|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 2, 2008 9:16:24 GMT -5
I finished watching a Tivo'd movie this morning, We are Marshall for the third time. This story stirred my thoughts to begin this discussion that will now include the participants of The Rise Begins.
Texas has a glorious story yet to be sung and so our goal, here and now is to present Texas' Great Movement, bringing it back from the forgotten and overlooked, by trying to imagine what they, the whole of the volunteer army was thinking and doing. I have focused my artwork to honor two of it's leaders but there are hundreds more who deserve this honor just as much.
I so ask this of you other historians, to participate in this endeavor to share in story and thoughts about any and everyone who stood with Stephen F. Austin at the rise of the Alamo. Matthew McConaughey is an impressive actor who enjoys portraying history. What we discuss here will no doubt be one such story that must be presented to the American public. It was the American spirit which first stood to defend itself, the American Spirit which triumphed at the Siege of Bexar, then survived at Goliad and the Alamo, only to triumph in the end at San Jacinto.
Could we begin with the men who died for this cause for Texas, who participated in the first battles, and then later to all those who survived to win Texas in the end.
"The Rise Begins" Here!
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 2, 2008 12:02:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 2, 2008 20:27:32 GMT -5
Texas has a glorious story yet to be sung and so our goal, here and now is to present Texas' Great Movement, bringing it back from the forgotten and overlooked, by trying to imagine what they, the whole of the volunteer army was thinking and doing. I have focused my artwork to honor two of it's leaders but there are hundreds more who deserve this honor just as much. I'm really confused. What the heck are you talking about? The so-called glorious story of Texas has been sung all over the place. It is not forgotten and I do not believe it has ever been overlooked. While some states wallow in historical chaos with their past and identity, Texas has always been grounded in both areas. We know our history pretty well, but sometimes make mistakes. Although this slogan is a bit redundant and oft repeated, I believe we Texans rose a long time ago and certainly not on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 3, 2008 9:02:05 GMT -5
I am glad to speak to this comment and will admit that I am not as widely read as every other in this group. What I will speak for is my nine years of in-depth study, contemplating this period that I label the Rise and show this has and still remains dishonored. Take for instance the publicly stated purpose and mission of the Sons of the Republic of Texas shown here.
Purpose. The purpose of the SRT shall be to perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved the independence of Texas, set the young Republic upon its high course among the nations of the world, and finally secured its admission as a state of the United States of America.
Mission. The mission of the SRT shall be to: (a) Encourage research and publication of historical records and documents prior to and during the Republic of Texas; (b) Foster the preservation of historic sites, documents, and artifacts, prior to February 19, 1846; (c) Participate in community activities, which remind the public of its Republic of Texas heritage; and (d) Organize, promote, publicize and commemorate the observance of the following historical dates of the Republic of Texas.
Texas Independence Day March 2 Fall of the Alamo March 6 Goliad March 27 San Jacinto Day April 21 Texian Navy Day 3rd Saturday in September Battle of Gonzales October 2 Stephen F. Austin’s Birthday November 3
*What I don't see among the honored dates here is the lost thread of Texas history I now speak of. This one Battle of Gonzales is the singular 1835 event honored among all Texas Independence dates from Santa Anna's invasion on. *Inside the whole of the Alamo complex, the Long Barracks has but ten feet dedicated to the Siege.
The Alamo stands as the monument to the battle that was lost and the men sacrificed, no disrespect intended. The Monument at San Jacinto is grand as it should be.
Where in the world do people beyond this forum's electricity have a place see the glory of what I speak? Was there no glory, were there no fruits of victory established at the completion of the Siege?
None stands today!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 3, 2008 23:11:55 GMT -5
*What I don't see among the honored dates here is the lost thread of Texas history I now speak of. This one Battle of Gonzales is the singular 1835 event honored among all Texas Independence dates from Santa Anna's invasion on. *Inside the whole of the Alamo complex, the Long Barracks has but ten feet dedicated to the Siege. I appreciate the eloquent clarification in the face of my blunt questions. I saw no reference to the fight at Gonzales in your first post, although many revolutionary battles were noted. Based on your art and great interest in Stephen F. Austin, I should have realized that your odd forgotten history comments encapsulated only those battles directly related to the leadership of Mr. Austin. I apologize for taking "Heck" Thomas's name in vain, but I do have a reputation as a rowdy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 4, 2008 8:05:42 GMT -5
But certainly not a loafer. AW
|
|
|
Post by ranger2518 on Jun 4, 2008 12:40:43 GMT -5
*Inside the whole of the Alamo complex, the Long Barracks has but ten feet dedicated to the Siege. Aside from exhibits at various locations throughout the compound, most of the space in the Long Barrack's north room is indeed used for artifacts and displays directly or indirectly related to the siege.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 4, 2008 15:22:50 GMT -5
But certainly not a loafer. AW I've been known to loaf occasionally, but not to Texas Macabre standards. It is hard to do so when you have a house. Things always need fixing, replacing or trimming.
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 5, 2008 6:03:03 GMT -5
*Inside the whole of the Alamo complex, the Long Barracks has but ten feet dedicated to the Siege. Aside from exhibits at various locations throughout the compound, most of the space in the Long Barrack's north room is indeed used for artifacts and displays directly or indirectly related to the siege. There we have it! The whole two months long battle from Goliad to Bexar, the invasion to their ousting, The war inside San Antonio de Bexar, the calls from Houston to stop the battle, the Grass Fight, the letters from the consultation, the battle of Concepcion, the struggle to hold the volunteers together, the players who would later be immortalized and what they accomplished first, the departure of delegates, Burleson becoming General of the volunteers, Houston's becomming General of the Regular Army and all his forces, the many near attempts at storming the town, the day to day and week to week developments, the Capitulation. And the results and ramifications of what Texas now owned, etc. All in one room.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 5, 2008 6:18:17 GMT -5
well... lets be fair about this; it is the Alamo after all. Its not unreasonable for the very limited museum space to be given over to the history of the Alamo.
By all means let us have a museum devoted to events outside the Alamo; placing that particular battle in context and paying proper attention to the borderlands and the forgotten part played by Mexican federalists; but that's something for a bigger museum (in the Federal building) where these themes can be properly presented and interpreted
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 5, 2008 8:10:37 GMT -5
The deeds of this Movement cannot be just stored inside some Federal Vault. There is no honor in that.
There are three main elements to the establishment of the Republic with the Alamo being the centerpoint. There is a begining, middle, and an end that made Texas happen. The Rise that leads to the capitulation and ownership of the Alamo, the stand at the Alamo, and the run to victory at San Jacinto. Each need and deserve their own Memorial! So far there is two of three.
I will add to this comment later as I must soon leave.
|
|
|
Post by ranger2518 on Jun 5, 2008 12:04:55 GMT -5
No, not all in one room...the preceding and succeeding events to the siege also are referenced and explained in the Driscoll Theater, the Wall of History, and the Sales Musuem.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 5, 2008 12:12:09 GMT -5
The deeds of this Movement cannot be just stored inside some Federal Vault. There is no honor in that. I will add to this comment later as I must soon leave. You misunderstand... if you look at Gary's proposals you'll see that its suggested the Federal building standing at the north end of the Alami plaza should be turned into a world class museum
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Jun 5, 2008 13:29:12 GMT -5
The deeds of this Movement cannot be just stored inside some Federal Vault. There is no honor in that. I will add to this comment later as I must soon leave. You misunderstand... if you look at Gary's proposals you'll see that its suggested the Federal building standing at the north end of the Alami plaza should be turned into a world class museum Hi historians, I just made it back. Your sentiment is appreciated and desired. The concept of a Siege Monument is not my own. Telling this story inside a museum is fine but it has not the spirit, no dedicated ownership, and certainly not the honors due this group of American and Tejano settlers. This must be a structure totally dedicated to this Rise event in Texas, no differently honored than the San Jacinto Monument. As this structure stands, the ownership of spirit is already extablished by and for others. If there was a separate structure that could be added to join this building then we have something more to discuss here.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 5, 2008 21:02:14 GMT -5
Isn't this all a matter of historical opinion fellows? Not everyone considers a single day or specific battle, the beginning of the dramatic uprising that later became known in history as the Texas Revolution. Some teachers and students of this period consider the Anahuac Disturbance (June 9, 1832) as the beginning of our conflict with Mexico. Other historians deem the battles of Velasco (June 26, 1832) or Nacogdoches (Aug. 2, 1832) as the start. In my opinion the sea battle between the Texas schooner San Felipe and the revenue cutter Correo de Mexico kicked off the war on Sept. 1, 1835 and Stephen F. Austin was even a witness. Regardless, we should not build multi-million dollar monuments at all of these so-called starting points, when Texas has so much trouble preserving the historical structures it already has. We need to concentrate on saving the Alamo and San Jacinto battlegrounds for the moment.
|
|