The foundational mythology of Texas is inextricably tied to Remember the Alamo! It is at the heart of an inspirational narrative of freedom-loving Americans who were oppressed by Mexican authorities in Texas. So they did what true blue Americans should: grabbed their guns. In the heroic siege and Battle of the Alamo in 1836, the defenders fought to the last man. Although they lost, their sacrifice was worth it: they bought time for Sam Houston to build an army that avenged them, and secured Texan independence. However, how much of that narrative is true, and how much of it a Texas-sized myth?
How Close to Actual History Was ‘The Alamo’ Movie?
The legend of the heroic American Thermopylae probably reached its apogee in the 1960 hagiographic movie The Alamo. Starring John Wayne as Davy Crockett, Richard Widmarck as Jim Bowie, and Laurence Harvey as William B. Travis, it hit and polished all the heroic highlights. Unfortunately, there is way more fiction than fact in the Alamo account. Be that account the John Wayne version or the less – but only relatively less so – dramatic version taught generations of school children. Much of what was long accepted as true about the Alamo is anything but. For starters, there was no need to fight the battle in the first place.
The defenders did not try to hold off Santa Anna’s forces in a bid to buy Sam Houston time to raise a Texan army. The Alamo’s commander, Colonel William Travis, ignored numerous warnings that Mexican forces were on the way, and got trapped when they arrived. Nor did the defenders buy Houston time. Santa Anna had expected to take San Antonio on March 2nd, 1836, but instead took it on the 6th. The Alamo cost him all of four days, and had no impact on his ultimate defeat six weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto. So the mission’s defenders died for nothing. Also untrue is the account of Travis’ line in the sand. Towards the end of the battle, the Mexican commander issued an ultimatum: surrender or be killed.
Was the Alamo Really a Fight to the End?
Travis reportedly drew a line in the dirt with his sword, and asked the men to choose their fate: surrender, or cross the line and join him in a fight to the death. To a man, they crossed the line. There is no evidence that ever happened. In reality, the defenders did not fight to the last man. As the battle was lost, about half the Alamo’s defenders tried to flee, only to get run down and killed in the open by Mexican lancers.
Nor did Davy Crocket go down fighting, as John Wayne depicted him doing in the movie. In reality, Crocket surrendered, and was subsequently executed. Then there is another and even more uncomfortable aspect that generations of scholars have tiptoed around, about the Alamo and Texas Revolution myth of a noble fight for freedom against tyranny: slavery. It was not until the 1980s that academic researchers finally tackled the relevance of slavery to the Texas Revolution.
Did the Alamo’s Defenders Fight for the Right to Own Slaves?
Their findings demonstrated conclusively that the key issue that drove a wedge between the American immigrants and the Mexican government was slavery. In a nutshell, Mexican law prohibited slavery, and the American immigrants wanted to bring and maintain slaves on Mexican soil. All the Mexican governments that held power before the Texas Revolution were dedicated abolitionists who refused to accept or tolerate slavery in Mexico.
By contrast, many American immigrants to Texas wanted to farm cotton on its virgin soil, and they wanted to farm that cotton with slaves. Stephen F. Austin, “the Father of Texas”, spent years arguing about the necessity of slaves for Texan prosperity. In correspondence with Mexican bureaucrats in 1832, for example, he wrote: “Nothing is wanted but money, and negroes are necessary to make it”. The main “freedom” the Alamo’s defenders fought for was their freedom to own slaves.
_________________
Some Sources & Further Reading
History Halls – Hoaxes: The Keely Engine Proved That Gibberish Sells If it Sounds Like Science
Time Magazine, June 9th, 2021 – We’ve Been Telling the Alamo Story Wrong for Nearly 200 Years
