Nickelodeon tells kids: Alamo fought for slavery

Agreed with rsr. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Slavery was a major issue in the Texas Revolution

 

Agreed with rsr again. Both statements are right.

Saying that those wars were about slavery is not contingent on the hypothetical situation of whether they would have been fought or not if slavery wasn't an issue for those wars. It also isn't contingent on slavery being the only issue. The fact is that slavery was a primary issue for both, making both statements true.

 

We are talking about the kid's network that has a commerial that talks about kid's bodily functions, and and says it is ok to do so in public especially in a jokingly manner. Please do not let this stations babysit your kids, like my sister does, I turn it off when she leaves, I don't want my nieces exposed to it. When I baby sit we read...an alternate form of entertainment. My eldest niece already knows all the books of the bible and she is only 4 years old. And only because her aunt turned the tv off and taught them to her. We need to control these kids and get them away from the televisions, that is one of the reasons children are so obeste today.

 

"What is not true about it?" - The fact that it is presented as the reason for the Battle of the Alamo.

Almost everything?

Houston didn't die at the Alamo, but Houston was the one who ordered them to hold back Santa Anna. Houston was known an emancipator.

Houston owned 12 slaves. He freed them before he was legally required to do so. This fact is confirmed by the recollection of one of the slaves who said that Sam read the Emancipation Proclamation to them from the steps of the house in which the Houstons lived at the time and told them they were free.

Houston's best claim as an "emancipator," however, was the evidence that he educated his slaves along with his own children, even though it was against the law to do so, and what one of them was able to accomplish after Houston's death.

Did many southerners, including Texans, still see slavery as a legal and viable thing? Yes.
Did many men at the Alamo free their slaves prior to the death of the men? Yes.

Were they fighting "for slavery?" Absolutely not.

They were fighting to keep Texas free of dictators.

Crockett stated: "I have come to your country, though not, I hope, through any selfish motive whatever. I have come to aid you all that I can in your noble cause. I shall identify myself with your interests, and all the honor that I desire is that of defending as a high private, in common with my fellow citizens, the liberties of our common countries."

 

The problem is the half truths that are being presented to kids on networks like Nikelodeon, as well as in the class room. And when all is said and done, half truths are not the "truth" at all.
I personally want my kids to know that slavary was an issue in the Civil War...but not THE issue, or the only issue.

This is why it is up to those of us who are parents to be aware of the gobbly goo being pumped into our kids heads from the TV or the class room, or where ever it may come from.

 

Amen BobbyD.

 

If its an issue - it IS A CAUSE

It may not be the only issue
It may not be the only cause

But it is A cause - one of several
so the schools teach the Civil war was about slavery - face up to it - it WAS!

Give me a cause that was not about slavery - and while Im laughing at your silly answer Ill show you how slavery was behind that too.

Grow up - you grandpappies owned slaves - were hideous evil monsters in that regards - while being fine human beings in all others; and some of your pappies tweren't no better during the Civil Rights movement either.

Face facts - stop shoving your head in your pile of dung saying that its better or truer than any other man's pile of dung.

PS - it was all about slavery/imperialism

 

I assume the Nickelodeon version is something like the following?

The Other Side
Mexico generously opened Texan lands to American settlers who, corrupted by their greed for land and the precious metals it contained, ignored the 1824 Mexican constitution which they had sworn to obey and took advantage of Mexico’s internal problems to revolt. The Texans demanded legalization of their despicable practice of slavery, formed unauthorized governing bodies that collected taxes but did not return any of this revenue to the state, continually demanded more and more land, and insisted on rights granted only to sovereign nations.

This bold infringement on the honor and property of Mexico could not be permitted. "The colonists established in Texas," declared a circular distributed by the minister of relations, "have recently given the most unequivocal evidence of the extremity to which perfidy, ingratitude, and the restless spirit that animates them can go, since -- forgetting what they owe to the supreme government of the nation which so generously admitted them to its bosom, gave them fertile lands to cultivate, and allowed them all the means to live in comfort and abundance -- they have risen against that same government, taking arms against it... [while] concealing their criminal purpose of dismembering the territory of the Republic."

General Santa Anna, who had taken control of the government three years earlier, declared that he would "strike in defense of the independence, honor, and rights of my nation." Fired with patriotism, he formed an army and gave this order: "The foreigners who are making war on the Mexican nation in violation of every rule of law are entitled to no consideration whatever, and in consequence no quarter is to be given them."

The enemy took refuge in the Alamo when they saw the Mexican army approaching. After a 12-day siege, four columns of soldiers and reserves quietly positioned themselves on four sides of the fort in the predawn darkness. They were thrust into battle by the ancient Spanish bugle call that signaled "fire and death."

The revolutionaries’ barrage of cannon and rifle fire stopped the initial charge and killed valiant officers and soldiers who had won the honor of being among the first to attack. When a second attempt was likewise repulsed, Santa Anna ordered in the reserves. Soon the army surged over the north wall, where wooden planking allowed a foothold, and overran the defenders.

As the Texans retreated to the barracks behind sandbag barriers and trenches. Mexican soldiers followed. Fierce fighting ensued, but the Americans fell quickly, especially when their cannon were turned against them. The wrath of the army abated only after all the foreigners were killed. The number of Mexicans lost in the battle was appalling, but they died for a just and honorable cause.
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/alamex.htm

 

Many, US Grant (and, I think RE Lee) included, thought the WBTS was God's wrath for the Mexican war which they saw as unjust aggression on the part of the US. Interestingly enough, I think many of them argued in a very "southern" manner that the Mexican war was further evidence of an inflated centralized power.

 

Really? The facts are that Texas was a province of Mexico that was opened up to American settlers who continually violated the laws of their host country and ultimately decided to secede. They were rebelling against the federal government in Mexico City. This is analogous to, oh let's say the significant Vietnamese population of present-day Houston decided to rebel and split off into their own country with the eventual goal of annexation by Vietnam.

The victors write the history books, and the Texicans are portrayed as freedom fighting heroes, but the story is more complex. They violated laws they had agreed to abide by when Mexico granted them the right to settle in their country. Plus, Davey Crockett and others were basically mercenary fighters who, as they say in Texas, "had no dog in the fight". I do not demean the valor with which the defenders of the Alamo fought, nor their bravery, but there are two sides to every story. Legends spring up and become "facts" in the repeated retelling. For example, the legend of Colonel William B. Travis drawing a line in the sand.

I try not to judge the past by present day standards, but the Texas Revolution was not fueled by any desire to liberate anyone from a dictator. Instead, it was people deciding to violate the rules they had agreed to as guests in a foreign nation. This may have been their plan all along. The Mexican rules were not the best, but they were there from the start. They even insisted the settlers convert to Roman Catholicism, so the separation of church & state was not a concept the Mexican authorities believed in back in 1836. I must say, I think Texas is better off today than it would have been as part of Mexico, but that is an accident of history. Yes, I also know that Spain took the land from indiginous peoples before the US settlers moved in and took it from Mexico.

 

What, then, is your criteria for choosing which revolutions are for liberation and which are for the purpose of worse or further oppression?

 

If you are asking me, Alcott, I don't choose. A successful rebellion is labeled a revolution. An unsuccessful one is viewed by history as a civil war or unsuccessful internal conflict. Liberation often varies depending on which side of a conflict that one finds themself on.