June 2000

John Bryant

---

From: Richard Adsit
Date: 06/06/2000

No. This was an invading army, who butchered the defenders, and gave no quarter. To glorify them would only tarnish the memory of those who died for Liberty.

Rick Adsit

Editor's Note: My apologies to Mr. Adsit for inadvertently omitting part of his message. It has now been restored.

---

From: James D. Gray
Date: 06/06/2000

I would like to respond to the idea of the inscription of the Mexican Soldiers at the Alamo. The idea will create a lot of controversy. Let me say this first, no one doubts the bravery of the Mexican soldiers. I am a veteran of Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. We who fought got to know our enemy and respect them. Traditionally monuments are found in the countries of the fallen warriors. I would suggest a very nice plaque or monument be presented to the people of Mexico, or [the] Mexican Army. Have a representative of Mexico come up and have ceremony and presentation. Such a ceremony would reap many benefits.

Respectfully, Jim Gray
Covina Calif.

---

From: Dora Guerra
Date: 06/06/2000

Well, it was certainly commendable for Sánchez-Navarro to want to honor his fellow countrymen who died at The Alamo. In 1835, Texas still belonged to Mexico. Maybe then it would have been appropriate, but to do it now? Wouldn't that be a monument honoring the enemy?

My vote is no! Even though my heart goes out to every soldier that has ever fallen in any war! "...EVERY MAN'S DEATH DIMINISHES ME..." to quote John, but no one ever said that war was fair!

Dora Guerra
San Antonio, Texas

---

From: Phillip DeLaPena
Date: 06/07/2000

I say yes, the actions of the soldados of Mexico must not be ignored. To make the statement that it would "tarnish" the memory of those who fought for the defense of the mission seems one sided and very arrogant. First, one must understand that this was MEXICO. These soldados made a very gallant and stealthily march from their homes deep in Mexico to defend their country from people they deemed ungrateful, filibustering land pirates. Granted some defenders perhaps had dreams of Republicanism, but largely many were opportunists. The soldados of Mexico fought equally hard and just as bravely for the UNITY of their nation. Just as did Union soldiers during the Civil War. Their accomplishments, their achievements have for too long been ignored by arrogant single-minded individuals who fail to see the bravery and commitment of not enemies, but fellow soldiers.

Phillip DeLaPena

---

From: Marietta Maier-Bachlechner
Date: 06/07/2000

Pay respect to everybody - not glorify - even [though] they are your enemies. So, I think it is a great idea. World history is written with blood of so many soldiers, man, women and children - nobody knows. So there is nobody who pays respect. Think back in history - not so far back - World War II - there are many families who don't know, what happened to their people.

Marietta Maier-Bachlechner
Austria

---

From: Jaime Rendon Hernandez
Date: 06/09/2000

Before anybody decides whether a marker should be placed for the Mexican soldado, we should first remember why they were sent there. The Mexican government at that time in history wanted their northern frontier populated.

They feared American encroachment and Native American plundering. Mexico offered freedom and land" to any foreigner in exchange for the following:

1. Become Catholic.
2. Pay taxes to the Mexican government.
3. Learn Spanish.
4. Get educated in Mexican schools.
5. No slaves.
6. Last, but not least, become Mexican citizens.

In my book, that's not a bad deal!

According to the Archivos Generales de la Nación, these were the "conditions" for freedom and land. Obviously, the Texan colonists were not dealing in good faith and had no intention in abiding with the conditions they had agreed upon. If centralist Mexico did not impose the agreed upon conditions to the Texian colonist who accepted the conditions initially, there would have never been a revolt. Outcries of republicanism and self determination were made to justify why they did not want to abide by their initial agreement.

Jaime Rendon Hernandez

---

From: Jim Ewing JimEwing99@aol.com
Date: Friday, June 9, 2000 5:23 PM

I think it would be great to have a marker to commemorate the Mexican soldados who died both during the siege and during the final assault on March 6, 1836. Santa Anna considered them no more than "chickens" and used them to bring glory and fame to himself with no regard to their welfare. He could have easily taken the Alamo with fewer casualties if he had just waited a few more days for his siege guns to arrive. He thought nothing of the common soldiers who fought and died for him and for Mexico and it is about time someone "officially" remembered them. Who knows, it just might improve relations between Texas and Mexico enough for them to return the flag of the New Orleans Greys that is in Chapultapec Castle in Mexico City.

Jim Ewing

---

From: Phillip DeLaPena
Date: 06/10/2000

I normally do not respond to the narrow mindedness of individuals but I feel I must at this point in time. I write this statement in response directly to the statements made by Mr. Adsit. Sir do you realize what you are saying. I was able to excuse your comments before they were revised, but I cannot stand for them now. Can't you comprehend that the defenders of the Alamo were not saintly martyrs as you try to make them out to be, but soldiers, just like the Mexican soldados.

Although they fought for different causes, they were still just soldiers. They were not butchering murderers, they followed orders they were given. They fought, it was a battle for crying out loud, not a slaughter, I would suggest to you sir to perhaps purchase and read many of the newly available works on the battle, and perhaps try and become more open-minded.

Phillip DeLaPena

---

From: Gary Zaboly
Date: 06/11/2000

My conscience tells me that some sort of plaque or monument to Mexican casualties at the Alamo should be set up. At the Little Big Horn, both white and red men who fell are honored by markers and plaques. Civil War battlefields are similarly fair to both sides, for the most part. However, this question must also be asked: are there any monuments in Mexico heralding American and French soldiers who fell there (aside from Camerone)?

Gary S. Zaboly

---

From: Richard Adsit
Date: 06/12/2000

I expected someone, as Mr. DelaPena has, to say that they were just poor soldiers following orders. Well, that defense didn't hold up at Nuremburg or Mai Lai, and it doesn't hold up here either!

It was a war; so its OK that surviving (unarmed) defenders were hacked to death by swords. And its OK that Bowie was tossed about like a rag doll on bayonets, or taken after his tongue had been cut out and thrown into a fire still alive. And isn't this the same army that went to Goliad and captured then massacred the militia there.

It seems to me that this army did its very best against unarmed people. Because they weren't interested in any face-to-face fighting when Houston caught up with them.

Santa Anna wanted the bodies burnt so there would be nothing left that could be a memorial to the people of Texas. Yet, you want a marker to remember him? The Alamo is a shrine to its defenders and should be, and not to the Mexican Army. What should be next to achieve political correctness, give back Texas?

Remember the Alamo. Remember Goliad.

Rick Adsit

---

From: Phillip DeLaPena
Date: 06/13/00

Mr. Adsit,

I must pose the question: do you base your entire knowledge of Texas history on movies or [on] actual documentation? Your explanation sounds more like a clip from The Price of Freedom then a factual incident.

Once again sir, Mexico saw this as a case of treason, and in cases of treason the sentence is usually death. As for your overzealous [description] of Bowie's death, chances were pretty high that Bowie was already dead, and I don't ever remember reading accounts of his tongue being cut out and tossed into a fire.

By the way, you can't compare the Nazis to Mexican soldados, the soldados weren't organizing rapid death camps, or trying to wipe out an entire race of people. Remember the Alamo for what it really was, a battle .

To Mr. Zaboly…Let me begin by saying that I loved your work in Texian Iliad and Blood of Noble men, but the idea of Mexico having monuments to foreign invaders, is quite laughable—especially the French. Now, some might be led to believe that Texas was "invaded" by the Mexicans during the revolution, but this was Mexico. Mexico was struggling to keep their country together against rebels.

Phillip DeLaPena

---

From: John Bryant
Date: 06/13/00

Mr. Adsit,

Actually, they WERE just poor soldiers following orders. As for the unarmed defenders being hacked to death by swords that was done by Santa Anna's staff officers not the common soldado.

Bowie was most likely so near death that he never even knew what was happening when he was bayoneted in his bed. The stories of his tongue being cut out and thrown in the funeral pyre are just that, stories, myths and legend.

Yes the men at Goliad were taken out and executed and like so many other atrocities of war, the principal behind the orders Santa Anna, ended up paying the price for it in the long run. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a memorial to Santa Anna only a marker honoring the dead of a foe who fought and died defending the beliefs and principles of their country (which by the way included Texas).

You seem to want to denigrate with your comments an "army that did its best against unarmed people." The men in the Alamo were anything but unarmed and I can guarantee they didn't feel that they were fighting pushovers.

To suggest that the Mexican army were cowards is a slap in the face to all of the men who died during the Texas revolution for "Men are judged on the strength of their enemies." As far as I'm concerned neither side has reason to feel they weren't fighting their best. A memorial is more than appropriate.

Dios y Tejas
John Bryant

---

From: James D. Gray
Date: 06/13/2000

I have read some pretty heated debates here based on pride. Pride is great when you're around people who agrees with you, but when you disagree pride causes anger...human nature not at its best. This conflict we like to study was over 150 years [ago] plus. Texas won, Mexico Lost. Texas became a part of the USA. Those are facts. Texas and the Alamo belong to the victorious, and the fact is the each country writes its own versions of history. Not just Texas and Mexico--World History.

I was born and bred a Texan and my family has been in Texas since 1831. I say again make a plaque and have a nice ceremony and send it to Mexico where it would rightfully belong. The military goes and fights where it is told and some warriors die. I would not want my family to have to travel to a foreign country to read my name. I would want it in the country I died for.

Respectfully,
Jim Gray

---

From: Phillip DeLaPena
Date: 06/14/2000

I agree with Mr.Gray's belief that a type of monument should be placed in the country the soldados were fighting for: Texas. Since Texas was part of Mexico, they were fighting for Texas. Let it also be remembered that there were many Tejanos who supported the Mexican cause. Just because their side lost, does that mean their struggle should also be forgotten, do not be mistaken, I take great pride in the knowledge my ancestors were the first to settle San Antonio, and that they aided the Texians in the storming of Béjar, but I can recognize the struggles of men fighting for and defending their country, their land.

Phillip DeLaPena

---

From: Gary Zaboly
Date: 06/15/2000

The idea of a nation erecting a monument to past invaders of its soil is not so odd or laughable". Monuments to the soldiers of Caesar and Napoleon can be found all over Europe; and of course William the Conqueror's invading force is memorialized by markers and plaques at Hastings and elsewhere. Even Cortez, perhaps the most famous conqueror of the Western Hemisphere, is well remembered throughout Mexico.

At what point in a nation's history should the resentments of past invasions be overcome so that such monuments can be erected? Hasn't enough time passed for the Mexican soldado to receive his honors at the Alamo, and for American soldiers to receive some sort of plaque, if not monument, somewhere in Mexico?

Gary S. Zaboly

---

From: Steve Hedgpeth
Date: 06/15/2000

I agree with the erudite, magnanimous Mr. DeLaPena. Commission a plaque in honor of the brave, selfless soldados who fell at the Alamo and embed it in the main walkway approaching the shrine.

Steve Hedgpeth

---

From: Tom Kailbourn
Date: 06/15/2000

A few years ago I spent a weekend at Gettysburg with a historian friend from Monclova, Mexico. It was his first visit to America's most famous battlefield, and the experience moved him profoundly. Over dinner, he marveled at the magnanimity of the Northern victors in allowing the Confederate invaders to erect so many magnificent monuments on soil so dearly won. "Although we have our monuments to Cuauhtémoc and Los Niños Heroes," he confessed, "we Mexicans don't like to build monuments to the losing side, even when WE are the losers. Maybe it is time we changed our thinking." My friend perceived that, more than just decorative granite and bronze, a monument can represent a visual statement for remembrance, forgiveness, and unity.

If American and Japanese veterans of Iwo Jima–the mother of all no-prisoners battles–were willing to share tears and shake hands forty years after that horrendous event, then why, over 160 years later, can't we tolerate a simple, inconspicuous monument to the Mexican soldiers who died at the Alamo? I am not in any way proposing that we pay tribute to Santa Anna or those who slaughtered prisoners or committed atrocities and acts of dishonor. I am suggesting that we recognize that Mexican soldiers came to this place and sacrificed their lives in what, as far as they knew, was still their own mother country.

Thomas R. Kailbourn

---

From: James D. Gray
Date: 06/16/2000

Having read Mr. Kailbourn's message reminded me of compassion not pride. I agree, build the monument to the fallen soldados of Mexico, even more not just to [those at ] the Alamo but to the whole Texas Revolution. But [my] next question, Where? Goliad, San Jacinto where most are buried? In response to Mr. DeLaPena, I am aware Tejanos fought on both sides, it is clearly documented, there were Texans and U.S. citizens that also chose to fight for Mexico. There [were] Tejanos and Texians who sat out the war and did not get involved. It is the man who serves his country, who fights for what he believed in, and died [that] has my respect: American, Texian, Tejano, Mexicano.

I would also like to comment on victory in a revolution. Revolution is a very unique brand of warfare. It's about people unhappy with their present system of government [who] feel like they have been oppressed to the point the[y] must remove the "legal" government. Armed conflict decides the issue. If the legal government wins, the rebellion is over and the rebels [are]defeated. If the revolutionaries have won, the oppressing legal government is gone and the revolutionary government becomes the "legal" government and their warriors are called patriots. Does this sound like the American Revolution, the Civil War, [or] the Texas Revolution?

I was thinking of the Mexican Revolution where the Spain was defeated and forced to accept the treaty of Cordoba in 1821. Mexico is no stranger to the concept of rebellion and revolution and has produced great patriots such Santa Anna, Juarez, Madero, Villa, Zapata, De La Huerta.

Are not Travis, Houston, Crockett, patriots of the Texas Revolution of 1836? Again Victory in a revolution is the key! Viva Texas!

Respectfully,

Jim Gray

---

From: Kevin R. Young
Date: 06/19/2000

I just returned from a vacation that included a re-visit to two historic American battlefields: New Orleans and Vicksburg. I am reminded how in today's interpretation of our historic sites we tend to be fair about both sides' involvement.

Vicksburg, as a city, did not celebrate the 4th of July until recently because the city had suffered harshly under Union occupation and this was the day of its surrender to the Union. The Vicksburg National Monument is a very nice park that contains monuments to both the "Centralist" Government (The United States) and the "rebels" (The Confederates). In fact, many of the Southern monuments are presently getting badly needed face-lifts, including the Texas monument.

At New Orleans, a site with fewer monuments and more interpretive markers, there is a British flag flying from "their side" of the battlefield, which in effect honors their troops. Keep in mind, this is the same "army" and commanders who sacked the eastern seaboard and burned our capital city to the ground! What they would have done to New Orleans if they had not been stopped at Line Jackson is anybody's guess.

This trip reminded me how the deep feelings of our four-year Civil War run between the North and South. With the recent publicity concerning the removal of Confederate flags and the argument about the return of some Virginia flags by the State of Minnesota, people feel passionately, if not somewhat bitterly, about the subject.

In Anderson County, Texas there is a battle waging over the erection of a Confederate monument on the grounds of the courthouse steps to honor Anderson County's war dead and veterans of the Civil War. Yet, in our national parks, we have managed to forget the differences and honor both sides' participants.

To answer one question: yes in Mexico, there is a memorial for the French! It is at the Cameron site of the French Foreign Legions "Alamo". The impressive monument has both the Mexican and French Imperial eagle.

And there are monuments to American dead across the world: they are called national cemeteries. From the first one in Mexico City to those in France, they remain lasting memorials that American soldiers died fighting in wars, popular or not, in far off lands.

Some of the Mexican troops who fought at the Alamo may have taken part in the battle of the Coleto, but none performed the Goliad executions. The same goes for San Jacinto.

So, what has all of this to do with a Mexican Army memorial, or at least, something honoring the Mexican Army dead at the Alamo? Simply put, dump the politics and the bitter feelings and honor the soldiers who fought for their country, not their government or the leader or their political objective. Just the poor foot or horse soldiers who died fighting for their country. Just the way Sanchez-Navarro wanted it.

You do not have to put it up on the Alamo grounds (that is the land owned by the State of Texas). The City of San Antonio owns much of the Alamo battlefield.

Here's a novel concept...why not erect a monument near Santa Rosa Hospital where the graves of the Mexican Army dead were consigned to unmarked graves only to be desecrated by the placement concrete, steel and parking lots over them?

"With malice toward none: with charity for all; with firmness in the rights, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on t finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan-to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting pace among ourselves, and with all nations."

Kevin R. Young

---

From: Ron D'Ambrosi
Date: 06/22/2000

Why do both sides have to bicker so politically correctly and incorrectly about an issue that shouldn't [even] be a pitched battle?

The Mexican soldiers should have a historical marker pointing out that they were there and why they were there (some against their will, some wanting to overrun the Texians, some defending their own personal beliefs) and had orders and did what they had to do.

As far as individual acts of inhumanity, such as the execution of a handful of Texian prisoners, it was under Santa Anna's orders. However, I'm sure that there were many Mexican soldiers storming the Alamo that wanted blood (such as the report of a soldado bayonetting a cat because he thought it was an American), as well as even some Texians wanting to spill Mexican blood (as was later seen at San Jacinto).

The Mexican soldiers' monument shouldn't be a memorial in the same way as the Alamo shrine is, but it should be a historical marker, explaining a piece of history that is often overlooked–the individual Mexican soldado.

People look at the Texas Revolution too much as a race war, where all, if not the majority of one side hated the other, and the majority of the other side completely hated the other. What people fail to point out is that on both sides there were individuals who had different degrees of racial, economic, and political prejudices, as well as different political and moral ideals just like in today's society.

Santa Anna was consummed with cruelty, yet tried to pull together a beleagured Mexican nation from filibustering expeditions, Bowie was a slave trader yet was open to embracing the Mexican culture of San Antonio (while many other bigotted Anglo-Americans thought this as ridiculous) and married a Mexican woman, etc.

There was human duality of good and evil in 1836, like there is still human duality in today's society. There should be a historical marker containing the history of the Mexican soldados. That is imperative to try to cover all grounds of the Texas Revolution. However the marker should be historical, not a monument.

-Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, New York

---

From: Esteban Lomas
Date: 06/24/2000

I would like to say that after reading all of these messages for and against a Mexican memorial to honor the Mexican soldiers who fought and died at the Alamo, [that] I agree with several comments on both sides. However, As one person put it a war is a war, a battle is a battle and how each side acts is dependent on his beliefs at the time.

That the Texans were low on munitions was not common knowledge to the opposing side. Had this been the case [as in] many other battles [it] may have turned out differently.

I like one of those who commented on the subject [who] too had relatives who fought with Mexico during their revolutions. However, this has not caused me to change my feelings about the state of Texas. Sure, great numbers overwhelmed the Texans and a person can argue until he is blue in the face. There are still many Mexican people who believe that Texas was stolen from Mexico.

There are also, those who may believe that Texas was won from Mexico. However, Texas was purchased. Texas was broken up to pay off the Texas Army debt and in an attempt to calm down the hostilities from the Mexican side the United States eventually gave Mexico some cash for Texas. Sure the United States benefit was greater than that of Mexico and no one (at least on the U.S.'s side) ever gets upset about that. But,the deal was not perfect.

If this is sounding familiar, let me know. No war is perfectly negotiated into a truce. Not the Civil War, not the first World War, not the second World War, nothing!

Yet, the soldiers are the ones who end up with the short end of the stick. During the American revolution soldiers were thanked by not receiving [what] was due to them. During the Civil War many soldiers (from both sides) lost greatly if not their families, their wealth. During Vietnam, soldiers lost the support of their country and people as they returned home with Agent Orange, flash-backs and other illnesses.

Nothing is perfect! Despite, all that is wrong with us and the world today, I would hope that a soldier's name could be mentioned on something [that is] so small to some, but so large to others as a plaque or memorial on the location where he may have fought and maybe even died.

Perhaps some of those who read this should look up the comments of the veterans and their families honored at Veteran's The Wall Memorial.

Finally, The Alamo was setup as a shrine to the bravery of the men who fought there, and not to the Texans and US Citizens who fought there.

–Esteban Lomas

---

From: Jo Ann Tate Null
Date: 06/26/2000

Absolutely not. Did we put up a commemoration to the fallen Japanese at Pearl Habor?

Jo Ann Tate Null

---

From: Phillip DeLaPena
Date: 06/ 28/2000

You can't compare the Japanese to the Mexican soldados. The soldados weren't an invading army, and they weren't launching some sneak attack. They were just defending their homeland.

Phillip DeLaPena

---

From: Paul Scott
Date: 06/ 29/2000

As I understand the etiquette of such things, it would be presumptuous for us (meaning we who identify with the Alamo's defenders) to erect a monument to the Mexican soldiers.

It would, however, be approrpate for their countrymen and descendants to request permission to place a memorial at the Alamo and it would be magnanimous and wise for us to grant it.

Paul R. Scott

Spring, TX

---

From: Dr. James E. Crisp
Date: 06/30/99

A commemorative marker for Mexican soldiers who died at the Alamo?

Of course! It's been over 160 years — when were Southern states allowed to put monuments to their men who fell at Gettysburg?

The Texas Revolution began as a part of a Mexican civil war — the fact that separation and independence was a result (unlike the result of the Confederate effort toward that end at Gettysburg) should not alter the fact that honorable and patriotic men fell at the Alamo wearing the Mexican uniform. It was their country, too, after all!

My specific suggestion: With the blessing of the DRT and the State of Texas, the City of San Antonio, which controls the sidewalk across the street from the Alamo shrine where the west wall of the Alamo stood (and where the archaeological remains of the wall are now exposed for examination), should invite the Government of Mexico to propose an appropriate memorial to its fallen soldiers to stand in this place, at the (west) wall where its armies were the defenders in 1835 & the attackers in 1836.

The dedication of such a memorial marker/monument would constitute a long-overdue act of reconciliation and mutual respect between Texas and Mexico. For too long, the Mexican army and the Mexican people have been demonized in both official and popular Texas History, with a host of unfortunate consequences for subsequent generations.

The welcoming of such a monument to the soldiers of the Mexican army — and of the participation of the Mexican government in its creation — implies no approval of acts of individuals (especially commanding generals), nor does it require a repudiation by Texans of the men of the opposing and ultimately victorious side.

(By the way, the bravery of both General Manuel Castrillón and Colonel Juan Almonte deserve commemoration at any renovated San Jacinto battlefield, as well.)

Along with Jose Enrique de la Peña, through whose eyes I have recently seen so much of the war in Texas, I can separate my abhorrence of the acts of individuals such as Santa Anna from my respect for the honor and bravery of the Mexicans who fought for their country on its soil. Neither all of the honor, nor all of the bravery, nor certainly all of what was right and good, was on only one side of this conflict.

This basically positive sentiment is essentially the same one that I expressed in a more negative vein in the address that I delivered at the Presidio La Bahía on May 1, 1998:

"We are unfaithful to history and untrue to our audience if we do not educate them to the fact that the war in Texas was fought between two vastly flawed societies, whose forces on both sides were led by men often motivated by delusions of grandeur."

For too long, we have implied in our presentation of the Alamo that the conflict of 1835-36 was between unmitigated good and unmitigated evil — it's time we allowed a bit of wisdom and maturity and an appreciation of our common humanity to enter into our commemorations.

Neither in war nor in its commemoration does one dishonor one's own cause by recognizing the valor of one's opponents.

—James E. Crisp, Dept. of History, North Carolina State University