Sleuthing the Alamo by James E. Crisp is about revealing the untold truths about the Texas Revolution and separating the glorious myths by giving Crisps’ investigative facts. Truths that somehow had been covered by racism and misinterpretation of context during the translation of information. Crisp speaks in first person making this book very personal informing the readers about how the information he uncovered had affected his personal view. The key points this book response will focus on are the truth behind David Crockett’s last stand, the truth and myth between the reality of the battle at the Alamo, the controversial personality of Sam Huston, and that the war was more than a race war. The author gives plenty of evidence to prove some …show more content…
After three months Huston was elected as a delegate to a convention that was to help the Republic of Texas separate from the Republic of Mexico. Huston then needed men for his expedition to Matamoros Tamaulipas. He then used his persuasion skills. The words of his speech were harsh against not only Mexicans but also Tejanos. He called the Mexicans “half-Indians”, which the author states that this effected his view towards the “adopted Cherokee” (p.39). The author in support of this uses the document #1791 of John Jenkin’s Papers of the Texas Revolution where Huston’s terribly, racist, anti-Mexican speech is listed. However, later historian Paul Lack’s book The Texas Revolution Experience cited this speech to prove that the revolution had become a race war. The author then investigates the accuracy of the quotation and where the obtained their information. In the process, he discovers that they use the Travels and Adventures of a German in Texas by H. Ehrenberg words and translated them in English. This was done poorly and the author compares paragraph by paragraph where he finds many errors and missing words. Finally, the author states, “Huston’s actions speak louder than Ehrenberg’s unsubstantiated words” (P.57). Those actions were Huston’s actions to stop the malicious cycle of ethnic division and when he countermanded Felix Huston’s orders to evacuate …show more content…
The contributions received by the readers are the truths about Sam Huston and additional information that effects the causes and effects of the Texas Revolution due to the so called “race war” (p. 59). It helps the reader see the bigger issues the Tejanos were dealing within their own home besides the war of independence against Mexico. The author’s approach to this information is revolutionary because the book is not dry or boring. Crisp gives a sense of documentary and includes his personal opinions and
Gregg Cantrell successfully depicts Stephen F. Austin as a go between both American and Mexican Cultures. Cantrell accomplishes this by justifying any negative criticism made towards Austin’s actions against Mexicans through the letters he wrote his brother, Brown Austin. When waging the war against Mexico, misinterpretations were held as he maintained an American attitude when spoken of Catholicism which “confirmed his ethnocentrism.” The reality was that he did not like Catholicism, but he had his reasons. Austin insisted in going such lengths of not just learning, but becoming fluent in Spanish as he valued the communication with Mexicans and respected their culture.
As far as inconsistencies, the way this book was wrote, they are expected based on whether the research was done from the Texans, Mexicans, or the observer standpoint. It also seems difficult to separate the myth from the truth at times. The primary sources used are found in the Texas State Library in Austin, Benson Latin American Collection and the Baker Center for American History at the University of Texas in Austin, the DRT Library in San Antonio and many more.
“The fighting in Bexar raged with a house-to-house assault unlike anything the Mexican army had before experienced” (Lee, n.d.). General Cos’ surrendered from the Alamo on December 9, 1835 with 200 of his men dead and many more wounded. The Mexican surrender and the siege of the Alamo brought immediate retaliation from Santa Anna. He quickly assembled a force of 8,000 men and pushed mercilessly towards Texas. He was determined to crush all opposition and teach the Texans a lesson (Lee,
As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with
In the novel Insurgent Mexico, John Reed travels south of the border to experience the Mexican Revolution first hand while traveling in the year 1914. Reed was a journalist writing for Metropolitan and was ordered to bring back his work to publish in the United States. During this time Reed travelled to many places and met all different types of people from war generals, to peones, to Indians and many others. Reed has described his time in Mexico as the “most satisfactory period” in his life (Publisher’s Note), and it can be reflected through the stories he shares in Insurgent Mexico about his traveling companions and his experiences. Some moments were very serious, and at times even dangerous, while others were light hearted and amusing for
The Battle of the Alamo also known as the 13 day siege took place in February 23, 1836 – March 6, 1836. This is how it started. The Alamo was built by Spanish settlers around 1718. Spanish settlers built the Alamo around 1718 but it was called the Mission San Antonio de Valero.
Houston used the derogatory words such as “phlegm of the indolent Mexicans” to portray his opponent (38). This anti-Mexican phrase illustrated the hate of Sam Houston to all Mexican which Crips found it really strange after studying Houston’s history for so long. In his speech, Houston even accused that Tejanos had helped the enemy and brought threat to the Houston’s side (38). By reading his speech, one could easily imply that Houston was really a racist by creating a distinctive dichotomy between Anglo and Mexican. His speech also inferred that Texas revolution happened simply because the racial issues between two groups, which contradicted to Crisp’s knowledge.
Student’s name Professor’s name Course Date Book Review Synopsis of the Content The Texas Revolutionary Experience by Paul D. Lack is a book aimed at honoring the legends of the Texas Revolution. More focus and insight is given on the reasons that led to the conflict witnessed in 1835-1836 and an analysis of how the real events transpired.
The words seemed so unlike Houston.” Crisp believed that this speech he heard in its entirety in 1992 to be nothing like the man he grew up learning about in history as a child. He quotes Eugene C. Barker when questioning if the Revolution is the product of racial and political inheritances of the two sides, yet goes on to say this is not what he believes despite what others think. “It seemed to me that conflict between the two groups was not as much an immediate cause as it was an eventual consequence of Texas’s separation from Mexico.” (p. 41)
In Sleuthing The Alamo, James E. Crisp investigates Sam Houston’s speech made to the soldiers at Refugio. Upon reading the speech, Crisp was in disbelieve at the vulgar, anti-Mexican words used by Houston while addressing the men of Refugio. What Crisp read had contradicted everything he had known of Sam Houston, and led him to dig deeper into the sources to find the facts. Crisp is able to restore Sam Houston’s honor by recognizing the disconnection in his speech, heavily researching the sources, and disproving Houston’s speech. Along the way, Crisp makes two discoveries that help lead to solving his case.
In order to write this book, the author clearly uses different manuscripts and papers that helped him to explain and show the situation of this social movement. He also uses and gets information from people that were living those situations, for instance in Chapter one, he mentions a note from Journalist Ruiz Ibañez: “Contrary to the common belief that those groups are composed of “punks” and hoodlums….”1. Related to him, he is an American historian and sociology that obtained his sociology and political science degrees in the University of Texas at Austin and Yale University, as well. Currently, he is a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley and he is president of the Center for Latino Policy Research. He wrote not only Quixote’s Soldiers but also, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986.
“Aztlan, Cibola and Frontier New Spain” is a chapter in Between the Conquests written by John R. Chavez. In this chapter Chavez states how Chicano and other indigenous American ancestors had migrated and how the migration help form an important part of the Chicanos image of themselves as a natives of the south. “The Racial Politics behind the Settlement of New Mexico” is the second chapter by Martha Menchaca.
He stated that wherever the Anglo-Saxon race had been they had advanced and improved the place. He described the Mexicans as lazy, ignorant, vicious and dishonest. This part of the chapter really made me want to summaries this chapter. In our Presidential race in the year 2015 you would think that we would have advanced beyond racial discrimination but it is pretty clear that is not the case. Donald Trump the front runner of the Republican party has described Mexican people in the same way that white Americans described them in 1842, and its just sad to see that no progress has been
Although the United States war against Mexico resulted in the gaining of America’s most valuable land, the war itself wasn’t legitimate because of the revolution in Texas, motivation for superiority, and the U.S. government’s actions. To begin, the Texans began an unreasonable war because they didn’t follow Mexico’s laws and conditions. When Mexico started selling cheap land, they set conditions for the people moving in. The people had to convert to Catholicism, learn Spanish, become a Mexican citizen, and have no slaves. Many Americans didn’t like being told what to do, and disobeyed the rules and laws.
As the son of a Comanche chief and a white captive by the name of Cynthia Ann Parker, Quanah Parker rose from the status of a Comanche warrior to their tribal leader. Although not much is known about Parker’s personal life and early years, he plays a vital role in William T. Hagan’s book “Quanah Parker, Comanche Chief”. In this book, Hagan identifies the Comanche Chief through his upbringing to his death, describing his transactions with local Indian agents, presidents, high officials in Washington and the cattlemen of the western United States territory. The author presents the Indian chief as a “cultural broker” between the cultures of the white southerners and his tribal members, presenting a blend of beliefs that are heralded as progressive and traditional as he maintained the control and organization of his tribe. During a period of transition for the Comanche people,