"Unsolved History" -- The Alamo.

[Robert Braun]

Last night, I endured two showings of the Discovery Channel's "Unsolved History" series-- specifically the "ALAMO" episode. I simple HAD to offer some comment!

As is usually the case, such programs present THEIR conclusions first... then present only the evidence that support their conclusions (with a few dissenting "talking heads" thrown in to give the viewer the sense, however elusive, that the content approaches a balanced inquiry.) This series has also borrowed a page from the increasingly irrelevant "History Channel"-- in that the producers of "ALAMO" managed to stretch maybe 22 minutes of real material into a full hour program.

First, the good news-- by far the most interesting, and least focused-on item, was a virtual reconstruction of the Alamo as a Texican fort circa 1836. They could have done the entire program just on this research and work up, and it would have been fascinating!

Basically, the balance of the program presented the following twists on the "conventional" story of the ALAMO fight--

• Generalissimo Santa Anna wasn't such a bad sort. Sure he was brutal, maniacal, and completely self-absorbed, but he was a "brilliant" (that was the word used) military mind... presumably for finally taking the Alamo after 12+ days of siege. Besides, (one of the "talking heads" ACTUALLY said this) the Alamo defenders were more like 1960's campus radicals, while Santa Anna led a professional army;
  
• Defeat for the defenders at the Alamo was never a foregone conclusion, or a "given";
  
• Former Congressman David Crockett did not die fighting. Rather, he was captured and executed on the personal orders of Santa Anna.
  

All very interesting premises... each one presented with holes so large that the proverbial fleet of 18-wheelers would have no trouble driving through them. Towit:

• Santa Anna a great general? The program itself indicated that by throwing in his reserve at the North Wall, Santa Anna was gambling with his soldiers' lives that sheer weight of numbers alone would pierce the defenses. If the attack failed, there was no reserve for another try. Post-Alamo, the results of his 1836 campaign to reclaim Texas speaks for itself. And speaking of re-casting Santa Anna as a OK guy... has anyone ever heard of "Goliad?" Apparently not "Unsolved History."
  
• Defeat at the Alamo NOT a foregone conclusion? Incredibly, that's the clear message sent by Alan Huffines, who said that approximately 1,700 Mexican soldiers against 182 final defenders were "not terrible odds." Hmmm... my calculator indicates that this makes the odds more than 9:1. Add in the fact (left out by the program) that the Alamo plaza covers more than 2 acres of land, and was surrounded by a reinforced adobe wall a third of a mile in circumference. That equates to ONE defender for every ten feet of wall, with no reserve (this presumes no-one in the Alamo is manning the eighteen working cannon!) No... the program incredibly asserts its only reason for claiming that defeat was not automatic-- was that the defenders didn't fight well as a cohesive force (!!)
  
• The whole and entire premise on Crocket's capture and execution is centered on one sentence in one paragraph in the writings of Mexican officer Jose Enrique De La Pena. The bulk of the program focuses on the document itself-- and whether or not it or portions of it were a modern forgery. While the program managed to establish the high probability that it is NOT a forgery, the program failed utterly to convice viewers that De La Pena's account is plausable or believeable. His account was not once compared to any other post-siege survivor account--Dickerson, Bowie's servant Joe, etc., etc.-- nor other know facts about the siege (like De La Pena's mistakes with the casualty counts), NOR was a reasonable analysis done as to Crockett's probable location during the final moments of the action.
  

The Discovery Channel started the "Unsolved History" series with a most interesting premise-- subject historical episodes, places, and tales to modern scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in their rush to be iconoclastic, programs like the "Alamo" dissolve into the sophmoric.

[adjutant7inf]

Interesting notes. The Santa Anna "good guy" focus is not a new trend, but just one that is getting more and more play. There is an element in Goliad who is trying to get the "massacred" changed to "execution." One of thing that has upset me over the years is the lack of seperation between Santa Anna and the men in his army. When I once suggested that the next monument to be erected on Alamo Plaza should be something to the Mexican soldado (as Jose Sanchez-Navarro suggested in 1836) I was told on no certain terms it would be like erecting a statue to Nazi soldiers. By the way, none of the Mexican soldiers who participated in the Goliad Massacre(yes-it was a massacre) were at San Jacinto.

When I was in Mexico City, I had to bribe the cab driver to talk me to the cemetery where Santa Anna is buried (once he found out why I wanted to go there). Up until a couple of years ago, he was not regarded as a hero in his native country.

I have to say that the men of the Alamo went into the place expecting to win because they thought help was coming, either from the Texas colonies or Fannin or both. The letter in Travis' coat from R. M. Williamson pretty much says, "Hang on help is coming." Problem is, it didn't in any large numbers. I tend to think that somewhere in the last couple of days, the reality that time had run out hit the garrison. I used to joke with friends at the University of Texas Center for Archeol. Research that one day we would find a cannon that had Travis diary in it and the last entry would read, "March 5, 1836. If help does not come by dawn tommorrow, we are leaving!"

I don't think lack of a coordinated defense made the Alamo fall--I think lack of manpower did.

I promised myself I would not get into the de la Pena disscussion again! But I will say that the battle has not become was he right about Crockett's death, but rather if it is an original document (which I think it is).

If you ever get down to San Antonio, go to the RiverCenter Mall and look at the 1836 Alamo/San Antonio diorama by George Nelson. It is great. Also, get a copy of George's book on the physical Alamo and its evolution over the years.

By the way, Greg Dimmick's book, "Sea of Mud" which deals with the post-San Jacinto Mexican Army troop movements and his work finding their campsites is out (Texas State Historical Association Press). Material culture folks will find it of interest.