how did the battle of the alamo get started?
482823
texas was part of mexico, but mostly americans lived there, and they wanted to break from mexico and form their own country, and possibly join the USA. the texans organized an army and started fighting the mexicans, and one main battle took place at the alamo\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
818686
I will have to ask the man who works at the Alamo. He protrays Davy Crockett and if anyone knows it will be him, he is a Alamo Historian......Will get back with ya if I can get an answer.
55359
MMMMM... Here in Mexico, USA enter in two points in the history classes:\n- The 13 colonies, what was it, and what they decided to revolt.\n- the mexican-american war... here teachs that all the texas stuff was a stratagem of the USA's gov to get the northen states of México 'cause they needed it for build the trnascontinental railroad. \n-the IIWW, being "the good ones".\n\nalso something about the pancho villa's raid in columbus, but with reason (american army was attacking the revolutionaries in the north of mexico, crossing the border.)
643995
First of all, you have several different events mixed together here.  The United States did not take Texas from Mexico in a war (just or otherwise).  A number of settlers in Texas (primarily Americans who had immigrated to Mexico) staged a rebellion in 1836 to break away from Mexico and form their own independant country (The Republic of Texas).  Although the United States did provide some support for the rebels, it was not a war between the US and Mexico and no US troops were directly involved.  Texas was an independant country separate from the US for almost 10 years before it decided to join the US as a state in 1845.\n\nOn the other hand, much of New Mexico was taken from Mexico following the Mexican-American War of 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago.  In this war, there is little doubt that the US was looking to start a fight as a pretext for getting land (the reason for the war - Mexican troops supposedly crossing the Rio Grande River - was dubious at best).  \n\nHowever, the lower one third of New Mexico did not become part of the US until it was purchased (along with southern Arizona) in 1856 at a cost of $10 million dollars.  It is true that Mexico was ruled by a dictator at the time, but then it was for most of the 19th century and $10 million was probably a pretty fair price for that time period considering how remote and undeveloped the area was.\n\nAs for if the Mexican-American War (and to a lesser degree the Gadsden Purchase) were just... that is largely a matter of opinion.  The answer is probably 'No' by most peoples standards since the US started the war under somewhat false pretenses.  However, it is worth noting that the Spanish/Mexicans themselves had originally taken the land away from the Native Americans in the first place under even less just pretenses.    \n\nIs one thief stealing from another unjust?  There are very few cultures on this planet (including many Native American tribes for that matter) who did not get their land by displacing or forcing away some other group that was there before.  That does not make it right (and has caused much of the hardship and suffering over the history of the world), but neither is it fair to single out just one group and ignore similar offenses by others.  \n\nLastly, it is worth noting that while New Mexico was heavily populated, most of the land taken following the Mexican-American War (including large parts of Colorado and Utah) had NO Mexican settlements at all, was rarely visited, and really did not belong to Mexico (or any other country) any more than saying the entire moon 'belongs' to the US because a few American astronauts briefly walked on one small part of it 30 years ago.
776705
Probably war.  I think Texas is the only state that put into its terms of statehood that it has the right to secede.
360711
use the battle of honey springs...\n\nits unique because more indians and blacks were involved in this battle than whites. that was rare..\n\ncheck this page out:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Honey_Springs
572074
one suggestion is to not overlook the question of slavery as it relates to the Alamo.  One of the things usually ignored in the great "struggle for Texan Independence" from oppressive Mexican dictator Santa Ana is that one of the main "oppressions" that really upset the Texicans was the fact that Mexico had abolished slavery and king cotton had reached Texas and the rich land owners were not willing to do without their slaves.
1097320
Because that is how they started, and Mohammed didnt want his troops to fight over the spoils. So he made the rule book.
633848
A Regiment of civilian volunteers, rescue squad, national guard, and others emergency response workers Have Been The First To Respond to Every Natural Emergency and/or armed conflict in Tennessee, Franklin (the conjoined Eastern regions of Tennessee, Kentucky, and western parts of North Caroline and Virgina PRIOR to the borders as they appear today, and American history, from the earliest of times even up to today.  The Greatest of which in history is the Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers (led by Davy Crockett&Sam Bowie) to render assistance to the Stranded and embattled Settelers (farmers, cattlemen, mercantile, etc) living in South Texas, in particular San Antonio area.  Standing shoulder to shoulder with them when surrounded by superior forcers ( mauradering attacks led by Mexican General Santa Ana) at the Famous Battle of "The Last Stand at the ALAMO" \nThe Men, Women, and Children, who were abandonded by Washington D.C. and the Army (Who Strangly enough were ram-rodding the greatest period of Imperalistic Expansion at the time) Were Not Abandonded By The People of Tennessee.  This is a source of Very Deep Pride in Tennessee even to this day.  Tennesseeans will come running -NO QUESTIONS ASKED, at any time, night or day -to help you. :)
337586
183 to 250 Texian and Tejano bodies were found at the Alamo after the battle, though Santa Anna's official report back to Mexico City, dictated to his personal secretary Ramón Martínez Caro, stated 600 rebel bodies were found. Historians believe this to be a false claim
306995
I hope this helps! From a fellow TEXAN\n\nIn the Texas Revolution of 1835-36, American colonists in Texas secured the independence of that area from Mexico and subsequently established a republic. Since the 1820s many settlers from the United States had colonized Texas; by the 1830s they far outnumbered the Texas Mexicans. Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna attempted to reverse this trend by such measures as abolishing slavery and enforcing the collection of customs duties. The settlers rebelled (originally as part of a general federalist resistance to Santa Anna's Centralist government, which had overthrown the Mexican Constitution of 1824). Hostilities began at Gonzales on Oct. 2, 1835; the Texans repelled a Mexican force sent to disarm them and won subsequent victories. \n\nIn February 1836, Santa Anna, undiscouraged, led a large army across the Rio Grande; he was delayed, however, by the unexpectedly determined defense of the Alamo. Meanwhile, the Texans declared their independence from Mexico on Mar. 2, 1836, and organized a provisional government. Sam Houston led a successful retreat, but other insurgents were defeated and massacred in late March. Santa Anna pursued the rebels, overstretching his supply line and thus isolating his forces on San Jacinto Prairie. There, on April 21, he was routed by Houston and taken prisoner. Mexican troops then withdrew from Texas. The Republic of Texas (with its Lone Star flag) remained independent until 1845, when it became part of the United States.
597718
Can you give more information please?   Mexican Civil War  (Guerra de Revolucion) started in 1910, but the US Intervention War was around 1847.
132851
Wasn't that the next mexican conquest after the Alamo?  The battle cry "Remember the Alamo" is incomplete. It is "Remember the Alamo, remember Goliad" I recall the mexican army had captured 400 or so texians and executed them there. Outnumbered, they surrendered expecting to be treated as prisoners.
175629
When the war began President Polk had three strategic objectives: defend the boundary of Texas claimed by the United States, which was the Rio Grande River; seize New Mexico and California; and achieve sufficient military success in Mexico to force it to make peace on terms favoring the United States. These were ambitious goals, but they also were limited and did not envision a conquest of Mexico. Polk thought they could be achieved in 6 to 12 months by operations confined to what was then the northern portion of Mexico. When American successes in the north, including the conquest of New Mexico and California, did not lead to Mexican surrender, Polk and his advisers turned to a more ambitious campaign against the Mexican heartland aimed at capturing the capital, Mexico City\n\nhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mexican_war.htm\n\nPlease thank me by giving me 10 points!!!!!!
280933
They started right after the Civil War, by who I don't know, as a protest to the freeing of the slaves.  Then it grew from there.  See the following links...
393479
Stephen Fuller Austin (November 3, 1793 – December 27, 1836), known as the "Father of Texas," led the Anglo-American colonization of the region. The city of Austin, Texas and Austin County, Texas are named in his honor. It is ironic that Austin is known as the "Father of Texas," since he certainly never started off with any intention of breaking Texas away from Mexico, though he certainly supported such at the end.\n\nAustin's plan for a colony was thrown into turmoil by the independence of Mexico from Spain in 1821. Governor Martínez informed Austin that the junta instituyente, the new rump congress of the government of Agustín de Iturbide, refused to recognize the land grant authorized by Spain, based on a new policy of using a general immigration law to regulate new settlement in Mexico. Austin traveled to Mexico City and managed to persuade the junta instituyente to authorize the grant to his father, as well as the Law signed by the Spanish Emperor on January 3, 1823. The old Imperial Law offered heads of families a league and a labor of land, 4,605 acres (19 km²), and other inducements. It also provided for the employment of agents, called empresarios, to promote immigration. As empresario, Austin himself was to receive 67,000 acres (270 km²) of land for each 200 families he introduced. According to the law, immigrants were not required to pay fees to the government. This fact soon led some of the immigrants to deny Austin's right to charge them for services at the rate of 12½ cents an acre ($31/km²).\n\nWhen the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín de Iturbide, abdicated in March 1823, the law was annulled once again. In April 1823, Austin induced the congress to grant him a contract to bring 300 families into Texas. In 1824 the congress passed a new immigration law that allowed the individual states of Mexico to administer public lands and open them to settlement under certain conditions. In March 1825 the legislature of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas passed a law that was similar to the one authorized by Iturbide. The law continued the system of empresarios, as well as granting each married man a league of land, 4,428 acres (18 km²), with the stipulation that he must pay the state thirty dollars within six years.\n\nBy late 1825, Austin had brought the first 300 families, now known in Texas history as the Old Three Hundred, to the grant. Austin had obtained further contracts to settle an additional 900 families between 1825 and 1829. He had effective civil and military authority over the settlers, but he was quick to introduce a semblance of American law - the Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas was agreed on in November 1827. Despite his hopes Austin was making little money from his endeavors; the colonists were unwilling to pay for his services as empresario and most of the money gained was spent on the processes of government and other public services.\n\nHe was active to promote trade and to secure the good favor of the Mexican authorities, aiding them in the suppression of the Fredonian Rebellion of Haden Edwards. However, with the colonists numbering over 11,000 by 1832 they were becoming less conducive to Austin's cautious leadership, and the Mexican government was also becoming less cooperative - concerned with the growth of the colony and the efforts of the U.S. government to buy the state from them. The Mexican government had attempted to stop further U.S. immigration as early as April 1830, but again the skills of Austin had gained an exemption for his colonies.\n\nThe application of the immigration control and the introduction of tariff laws had done much to dissatisfy the colonists, peaking in the Anahuac disturbances. Austin then felt compelled to involve himself in Mexican politics, supporting the upstart Antonio López de Santa Anna. Following the success of Santa Anna the colonists sought a compensatory reward, proclaimed at the Convention of 1832 - resumption of imm
580764
a) A larger army \n\nBecause the people in the South were united to defend their land from an invader. They didnt attack they just defended.