Walter Lord (1917–2002)

Most people of my generation – including me – based their knowledge of the Alamo on movies; in my case the 1955 Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier, based on a Disney TV series, and the 1960 The Alamo. Both portray the conventional wisdom of the time; the Alamo was a heroic stand by a small band of freedom-loving Americans against a Mexican army led by brutal dictator Santa Anna. The Alamo became part of American, and especially Texan, legend.
With time, political sensibilities changed and so did the Alamo legend. Now the Texans became racist foreign invaders colonizing a third world country and fighting for the right to own slaves and kill Comanches.
Authors Walter Lord (A Time to Stand, 1961) and James Donovan (The Blood of Heroes, 2012) provide more nuanced and more detailed stories than the movies and legends. Both authors note problems for the historian; before the battle, Santa Anna had played the Degüello, the traditional Spanish march announcing no quarter would be given. And he kept his word – there were no white male adult survivors. The women, children, and one black slave were spared; however, none of these gave particularly coherent and consistent accounts of the siege and final assault. Thus, the written accounts all come from the Mexican side, were usually written years after the battle, and were seem intended to curry favor with the American public (for political reasons and to promote book sales, one assumes).
Both authors cover the backstory leading up to the battle, and the subsequent events. Donovan is somewhat less sympathetic to the Texas than Lord, noting that they were rather poorly organized and disciplined. The only person who comes across as both heroic and competent is Sam Houston.
I learned quite a bit about the War of Texas Independence; the Mexican government had solicited American colonists to settle in Texas, provided they took Mexican citizenship, became Catholics, and freed their slaves. In return they got seven years exemption from taxation and customs duties. Alas, the Mexican government went through a musical chairs period and the one that got the last seat was a conservative centralist one. One thing the new government did was ban further immigration from the United States; that law did nothing to stop immigration, leading to ironic observation at many old families of Texas are descendants of illegal immigrants. In 1835, troops and customs collectors were sent to Texas; the particular event that started things off was an attempt to seize a six-pounder cannon that the town of Gonzales had obtained as a defense against Indian attack. The Gonzales citizens disarmed the troops, sent them back to San Antonio, and embroidered a flag with a cannon and the words “COME AND TAKE IT”. (You still see that on bumper stickers and T-shirts in Texas).
Lord is more sympathetic and less critical of the Texans than Donovan. Donovan emphasizes the initial disorganization, with the Texas unable to decide what to do: defend? Attack? Declare independence? Demand a return to the Federalist Mexican constitution of 1824? Mexican president and military commanders Antonio Santa Anna, on the other hand, knew exactly what to do: march north into Texas and kill everybody who resisted.
He did that, taking the Alamo. He sent other generals to take the Texan force at Goliad (who were executed after being led to believed that they had surrendered on terms) and capture and execute Texan filibustering expeditions sent to Matamoros. Then he went off in pursuit of the nascent Texan government, burning settlements on the way. This caused many Texans to try and save their homes and desert Sam Houston’s Republic of Texas army. Ironically, this left a hard core of Texan fighters who had nothing left to lose. Santa Anna became overconfident, leading to a decisive Texan victory at San Jacinto with the captured Santa Anna forced to recognize Texan independence.
Of the two, Donovan’s book is more up to date and covers more of the prequel and sequel to the Alamo. Donovan is also more idiosyncratic in terminology; he refers to the city of San Antonio as Béxar (the name in use at the time for San Antonio de Béxar) and the inhabitants as Béxarinos. European settlers in Texas are Texicans, and Hispanics are Tejanos. He and Lord both take on myths about the Alamo; did Travis really draw a line in the sand and ask volunteers to step across it? (both yes); did Moses Rose escape from the Alamo before the final assault? (both yes); was Davy Crockett captured and executed after the battle? (both no); was there really a “Yellow Rose of Texas” who kept Santa Anna occupied at San Jacinto? (no comment from either).
Donovan is more inclusive of Tejanos in his account; in particular he lauds Captain Juan Seguín. Seguín was in the Alamo until February 25, when he was sent out to take a message to Goliad. He crawled on hands and knees through Mexican lines, got a horse, and performed his mission. Much later, he returned to San Antonio, had a coffin made, collected some ashes (Santa Anna had ordered the bodies of the Alamo defenders burned) and addressed the assembled Béxarinos: “There are your brothers: Travis, Bowie, and Crockett, and others whose valor places them in the ranks of my heroes”; not the words of someone who considered himself anything but a Texan.
And Donovan is apologetic on the issue of slavery. Slavery was illegal in Mexico, but only technically; indentured servitude was allowed, with contracts up to 99 years; indentured servants were subject to corporal punishment and could be captured and returned if they escape. Some of the early Texas settlers followed the letter of the law and converted their slaves to indentured servants; later ones didn’t bother.
Lord’s treatment of the battle is more adulatory, with the besieged Texans fighting heroically until the bitter end; Donovan suggests the defenders were not all that competent. In particular, Travis ignored reports of Santa Anna’s advance from his Tejano scouts, and was surprised when they showed up. The Alamo defenders don’t seem to have used their artillery very well; they had an 18-pounder, which far outranged anything Santa Anna but were unable to use it to break up any of the Mexican gun positions. They also neglected to spike the gun when the position was overrun so the Mexicans were able to turn it on the defenders. And at the end, a number of Alamo defenders – perhaps up to 60 – fled and attempted to escape through the Mexican lines; unfortunately Santa Anna had anticipated this and deployed his lancers appropriately; the escapees were speared, sabered, or shot.
The movies mentioned above show the Mexican assault taking place in broad daylight (presumably for photographic reasons); both Lord and Donovan note it took place in the early morning and was over before sunrise. Both authors note that modern visitors to the Alamo are surprised at how small it is, and explain that the existing structure, the church, was only a small part of the Alamo defensive complex.
Both books are easy reads and good stories. The Donovan book has extensive endnotes and a bibliography; in fact the Donovan end matter is as long as Lord’s entire book. Both have illustrations of the major participants, plans of the Alamo, and maps of the entire Texas independence campaign. Both are worthwhile, but Donovan’s is clearly more up to date.… (meer)

This book is a well-researched and detailed accounting of the sinking of the Titanic. It's truly a history book and not necessarily designed for entertainment per se. It was definitely worthwhile reading. Of course, after seeing the super dramatic movie, the book reads a bit flat by comparison. It's not like a lot of the narrative non-fiction published today that completely brings the situation back to life. Check out The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder as a point of comparison. I will say there were so many different people referenced that it did make it a bit challenging to follow, but on the flip side all the various acts of heroism were duly noted for the historical record, and that seems like a very worthy endeavor.… (meer)