History of Texas Part II: The Battle for Independence

March 01, 2017

WRITER

The battle for Texas independence spanned many years and famous battles, including the Battle of the Alamo and Goliad Massacre. The final showdown --- the Battle of San Jancinto --- took only 18 minutes and saw only six Texans killed compared to 600 Mexican soldiers. Another 700 were captured.

An hour after the carnage, Santa Anna himself was captured and brought before General Sam Houston. The general's men called for execution, but Houston had something else in mind: Victory and independence for the Republic of Texas, with Santa Anna signing a treaty to end hostilities.

The 18-minute battle remains one of the greatest military victories in world history. With it, the proud Republic of Texas was born.

Listen to this segment:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: Mexico encouraged white settlers from the United States to populate the huge desolate area known as Texas. There were very few Mexicans there. No one knew how to deal with the natives, and they wanted the area settled to discourage the United States from annexing it.

So when Stephen F. Austin petitioned the New Mexican government, freshly independent from Spain to abide by his grant his father Moses had obtained from the Spaniards about bringing 300 American families in to colonize Texas, Mexico was initially excited about the idea. It was kind of like a job that Mexicans just wouldn't do.

However, the success of the movement overwhelmed the Mexicans, and they became concerned about losing the area entirely.

By 1829, tens of thousands of Americans had settled in Texas, with just a handful of Mexicans remaining there. They sent their trusted Mexican general to assess the problem.

The general reported back that Mexico had better stop the immigration from the United States. Does any of this sound familiar? Or they'd lose Texas forever. Anglo-Texans outnumbered the Mexicans there by a 10:1 margin.

Mexico responded by passing laws that ended immigration to Texas and imposed new taxes and new tariffs. The Texans, or Texians as they were called, widely resented the new laws. And in 1832 and '33, held conventions to draw up a new Texas constitution, modeled after the Constitution of the United States.

After the convention in 1833, Stephen F. Austin decided he was going to set off for Mexico City. And he was going to present the Constitution and the proposal for Texas independence to the Mexican government, and they're going to love this.

They didn't love this.

VOICE: In Mexico City, Austin had first seemed to think that things were going very well. He had met with Santa Anna. With General Antonio López de Santa Anna and had the sense that Texas would be granted more autonomy. Then he wrote an indiscreet letter from Mexico City, suggesting that whatever happened, Texas ought to take initiative and secure its own autonomy.

VOICE: Austin's letter was intercepted, and he was put in jail in Mexico City. He would be kept there for nearly two years. Upon his return, he had formed strong opinions of Santa Anna and the Mexican government.

VOICE: Santa Anna is a base, unprincipled bloody monster. War is our only recourse.

No halfway measures, but war in full. Stephen Austin, 1835.

GLENN: By 1835 relations had hit a fevered pitch.

Years earlier, Mexico had given a six-pound cannon to the residents of the city of Gonzalez, Texas, to help them deal with the attacks from the Comanche Indians.

Now, in retrospect, giving that cannon to fired-up Texans kind of seemed like a bad idea. So they asked for that cannon back. The residents of Gonzalez said, "I don't think so."

The Mexicans demanded the cannon back. Their defiant answer was, "Come and take it."

While Santa Anna's troops tried to do just that, and they were soundly beaten back by the militia in Gonzalez who used the cannon against them.

Now, because of his prior experience under Andrew Jackson in the war of 1812, the Texians appointed former Tennessee governor Sam Houston as their commander-in-chief of their forces. But there was only one problem: They didn't have any forces.

But like Texans usually do: They just pressed on.

VOICE: On March 2nd, 1836, delegates finally met at Washington on the Brazos and declared independence from Mexico. Sam Houston was instrumental in helping draft the new republic of Texas Constitution. And finally, it seemed that a workable government might actually be constructed.

GLENN: That's when Santa Anna gathered an army of 4,000 had to 5,000 troops and headed north to put down the rebellion. The war was on.

A small contingent, many from Gonzalez stayed in San Antonio, against the better judgment of Sam Houston to defend the Alamo. Houston thought it was indefensible and thought it was really foolhardy to stay. But the contingent had been joined by two American frontier heroes, one of them was Jim Bowie who had moved to Texas in 1830 and joined by the legendary Davy Crockett.

Crockett had recently been defeated in an attempt for another term in the United States Congress and left Congress and then Tennessee. And he said just before he left, "I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done. But if not, they might go to hell. And I would go to Texas."

There were only 183 men defending the mission at the Alamo. Still, they kept that Mexican army at bay, of 5,000 troops for 13 days.

Then...

VOICE: At dawn of March 6th, 1836, 4,000 of Santa Anna's Mexican troops besieged the Alamo and killed all 183 Texans defending it. The battle was over in 90 minutes.

Another deadly siege for the Texans would ensue. This time at the mission of Goliad under the command of Colonel James Fannin.

VOICE: Fannin makes an attempt to withdraw. It's too slow. He's caught out on the open prairies, forced to surrender. The Mexicans marched them back. And a week later, under Santana's orders, the entire Goliad command is executed at the so-called Goliad Massacre.

GLENN: The defenders of the Alamo fought ferociously, with reports that they took 600 to 1500 Mexican soldiers to the grave with them. However, 400 more Texan militia men were slaughtered execution-style at Goliad, enflaming and enraging every man, woman, and child who heard the story.

Independence for Texas seemed nearly impossible now. Two massacres, and General Sam Houston in full retreat. For weeks, he continued to allude Santa Anna, waiting for the right time. Starting with an army of 300, but by late April, there were so many enraged Texans that were joining his army which had now grown to just over 900 men.

Houston managed to avoid battle with Santa Anna's large army for over a month, until finally both armies wound up near what is present day Houston, Texas. The date, April 21st, 1836.

Two armies camped at San Jacinto. Yes, that's the right way to say it in Texas. They were on the bayou about a mile away from each other, about to make military history. 3:30 that afternoon, the angry Texans were in a frenzy.

VOICE: The rebels advanced (phonetic) on the Mexican barricades, screaming like banshees their battle cry: Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

Flustered, disoriented, the Mexicans began to fall back. First as individuals, but then as entire squads.

VOICE: For 18 minutes, blood and carnage ruled the battlefield at San Jacinto.

VOICE: I sat there on my horse, and I shot them until my ammunition gave out. Then I turned the butt end of my musket and started knocking them in the head. Private William Young.

VOICE: Mexicans fired one volley most of which went over the heads of the Texans. That's when Houston was hit. And his horse was hit. The Texans then advanced to maybe 20 yards away. They fired and then charged and broke through.

VOICE: All discipline was at an end. We fired as rapidly as we could. As soon as we fired, each man reloaded, and he who got his gun ready first moved on without waiting for orders. Private Alfonso Steele, 1836.

GLENN: The ragtag independence-minded Texas militia wouldn't be denied their chance to crush the Mexican Army.

VOICE: The Texans are in an absolute killing frenzy of revenge and fall upon any of the Mexican soldatos, some of whom begged for their lives, yelling, me no Alamo, me no Goliad. That finds them little mercy.

Most of the Mexicans actually fall back into a marsh area, into a lake. By the end of the day, Peggy Lake is completely crammed full of Mexican bodies, and the waters of Peggy Lake are thoroughly red.

VOICE: They had plunged into the mire and water with horses and mules. Everyone who seemed to escape, soon received a ball from the murderous aim of a practiced riflemen. And the bayou was literally bridged over with carcasses of dead mules, horses, and men.

Sam Houston, 1836.

GLENN: Meanwhile, there were just six Texan casualties compared to 600 Mexican soldiers dead, 700 more captured.

An hour after the carnage, Santa Anna himself was captured and brought before General Houston. Houston's men called out for execution. But Houston had something else in mind. Victory.

Victory and independence for the Republic of Texas, which the battle forced Santa Anna to sign.

The 18-minute battle still today one of the greatest and most incredible military victories in world history. And with it, the proud Republic of Texas was born.

Next time, the larger-than-life figures in the fight for Texas independence.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep