History of Texas Part II: The Battle for Independence

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.

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?