The Great Texas Movement

[lorinfriesen]

Jun 5, 2008 21:02:14 GMT -5 sloanrodgers said:

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.

Nice points.

My painting, a snapshot in front of the Land Office, will simply focus on the way Austin declared his beliefs to the Texas populace. Tensions were naturally building with these other events you describe here.

I don't believe Austin got any sleep on the night of September 18. With the supporting duplicate document that you added to my previous finding, the one more elegantly penned copy by anothers hand, my understanding of this day leads me to say in Austin's words, it was the day of decision, "War is our only resource". This document sharing impending news, made Texas ready for it's defense against any and all other Centralist actions.

Texas was then as they say, standing on pins and needles, readied to come running to it's defense, wherever the fight would begin.

[sloanrodgers]

Thanks you. I think time in a dank prison probably sowed the seeds of Austin's total discontent with Mexico
and the battle fire of the San Felipe convinced him there was no turning back. The circular 17 days later was
Austin's official incitement of the 2nd rebellion on land and deserves to be honored in some manner.

[Don Allen]

I too, have never seen the value in large monuments. A well-preserved battleground, on the other hand, speaks volumes and does so more respectfully.

I tend to completely ignore the cenotaph in Alamo Plaza.

[stuart]

Jun 12, 2008 8:14:58 GMT -5 Don Allen said:

I too, have never seen the value in large monuments. A well-preserved battleground, on the other hand, speaks volumes and does so more respectfully.

I tend to completely ignore the cenotaph in Alamo Plaza.

I agree, absolutely, such monuments only serve to overwhelm the historic ground they supposedly conmemorate - and if you think the San Jacinto one is huge... try the Volkerschlacht Denkmal in Leipzig, or the Lion Mound at Waterloo, or on a lesser scale the profusion of regimental and other monuments strewn about the Gettysburg battlefield

[Allen Wiener]

I believe that Gary's vision for Alamo Plaza includes moving the Cenotaph to a place outside the south gate. I like the idea of the Cenotaph and I believe it was located where it is because it was thought that the bodies of the defenders were burned there. What appeals to me is not so much the large monument, but the names of all of the defenders being engraved on it, which is like the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington. Granted, that's not on a battlefield, but it is more impressive to me than all the countless statues around Washington.

I haven't been to Gettysburg in years and I don't know if anything's been done about the many, many monuments that I saw all over the battlefield. I understand if states wanted their individual units commemorated, but those statues and monuments really messed up the whold battlefield for me.

AW

[Don Allen]

Jun 13, 2008 7:49:52 GMT -5 Allen Wiener said:

I believe that Gary's vision for Alamo Plaza includes moving the Cenotaph to a place outside the south gate. I like the idea of the Cenotaph and I believe it was located where it is because it was thought that the bodies of the defenders were burned there. What appeals to me is not so much the large monument, but the names of all of the defenders being engraved on it, which is like the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington. Granted, that's not on a battlefield, but it is more impressive to me than all the countless statues around Washington.

I haven't been to Gettysburg in years and I don't know if anything's been done about the many, many monuments that I saw all over the battlefield. I understand if states wanted their individual units commemorated, but those statues and monuments really messed up the whold battlefield for me.

AW

Good points. I think there is a big distinction between a marker and a gaudy monument. Something quiet and respectful that doesn't obscure the scene, that says, "look what happened right here" adds to a historic site, whereas the big gaudy stuff takes away.

Taken to the extreme, an example of this is all the churches and temples built over the top of the supposed holy sites in the holy land. They totally take away the context of the site and tend to focus on the talent of the architect and artisans who built the building and not what happened there.