|
Post by garyzaboly on May 21, 2010 13:25:37 GMT -5
So glad I didn't invest in this book. It's like the Alamo as Rod Serling would have told it.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 21, 2010 13:45:25 GMT -5
Gary, Did Tucker allow you a reading of his manuscript before you provided him with art for his book? If not, how did he pitch it to you? Mark
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on May 21, 2010 14:11:38 GMT -5
I think it's the patriotic duty of all Alamo cogniscenti to read Tucker's book. After all, if Kevin hadn't sprung for a copy and written his review, who would be there to dissuade the innocent from not only buying the book, but believing it? If knowledgeable people refuse to read the book, no one will be able to point out its errors. The Alamo defenders knew what it was to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. So go ahead, buy the d**n thing and jump to the defense of the Texians. It's the least we can do in their memory. (This by way of rationalization for having hit the Buy Now button.) Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 21, 2010 14:33:54 GMT -5
Gary, Did Tucker allow you a reading of his manuscript before you provided him with art for his book? If not, how did he pitch it to you? Mark Mark, He showed me not a page. I assumed I'd get a free copy, as is usually the case when my illustrations appear. There are actually a number of Alamo books I've not spent my hard-earned denaro on simply because they're not worth it. Gary
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 21, 2010 14:36:33 GMT -5
Gary, Did Tucker allow you a reading of his manuscript before you provided him with art for his book? If not, how did he pitch it to you? Mark Mark, He showed me not a page. I assumed I'd get a free copy, as is usually the case when my illustrations appear. There are actually a number of Alamo books I've not spent my hard-earned denaro on simply because they're not worth it. Gary PS: Tucker didn't clue me in on his approach, except to hint he had new information. Evidently he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by David Bryan Singleton on May 21, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Jim Crisp told me about this book - I got a copy from Amazon and I am about 1/3 the way through it. He repeats his position over and over and over, I guess to make his points. Taking a lot of notes to look up some of the positions he takes that seem to be stretching the facts to fit his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 21, 2010 16:38:18 GMT -5
Evidently, Tucker assumed that since no other Alamo books cited sources like Murphy and Cannon, then he must have discovered them. Never mind that those sources had been discounted for years. "Exodus from the Alamo" is a good example of what can happen when an author isn't immersed in his subject.
I was disappointed with "Exodus" because I think Tucker could have made a case for many of his positions but he didn't bother. He relied instead on the idea that if something is repeated often enough people will start to accept it as truth.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 21, 2010 17:19:27 GMT -5
Jim Crisp told me about this book - I got a copy from Amazon and I am about 1/3 the way through it. He repeats his position over and over and over, I guess to make his points. Taking a lot of notes to look up some of the positions he takes that seem to be stretching the facts to fit his beliefs. Get a lot of paper... ;D
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 23, 2010 1:32:00 GMT -5
When you get into that section further, you will note that besides Warnell, he also uses Cannon and Murphy as eviedence of defenders who were in the rout and survived. If you read the Cannon account, as most of us have, you quickly discover the problems with it, and the Murphy account is just as bad (since it is an obit.) While the escapes, retreats, rout, or what ever you want to call it, are not in debate, it makes Turner's argument weak when he throws in these folks as sources to support his thesis. No one is debating the breakouts...but I would debate that Warnell and Cannon were part of them and that Murphy watched them... I don't know about Cannon and Murphy, but Tucker really manipulates the Henry Warnell information to say what he wants to confirm his exodus theories. He quotes Warnell's alleged fight or flight belief in 2 different places, but in one attributes it to Ms. Dickerson and another to Warnell himself. Tucker also omits the fact that Dickerson believed that Henry Warnell died defending the Alamo, not running from it or escaping to Port Lavaca. He also got John Warnell's mother's name wrong (Lydia, not Ludie) as does Groneman. One can assume that Tucker never read John Warnell's fraudulent land claim.
|
|
|
Post by aastewart on Jun 2, 2010 10:04:54 GMT -5
Good morning. First time poster and writing as a direct result of having read "Exodus..." Though I am not familar with the Alamo primary source material, I have studied the Battle of Gettysburg in depth at that level and am familiar with the challenges such activity presents. I can only imagine the added challenge of dealing with even older documents, many of them in Spanish.
First, I am most impressed with the knowledge displayed here and the collegial atmosphere in which discussions are usually had. My compliments.
Really only one question. Though the reactions to Tucker's book vary among the members here, is there a consensus that at least some members of the Alamo garrison attempted escape the morning of the battle, somewhere along the perimeter of the fort?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 2, 2010 10:31:47 GMT -5
Yes. I don't think anyone here would disagree that some breakouts occurred on the morning of March 6. There's uncertainty about how many defenders were involved, and there are some variances of opinion about where along the perimeter they occurred.
If you're interested in studying Alamo primary sources, I'd highly recommend Todd Hansen's "The Alamo Reader," an indispensable compendium of documents related to the Alamo.
Welcome to the forum, by the way!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by aastewart on Jun 2, 2010 10:41:12 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 2, 2010 11:28:44 GMT -5
Really only one question. Though the reactions to Tucker's book vary among the members here, is there a consensus that at least some members of the Alamo garrison attempted escape the morning of the battle, somewhere along the perimeter of the fort? Yes - and there is nothing new in that information. As Jim says, it's not certain how many fled the fort and died outside or exactly where the breakouts occurred. Some confusion may have resulted from the various locations at which the bodies of the defenders were burned. One theory is that they were burned there because that's where they died, but it is quite possible that the bodies were removed from the fort to be burned because the Mexicans planned to occupy and reinforce the Alamo. I add my own "welcome aboard" and thanks for the nice compliments about the forum. Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jun 2, 2010 16:15:46 GMT -5
I echo Allen's welcome aboard. I think you will find that this is a great place to be. As, I think, the last new guy I can tell you that these folks are not only welcoming but very serious about the subject matter at hand.
If you get some time switch over to the General History - Custer Again thread and give us your insights into Custer's performance at Hanover and on the third day at Gettysburg.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 2, 2010 18:44:04 GMT -5
I echo Allen's welcome aboard. I think you will find that this is a great place to be. As, I think, the last new guy I can tell you that these folks are not only welcoming but very serious about the subject matter at hand. If you get some time switch over to the General History - Custer Again thread and give us your insights into Custer's performance at Hanover and on the third day at Gettysburg. ... and add my voice to the growing chorus of "welcomes." Paul
|
|