|
Post by marklemon on Dec 5, 2008 17:45:23 GMT -5
I'll still wager that once all was said and done, they decided that they could not take their wounded out with them, and they couldn't leave them to the mercy of the Mexicans. They were in effect anchored to the Alamo....but still, this notwithstanding, that they did stay, instead of leaving their wounded behind, speaks volumes of their magnificent heroism. Mark
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2008 7:23:47 GMT -5
Exactly the same thing happened at Encinal del Perdido/Coleto Creek. Most of Fannin's men initially voted to break out under cover of darkness, but then changed their minds when it became clear they would have to abandon their wounded.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 6, 2008 9:22:33 GMT -5
We all know what Santa Anna's policy was toward the rebels; he regarded them as criminals or pirates and would not accord them any leniency, including the wounded. Had the wounded been left behind, they would have been executed. The Alamo wounded and sick were slaughtered.
However, was there any generally accepted protocol regarding treatment of wounded who were taken prisoner at that time, whether abandoned or captured, if they were regarded as members of a legitimate army? What was the practice during the Mexican War, for example?
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 6, 2008 11:51:19 GMT -5
It basically depended on whether they were regarded as "legitimate" combatants, fighting under a recognised flag. During the revolution captured Federalists were regarded as rebels - which meant they got a fair trial before before being shot, while the American volunteers not being either (a) Mexican subjects or (b) soldiers belong to a belligerent government, were treated as "pirates" fighting under no flag. During the Mexican War any Americans captured (wounded or otherwise) were treated as prisoners of war since they were legitimate belligerents.
An interesting feature of the Meier expedition is that the Texans who were captured were treated as belligerents, rather than filibusters, because they were in the service of the Republic of Texas - even though it had not yet been officially recognised by Mexico. This was all the more significant because the Mexican general concerned (Ampudia if I remember rightly) had a pretty nasty reputation when it came to dealing with Mexican rebels. He could, in theory, have regarded the Texans as rebels and dealt with them accordingly, but instead took the more pragmatic view that the Republic of Texas existed and that its government was responsible for its soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 6, 2008 15:01:30 GMT -5
I'll still wager that once all was said and done, they decided that they could not take their wounded out with them, and they couldn't leave them to the mercy of the Mexicans. They were in effect anchored to the Alamo....but still, this notwithstanding, that they did stay, instead of leaving their wounded behind, speaks volumes of their magnificent heroism. Mark I agree with your assessment but would add another emotional factor in this duel of egos and armies. Either way American or Texas honor wouldn't allow the defenders to abandon the field of battle and their wounded comrades to Gen. Santa Anna. Although I'm sure they joined the Texas army and entered the Alamo fort for many different reasons, I think they stayed for one. Most probably couldn't walk away like a Yellow Rose and live with themselves and chose to give up the ghost. It is a reaction that many in modern times have trouble understanding, but is sometimes displayed in combat or in peacetime acts of heroism. Honor will make some people do crazy things.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 13, 2008 7:59:54 GMT -5
Perhaps many folks today wouldn't understand this sort of commitment to a wounded comrade, but anyone who has served in the military or a para-military organization organization knows and understands this. "One for all and all for one".
|
|
|
Post by majorevans08 on Dec 13, 2008 21:29:00 GMT -5
In addition to all that's been said about "why," the mission fortress setting is fascinating, as is the seemingly unusual situation of "frontiersmen" and soldiers fighting off Spanish-speaking Napoleonic soldiers in what was still Mexico, with Texas soon to be a separate country, then a slave state that left the union to Houston's dismay.
Evan a.k.a. Major Evans
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Mar 5, 2009 13:10:52 GMT -5
I think a lot of the ethos of the Alamo is the fact that as a kid in San Antonio, I was taught to think of the Alamo defenders as the heroes and the Mexicans as the enemies. We idolized Travis, Bowie, and Crockett almost to iconic status.
Then, you get older and you study and read books about the Alamo and you realize that these men were not extraordinary but rather normal men that had real isses just like the rest of us.
Travis- Committed adultery and was basically run out of Alabama. He came to Texas looking for a fresh start and in just a short amount of time, became a true leader and was author to one of the most famous letters in American History.
Bowie- A forger of land grants and married into the Mexican Aristocracy to a girl almost half his age. He was rough and mean but again, he turned into one of the true leaders of Texas.
Crockett- Was already a legend before he ever got to Texas and I truly believe that he was a victim of his own legend. He was trapped by the legend of Davy Crockett and if he would have tried to escape and by some miracle the Alamo held, then he would have looked like a deserter.
Fannin- Words dont express the disappointment at such a lost potential. He was one of the more knowledgeable commanders in military tactics but lacked the decision making ability to truly lead men. Would the Alamo have held if he had shown up, its hard to say. But, he had te opportunity in a small window to be the true hero of Texas.
I know that people may disagree with what I have written but after hours of spending time in the Alamo library and after reading books on the subject, it has become apparent that these men were heroes because they were able to exercise freewill made the immortal decision to fight and die for the 2nd chance that a lot of them were in Texas to find.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Mar 5, 2009 14:05:24 GMT -5
Dave:
Your post made me think about Crockett's legend being a personal 'trap.' The recent movie certainly played to that theme. But I wonder if he were not so famous, would he have deserted? It would appear that there were very few desertions by other non-famous defenders.
I have not gone through The Alamo Reader completely, but were there any documented desertions (other than possibly Rose who did not 'cross the line'?
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 5, 2009 14:48:50 GMT -5
Everyone has their own perspective of "Why The Alamo"? Mine is growing up six miles N of the Alamo, and seeing its different interpretations going back to 1964 (as a five year old), and now being gainfully employed there for the past eight years.
Its my belief that the attraction of the Alamo lies in the fact that each individual can take what they want from the event. Whether its capturing the spirit, or capturing the detail. Whether its searching for heroes or looking for the frailities of our own human nature.
In other words, the event is malleable...much like the church of the mission was. You can view the Alamo defenders as staunch believers in the ideas of republican government, and you would be right. You can view the defenders as men driven by economic desire, and you would be right.
Because of this "adaptability", the siege and battle can be a personal experience, something that we can view through our own thoughts and feelings.
|
|