Customer Reviews

Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions is an excellent read that looks for the truth about the siege and fall of the Alamo, and on a bigger scale, the Texas Revolution. Author Thomas Ricks Lindley takes on many of the myths and legends that have become accepted as fact over the years. Did Sam Houston really want to blow up the Alamo? How many Mexican casualties were there? Did Colonel William Barrett Travis, commander of the Alamo garrison, really draw a line in the sand allowing Moses Rose to slip over the wall and escape before the final assault? In great detail, Lindley tries to prove many of these accepted truths as either true or false. Not everyone will agree with all of his conclusions, but it is a highly entertaining. Highly recommended for anyone trying to learn more about the famous siege and fall of the Alamo in 1836.

What makes this book interesting is the fact that there are so many unknown things about the battle of the Alamo in February and March of 1836. It is almost certain that we will never know for certain what transpired during those thirteen days. Was David Crockett executed or is it just something made up by Jose Enrique de la Pena? Everyone has their own opinions about what they believed happened during the siege and battle, and that is what makes it fun to read and discuss things just as Thomas Ricks Lindley has done with this book. Highly worthwhile book that will make you think twice about your knowledge of the Alamo.

I am impressed with the amount of primary sources researched for the writing of this book. Most books rely on secondary sources to a grest extent and fail to examine the accuracy of the primary accounts, but not Mr. Lindley. He got his information for this book "straight from the horses mouth". In some cases he even investigated the accuracy of the horse. It is not a book of shared opinions, but rather the evidence comes the first hand accounts of the individuals involved and the governmental records of this period of history. His exhaustive search of the governmental records is obvious. This tireless research of many years makes him uniquely different in this regard.

Thomas Ricks Lindley is the best kind of historian - a person whose passion is evident by the detail of his research. Many books have been written about the Alamo and the Texas Revolution, but none are as replete with indepth, primary source material as Alamo Traces. Lindley has obviously spent many hours - perhaps a lifetime - in the obscure, out of the way archives of backwoods Texas so many academic historians avoid.

Lindley's work is controversial. It shatters cherished myths and supports others. His chapter on the "fictional" Louis Moses Rose is absolutely brilliant and should be the subject of a standalone manuscript. No myth of Texas history - excepting Travis' line - is more accepted, only to be based on absolutely no evidence. This chapter is a model for the emerging "science" of forensic history and should be studied in detail by all aspiring researchers.

The only drawback to the work is occasional problems with the author's prose. Important paragraphs are often confusing. However, the professional editorial staff of a more established publishing house could easily correct this problem. If Lindley continues to write - which he should - he would greatly benefit from a stearn editor that can provide constructive criticism on style.

Otherwise, this little book is certainly worth adding to one's library and is recommended over more cursory works such as H.C. Brands' almost cartoonish treatment of the revolution. Alamo Traces is for the serious enthusiast.

Mr. Lindley has obviously spent years at the State Archives
researching this book. The book contains 676 references, many
dating back to the 1830's. The list of references alone is well
worth the price of the text.

Without a doubt, some scholars are going to feel very uncomfortable since some of Mr. Lindley's conclusions do not agree with the accepted version we were taught in school. Especially since the author backs up his assertions with
documentation that dates back 160 years in some cases.

This book is a must for anyone with even a casual interest in
Texas history. We will certainly be hearing more about Mr. Lindley and his book Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions.

This book goes beyond the usual scope of history books by shedding light into the dark corridors of the Alamo's past. As an avid history buff, and an author on Texas history myself, I can appreciate the great amount of research and concern over telling the TRUTH for a change! So much fiction has been written in the past few years that it has "muddied the waters" over what actually happened. People start believing the fiction as fact, and some textbooks have not been much better other than to apply a revisionist's history to the facts and the important details to be more "politically correct." "Alamo Traces" sheds the light on the truth, and gives us an under the microscope view of the details and events that make the Alamo story so riviting to even nonTexans. As a fifth generation Texan I am alittle put out by some authors that have written fictional books using the names of real historical places to add credence to their fictional work. (Many times without the permission of the historical commission set up to protect it.) These fictional accounts have blurred the line between fact and fiction. This dedicated author went back to the state archives. He looked carefully at the story to explain the many important details and events properly. It sets the stage and tells the story from an understandable perspective. Well done! A must for any true history buff!

From my perspective, this book is best read with other more mainstream books. That's because this work seems designed for established researchers, and really doesn't recount the narrative of the Alamo on its own. So if you want to read the story of the Alamo...this isn't it.

Where this book appears to shine, in my opinion, is that the controversies of the era and the battle are laid out and examined using primary sources. That's rare in my limited experience. This is a source of good primary information to learn what we have as evidence. After all, Thomas Ricks Lindley is a genuine criminal investigator. It shows. Easy reading it is not.

My favorite part is his discussion concerning which flag flew over the Alamo during the battle. It was a bit of a surprise, at least to me. Is there a chance that someone in Mexico has the genuine tricolor flag, other than the New Orleans Grays flag, but is simply concealing it for their own reasons? And, if this Californian may ask, where are the Mexican flags captured after San Jacinto?

The material is at times dense, and sometimes arcane, but where this book is SUPERB is the author's willingness to clearly state his opinion as an opinion, and leave us to deal with the reality that there is a lot we simply don't know.

This book goes beyond the usual scope of history books by shedding light into the dark corridors of the Alamo's past. As an avid history buff, and an author on Texas history myself, I can appreciate the great amount of research and concern over telling the TRUTH for a change! So much fiction has been written in the past few years that it has "muddied the waters" over what actually happened. People start believing the fiction as fact, and some textbooks have not been much better to apply a revisionist's history to the facts and the important details to be more "politically correct." "Alamo Traces" sheds the light on the truth, and gives us an under the microscope view of the details and events that make the Alamo story so riviting to even nonTexans. As a fifth generation Texan I am alittle put out by some authors that have added fictional accounts that blurred the line between fact and fiction. This author went back to the archives and he looked carefully at the story to explain many of the details and events properly. It sets the stage and tells the story from an understandable perspective. Well done! A must for any true history buff! Joe Blevins, The Texas Republic.

I read this book recently in conjunction with re-reading Michener's great Novel, "Texas" because I went looking and found it. This book is not a novel, and it was portrayed as a renewed accounting of the Alamo, with added, and newly discovered information gleaned and written up without regard to legend. I had read much as a youngster about Texas and specifically, the Alamo, but these books must be read again as the task of adults, as the very lack of experience that is present in us then prevents us from applying what life has taught us as we absorb the importance of reading and sorting History. Nothing short of living life itself allows us to realize just what has gone before us.

Thomas Ricks Lindley writes a no-nonsense version of events that can be used against some of the accepted history if one is so inclined, and lists his credentials as a policeman with the U.S. Army, a criminal investigator turned historian. His book focuses on debunking certain other historians assertions, and providing other documents and accounts that differ somewhat from the accepted versions of the events leading up to, during, and after the "Thirteen Days" of the Alamo. He takes the time to point out certain wording in both newly found (or previously discarded) and accepted documents that belies actions taken, as well as differing dates on important events. Taken in context with the work of others, this appears to be a valuable work to someone like myself, who is NOT, by any means qualified to judge historians, but who do like our "facts that can be laid up against legend" provided us. And of course, the entire truth of what happened during the siege of the Alamo will never be entirely known by anyone, since the truest historians have long been silenced by Santa Anna.

He hits hard at the reputation of Sam Houston, but truth be told, most of us with an interest in Southwest history have long suspected that Houston was more politician than military man; and since eccentric alcoholics with a penchant for going off and living with the natives as a diversion from military duty, seldom make reliable bedfellows when it comes down to putting up or shutting up, it makes sense. (The natives themselves probably wondered just what was up with him) Most of this has been written of previously by others, so it is hardly something that has been overlooked. His own constituents had harsh words for his behavior during the time of the Alamo.  Somehow, most of this has been treated gently by history; and while it was hardly unexpected to read of this, it certainly was refreshing to hear frank language used when describing obvious events, mixed with wonder at "who else" higher up might have made a difference in his attitude and thereby possibly changing the course of history. Had he shown up at the Alamo, perhaps San Jacinto wouldn't have had nearly as much importance.

By all accounts, the situation at the Alamo was truly a political morass and of people not doing their jobs; a tragic tale of ineffective military strategy, double talk, reputation protection, procrastination, aversion of duty, ineffective leadership in a crisis, and of downright betrayal of the men who had taken a stand in an indefensible position after being ordered to do so, desperately waited and called for assistance that never came; though some brave individuals did manage to make it through, knowing they would be killed. While time ticked away, the priorities taken by the military might are there in black and white for all to see. The awful truth seemed to fully dawn on Travis on Day 10: "In the present confusion of the political authorities of the country.." pg 139 - he acknowledged that while reinforcements had been promised, he knew they were not coming.

This book is a worthwhile addition to any Southwest history library; and no effort is made to "protect reputations", but equally, no effort is made to make light of the bravery of the men and women at the Alamo, it's importance to the history of Texas, and ultimately, to the United States as we know it today.

However, some things just can't be given up no matter what! For myself, I will believe forever (even if I knew better) the assertion that Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword, fact or fiction, myth or busted!

*** (pg 364) ....."And Texas, Phoenix-like shall rise, with Freedom's pinions proudly spread - hail'd by those Spirits of the skies, that on 'her' altar's nobly bled"...... *****

Remember the Alamo!

"Alamo Traces" is Lindley's effort to reexamine both old and new evidence to clear up some of the questions about the siege of Alamo. To me, the most interesting and significant 'traces' concerns the issue of Louis/Moses Rose and whether he was/was not the only man to abandon the Alamo, leaving his friends to their fate. I am convinced by Lindley's evidence that Louis/Moses Rose was NOT in the Alamo at the time of the supposed single-man retreat. The story told about him later, by a resident of Nacogdoches, is simply too detailed and ultradramatic to be credible. Moses Rose's testimony, years later, regarding land claims placed by relatives of Alamo defenders is suspect, especially because he never claims that he was inside of the Alamo, only that he believed that certain people were within Alamo a few days prior to the final assault. Probably, in fact, Rose wasn't in the Alamo during the required time frame and, therefore, couldn't have been the sole deserter.

I also found interesting the divisions of the Texas Revolutionaries. I knew of course, of one party desiring continuing federation with Mexico, and, I knew of a second party desiring complete independence with annexation by the U.S. I didn't know, however, that there was a third party, that desired confederation with several states in northern Mexico and SECESSION from Mexico. This faction, obviously, did not prevail and Alamo fell under the banner of Independence.

At the same time, the mere presence of this third party, makes more understandable what happened less than 30 years later i.e. the secession of Texas from the United States. Probably, there was always a faction of Texians and Tejanos that had no interest in the aegis of the powerful U.S. These same people may very well have itched for a reason to leave American protection. At the same time there were prominent Mexicans who really wanted to secede from Mexico. During the U.S. Civil War, the Governor of Coahuila-Nuevo Leon tried, four times, to secede from Mexico and join the southern Confederacy.

This was a knife aimed at the jugular of both the U.S. and Mexico. Jefferson Davis was forced to refuse the Governor's offer because he already had his hands full and couldn't afford a simultaneous war with Mexico. The past is the past and can't be replayed but the possibilities are fascinating.

Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

Lindley has provided a major service to those interested in the Alamo and its principal characters. Thoughtful, imaginative, and incisively reasoned, this book offers new insight into a timeless episode of American history and heroism. KN