National Review Writer On Bundy: Heroes Of The Alamo Probably Had 'Repugnant' Views, Too

[DonViejo]

DYLAN SCOTT – APRIL 24, 2014, 10:55 AM EDT

National Review correspondent Kevin Williamson, who recently compared Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to Mahatma Gandhi, told TPM in an email on Thursday that he thought Bundy's racially charged comments were "lamentable" but they were "separate" from Bundy's standoff with the Bureau of Land Management.

"Mr. Bundy's racial rhetoric is lamentable and backward," Williamson said in an email. "It is also separate from the fundamental question here, which is the federal government's acting as an absentee landlord for nine-tenths of the state of Nevada. I very strongly suspect that most of the men who died at the Alamo held a great many views that I would find repugnant; we remember them for other reasons."

On April 15, Williamson wrote in defense of Bundy for National Review Online: "Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition."

"Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action," he wrote at the time. "It is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing."

###

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kevin-williamson-clive-bundy-racist-remarks

[chrisa]

1. Why is the Alamo so revered anyway? They were fighting to continue slavery.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Got me.

All of these 'heroic last stands' seem utterly pointless and stupid. They knew they couldn't win, so they decided to fight until they were killed. They did indeed lose, and they accomplished nothing apart from getting themselves killed.

Why exactly is that 'heroic' rather than 'moronic'?

If there actually was some hope that you could win, then yes, I would consider that heroic. If there's no chance, than why the hell not skip getting a bunch of people killed pointlessly? Seems like reverence is tied to violence and death, no matter how stupid the reason.

[angel823]

6. I don't think so

BattleOfTheAlamo

While much could be discussed regarding how Texas was wrangled out of Spanish\Mexican hands, I believe the Battle of the Alamo was well before the Civil War, correct?

Angel in Texas

[chrisa]

8. Unless if I'm mistaken, Texas was given in ultimatum -

stop using slaves, or face an attack. It was all about Mexico getting Texas to abide by their Constitution, which banned slavery.

[angel823]

9. yep, I agree that

Compelling settlers to follow the Mexican constitution was a component of the measures that Bustamante implemented to stop Texas from being over run with Anglos, and so in part, I guess you could say this helped trigger the Texas Revolution, but the Battle of the Alamo wasn't fought over slavery.

[arely staircase]

12. you are miistaken nt

[chrisa]

13. From the Wikipedia article:

"Bustamante also ordered all Tejas settlers to comply with the federal prohibition against slavery or face military intervention.[6] These measures did not have the intended effect. Settlers simply circumvented or ignored the laws."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

[arely staircase]

14. I may have misunderstood your post

I thought you were saying it was the reason for the Mexican military's intervention, it was not. Slavery was a big issue but more so on the Anglo side (white southrrn slave states wanted to flood Texas with pro-slave settlers, break it off from Mexico and enter the Union as another slave state.) For the Mexicans the slavery part was ancillary, with the losing control of their territory being the main thing.

[Thinkingabout]

2. It is such writings on the National Review back in the 80's which said

Their magazine lacked integrity. They wrote information on a total biased opinion and unfortunately they convinced their readers they knew what they was talking about. Now, just to save face in their readers minds folks like Sean Hannity must be right and everyone else is wrong. They want to call us bleeding heart liberals, I can take that but Sean has proven himself to Bea bleeding heart in the last week or so. Sea should keep his mouth shut about takers or welfare recipients in the future.

[ck4829]

3. National Review? More like Rationalization Review.

[MohRokTah]

4. The Alamo happened in 1836 and the National Review is fine with people have the same view...

of African Americans as Texans from 1836.

So basically the National Review thinks African Americans are 3/5 of a person.

[Tom Ripley]

7. Probably? Those losers were fighting to ensure a slave state.

[frylock]

10. i'll bet some of the guys that stormed the beach at Normandy also held some repugnant views..

neither of which has fuckall to do with the racist welfare rancher and his army of dumbfucks.

[Johonny]

11. I'm waiting for the Bundy view that I wouldn't find repugnant