Why The Alamo?

About three weeks ago, I had dinner with some Alamo folks in San Antonio, and the conversation came around to the specific topic: How many other examples are there in recorded military history of a defending force, having the means at their disposal to leave, deciding to stay? This salient point (coulda left, decided to stay) was put forth as the main reason we revere the story of the Alamo. The host, who posited the question, gave what he thought were the only other two examples:
1) The 300 Spartans at Thermopolae
and
2) The 24th Regiment of Foot, at Rorke's Drift

After thinking the matter over, I chimed in and gently corrected him, saying that the British soldiers at the Drift, while having some advance notice of the Zulu's approach, really could not leave, as they were hindered by their wounded. After all, one of the main purposes of that Mission Station was that it was a hospital site.
And then, after a little more reflection, I stated that it may be that the Alamo defenders could not leave for that same reason. If they had attempted a breakout at some point on or after the 23rd, what would they do with their wounded (from the Bexar fight)? surely the Mexican cavalry would have easily overtaken the column, and harassed it , slowing down its progress long enough for the infantry to catch up. And then, it would all become academic.
So, could it be (dare I say it?) that the one thing we have been holding on to as the example of the Alamo defenders' example of heroic self-sacrifice: their staying when they could have left, be wrong after all? Could it be that they could NOT have left, without leaving their wounded behind to be slaughtered? And they could not take them along, as it would have (even IF they had enough wagons and oxen) slowed them down to a fatal degree.
Sorry to bring this point up, as it pours some water on the mythic heroism we all admire, but the thought occurred to me, and I felt that this forum was the best place to air such thoughts out....I'm certainly open to realistic rebuttals.
Mark

You pose some interesting questions, and ones I would say every person who has ever studied the Alamo have asked themselves.

In my opinion, the Alamo represents a lot of things beyond what transpired in those 60 or 90 minutes that comprised the battle. It may be more about what the Alamo symbolizes to different people around the world, than individual deeds in battle or while under seige.

Sometimes we forget that whether you were one of the relatively unknown defenders or someone tall in stature like Crockett, or Bowie or Travis, these guys were, at the end of the day, mere and mortal flesh and blood. Not to be blunt, but they had the same bodily functions we do, they put their pants on one leg at a time, and so on.

I don't believe anyone WANTS to die. Why would it be any different with the Alamo defenders (or the Mexican soldados for that matter?). I truly do not doubt that survival instinct kicked in for many in the waning minutes of the fight. I still wouldn't call it cowadice. These men bought Houston time to get his army up and running. And a lot more.

Thinking back to the mood of the people in Texas at the time (especially after reading halfway through "Texian Illiad" this weekend), sentiments ran hot and cold about fighting the Mexicans for independence. Look at the siege of Bexar in late 1835, and it's a wonder the fight that chased Cos out of San Antonio ever took place. Without that siege and battle, there would have been no Alamo, and we wouldn't be here talking about it.

But, if nothing else, the brutality of what transpired at The Alamo and at Goliad seemed to provide that badly needed spark to get the folks literally up in arms about Santa Anna and his rule over Texas.

"Remember the Alamo; Remember Goliad" was more than a rallying cry, IMO. It is what cemented and unified Anglo and Tejano Texas in the fight to rid Texas of Mexican rule. Let's face it, too. Just like many New Yorkers knew someone who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11, many of these folks lost friends, neighbors and relatives in the slaughters at the Alamo and Goliad.

In many ways, the fall of the Alamo and Goliad was Texas' 1836 version of the Twin Tower attacks on 9/11. People rallied together in 1836, much as we did here in the days and months that followed 9/11.

I don't believe any of these boys had it in mind to die heros, or to be heros in any sense of the word. I'm sure if they had their druthers, they'd ruther have been home with their families or doing other things. But they enlisted or volunteered to do a job. The hero thing was not part of their plan at the Alamo.

But I agree that the legends and myths and popular beliefs about the reasons for the fight and about how the battle went down is in conflict with so much of what we know or suspect now. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Much has changed about the view of historical events, such as the Little Big Horn battle and Custer. Revisionism is not a bad thing, BUT .....

..... also keep in mind that there are revisionists who will try to convince you that the holocaust never happened. Try telling that to folks like my father who were among the first American troops to roll into Dachau. I've seen the pictures he has from those days. I guess those must have been staged photos.

And so it may be with the Alamo. Line in the sand? Crockett going down swinging a broken "Old Betsy" (when we know he didn't bring that rifle to the Alamo)? A brave fight to the last man, with no one surrendering and no one jumping the walls in a futile run for their life?

Does it really matter when you look at what the Alamo still REPRESENTS more than 172 years after that March dawn?

I see your point, bluesdog, but the "denier" argument cuts both ways in this case. There are some who cling so strongly to myth they refuse to acknowledge facts based on hard evidence. I think this does a disservice to the real people who died in the struggle. I suspect you'd agree.

But that's the gist of the question posed here, and one I've thought about a lot. Why, after many of the facts are in and the narrative has changed, are we still attracted to this story?
It doesn't mean the same thing to me as it meant when I was a kid.
Like most everyone here, I was drawn to the Alamo story by Fess Parker's Davy Crockett. There's not many images more powerful than those of Davy swinging Old Betsy to the bitter end, and when I started seriously studying the historical Crockett, I certainly hoped that image would remain untarnished. Well, maybe it happened and maybe it didn't, but as I got into the nuts and bolts of history I found much more in Crockett to admire: the fact that he was able to get back up after being knocked down time and time again, his staunch defense of his poor constituents even though it alienated him from his own congressional delegation, the seemingly politically suicidal move of refusing to back Jackson's Indian removal policy because he thought it was morally wrong.
The reality of Crockett's life has, for me, become the primary narrative, and I find it far more compelling than any of the death scenarios.
Jim

I couldn't agree with you more. You certainly are right about folks who cling to the legends and mytrhs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My point about the revisionist thinking, and the metion of the holocaust as an example, was more a point to urge caution when weighing such revised thinking.

I'm an older dog and have seen so much of what I was taught as historical fact in the '50s and '60s be overturned amid new findings. Even the cause of the so-called "Civil" (?) War can't be attributed to simply being over slavery. It was much more complex than that.

When it comes to the Alamo, we want to believe that these 180-something men (and heck, we're not even 100 percent sure of that number) killed thousands of Mexicans. We know now the number was much lower. We'd like to envision a rifle swinging Crockett fighting to the end, yet there is strong reason to believe he surrendered in the hope of sparing his own life. The line in the sand is a great story, but there is enough reason to believe it didn't happen.

I like your comments about the Crockett you've discovered since the Fess Parker portrayal. And that truly drives home the point of this subject, I think.

We tend to focus on the events and the lives of these men over the course of a 13-day period. But what brought them to this place at that time? Why did they stay? Like Crockett's, there is a bigger story yet to be told.

Why else do we continue to buy and read books about the Alamo, and go to the see the newest movie remake of the story? We know how the story ends, or at least who "wins" and who dies.

But there is that search answers we may never discover. It's about that possible newest discovery just under that next scoop of dirt in someone's back yard in the shadow of the Alamo.

We want to somehow feel and share what those men saw and heard and felt. We want to understand what they were thinking and doing. We want to know "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

I think if the day comes that the mystery is gone, and people stop visiting the Alamo, ceases to walk the grounds or never ponders the questions posed at the top of thios page, it will be time to bulldoze the church and long barracks.

I want to believe I'm safe in saying, I doubt that day will ever come.

That has been my take as well. And Crockett wasn't alone in that.

I enjoyed the scene in the Alamo movie released a couple of years ago when Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton) arrives in San Antonio and learns for the first time that the fighting isn't over. His response was something like, "I thought you boys had finished that." It was, to me, a kind of human response to learning you just landed in the midst of a something that might kill you.

Then there was the scene where Thornton as Crockett told someone that if he was anyone but this Crockett fella, he'd have a mind to jump the wall and take his chances high-tailing it out of there. But because there were certain expectations based on his reputation, he felt he had no choice but stay.

I actually found the emotions in those two exchanges believable from a human standpoint. Of course, whether it was part of the real Crockett's fabric, who knows? But at least the portrayal in these two scenes were human, which made them believable to me.

But you're right, a good many of the men pushing for a Texas free of Mexico had come to Texas for the land or to profit from it as empressarios. Crockett had debts and was looking to carve a new life.

I believe he also hinted about seizing the opportunity for political office in an independent Texas, so was probably politically motivated as well.

I find it difficult to disagree with Mark as to the immediate reason why the defenders stayed rather than bug out until the final moments, but as to the wider issue of why the Alamo holds such as fascination, I think it has to be the human scale of it all.

As a historian I have always tried to connect with the real people we call history and to see them as individuals rather than faceless battalions; hundreds here, tens of thousands there. I am fascinated by the fact that not only can we identify pretty well every one of the men who marched off with James Grant; all of Fannin's men and all of those who fought and died at the Alamo - give or take a few in all three cases, but we also know at least something about all of them.