jr. and other African American and Latino leaders, I don’t think pulling Confederate statues down is the answer to anything.

That said, I will go on record as saying I do truly dislike the display of the “Rebel flag,” for lots of reasons. Statues are one thing, the “Rebel flag” (which was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America) is another.

As for Confederate Heroes Day, which Patterson mentions in his release, it by no means needs to be a state holiday, but I’m not offended when I hear that people talk about it. Why? Because when it is mentioned, I believe it gives us all an opportunity to talk about how far we’ve come as a state and a nation and, more importantly, how far we still need to go.

So, I will actually applaud Commissioner Patterson for a couple of things (and make note: Capitol Annex said something good about a Republican for once…Hell may freeze over (or at least Austin)). First, I’m glad he publicized this because keeping it quite would, if it was discovered, make it look like it was trying to be hidden. He gets points for transperancy. Second, I think it shows courage on his part for the statement he made on the statutes. While I’m sure we’d have disagreements on a blanket desire to keep them all up, Commissioner Patterson is forthright in stating his opinion about a controversial matter.