Post by jesswald on Feb 19, 2010 15:30:46 GMT -5
I have now read some of the entries about the apocryphal Morales shift, as Allen suggested. I gather that the idea originated with Lord, based on his trying to reconcile certain written accounts with the oral tradition that Crockett and his Tennessee boys successfully defended the palisade. Allen is skeptical that Crockett was assigned to the palisade in the first place, and argues that despite the lack of a wall it was not a weak area at all. Does anyone know, then, how the oral tradition started?
As a kid, I was enthralled by the DLP account of Crockett's execution. To me it meant that my hero had fought so well that he could not be killed in a fair fight, but only treacherously executed by monsters. But when I read Lord, and in the years since, it has become clear that Texans are scandalized by the notion re outraged that Crockett surrendered. That is probably why the battle cry "Remember Goliad" did not become immortal, even though in my mind the idea of avenging the Goliad MASSACRE is more compelling than avenging the BATTLE of the Alamo. This raises the eternal question of why the Alamo story so possesses us. The defenders were not committing suicide. They hoped to be reinforced. Indeed, perhaps Travis and Bowie could be criticized for trying to defend a less-than-crucial position even after it became evident that it would fall. Furthermore, isn't there evidence that Bowie was in favor of negotiating terms? If Santa Anna had agreed not to execute anyone, isn't it likely the Texans would have surrendered? Yet, with all that, the legend persists and grows. How much of these traditions can be attributed to the effect of Travis' florid letters? He did seem to have a heroic image of himself and his colleagues, which he spread to the world.
And how much is due to the American public's appetite for heroes. We know from the "blood and thunder" type literature of the day that writers weren't too scrupulous about facts. E.g. Kit Carson and, of course, Davy Crockett. Historicity seems to be a more modern ideal.
As a kid, I was enthralled by the DLP account of Crockett's execution. To me it meant that my hero had fought so well that he could not be killed in a fair fight, but only treacherously executed by monsters. But when I read Lord, and in the years since, it has become clear that Texans are scandalized by the notion re outraged that Crockett surrendered. That is probably why the battle cry "Remember Goliad" did not become immortal, even though in my mind the idea of avenging the Goliad MASSACRE is more compelling than avenging the BATTLE of the Alamo. This raises the eternal question of why the Alamo story so possesses us. The defenders were not committing suicide. They hoped to be reinforced. Indeed, perhaps Travis and Bowie could be criticized for trying to defend a less-than-crucial position even after it became evident that it would fall. Furthermore, isn't there evidence that Bowie was in favor of negotiating terms? If Santa Anna had agreed not to execute anyone, isn't it likely the Texans would have surrendered? Yet, with all that, the legend persists and grows. How much of these traditions can be attributed to the effect of Travis' florid letters? He did seem to have a heroic image of himself and his colleagues, which he spread to the world.
And how much is due to the American public's appetite for heroes. We know from the "blood and thunder" type literature of the day that writers weren't too scrupulous about facts. E.g. Kit Carson and, of course, Davy Crockett. Historicity seems to be a more modern ideal.