|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 18, 2011 19:17:54 GMT -5
In talking to tourists at Alamo Village (for 23 years), I was often asked to recommend "the best book on the Alamo." Well, as a result, I now have my own personal bibliography categorized into areas of interest: i.e. siege and battle, war of independence, biographies, eye-witness accounts, men and women of the Alamo, history of the site, architecture, novelizations and Alamo legacy and movies. I could usually tell from talking to somebody if I should encourage a Groneman, Huffines, Edmondson, Lemon, Nelson, Davis, Farkis, Thompson, Hardin, Hansen or Harrigan. When I couldn't choose, it was always Walter Lord. If they wanted several and knew little and were folks of general interest, it was always Lord plus some combination of the others. I really don't think anybody can beat Lord, just add to him or correct him.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Feb 18, 2011 21:04:34 GMT -5
If someone wants to be introduced to the Alamo story, Walter lord is the man. It is one of those books that you remember where you were and when you read it.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Feb 18, 2011 22:47:08 GMT -5
I love Lord's work. And those are the first to "serious" Alamo books I had as a kid; Tinkle and Lord. Then, there was no stopping me; still can't. Tell me about it. When I read A Time to Stand in my early twenties, it got me so fired up, I wanted to go out and pick a fight ... with a smaller fellow. Richard
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Feb 19, 2011 11:13:45 GMT -5
Let me just add my name to those to whom Walter Lord introduced scholarly treatment of the Alamo story. And the Titanic. He also, in my view, presaged modern interest in "oral history" by emphasizing the diaries and letters of so-called "less important" historical personages. I wonder where Ken Burns would be without Walter Lord? Re footnotes: am I remembering wrong, or didn't Davis relegate the entire "line in the sand" myth to a long, fascinating endnote? Or was it the Crockett surrender controversy? Or both? Somewhere Davis justified his "burying" some such matter in the notes with the incredible statement that "Three Roads" was not meant to be a history of the Alamo battle itself. In any event, if you skipped his notes you missed a great deal of the fun. Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 19, 2011 11:30:37 GMT -5
Davis's book was really a triple bio of the "holy trinity," with an account of the Alamo tacked on (and a pretty good one, as I recall). I think Davis showed generally good judgment in what he relegated to some of those very long end notes. I'm not sure that they all would have cluttered the text for some of us, but he was writing for a more general audience, but also producing a work of scholarship for those who wanted to go deeper. It's a judgment call as to what goes in an end note. I recall many of them addressing the relative value of earlier works, like Shackford's bio of Crockett.
I have to agree - I could probably pick up "Three Roads" right now, go straight to the notes, and spend considerable time just reading them. I think there is a note on Crockett's death, but the much expanded version of that became a long essay that was published in the Alamo Battlefield Association Journal as "How Davy Probably Didn't Die."
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 19, 2011 12:15:56 GMT -5
For me, it was Lord --- as far as books go. He definitely told the story in a compelling way. And, I was in junior high school when I first stumbled on his book on a shelf in the school's library. Couldn't put that thing down, either. I just read it again sometime last year.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 22, 2011 11:06:11 GMT -5
After some discussion, I think I would put the Southwestern Historical Quarterly Volume 105, No.2, October 2001. on a must read list. The two articles on the Sanchez-Navarro material and the de la Pena papers are an important read.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 22, 2011 11:29:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 22, 2011 13:17:21 GMT -5
I concur. I have that particular edition in a special spot on my Alamo book shelf, rather than with the rest of the Journals. The Sanchez-Navarro article by Jake Ivey and the late Jack Jackson is as important as anything published on the Alamo in ages. It should be as perused and discussed as the de la Pena material. And speaking of the latter, the same issue of SHQ has Gracy's definitive, final word assessment of the authenticity of the de la Pena documents, including paper and ink test results, handwriting analysis and so on.
On another level, the Ivey-Jackson piece is a perfect example of first rate, original research, analysis and new thinking, something woefully missing from much Alamo-related literature.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 23, 2011 22:54:16 GMT -5
Following up on the Sanchez-Navarro documents, I have dug a bit more and find that this issue played out around a decade ago in a way similar to the de la Pena uproar, but apparently with little of the same intensity. I attribute this to the fact that de la Pena committed the unpardonable sin of mentioning Crockett, while Sanches-Navarro did not.
The debate, such as it was, played out over a series of articles, not unlike those penned re: the de la Pena papers by Jim Crisp on one side and Tom Lindley and Bill Groneman on the other. In the case of the SN papers, we have a similar alignment; Lindley (and peripherally Groneman) again trying to make a poorly argued case of forgery, and Alamo scholars and authors making convincing counter arguments, which (IMO) soundly demolish Lindley's case. I have not read all of the material yet, but here's a brief summary:
1. Thomas Ricks Lindley: "Storming the Alamo Walls" (Alamo Journal #117; June 2000).
2. Jake Ivey: "Archaeological Evidence for the Defenses of the Alamo" (Also in issue #117). While the article deals primarily with the results of archeological digs at the Alamo, it is relevant to the later articles.
3. Gary S. Zaboly: "Storming the Alamo Walls: A 'Second Opinion'" (Alamo Journal #118, Sept. 2000). Zaboly responds to Lindley's article in the previous issue.
Issue #118 also includes two related items: Jack Jackson's "Alamo Sources at the Mexican War Department - My July Visit to the Archivo Historico of the Secretaria de la Defensa Naciional (AHSDN)"; and Roger Borroel's English translation of "The Cavalry Battle Report of General Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma to His Excellency, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Comd. of the Army of Operations in Tejas, Dated the 11th of March, 1836 on the Alamo Battle" (there are other translations of this document, but this one is cited in later articles in this series as providing evidence that discounts Lindley's arguments).
4. Thomas Ricks Lindley: "At the Alamo Walls Again" (Alamo Journal #119, Dec. 2000). Here Lindley responds to Zaboly's rejoinder.
5. Gary S. Zaboly: "Once More Unto the Breach!" (Alamo Journal #120, March 2001). Zaboly responds to Lindley's December article and pulls no punches.
6. Jake Ivey: "Another Look at Storming the Alamo Walls" (also in Alamo Journal #120). Ivey adds his own criticism of Lindley's arguments, and makes a convincing case for the authenticity of the Sanchez-Navarro papers. The Zaboly and Ivey articles in this issue compliment each other.
And, of course, the Ivey-Jackson article in Southwestern Historical Quarterly, October 2001, mentioned in earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Feb 24, 2011 4:14:28 GMT -5
Oh, fudge. I guess it's time I started buying the Journals and newsletters to enrich my understanding. I'll do that, but I want to hear the shortcut anyhow. ¿Are the Sanchez-Navarro documents and the de la Pena papers authentic or not?
Is there a poll function on this forum?
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2011 9:07:04 GMT -5
Richard, the documents are authentic and very valuable in recreating what happened at the Alamo. The case for their being forgeries was made of little more than hot air and wishful thinking. As with any documents, their reliability is another matter. De la Pena, for example, clearly says that he has constructed his memoirs from his own experiences and information he has collected from other participants. However, the authors of these articles have done some careful comparisons of the various documents and found convincing consistency in them, indicating that they are not only authentic but reliable. One point they make quite clearly is that historical documents of this kind often have inconsistencies, puzzling or confusing references, etc. That is no reason to discard the documents entirely, especially when much of what they contain is corroborated by other documents, forming a consensus of what most likely took place. This is how good history is constructed.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 24, 2011 10:57:42 GMT -5
Well stated, Allen. While one can (and should) question the reliability of these documents, the preponderance of real evidence indicates that they are authentic.
And I'll echo Allen's recommendation of the SWHQ article. It's an excellent example of good research and critical thinking.
|
|
nybob
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by nybob on Mar 11, 2011 14:47:01 GMT -5
I am reading "exodus from the alamo". It should be titled "exit after the first chapter". Bob
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 11, 2011 17:39:35 GMT -5
That was my take, Bob. I don't think I've met many people who were able to get past the first 25-30 pages without getting a migraine.
|
|