Author’s Note: I wrote this in a FWS (freshmen writing seminar) class titled, “What we Think we Know about History is Wrong: Solving History’s Puzzles.” Quite an interesting course really as our professor would frequently give us uncommon reading material – often written from the other side’s perspective, or with an entirely different angle – on certain key events in history that we thought we had a solid understanding of. This one was one of my favorite assignments as we had to piece together, almost as a detective would, the story of the Alamo based on eye-witness accounts (some questionably so) and other such recordings from the annals of history. If you are unfamiliar with this part of our American heritage my essay may not make too much sense, and I would recommend looking a tad bit into the fascinating mythos that has heretofore surrounded the legendary Alamo. However, if you are familiar with the Alamo and all of its players, then this essay may perhaps shed some light on the confusing tale or even sway you into believing certain events played out otherwise. Regardless, I hope you enjoy reading it almost as much as I did writing it at the time…

The legend of the Alamo is shrouded by a veil of twisted truth: one where myth and reality seamlessly blend together into a woven mesh. Firsthand accounts have skewed our perspective because though they are similar in most respects, they still vastly differ in substantial ways. Some have even changed over time, and the abundance of discrepancies between them only seems to add fuel to the fire that has become the mythology of the Alamo.

For instance, William Barrett Travis was reported to have given a fiery speech to his men during the siege of the Alamo. According to Susanna Dickinson, Travis drew a line in the sand when the Mexicans appeared and exclaimed, “My soldiers, I am going to meet the fate that becomes me. Those who stand by me, let them remain, but those who desire to go, let them go – and who crosses the line that I have drawn, shall go!” One should note, however, that his speech was first mentioned by Mrs. Dickinson in her fourth interview over a span of thirteen years. One can claim that her account was substantiated by Enrique Esparza and Senora Candelaria who both mention Travis’ moving oration; but their accounts came a decade, even two decades, after Mrs. Dickinson’s. This leaves reason to believe that both Esparza and Candelaria included Mrs. Dickinson’s into their own because it was generally thought of as a fact and no one would question whether they saw it occur or not.

Probably the most muddled of all the myths are the deaths of the three most glorified defenders of the Alamo: the lawyer turned soldier, charismatic leader William Travis Barrett; the pioneer James Bowie; and the immensely popularized frontiersman, David Crockett. Although every account seems to differ slightly, there seems to be a pervasive pattern apparent in each death – all symbolic, in one way or another, with heroism. In the case of Travis’ death it is safe to assume that his servant, Joe, would be the most reliable source. In Joe’s narrative he said, “Travis sprung up, and seizing his rifle and sword…mounted the wall, and called out to his men…and immediately fired his rifle… [which] was returned by several shots, and Travis fell, wounded, within the wall.” At this point Joe ran and hid himself because his master was dead. Some accounts state that Travis was found with a bullet hole in his forehead, yet others (such as the one by Mrs. Dickinson) attempt to further idolize him by saying “General Mora…aimed a blow with his sword to dispatch him – Travis rallied his failing strength…and ran his assailant through the body. This was poor Travis’ last effort.” This could not be possible; if Travis had been shot in the head he would have instantly been killed. Furthermore, Mrs. Dickinson was in the church with her baby, and therefore would have been unable to see Travis die.

Joe also stated that “his master fell near the close of the siege.” This is diametrically opposed to Senora Candelaria’s version, in which “Colonel Travis was the first man killed. He fell on the southeast side…” In earlier statements, however, Candelaria contradicts herself stating that, “David Crockett… [was the] first to fall… [as he] advanced from the Church building…a volley was fired by the Mexicans causing him to fall forward on his face, dead.” However, simply because Joe was present with his master until his final moments, it is safe to assume that his account is probably the most accurate.

Everyone agrees that James Bowie died in a room that he was quarantined in while suffering from consumption. Yet, it is the manner of his death that has brought about debate. For instance, Candelaria once proclaimed, “Colonel Bowie died in my arms only a few minutes before the entrance to the Alamo by the soldiers…Santa Anna’s men swarmed into the room… [and] one of them thrust a bayonet into the lifeless head of Colonel Bowie.” But in a follow-up interview six years later she stated, “A dozen or more Mexicans sprang into the room occupied by Colonel Bowie. He emptied his pistols in their faces and killed two of them.” With these inconsistencies, one can further discount any statements made by Candelaria. The most reasonable, although possibly biased, account would be from the Mexicans since they were present at the moment of his death. One Mexican said “Bowie…died like a coward,” and the other “Colonel Bowie… [was] butchered upon his sick bed.” The former might not have been aware that Bowie was gravely ill, and considered him a coward for remaining in bed. Therefore, it is probably best to assume that Bowie did not go down without a fight. How many Mexicans he killed and whether or not he used his knives are questions that will be forever unanswered.

David Crockett’s death is certainly the most difficult one to piece together. Over the years, Davy Crockett has been popularized on such a grand scale that many people believe they know the true story. Some think that he was the last man to die at the Alamo, bravely taking one final stand and dying in the church amongst the bodies of the Mexicans that he had killed. There is truth in this, but a good bit of his legend is most likely exaggerated. For instance, it is doubtful that he was the last one to die based on firsthand accounts. Yet both sides agree (survivors and Mexicans alike) that Crockett stood his ground until the end. Captain Soldana of the Mexican army said, “‘Kwockey’ was killed in a room of the mission. He stood on the inside to the left of the door and plunged his long knife into the bosom of every soldier that tried to enter…He then seized his long gun…and leaped toward the center of the room where he could wield the weapon without obstruction, felling every man that came through the doorway.” This agrees with a statement by Esparza, who said “He [Crockett] fought hand to hand…until he was overwhelmed by numbers and slain…he fell immediately in front of the large double doors which he defended with the force that was by his side… [and] when he died there was a heap of slain in front one [sic] each side of him.”

Two Mexican sources stated that Crockett was captured and ordered executed by Santa Anna. In one Mexican’s retelling of the event he said, “Some seven men had survived the general carnage and, under the protection of General Castrillion, they were brought before Santa Anna…[and] Santa Anna answered Castrillion’s intervention in Crockett’s behalf with a gesture of indignation and, addressing himself to the sappers…ordered his execution.” The other Mexican had a similar story in which Castrillion “spared the life of a venerable old man” and Santa Anna ordered: “Soldiers, shoot that man.” For a while after, many soldiers talked about this incident and called him “Coket.” However, David Crockett was not even fifty years old, and would not have been considered an “old man,” therefore it must not have been Crockett who was ordered executed. The elimination of that possibility leaves Crockett dying around or in the church with numerous dead Mexicans surrounding him

Trying to piece together what really happened after so much time has passed can really be a daunting task , even for many historians. The fabricated mythos behind the Alamo can lead one to question what is considered truth and to learn not to take everything at face-value. One must approach history much as a detective would a crime scene, and should piece together all the clues through extensive research in order to formulate a historical – and hopefully objective – perspective. The Alamo will forever be symbolic of American patriotism and the defense of honor at its finest; but much of what we remember as “true” history may be as far from the truth as we can get.