An advisory committee tasked with reimagining the Alamo is expected this week to recommend moving the concrete and marble Cenotaph honoring those who died in the 1836 battle south about 500 feet to a more visible location.

From the hyperbolic responses on the right — one conservative commentator called it “the rape of the Alamo” by “liberal pukes” — one would think the city planned to bulldoze the mission itself and install a monument to Hillary Clinton.

Forrest Byas, a self-described tea party conservative who serves on the Alamo Citizen Advisory Committee, explained why: The right is still fuming over the city’s removal last year of a Confederate monument in Travis Park.

“That has infected the Republican Party, the state,” Byas said. “People who really don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes think that the city of San Antonio and the liberal mayor (Ron Nirenberg) and council they all hate, especially Councilman Roberto Treviño who removed the Confederate statue in Travis Park, they think their ultimate goal is to get rid of the monument to water down the defender site of the battle.

RELATED: Alamo Plaza plan largely unchanged after months of public debate

“That’s not at all why they’re going to move it,” he added. “It’s basically to reclaim the battlefield.”

Byas, who supports the city’s plan to move the Cenotaph, has more reason than most to respect it: Andrew Kent, his great-great-great grandfather, fought and died in the battle of the Alamo and is memorialized on the monument itself.

Byas opposed the removal of the Confederate Civil War Monument in downtown Travis Park for similar reasons: One of his ancestors, he said, fought for Texas in the Civil War.

Treviño, who serves alongside Byas on the advisory committee and whose district encompasses both Travis Park and Alamo Plaza, led a push last year to relocate the Confederate monument, angering local conservatives in the process.

The Cenotaph, Byas said, is different. For one, it’s only going to be moved.

“It’s not going to be removed,” he said. “Two letters: R-E or not.”

Another flash point in the debate is Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush, who wrested control of the Alamo from the Daughters of the Republic of Texas shortly after taking office in 2015.

The son of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, the land commissioner has managed to earn the ire of conservative activists despite his loyal support for President Donald Trump. Byas blames that fate on the Bush name — and the fact that both former President George W. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush shunned Trump after the brash presidential candidate roughly disposed of Jeb Bush during the 2016 Republican primaries.

RELATED: Conservation of Alamo structures moves forward

“As a Trump supporter would say, his uncle and his grandfather didn’t support and wouldn’t endorse Trump, and by virtue of that they wouldn’t mind Hillary Clinton being president,” Byas said. “So that’s inflamed a lot of people.”

Byas said he’s heard rhetoric comparing George P. Bush to Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna: a sampling of the hyperbole aimed at the land commissioner, who along with Nirenberg holds veto power over the Alamo site plan.

Other brutal attacks have issued from the conservative group Empower Texans, the NE Tarrant Tea Party and even Alex Jones’ Infowars.

The pressure, apparently, hasn’t made the land commissioner crack.

On Monday, Bryan Preston, a spokesman for the General Land Office, indicated George P. Bush was comfortable with the current plan to move the Cenotaph close to the front of the Menger Hotel but outside the Alamo footprint.

“He’s always said two things about the Cenotaph,” Preston said. “The first is that it would always stand and be repaired and the names that are incorrect, corrected … and it should always stay in a prominent area. So it needs to be either where it stands or in close proximity to the Alamo. And we get that with this new location.”

The current plan is actually a compromise. City planners initially wanted to move the monument to East Market Street near the site of a funeral pyre where bodies of the defenders were burned.

When the public complained this was too far from the Alamo, a new site was selected.

“It’s time for all these factions to compromise and not the Alamo,” Byas said. “The Alamo has compromised for 182 years. This position of the Cenotaph is a very good compromise.”