Nickelodeon tells kids: Alamo fought for slavery

[Desertdog]

Nickelodeon tells kids: Alamo fought for slavery
Children's TV show says Texans
died to preserve human bondage



Most Americans believe the 189 Texans who died at the Alamo in 1836 were fighting for independence and liberty, but Nickelodeon, the award winning television network for children, is telling kids that Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and all the rest were actually fighting to defend slavery.

In a short "Nick News Bump," currently being broadcast, the kids network features the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas, site of the battle between a small group of Texans and a large Mexican army under Gen. Santa Ana, "the Napoleon of the West," as he described himself. The Texans, who had taken refuge in the mission known as the Alamo, were killed in fighting that followed a 13-day seige, and their bodies were burned. Mexican losses are estimated to have been around 1,600.

The heroic resistance and loss of life made the Alamo the "cradle of Texas liberty" to most Americans, but that's not the story Nickelodeon tells.


A teenage Hispanic girl provides the voice over as she walks in front of the Alamo:

My name is Salviola. I'm from San Antonio, Texas, and the Alamo is in my backyard.

In 1718, the mission of San Antonio de la Valero was established. The church structure is still standing today and it is known as the Alamo.

The battle for the Alamo is often remembered as a rebellion of a small group of brave Texas farmers fighting against the Mexican army. What you may not know is that at the time, Texas was part of Mexico.

By the early 1800s, a lot of people living in San Antonio were farmers who brought their slaves with them. In 1829, Mexico abolished slavery and what followed was years of conflict between farmers who wanted to keep their slaves and Mexican authorities. This conflict led up to the battle for the Alamo.

In the end, Gen. Santa Ana and 5,000 Mexican soldiers surrounded the Alamo and all the defenders of the mission were killed.

So, when you remember the Alamo, think about the soldiers, the battle and the true story behind it.

Nickelodeon is not the first to revise the history of the Alamo.

Last year, Disney released "The Alamo" at a cost of $100 million – a film criticized for its political correctness, as WorldNetDaily reported.

"The movie reads more like a Disney fairy tale and promotes a politically correct revisionist agenda aimed at destroying a traditional American hero," said B. Forrest Clayton of Freedom Alliance, who reviewed the script.

Despite several historical witnesses who told of Davy Crockett being killed fighting, in the thick of combat during the battle, Clayton noted that Disney portrayed Crockett as a "frightened wanderer" who wanted to escape "over the wall" in the dark of night during the historic struggle.



Disney also portrayed Gen. Sam Houston as a "venereal-diseased drunkard" and Col. William Barret Travis, commander of Texan forces at the Alamo, as a "deadbeat dad and serial adulterer."

In addition, charged the Feedom Alliance, Col. James Bowie, the Alamo defender famous for his knife-fighting skills, was portrayed as a land-swindling slave trader.



If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

 

[Nightfall]

I knew there was a reason I didn't like that channel.

 

[lbmii]

It is very simple:

History is told by the victors.

 

[jefnvk]

Kinda remindes me of the people that insist that the sole reason for the Civil War was slavery.

I'd be more worried at the amount Rosie is on Nickelodeon, myself. Haven't watched the station since I was about 7 or 8, thankfully.

 

[RoyG]

Link

 

[HarryB]

Why did the American settlers rebel against the Mexican government?

 

[whm1974]

Kinda remindes me of the people that insist that the sole reason for the Civil War was slavery.

Next time ask them why Mo was on the Union side along with some other slave owning states.

Slavery did add fuel to the fire but it wasn't the cause of or the spark that set off the civil war.

-Bill

 

[Blackburn]

I always thought the reason for the civil war was rednecks attacking a US fort.

To all the "southrons": Give it up, it ended 100+ years ago. Saying you live in 'Occupied Texas' just makes you look backward and past-oriented.

 

[bobs1066]

And for today's Daily Double, the answer is: "Most thoroughly pummeled deceased equine in THR history".
Remember, your answer must be in the from of a question.

 

[1911 guy]

Se Habla Espanol?

We're being overrun and they're recruiting our kids!! I'm not going to get into bashing any one group of people because the main offenders are the politicians, both local and national, who allow this nonsense. The Alamo was about freedom, we all know that. Make sure your kids know it too. The War of 1860-1865 was not fought over slavery and slavery was never a central issue until the union was getting it's heine kicked early in the war and needed a bandwagon for folks to jump on. We all know that one human being "owning" another is wrong and I'm sure disgusting in the eyes of God, but at the same token, don't let your kids get through school thinking they're being taught the truth about much of anything. Did you know that school textbooks in Mexico name Texas, California, New Mexico as part of Mexico?! Our job is to educate our kids, the schools job is to teach them algebra. There's a difference. Thanks for reading my polemic.

 

[mustanger98]

From my reading on the Texas war for independance, it appears to me that so many Americans the gov't couldn't control scared the pants off Santa Anna, so the Mexican gov't tried to disarm anglos living in Texas, which was a Mexican state at the time. One anglo settlement had been given a cannon as part of defenses against hostile Indians. The Mexican army was sent to take it back and the townspeople made a flag that said "COME AND TAKE IT". Sound familiar? The Texans who defended the Alamo had captured the mission from Mexican General Coz, but what they failed to realize was that because a small force took the fort off a larger force, it also meant they couldn't hold it against an even larger force than they'd captured it from. Sam Houston, who has always had fans and detractors, ordered Col. Travis to abandon the mission, but he had delusions of his own military glory and refused. Some accounts say he purposely gave Sam Houston extra to build his manpower while other accounts say he just stupidly wasted his own manpower by trying to defend a static position.

Now, for the Civil War, aka the War Between the States, or even more properly the War of Northern Aggression (there was nothing civil about that war), it was not caused by slavery or by "rednecks attacking a US fort". It was building from the beginning of colonization because of inherent differences still present in American culture between the North and South. Actually, the most noticeable cause directly present in the 1850's was the electoral college that allowed Abraham Lincoln to be elected President of the US. Slavery wasn't an issue directly in the war until 1863 with the Emancipation Proclaimation which only freed slaves in "the states currently in rebellion". It was said that Lincoln freed the slaves where he legally couldn't and didn't free them where he legally could which was up north. The firing upon Ft Sumter was because after South Carolina seceded, the federal troops in the fort wouldn't vacate the premises as ordered by the Confederate commander. Later, a Southern soldier was asked why he was fighting Yankees and he replied "because ya'll are here."

The part about MO, KY, and MD still being in the Union- they were border states and they were sharply devided one community to the next. If ya'll recall, Frank and Jesse James operated in MO with public sympathy because after the war, all the banks and railroads were own by Yankees so the locals had nothing to lose.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Disney also portrayed Gen. Sam Houston as a "venereal-diseased drunkard"...

Historical fact.

...and Col. William Barret Travis, commander of Texan forces at the Alamo, as a "deadbeat dad and serial adulterer."

Don't know about the deadbeat dad thing, but Col. Travis did have an eye for the ladies.

In addition, charged the Feedom Alliance, Col. James Bowie, the Alamo defender famous for his knife-fighting skills, was portrayed as a land-swindling slave trader.

This is also nothing more or less than the truth.

Let's not let our annoyance at a petty piece of historical revisionism blind us to the fact that even our heroes tend to have some warts.

- Chris

 

[Blackburn]

which only freed slaves in "the states currently in rebellion".

Then what purpose did the underground railroad serve, if slavery was still legal "up north"?

What are your sources and have your sources ever pointed to a different conclusion than your pre-held convictions?

 

[gc70]

From the Emancipation Proclamation webpage of the US Archives

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

 

[gc70]

From the Government Printing Office's Guide to Government (for Kids 9-12)

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 and became effective on January 1, 1863. It stated that all slaves in states that were rebelling against the Union were free and that the Union military would enforce their freedom.

Since the Confederate states did not recognize Lincoln's authority, they refused to comply and did not liberate their slaves. This allowed Lincoln to change his rhetoric. Whereas he had mainly been calling the war a fight to preserve the Union, he now could refer to it as a fight to spread freedom.

 

[gc70]

The Emancipation Proclamation was part of the North's military strategy against the South

By issuing the Proclamation, Lincoln addressed several issues:

Military: Lincoln claimed that the Proclamation was a military necessity, that it was a prime means of undermining the Confederacy by seizing enemy property.

Foreign Affairs: England and France had long been flirting with the idea of recognizing the Confederacy, but the Proclamation ended any inclination to do so; the South had seriously misjudged the importance of cotton to Europe.

 

[slzy]

ben franklin started the first abolition society shortly after the constitution did not forbid slavery. the 3/5s compromise, that is to let 3/5s of the slave population count in the census for electoral proportion. the compromise of 1820. the fact texas could split into as many as 5 states as new free states came in to keep the balance in the senate. the dred scott case. the fugitve slave law.the Lecompton constitution. bleeding kansas.the objection of the north east to the mexican war,because they knew this would be new slave territory.in some of the lincoln douglas debates,there is no other subject than slavery.john browns raid. i am by no means even pretending to grant the Union side any moral superior position,and i am aware of tarriff issues and internal tax projects,but from the Union side stopping the SPREAD of slavery,and a grab for land in the transmississippi seem to be the major cause of the war.

 

[StrikeFire83]

We're kinda getting side-tracked from the original purpose of the post.

As a Texan from San Antonio, I find the classification of the Alamo heros unfortunate and one sided, but not especially inaccurate. Texians (ex-American citizens living in Tejas, Mexico) has surrendered their American citizenship as a condition of settling Texas. When the Mexicans outlawed slavery, the Texans WERE breaking the law. That’s not to say that Santa Anna wasn’t a tyrant who wouldn’t have marched on Texans regardless of their slave holding status.

The bravery and military prowess of the Alamo defenders isn’t in any way hampered by the historical realities of the 1830s.

 

[thorn726]

WAit? to stay on the Alamo subject=
ok the Nickel thing is one story, that seems very odd , the slavery thing.

BUT= the movie "the Alamo" i saw that, i mean i dont remember it portraying the reasons for battle as other than they wanted to keep the land......

was the movie really that far off from accurate??

i dint come off thinking "those darn Texans" or anything, although the leader guy who didnt send any troops to help, hew sucked.

anyway i had heard the movie was reasonably accurate???

 

[whm1974]

Then what purpose did the underground railroad serve, if slavery was still legal "up north"?

The slaves went to Canada due to the Fugative Slave Act. If an escaped slave went to a free state under federal law he could be sent back to his owner.

-Bill

 

[mustanger98]

I want to thank everybody who answered the sarcastic sounding questions directed at me. My sources are varied. The Time Life Books series on the Old West includes a volume titled "The Texans", which carried some of the info and I read that as a teenager. I got some info from various websites who's URL's have long since expired, therefore I have no links. But, then, last Fall, I took a class in Early-American History. Both the textbook, which I have in front of me right now, titled "AMERICAN HISTORY: A SURVEY" by Alan Brinkley, and the lecture corroborated what I had previously read. It also corroborates the answers provided by all who responded to the question regarding my sources, etc.

 

[feedthehogs]

With what the text books in our schools leave out, the nic thing is no surprise.

The US is being dismantled one text book at a time.

Whereas he had mainly been calling the war a fight to preserve the Union, he now could refer to it as a fight to spread freedom

Change union to US and it sounds familiar. Wait I know.
King George, 2004

Saying you live in 'Occupied Texas' just makes you look backward and past-oriented.

And the redneck statement doesn't?

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

The Anglo's were invited into Texas to settle it for the Mexicans, there were comparatively very few Mexican settlers there or elsewhere in the territories that later were rightfully transferred to the US under the "use it or lose it principle".

The only reason the Mexicans abolished official slavery (it actually continues there to this day) was to undercut the Anglo-Texans and provide an excuse to send in the army.

Mexico is a loser country, with a loser culture, always has been, always will be unless we Americans finally annex it and run it properly. And we might just as well since 1/4 of the Mexican people have expressed a marked preferrence for American life by wading across the border.

 

[mustanger98]

Another thing I just remembered- there was a show on the History Channel a while back examining the Alamo. They said the picture has always been painted Americans/Texans vs Mexicans. What Hollywierd has overlooked in most cases is there were Tejanos who fought on the Texas side and there were some were present inside the Alamo. All races present in the vicinity were said to have been represented among the Alamo defenders.

Oh, and the part about Sam Houston being portrayed as a VD-carrying drunk- according to history, he did drink heavily. According to "The Texans" which I mentioned earlier, he later married a girl who was present when he got off the steamboat in New Orleans after San Jacinto. They said he took a wrong step on a shattered ankle- he was shot through that ankle at San Jacinto- fainted and collapsed. They said the girl burst into tears on the spot. Later, after they were married, they said she steared him towards church and the profanity diminished over time. He was quoted as saying at his baptism that he felt "sorry for the fish downstream". As for the VD part, take into account the attitudes of the time and the info in the Wild West Tech episode on prostitution. Then draw your own conclusions which may or may not be correct. Unless you have info on Sam Houston that's been proven to be accurate.

 

[jefnvk]

Sorry, I forgot that everytime I mention the Civil War, we get dragged into an argument over the causes, and which was the most important

I was trying to draw the similarities, that groups are trying to get people to believe what they want them to believe, not what actually happened. While the victors may write the history books, a hundred years later in America anyone can write anything they want.