Truth About 1836

Truth About 1836Truth About 1836Truth About 1836

Truth About 1836

Truth About 1836Truth About 1836Truth About 1836
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Home
    • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Contact Us

HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836

HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836

The fight for Texas independence was NOT about slavery

HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836

HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836HERE's THE TRUTH ABOUT 1836

The fight for Texas independence was NOT about slavery

Texas history is complicated.

Texans have a lot to be proud of in our history . . . with a few exceptions.

The  authors of recently released book, “Forget the Alamo”, claim their  intent is to start a discussion. Co-author Chris Tomlinson has said of  the book “This is an argument, it’s not a textbook. We’re making a case  for a point of view. You may disagree with that point of view, I respect  that."


If  the authors “respect” those who disagree with that point of view, they certainly haven’t shown that respect. 


They accept offers to discuss their  book, except invitations to events where those with differing opinions will be participating. They describe such events as “ambushes”. To date, they have  declined four invitations to participate in panels unless they could  pick the other panelists. 


So far they’ve declined attendance at the  Texas Tribune's Tribfest, a forum sponsored by the University of Texas History Department, a second invitation to the Bullock Museum, and a panel sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 


The common denominator to all these declined events was the panels would  also feature participants, including noted and published historians, who disagree with their books premise, i.e. that the Texas Revolution was  primarily about slavery. 


The purpose of this website is to expose the falsehoods about the Texas Revolution emanating from many sources, not just the “Forget the Alamo” book. My goal is to enumerate egregious factual errors - and the errors of omission - that belie the motivations of those who believe that the Texas Revolution of 1836 was all about slavery. 


Jerry Patterson

LtCol., USMCR, ret.

Former Texas Senator

Former Texas Land Commissioner

(Un)makers of Texas History

Check out this great video from Copano Bay Press that destroys the claims of  "Forget the Alamo" co-author Chris Tomlinson 

IN THE BOOK . . . BUT WRONG

Take a look at these examples of how the authors of "Forget The Alamo" have twisted, misquoted or fabricated excerpts from other academic works to support their false claims

As detailed by historian Mark Pusateri, publisher of the Copano Bay Press, the  authors also describe the experiences of Lorenzo de Zavala, the staunch Federalista and arch enemy of Santa Anna, who would soon become  the provisional Vice President of the Republic of Texas.


They say that de Zavala was shunned by white men and struggled to cope with their racism.  On page 109, they write:


"A year before, he (Zavala) was hobnobbing with the king of France; now, when he walked in a room, white men grew silent.  He had never experienced such abject racism, and struggled to address it." 7


According to chapter note 7, the source material will be found in W. S. Cleaves' 1932 article in Southwestern Historical Quarterly titled, "Lorenzo de Zavala in Texas," page 34 to be precise. 


Below  you will see the quote from page 34 of that article, and you will  note that it says the opposite of what our authors  claim.


"It is probable, judging by later events, that Dr. Miller's attitude toward Zavala was not general among the other settlers, though it is evident that his influence was feared by those who were not ready to espouse openly a break with Mexico.  On the other hand, Zavala seems to have been held in high esteem by the major part of the settlers.  This would seem to be upheld by the regularity with which he was elected to the popular consultations and the good will with which his activity in those meetings was accepted.  Indeed, it seems that Zavala's advice was to have considerable effect in pointing out the course that the Texans were to take.  The effect of his activity is apparent."


It is a complete fabrication that Lorenzo de Zavala was subjected to "abject racism" by his counterparts in the Texas revolution.  Quite the contrary.


If he was the victim of such racism, why was he allowed to sign the Texas Declaration of Independence, why was he elected as ad interim vice president of the new republic and why was he chosen as one of the members  of the peace commission to escort the captured Santa Anna to Mexico City?


Next, Pusateri also analyzed the claim on page 141 of Forget the Alamo, the authors claim Texas soldiers at San Jacinto raped Mexican camp followers.


"The Texians massacred hundreds of men, while other pillaged Santa Anna's camp and raped Mexican women who were camp followers.  One of the U.S. Army deserters later wrote that he used his pistol to force a group of Texians to free several women they seemed ready to rape, and turned them over to Seguin's men for protection." 17


Note 17 references Bill and Marjorie Walraven's excellent Southwestern Historical Quarterly article from  2004 titled, "The Sabine Chute: The U.S. Army and the Texas  Revolution." The applicable pages are 579 and 580 in volume 107 of that  journal.


"E.F. Sparks had a similar experience when a woman jumped out of the bulrushes.  A regular was threatening to kill her with his bayonet.  'I told him if he killed her, I would kill him.  He asked if I was in earnest. I said I was.  Then three other women came running to us, crying and begging that I would protect them too.  Captain Juan Seguin and his men came by, and Sparks left the women in their care."


This account quoted by the Walravens is well known to all serious students of San Jacinto. As you can see, there is no mention of rape on the cited pages.



FORGET THE ALAMO, p. 150

"Yet Yoakum was surprisingly up-front about matters that might be seen  as revisionist today. He cites Mexico's abolition of slavery as a cause  of the revolution."


As support for that assertion, Chris Tomlinson offers the following:  
  

    “The first part of the year 1830 passed quietly in Texas. Mexico, however, was gradually encroaching  upon the rights of the colonists. The subject of slavery was one cause of it.”  Henderson K. Yoakum, History  of Texas Vol. 1,” (New York: Redfield, 1855) 268

One cause of what? It's right there in the lines he quotes from Yoakum, and it isn't the revolution that came six years later.


During a Texas Public Radio interview on Thursday July 1st,  and in response to questions asked on other attribution errors, Forget The Alamo co -author Chris Tomlinson stated: “…if people want to use these  errors as an opportunity to dismiss the entire book” they should read  “Randolph Campbells book, written in 1991, An Empire to Slavery, …that  book will convince you”.  


Wrong again Chris. Here’s what Campbell wrote in his book on page 48:


“Slavery  did not play a major role in the developments from the passage of the  anti-immigration law of April 6, 1830 until the outbreak of fighting in  the fall of 1835. The institution was not a primary issue in the  disturbances of 1832 or the events of late 1835, and Mexico took no  action threatening it directly or immediately during these years.  Instead, the immediate cause of the conflict was the political  instability of Mexico and the implications of Santa Anna’s centralist  regime for Texas. Mexico forced the issue in 1835, not over slavery, but  over customs duties and the generally defiant attitude of  Anglo-Americans in Texas.” 



Also during the same Texas Public Radio interview on Thursday July 1st, Tomlinson also cited Andrew Torget's book, “Seeds of Empire” as proof the war was all about slavery.


In “Seeds of Empire”,  on page 174, Torget wrote:


“No  menacing new threat to slavery or colonization had emerged during 1835  and 1836 that pushed the people of Texas into revolution. In explaining  their actions, the revolutionaries pointed instead to Santa Anna’s  overthrow of the federalist system under the constitution of 1824 as the  prime mover toward war. With the rise of centralism in the form of  dictatorship in Mexico City, they insisted there could be no future for  Anglo colonies or Tejano villages under a Mexican government that did  not support their rights under federalism. As late as the first months  of 1836, many rebels in Texas, both Anglos and Tejanos, wanted nothing  more than the restoration of the 1824 constitution – it was not until  the arrival of Santa’s Anna’s army on Texas soil that the revolt against  centralism became widely embraced as a fight for independence. The  destruction of the federal political system in Mexico during the rise of  Santa Anna dictatorship was, without a doubt, the pivotal event in the  outbreak of the Texas rebellion.”


Again, the authors ignored what was actually written and wrote what the source surely must have been thinking. That's not  historical research. 


The authors of Forget the Alamo, Chris Tomlinson, Jason Stanford and Brian Burroughs need to brush up on their fact checking skills. 


In the article "Come and Fake It" in the June 2021 issue of Texas Monthly, they erroneously assert that as land commissioner I agreed “to display a collection in its entirety without authenticating every item," claiming that I obligated the Alamo to display items that may have had questionable provenance. 


This is demonstrably false. 


Under the agreement I signed on behalf of the General Land Office with Phil Collins there, is no requirement to display every single item of his donated collection. In fact, in the October 29, 2014 contract, Collins granted to me and my successors acting on behalf of the Texas General Land Office complete discretion to display or not display any particular item.


In the relevant provision on page 1 of the agreement, Collins stipulates: “By signing this deed, I understand and agree that the location, retention, cataloging, preservation, and disposition of the Donated Materials by the Alamo will be conducted in its discretion, in accordance with General Land Office and Alamo policy and other applicable law. Common discretionary uses by the Alamo include, but are not limited to, exhibition, display, digitization for preservation and access purposes, and making works available for research and scholarship.” 


In “Come and Fake It,” my agreement to build a state-of-the-art museum is repeatedly mischaracterized. Tomlinson demands, for example, that state experts must “set out which of the artifacts rock singer Phil Collins donated are legitimate before the General Land Office spends another penny on a new museum to house them.” 


No. They. Don’t. 


Even without the Collins collection, we didn’t have room to display all the Alamo-related artifacts we already had at the Alamo. We needed a museum then and we need a museum now — even without the 207 items in Collins collection. 


Were there questions about the provenance of some of the items in the Collins collection? Of course there were! The authors present this as some “aha” moment, but I learned that some items had questionable provenance when I read Collins’ own book, “The Alamo and Beyond, A Collector’s Journey,” long before we agreed to accept his generous donation.


The authors raise issues on about a dozen artifacts. Let’s assume their doubts are well founded on the entire dozen (they are not) and then let’s add in another dozen for good measure. That makes twenty-four “tainted” gifts, and leaves us with 183 that are not. Therefore, the smart thing to do is “just say no” to the 183? 


Really?


In the forward of Collins’ book, historian and author Stephen L. Hardin states that the provenance of some items is subject to question and notes that “the acceptance of questions and criticisms is a legitimate part of the historians method.” 


Collins himself comments on the unclear origins of items multiple times throughout the book — using phrases like “it is possibly thought to be” or “would possibly have belonged to” or “William Travis’s Sword Belt from the Alamo?” Yes, on page 173 in big bold letters above the picture of the sword belt is a question mark. Where was that acknowledgement by the “Come and Fake It” authors? Lost, no doubt, in their rush to sell a narrative, the facts be damned. 


I hate to rain on the authors’ parade of startling revelations (actually I don’t), but the idea that the General Land Office and/or Commissioner Jerry Patterson were duped by Phil Collins or anyone else is just false. Collins is as much a benefactor to Texas as were the citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio when they gifted Texas with the Twin Sisters cannon that helped carry the day at San Jacinto. 


Texas thanks you Phil Collins!


Speaking of the Twin Sisters cannons used by the Texans at the Alamo, the authors’ go-to archeologist, Tom Nuckols, makes yet another of the book’s demonstrably false assertions when he claims we don’t know what caliber the cannon-balls were.


“(Collins) says he has cannon-balls shot by the Twin Sisters at San Jacinto,” Nuckols writes. “Nobody knows what caliber those cannons were!” Well, yes we do. 

The overwhelming majority of historians know they were of 6 pound caliber. President Sam Houston and Texas Secretary of War Thomas Rusk said they were 6 pounders. President David J. Burnet did as well. Ben McCulloch and John Ferrell, who were actually in the San Jacinto artillery detachment, said they were 6 pounders and Texas Army ordnance reports after 1836 all list them as 6 pounders.


Were the cannon-balls from San Jacinto? With only one battle there, one can conclude a cannon-ball documented to have been found at San Jacinto comes from that battle. Was it fired from the Twin Sisters? Since Texas had 2 cannons and Mexico had one, yes it probably was. If the cannon-ball was found in the Mexican position it was likely fired by the Texans and vice-versa. Add the fact that the single Mexican cannon is thought to have fired only 3 times, a reasonable person would conclude a Twin Sisters attribution is well-founded.


Upon reading their description of the Phil Collins donation, I assumed they simply did not have the benefit of examining a copy of the original Land Office agreement with Collins.


But they did.  And they chose to ignore it.  That is not an error of sloppy journalism.  That is an error of questionable integrity. 


LEFT OUT OF THE BOOK

These are five important facts about the Texas revolution that the authors of Forget The Alamo chose to ignore because it did not support their narrative.

dispatches FROM THE front

They came and took it . . .

They came and took it . . .

They came and took it . . .

An emblem in the new Roadrunner Athletics Center of Excellence (RACE) has sparked controversy about

UTSA to remove ‘Come and Take It’ slogan, emblem from football games and new athletics facility

(San Antonio Report • 9/7/21)

Nazis used American flag?

They came and took it . . .

They came and took it . . .

American Nazi Party marching with Stars & Stripes in 1930s. Does this mean the U.S. Flag is a symbol of hate?

(History Collection • June 2017)

More news coming

They came and took it . . .

More news coming

Check in here for the latest reports from the front in the war on freedom culture.

PRINTABLE CONTENT

Here's a printable PDF of the content on this website.  

* Updated  2/1/22

1836Truth_Text (pdf)Download

Connect With Us

Copyright © 2022 Truth About 1836 - All Rights Reserved.

Created by Loeffler Creative

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept