|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 23, 2010 12:16:57 GMT -5
after spending nearly half the book painting all the Alamo defenders as Anglo-Celts, all motivated by a singular purpose and background, I find on page 237 that Dr. Tucker refutes his own premise:
"Inexperienced novices in the ways of war, Alamo garrison members were also divided by race (Tejano versus Anglo Celts); nationality (Americans versus Europeans); regional difference (North versus South); the direction of Texas' future (pro-Constitution of 1824 versus pro-independence); regulars and volunteers; native Texians versus United States volunteers; leadership (Travis versus Bowie); and even along political party lines (Whigs versus Jacksonian Democrats). These considerable differences helped to ensure that the garrison would act anything like a cohesive force -- after all, they were citizen-soldiers and volunteers -- rather than as disciplined soldiers."
Wow. So a fighting force comprised of men from varying backgrounds and beliefs is doomed to failure. I did not know that.
The hits just keep on comin'.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 23, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Gary: Although I am a new member I must be hanging around you guys too long and my wires are fried. I saw your post above, said to my self that's nice, went to take a nap, and about ten minutes later - Oh EXITDUCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Heh Chief...I sincerely apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 23, 2010 13:32:45 GMT -5
A chronic problem with the book are inconsistencies and self-contradictions like this. He also speculates that Crockett had ambitions to become president of Texas! Thus, he was a threat to Houston and the pro-Jackson element in Texas. Here, he resurrects the very shaky premise from Shackford regarding political divisions in Texas (Jacksonians vs. anti-Jacksonians), which was, itself, entirely speculation and without foundation. Crockett did express optimism about being elected a delegate to the Convention, but he must have quickly learned that he was not eligible to vote or seek office as a non-citizen, non-colonist visitor, even though a volunteer. Tucker then further speculates that Crockett only enlisted because he knew that military service was a great plus in seeking political office. But there is no evidence that Crockett had that in mind when he decided to visit Texas. His main reason for staying in Texas and joining up was the lure of hundreds or even thousands of acres of free, fertile land in exchange for a few months service. Political ambitions might emerge from that later on, but that was not uppermost in his mind.
The bottom line on this book is that, while Tucker raises legitimate issues regarding the Alamo battle and the Texas Revolution in general, such as slavery, 19th century racism, and the breakouts at the Alamo, none of that is new. The literature on this goes back 40 years or more. These issues have been discussed and analyzed far better than in Exodus from the Alamo, despite the author's constantly repeated claim that this is the first book to do so.
He sets up a strawman claim that all previous Alamo history repeats the fictional, glorified Hollywood version ("The Alamo Myth"), then repeatedly knocks it down by showing how inaccurate that image is. But that is not the commonly-held version of these events at all, which Tucker must know since he includes many of the better Alamo histories in his notes and bibliography.
It's a conclusion-driven book that relies too heavily on secondary sources, cherry-picks evidence, exaggerates many points, contradicts itself many times (i.e. Joe is reliable, but not reliable where his accounts contradict the book's agenda), reaches unsupported conclusions, is poorly written and, apparently, was never edited, which resulted in constant repetition of points and statements to a mind-numbing degree.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 23, 2010 13:46:22 GMT -5
We have discussions going on about "Exodus" in at least a couple of threads here. The "Crockett for Texas President," for example, was discussed in another thread. I apologize for the confusion folks but, unfortunately, the forum software does not allow us to move individual posts or merge threads. Therefore, things can get confusing when subjects intermingle. I don't want to get overly militant about things veering off-topic, as this happens in the normal course of conversation, but if you see that a dialog is taking a turn that might lead to a longer discussion, please feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate area of the forum. The ASF has always been relatively easy to navigate, so let's try and keep things orderly. Some of us, in our dotage, get lost easily! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 23, 2010 23:54:30 GMT -5
Paul: I wrote one of those reviews on Amazon. After doing so, I had this funny feeling that I had just been had. In a strange backhanded way I think bad reviews from people like us who, while we may differ on the details, hold the Alamo and all that surrounds it as being an essential part of the American character, are exactly what this guy wants. I guess what I am saying is that this book is less about history, and more about current politics. If I am correct I think that just stinks. No other words for it. By people like us tearing down Tucker and what he calls his "work" we are actually advancing his cause for he can then say - See I told you so. We then become the Neanderthals of the piece. Just some thoughts before my second cup of morning coffee. ------Chuck I think you hit the nail on the head. Either way, I've got better things to spend my money on. It certainly won't be spent on this book.
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Apr 24, 2010 21:57:40 GMT -5
I think it´s correct to 'tear it down', the book being what it is. If Tucker wants to use the 'tearing down' as proof he is right then by all means let him, because then he´ll have to explain his one-sided views such as him overemphasizing the slavery issue, for instance. He´ll soon find himself in a heated discussion if he chooses to go down that road.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 24, 2010 22:23:33 GMT -5
I think it´s correct to 'tear it down', the book being what it is. If Tucker wants to use the 'tearing down' as proof he is right then by all means let him, because then he´ll have to explain his one-sided views such as him overemphasizing the slavery issue, for instance. He´ll soon find himself in a heated discussion if he chooses to go down that road. Seguin, I completely agree. Outrageous and offensive stuff like this can't just hang out there unchallenged. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 24, 2010 23:07:04 GMT -5
Seguin, that's the biggest issue I have with the book. The author contradicts himself throughout the text, and doesn't really prove a lot of his major contentions.
Even when I agreed with some of his positions related specifically to the battle, I found that I rarely agreed with the logic he employed in reaching his conclusions.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 24, 2010 23:28:06 GMT -5
A chronic problem with the book are inconsistencies and self-contradictions like this. He also speculates that Crockett had ambitions to become president of Texas! Thus, he was a threat to Houston and the pro-Jackson element in Texas. Here, he resurrects the very shaky premise from Shackford regarding political divisions in Texas (Jacksonians vs. anti-Jacksonians), which was, itself, entirely speculation and without foundation. I've heard the speculation that Gen. Houston considered Travis, Bowie, Crockett and I guess Bonham to be political rivals or enemies before, but I can't remember where. Is there any contemporary proof that contradicts the apparent friendliness of some of these men toward Gen. Houston in the time prior to their deaths? I've also heard the tale that Houston failed to relieve the Alamo garrison as a way to get rid of these alleged enemies, but it seems so groundless.
|
|