|
Post by jesswald on Jul 7, 2010 16:34:26 GMT -5
I have just completed Exodus from the Alamo, having read it with an open mind. I am a great fan of books that debunk conventional wisdom. I do agree with Tucker that most of the popular impressions of the Alamo story are wrong. However, he has done a great disservice to the interests of those who wish to promulgate the truth about the battle. Much of what I have to say about this book has already been said by other Forum members. I am less knowledgeable about the Alamo than perhaps anyone else reading this post, but I know how to write, and I have a vague sense of what scholarly historical treatises are supposed to do. Let's start with the title. I doubt very much if the flight of 100 or so men from the site of a massacre constitutes an "Exodus." I am suspicious of the use of this word which, with its Biblical connotations, seems to be an attempt to grab our attention. I am likewise suspicious of people who call themselves "Dr. Tucker" just because they have a PhD. And the subtitle, "Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth," is both presumptuous and misleading. Tucker, the Doctor, is in no way embarking on a study of the "anatomy" of anything. He is debunking the myth, not analyzing its structure. In fact, I think he would have written a better book had he analyzed where and when the various myths originated, perhaps investigating how perceptions of the Alamo have changed from generation to generation. He touches on this, but really seems only interested in proclaiming "undeniablel truths."
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Jul 7, 2010 17:18:26 GMT -5
Accidentally posted the above before I really got started. Hang on, it's a bumpy ride. Tucker complains repeatedly about how historians have failed to see what he has seen. Yet, every time I checked his citations, he seemed to be acknowledging that some other historian had reported the fact. Indeed, his footnotes are most confusing, it being unclear exactly which of the various points he has made in a particular paragraph is being attributed to which source. His use of sources is totally uncritical. If you want to cherry-pick whom you believe, fine, but tell us why you select one and reject another. Instead, he refers to the ones he likes as "reliable" and rejects the others without convincing explanation. I think that a historian is bound to use primary sources. If he wants to borrow an idea from some other historian, give the attribution in the body of the work. Tucker will occasionally throw an idea into quotation marks, and when we check, we find that he seems to be quoting some other historian (one of the gaggle whom he generally sneers at). Elsewhere, he gives no basis whatever for some of his statements. I personally never knew that Crockett was an abolitionist. Tucker states it as a fact, more than once, but I can't find any footnote explaining where he got that idea. Did he just make this one up? I appeal to the ladies and gentlemen of the forum to fill me in on this one. And is there really a school of thought that Houston deliberately let the Alamo garrison be massacred because Crockett was there? Did Houston even know that Crockett was there when he made the decision to delay reinforcing the Alamo? Where is the proof? Tucker has a troublesome habit of contradicting himself. I understand that he thinks Santa Anna was brilliant, but he never explains or excuses the general's failure to arrange for sufficient ladders, or for his being caught napping at San Jacinto. I guess he figures if the military genius Napoleon can get trapped in Moscow, Santa Anna is entitled to a couple of blunders. But I'm just guessing that's what he figures. Tucker doesn't say anything about it. On pages 114-115 we learn that much of the garrison consisted of Whigs, supportive of the General Counsel, who were not in favor of independence. Within sentences, however, we learn that most garrison members were "opportunistic newcomers" who favored independence. I'm not informed enough to know which is correct. I'm easily confused, but I defy anyone to make sense of this passage. On page 4, Tucker notes that in a "bizarre historical paradox" the Alamo's reputation has been created by the losers. On page 328 he considers the myth of the Alamo the perfect example of the "time-honored axiom that history was written by the winner." Go know.
Tucker is a dreadful writer, and his book was not edited. You can't trust a writer who thinks that "phenomena" is a singular noun. He should have sprung for a thesaurus; he keeps repeating the same words: "overconfident", "ironically," "stereotype," and that all-time favorite (basically undefined): Anglo-Celt. He refers to the lances as "murderous weapons of death." What other kinds of murderous weapons are there---murderous weapons of serious injury? On page 312 we hear that the image of defenders firing one loaded musket after another is a "time-honored tenant" of the mythical last stand. I assume he means "tenet," but if you think this is just a typo, look on page 285 for some other "core tenants." On page 161, Tucker lauds one B.H. Duval for saying it "best" in 1836: "Contrary to the expectation of every one, he has invaded the Country when least expected." Now, maybe Duval was accurate, and should have been applauded for stating the truth, but is this really the best way it could have been said? Read it again. As an old English teacher, I would have chastised poor Mr. Duval. Tucker thinks that perhaps he said it best.
I have this thing about the national anthem. I think a historical writer should look it up before quoting it. On page 196 Tucker points out that rockets were used during the War of 1812, as immortalized in the national anthem. First of all, I don't think Key's poem became the national anthem until decades later. More important, Tucker quotes it wrong. "By the rockets' red glare" is not the means by which "we" saw the star spangled banner. It was the dawn's early light. Later, Key says that the rockets' red glare, among other things, gave proof that the flag was still there. Bottom line: the phrase "By the rockets' red glare" does not appear in the poem, I don't think. It's just a small affair, but you lose confidence in the writer when he keeps throwing bloopers at you. Finally, on page 136, is the winner. "At age ten, his parents died." Think about it.
At risk of beating a dead horse, respectfully submitted by Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 7, 2010 20:00:49 GMT -5
I agree with most of your critique, Jesse, and really admire your tenacity in finishing that book. I simply could not get through it. However, "by rocket's red glare" does appear in the Star Spangled Banner:
"And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air. . . ."
Regarding Crockett, Houston must have known he was in the Alamo because Travis wrote him on Feb 25 and noted that Crockett "was seen at all points animating the men to do their duty" during a skirmish (assuming that Houston received the letter). There is also one account that claims Houston did not believe that the Mexicans actually were in Bexar and that Travis was making the whole thing up; I don't know how reliable that account is.
There is no evidence that Crockett was an abolitionist; he actually owned a few slaves. However, Crockett seems to have been quite progressive for his time regarding race. While in public office, he advocated for free blacks and Indians and was particularly friendly and sympathetic toward the latter. However, it would have been unlikely to find many whites at that time who actually believed that the races were equal and I doubt Crockett thought so. You could oppose slavery without believing that the races are equal. Even many abolitionists were "racists" in that sense, but only reflected the common beliefs of the time. There is also one account in Hansen that relates a strong friendship between Crockett and Juan Sequin, who left the Alamo as a courier. Whether apocryphal or not, it sounds very like how Crockett would have treated Sequin, or anyone else, regardless of race, which says a lot about who Crockett was. But, like so many of Tucker's allegations, the suggestion that Crockett was an abolitionist is over the top and unsupported.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 7, 2010 21:15:47 GMT -5
Jesse's right, though. "By the..." and "...and the..." lend different meanings to the picture. No "By the" in there! Jesse wrote: In a word, yes, he made it up. Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 8, 2010 15:58:35 GMT -5
i think you guys know me well enough by now to understand that for me the truth is what is inportant . I want the bare bones stuff, no puff, no sanitrtion. I want to know if thirty ir forty deserted their posts during the course of the seige. I would love to know if Travis drew the line in the sand. While where they come from and their politics are intersting sidelights, the genesis if only a few as well as their polictics, largely from the same few is impotant to the story Again from my perspective I want to know the motivation of Doctor Tucker. What led him to write this book. Has anyone read any of his civill war stuff? I also want to know Doctor Tuckers Race. I personally don't care what race he is. It is only material if his race is found to be one of the factors or the complete reason he has done a hatchet job on the Alamo, on the Texas Revolution, and ultimately on Anerican society Another thing I would like to know is if he acutually wrote this book. Seemed to me he farmmed out chapters because they are so disjointed. When the product was returned to him probably in thick outline form he just read throiug it and whote was he was furnished to write. His unusuall turn of phrase is all over the book but if that was his original research. I will turn in my koonskin cap, and authentic styrene plastic Davy Crockett pistol. I will turn my sword to a plowshare, and spear to a pruneing hook and study war no more,. What I think would be interesting is to invite him to give several different but Alamo specific lectures at the next high holy days. 1) If he does not show up we can all reach our own conclusions 2) He he shows and his is ripped to shreds we then know he is phony but not a coward or 3) He shows up puts his cards on the table backed by reputable documentation,. We say thank you very much adjourn to Rudi's in Leon Springs, eat our fill of BBQ and go over to my daughters for a swim afterwards, If I can get in the pool at Easter you young studs can manage it in March. This is the last time I will take a sleeping pill before sitting down at a computer. This post took me longer to construct than it took Margaret Mitchell to write Gone With The Wing, even considering that the I dion't know nothin bout birthin babies Miss Scarlet had be approved by the Georgia Board of Censors. Well Chief, a sleeping pill certainly explains your post. At first I thought you were mocking poor Dr. Tucker with creative spelling, grammar and punctuation. It harked back to the old Alamo Film site and the posts of Grizzlyexponent and other folksy folk. Them were the days, shore nuff.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 8, 2010 18:29:54 GMT -5
Yeh. I have not been sleeping well lately and my doctor gave me these things a couple of days ago. What you see above are the results of my first one. I slipped myself a Mickey just before I thought to take a final look for the day on the site. Big mistake. It was liked someone whacked me a good one. Did not see stars but that's about all.
I still would like to know Tucker's motivation, and the basis for this work.
You will pardon me now? I am late for my L'il Abner lessons. Jubalation T. Cornpone is lecturing on massed attacks on fortified positions, and getting out of situations where you forget to bring enough ladders.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 8, 2010 22:10:32 GMT -5
Take notes, Chuck!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 8, 2010 23:36:01 GMT -5
I listened intently, and took a looseleaf notebook full of notes. In short he says - Attack them at the weakest point - Forget the ladders there will be plenty of handholds in the wall repair job for your troops to use in climbing over - Hide your cavalry well out of sight but ready, the darkness will cover your movements - Make the defenders feel like the back door is open - Well I supose you guys know the rest. My notes are quite bloodstanied at this point. I was still slightly under the influence of the sleeping pill (very powerful stuff), and I don't know if the blood was from a fistfight I had and don't remember or if they are nothing more than hog jowl drippins.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 9, 2010 7:49:23 GMT -5
Wow! Those are some meds! You sure you didn't wander into a seance? Sounds similar to the stuff I take to fly, but that generally just makes me loopy and puts me to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Jul 9, 2010 21:42:43 GMT -5
While I take a back seat to nobody in my disdain for Tucker's book, I am disturbed about the response to my comments by Chieftan, whose posts I have been reading with interest and pleasure these few weeks. I love his idea about inviting Tucker to San Antonio next March for a free-wheeling discussion. But his query about Tucker's race really bothers me. I gather that the point is that if Tucker is black, then that is material if it is a major factor or indeed the only reason for his hatchet job on the Alamo, the Texas Revolution, and American society. Why is there an assumption that a person of color, or of any other race for that matter, would be less patriotic, less loyal to American values, less respectful of what the Alamo stands for, than a white person? How would one know if a person's race is the reason for a position taken in a history book? Assuming Tucker is black, or Arab, or Mexican for that matter, are we going to jump to the conclusion that that is why he wrote what he wrote? Does that mean we should discount any positive treatment of the Alamo battle if it is written by a white Protestant Texan? I don't know what race Tucker is, but it doesn't matter. His work is imperfect (to put it mildly) on its own de-merits. Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 9, 2010 23:20:35 GMT -5
Jesse:
I was hoping that no one would assume that I had any but the best of motives for what I wrote. I did.
I don't know what race Doctor Tucker is, and frankly from a personal standpoint I don't care. I brought it up only because of the books constant harping on slave owning Anglo Celts These are my two basic reasons:
First: If Doctor Tucker is Black, or shall we make it more broad Non-Anglo -Celt, I believe he has all the more duty to his readers to approach these issues with some balance. I don't believe that Doctor Tucker has done this in this particular work. I would feel the same desire for balance were an author writing about any event where the race of the people he or she is writing about was an issue. The same would go for works on country of origin, religion, and probably quite a few other subjects where emotion and basic fairness is at stake. So my basic question is there something we are not seeing here? Is there some underlying reason for bias or just bad scholarship?
Second: I think it is a fundamental mistake for anyone, and in particular scholars to judge ninteenth century men by twenty-first century standards. They lived in a time that despite our study we can never fully understand. I don't mean by this we should soft soap issues like slavery. It was and is dispicable. But it was, and the scholar must deal with it in a balanced manner, and not do as Doctor Tucker has done by his repetitious - But For.
I hope this answers your concerns
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 9, 2010 23:47:40 GMT -5
Jesse:
An additional comment to those above. If you follow my posts you have probably noted my intense interest in the Battle of the Little Big Horn as well as the Alamo. To illustrate my point.
If you read most of the early works say 1870 to the 1950's. Indians are treated in print and movies alike as savages with no redeeming value by the white authors who wrote the books and articles, and made the movies. You see snipits here and there, such as the Cochise character in Fort Apache , that they were men of character in integrity in the same manner of any other race. When Ford's Cheyenne Autumn came along it was the first full movie that explored in depth the Indians way of life. A lot of his critics claimed that Ford was making up for his past sins. Regardless of his motivation he told a good story with balance and without bias.
The same is true in print. I have a five volume collection of articles written exclusively by Whites about Indians, and are contemporary to the time. Were someone to write in that manner today it would be totally unacceptable, not because of political correctnes, simply because it was not true.
Again, I hope the above speaks to my motivation.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Jul 10, 2010 9:11:50 GMT -5
When I was reading Dr. Tucker's book I kept wondering why HE was making race such an issue. He really seemed obsessed with it through out the book.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 10, 2010 9:39:38 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that Tucker is white, and that he may be one of those (to me, anyway) loathsome Caucasians who find it necessary to show how progressive and "civilized" they are by constantly apologizing for, and blaming the evil white man. Self-loathing, white guilt, personal atonement, who knows?....it is such an integral part of his narrative that it smacks of a mania of sorts. Personally, he sounds to me like a self-loathing white man with an agenda, but that's just my take on it....
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 10, 2010 10:08:26 GMT -5
|
|