Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth

by Phillip Thomas Tucker

A startling new analysis of one of America’s most glorious battles . . . Contrary to movie and legend, we now know that the defenders of the Alamo in the war for Texan independence—including Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William B. Travis—did not die under brilliant sunlight, defending their positions against hordes of Mexican infantry. Instead the Mexicans launched a predawn attack, surmounting the walls in darkness, forcing a wild melee inside the fort before many of its defenders had even awoken. In this book, Dr. Tucker, after deep research into recently discovered Mexican accounts and the forensic evidence, informs us that the traditional myth of the Alamo is even more off-base: most of the Alamo’s defenders died in breakouts from the fort, cut down by Santa Anna’s cavalry that had been pre-positioned to intercept the escapees. To be clear, a number of the Alamo’s defenders hung on inside the fort, fighting back every way they could. Captain Dickinson, with cannon atop the chapel (in which his wife hid), fired repeatedly into the Mexican throng of enemy cavalry until he was finally cut down. The controversy on Crockett still remains, though the recently authenticated diary of the Mexican de la Pena offers evidence that he surrendered. The most startling aspect of this book is that most of the Texans, in two gallantly led groups, broke out of the fort after the enemy had broken in, and the primary fights took place on the plain outside. Still fighting desperately, the Texans’ retreat was halted by cavalry, and afterward Mexican lancers plied their trade with bloodcurdling charges into the midst of the remaining resisters. Notoriously, Santa Anna burned the bodies of the Texans who had dared stand against him. As this book proves in thorough detail, the funeral pyres were well outside the fort—that is, where the two separate groups of escapers fell on the plain, rather than in the Alamo itself. PHILLIP THOMAS TUCKER earned his Ph.D. in American History from St. Louis University in 1990. The author or editor of more than 20 books on military history, several of which have won national and state awards for scholarship, he has worked as a U.S. Air Force Historian for nearly two decades in Washington, DC.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American, American History, Military Fiction, 19th Century

437 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2008

About the author

Phillip Thomas Tucker, Ph.D. has been recognized today as "the Stephen King of History," and the most groundbreaking historian in America, because of his great productivity of high-quality books (more than 185 books of history) in many field of history, including the American Revolution, Women's History, Civil War History, African American History, etc.
A winner of national and state book awards, Tucker has recently optioned out three books--Cathy Williams, Anne Bonny, and Mia Leimberg--for Hollywood films.
No American historian has authored more history books than Dr. Tucker. America's most prolific and innovative of historians has won international acclaim for breaking much new ground in history by authoring more than 180 history books of unique distinction. In total, he is the author of more than 225 works in history, including both books and scholarly articles.
Significantly, the vast majority of these groundbreaking books have a distinctive "New Look" focus, including five volumes of the Harriet Tubman Series and Haitian Revolutionary Women Series. An award-winning scholar of highly-original and uniquely human history, he has most often explored the remarkable lives of forgotten men and women in powerful historical narratives long ignored by other historians.
Most important, Dr. Tucker has emerged as one of America's leading Revolutionary War historians. He has authored groundbreaking Revolutionary war books, including "How the Irish Won the American Revolution"; "George Washington's Surprise Attack": "Saving Washington's Army"; "Brothers in Liberty"; "Kings Mountain"; "Alexander Hamilton's Revolution"; "Alexander Hamilton and the Battle of Yorktown"; "Captain Alexander Hamilton and His Forgotten Contributions at the Decisive Battle of Trenton"; and others no less distinguished.
The author has also written four books about female Buffalo Soldier Cathy Williams. In addition, he has completed groundbreaking New Look Glory 54th Massachusetts Regimental Series of four volumes. This important series has focused on the heroic story of the first black regiment from the North during the Civil War.
Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Tucker has revealed some of the most overlooked chapters of America's hidden history to present new insights and fresh perspectives. The author's books have most often broken historical boundaries, while going well beyond traditional history in bold "New Look" narratives.
As America's leading myth-busting historian with three degrees in American history, including a Ph.D. from prestigious St. Louis University where he graduated summa cum laude, America's most prolific author has mined American history's obscure depths to present unique historical narratives long unexplored and forgotten. Tucker has long focused on illuminating the previously untold stories of forgotten women (black and white), who have been long overlooked. By revealing their distinguished hidden history that had been previously lost to the American public, the author has paid long-overdue tributes to these remarkable women of great courage and outstanding character. Ahead of their time, these dynamic women defied the odds in carving out their own unique destines with their hard work, enduring faith, and perseverance.
Dr. Tucker has authored groundbreaking books in many fields of study: African American, Women's, Irish, American Revolutionary War, Buffalo Soldiers, Civil War, Tuskegee Airmen, Little Bighorn, Caribbean, Private, Spanish American War, Second World War, George Armstrong Custer, and Southern history. He has long focused on telling the forgotten stories of lost souls, outcasts, renegades, misfits, rebels, deserters (like Buffalo Soldier David Fagen), iconoclasts, refugees, nonconformists, and outliers, whose unique lives deserve attention at this late day.
The author's award-winning books have often focused on iconic turning point moments in American

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only real problem I've ever had with Texas is how it's filled with Texans.

Ah, Texans. Those gun-toting, Jesus-loving, Pace Picante Sauce-eating, Federal Government-despising hillbilly elitists, who like to pretend that people are looking down at them while they are, in fact, looking down on others.

I just needed to get that out of the way, so you know where I stand. Before I proceed to savage this book, it should be known that I'm not one to instinctively come to Texas's defense.

This is a book that will give Texas a collective aneurism. Why? Well, the theory in Phillip Tucker's Exodus From the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth, is that everything you thought you knew about the Alamo was wrong. The defenders weren't heroes; they were slave-beating cowards who ran from the Alamo like jackrabbits. If you were to create a word cloud from this book, the chief words would be feeble, racist, myth, and ironically (more on this last word in a bit).

I was legitimately excited about this book, and looked forward to its publication, after numerous delays (the delays, obviously, weren't to get a better editor). I've long heard of the Alamo breakouts, despite Tucker's contention that this is a brand new revelation, and I was interested in a thorough, well-researched, analytical tome. What I got was a hysterical, horribly written, horribly edited, lazily constructed, superficially researched, biased, sneering, polemical piece of hard cover crap.

And I paid cover price.

My original intent for this review was to fill it with nasty limericks. (With the author's last name being what it is, you might surmise how those limericks would go. I'm not very imaginative). However, since I don't know how many infants might read this - a possibility because of Baby Einstein - I have foregone this option. Instead, and in order to contain the seething anger coursing through my bloodstream at this intellectually fraudulent waste of $32.95, I have helpfully bullet-pointed my many beefs.

1. The Straw Man: The fundamental premise of the book - its deconstruction of the Alamo myth - is based on a number of straw men. This logical fallacy occurs when the arguer sets up a demonstrably false position and then attributes that position to his opponent. The opponent, in Tucker's case, is "they", a nameless collection of historians, filmmakers, and you - the American idiot - who has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the many myths of the Alamo.

What are some of these myths? That the battle occurred in daylight; that the Mexicans suffered a thousand or more casualties; that the Alamo was a fortress; and that all the defenders died within her walls.

These are the straw men.

Tucker has presented himself as the Columbus of historians. He discovered the "real" facts just like Columbus discovered America. All of these things - the time of battle, the casualties, the fact that men ran from the fort - have been known since the battle was fought.

Apparently, Tucker is also a bit of a Rip Van Winkle. He fell asleep after John Wayne's 1960s-era The Alamo and woke up in 2010, assuming that no research has been done since then. Every book I've ever read about the Alamo has made note of the darkness. (And am I the only one who saw the 2004 John Lee Hancock film, The Alamo, with its predawn battle? I am?) Every book since Walter Lord's A Time to Stand has noted that Mexican casualties range from 300 to 500 (dead and wounded). And as to the escapes, well, I'm sorry Dr. Tucker, but you are NOT the first to bring this up. William C. Davis noted it in Three Roads to the Alamo; JR Edmonds writes about it in The Alamo Story; and Alan C. Huffines and Gary Zaboty wrote and illustrated this incident in Blood of Noble Men.

2. Race baiting: Tucker indulges in a lengthy, turgid, repetitive, and absolutely unneccessary introductory chapter about the cause of the Texas Revolution. Since this is supposed to be a takedown of the "last stand myth", the chapter isn't really necessary. But it is. Because Tucker has an axe to grind. That axe is white people.

Normally, I'm of the opinion you can't overstate the issue of slavery in American history.

Tucker proved me wrong.

Actually, Tucker has two arguments to make: the first is that the men at the Alamo didn't die for liberty, they died for land; the second is that the men at the Alamo didn't die for liberty, they died for slavery. Both arguments are ill-formed, unsupported, and reductive.

Firstly, the idea that the men of the Alamo wanted land is not quite the shock that Tucker makes it out to be. I mean, these were guys who were tenant farmers or indentured servants back east; in Texas, they could be rich men. Is it so surprising that these men would gamble life for this possibility? And is Tucker so obtuse that he can't see the connection between land (and the accompanying prosperity) and liberty?

The slavery aspect is also overplayed. Tucker makes the bald assertion that all the Alamo defenders were fighting for slaves. He supports this with a few mixed facts: a couple Alamo defenders who actually owned slaves; the fact that Crockett once had a couple slaves (though he was an anti-slavery man); and the shocking revelation that Sam Houston was born into a slave-owning family. This doesn't prove anything, and it's also at odds with what Tucker has already stated about the defenders: that they were poor, yeomen farmers looking for land. So, he comes up with this hum-dinger of an argument: that all the men of the Alamo wanted to own slaves.

How the heck did he come up with that? Did he and Nancy Regan conduct a seance? A gallup poll of the dead?

The unsupported race-baiting goes on and on. Without any citations, Tucker states a dozen or more times that the Americans' overconfidence came from feelings of racial superiority. He places thoughts in the defenders' heads to this effect, though they all died and left no thoughts for Tucker to rob. Like a poor man's Ward Churchill, Tucker sees white supremacy everywhere he looks, and he valiantly tilts at every windmill:

In part employing racial stereotypes that so often demeaned the Mexican character, one popular author speculated how a swift end came for those men stationed outside the Alamo's walls: "One by one, it is known as certainty as if it was recorded, they were dealt with by Mexican scouts crawling up on them in the dark. A knife in the right spot and a hand on the throat to deny the sleeper even the bark of death, and it was all over..."

Maybe, I'm dense, but where is the racial stereotyping? Is it the use of the term "Mexican" (perhaps Former Spaniard is the preferred nomenclature). Tucker doesn't explain. The only criticism of this paragraph is that it wasn't a "scout" who killed the men at the listening post, but rather an ordinary soldaldo.

3. Infinite Monkeys: The writing and editing in this book is just awful. Tucker's style is to write turgid, clunky, passive, back-heavy sentences cluttered with jagged, stuttering clauses. His most irritating tic is his overuse, and misuse, of the word "ironically." Not since Alanis Morrissette has this word been so abused. Note to Tucker: you can't use "irony" simply to describe unfortunate coincidences. Page after page (on average, once a page), Tucker starts a sentence like this: "Ironically...[insert something about the Texians getting what they had coming:]. I decided to play the "irony" drinking game, and have a shot every time this sentence popped up. My wife made me stop after I came to this sentence - "Ironically, no one seemed to note the irony..." - and I passed out on the couch. (In one two-page span, five sentences begin with "Ironically"; once you've noticed this, you can't stop).

While the writing is bad, the editing is worse. I was once told, by a philosopher, that infinite monkeys typing on infinite typewriters would eventually reproduce The Hound of the Baskervilles. I learned something by reading this book: fifteen monkeys, all dying of Ebola, 1/3 of them blind, could do a better job of editing.

Partially, Tucker is to blame, because he wrote the manuscript, which is a needlessly repetitive, annoyingly digressionary, structural mess. For example, during the chapter on how crappy a fort the Alamo was, Tucker gives you a paragraph about many square feet needed to be defended. Then the discussion wanders away, like an Alzheimer's patient from the nursing home, before returning two pages later to talk about the thickness of the walls. I might actually have gained some insight into Tucker's argument - that the Alamo was indefensible by anything less than 1,000 men - if all that info was contained in a single pithy paragraph.

However, the editor needs to take his licks as well. He or she should have done a little cutting and pasting in order to form the rough draft into something readable. It also would've been nice had the editor read the final draft. The book is rife with typos, repeated words, and wrongly used words that spell check can't check (for the record, the buildings in San Antonio were constructed of "adobe" not "abode").

4. Just Marry Santa Anna Already: A sub-thesis of Exodus is that Santa Anna really was the Napoleon of the West. This might have been an interesting bit of revisionism in the hands of an honest historian. But Tucker isn't being honest. For one, he is continually downplaying Santa Anna's lesser traits. You know, the ones about him murdering prisoners and allowing his men to rape and pillage. Not only does he downplay, but Tucker attempts a bit of cheap moral relativism. For instance, everyone knows that Santa Anna made it a point to give no quarter at the Alamo. But in Tucker's view, this was actually Travis's fault. Because Travis refused to surrender (and cheekily fired off the 18-pound cannon), Tucker argues that Santa Anna was justified in not taking prisoners. He claims, in fact, that Travis doomed him men. Tucker goes on to argue that the Americans had started the whole "no prisoners" thing by threatening "no quarter" in earlier battles. The problem with this argument is that the Americans were only dealing in rhetoric (in the first battle of the Alamo, all of General Cos's men were paroled), while Santa Anna (at Zacatecas, the Alamo, and Goliad) actually followed through. I mean, come on! The Mexicans were still "decimating" captured military units long after the Roman empire had crumbled (ever heard of the "black bean"?)

The worst part of Tucker's argument is that it contradicts itself. He can't seem to decide whether he wants to elevate Santa Anna or degrade the Texians. So he tries to do both. The end result: Tucker argues that Santa Anna made a bold military move, marching in the dead of winter across North Mexico, and brilliantly capturing a fortified position with a daring predawn assault...against a tiny "army" of young, inexperienced, naive, undisciplined city-boys who couldn't stop dreaming about slaves long enough to load their weapons.

So which is it? It can't be both. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Santa Anna's 3,000 men took two weeks to capture an old church defended by less than 200 non-soldiers. Santa Anna followed that up by losing at San Jacinto, getting exiled, and then coming back in time to lose to the American army at Vera Cruz, Buena Vista, Cerro Gordo, and Chapultepec. In other words, starting at the Alamo, Santa Anna won one more victory in his career than I have. He was a garbage general, and Tucker's attempts to rehabilitate him fall woefully short.

5. The Sneers: The men of the Alamo are dead. They've given Tucker fodder for a book. So why does he hate them so much? There are certain points in the book in which Tucker asserts that the men of the Alamo made the logical decision to flee; or that their flight was courageous. Really, though, Tucker doesn't believe any such thing. He is constantly deriding the defenders for their stupidity, their inability, their allegedly feeble resistance, and their alleged feelings of facial superiority. He even mocks Walter Lord and mocks his classic book by calling it A Time to Withdraw. Stay classy, dick.

6. The Cherry Picking: Tucker picks and prunes the primary sources in order to fit his overall theory of the battle (which was that no battle ever took place; just a massacre of silly Americans). To be clear, Tucker does not have a single primary source that hasn't already been used. What he does, in an odd act of genius (he got published, after all), is to take some sources out of context, ignore other sources, and give credence to sources that no other historian finds reliable.

The examples are like the stars in the skies. For instance, Tucker quotes Dickinson's famous entreaty to his wife, Susanna ("Great God, Sue, the Mexicans are over the walls") for the proposition that the Mexicans were inside the Alamo while everyone was still asleep, and that the battle was over in fifteen minutes. However, Susanna's testimony was that the battle lasted TWO HOURS, and at the end of that time, her husband came into the chapel to tell her all was lost (even allowing for Susanna's inability to accurately state the time, it is clear that she felt the battle lasted a long time).

Tucker uses De La Pena's famous (and controversial diary) whenever it suits his purposes (for testimony on the escapes, fratricide, and casualties) but ignores his testimony whenever it disparages Santa Anna (because Tucker thinks De La Pena is biased).

This is a pattern in the book. Tucker believes that the Alamo was almost taken without a shot being fired. To prove this, he has to prove that the attackers approached the fort in complete silence. In order to do this, he has to ignore Santa Anna's written order, which called for a bugle call to start the battle, as well as De La Pena's corroborating account that the Mexicans approached with cheers, and Filisola's account that the Alamo artillery was ready and used to devastating effect.

See, anyone who looks at all the primary sources will find a lot of contradictions from a single source. Tucker chooses the one he wants, and runs with it. That way, he is able to argue, wtih a straight face, that the Alamo wasn't able to mount an adequate defense, that most of the cannon weren't fired, that almost all the Mexican casualties were friendly fire, and that half the defenders ran. To support this view, Tucker must ignore statements by Santa Anna and Filisola (two of his heroes), as well as De La Pena and Dickinson and several other sources stating that one or two attacks wavered before the Alamo was breached, and that the fighting was very hard.

Tucker's treatment of Travis isn't cherry-picking. It's flat out bull. Tucker claims that Travis committed suicide, based on rumors heard immediately after the battle. He never stops to think, hey, it makes sense that this would be a rumor, since Crockett and Bowie were also rumored to have killed themselves. Tucker never explains who might have seen Travis kill himself (was it a Mexican soldier, who didn't know what Travis looked like, who saw him through the darkness?), but he is certain that he did, and that he shot himself in the forehead.

(It bears noting that this was in the age before photography was prevalent. There are no profile pictures of Travis; no Facebook albums wherein he is shown abandoning his wife and creditors to flee Texas, where he started a successful law practice, bedded dozens of women - he kept a running tally in a diary - and came close to historical greatness. There is actually only one likness of him. Thus, the idea that a Mexican soldier, scared out of his wits, in the dead of night, would somehow be able to recognize a man he never saw before is frankly angering to me).

Tucker's position ignores direct eyewitness testimony from Travis's slave, Joe, who was at Travis's side when Travis was hit in the forehead by a musket ball and killed. How does Tucker sidestep this testimony, this direct observation? He decides Joe wasn't there. Flat out. Judgement call.

(I highly recommend purchasing Todd Hansen's The Alamo Reader, which is a lightly annotated compendium of primary source documents. It will save you a trip to several different libraries. Moreover, since Hansen is more interested in providing these sources than trumpeting one view over another, you can do a lot of corroborating and weighing yourself).

7. Since I've made this much up, I might as well keep going: The chapter on the breakouts is stretched to dozens of pages and based on a handful of sentences from a handful of sources (many of them far less than trustworthy; many of them lacking basic foundation). Using these snippets, Tucker weaves an epic of cowardliness and ineffectiveness. According to him, only 60 or 70 men actually stayed in the Alamo; the rest ran for the hills, where they managed to kill a total of two Mexicans.

Now, I don't disagree with the proposition that a number of men tried to escape the Alamo. I do disagree with Tucker's extremely high estimate of 100 plus men. His timeline for these breakouts just don't make sense. If the collapse started at the north wall, then sure, perhaps a group of men at the palisade decided to take off running to the south. But his arguments for the second and third breakouts don't seem to take into account the fact that, by this time, the Mexicans would have filled every corner of the Alamo. How could anyone still be alive to run?

My main problem, however, is Tucker's extrapolation from the primary sources. At various points, Tucker is claiming, without any support, that both Travis (who Tucker earlier argued committed suicide) and Crockett were among the men who tried to flee. Why not add Daffy Duck to the mix? (And while we're at it, let's ignore Susanna Dickinson's eyewitness - and totally believable - testimony that she saw Crockett's body outside the chapel). He makes some interesting suppositions, chief among them that the hero of the dawn was Almeron Dickinson, who stayed in the chapel and used his cannon to fend of Sesma's cavalry, which was harrassing the fugitives. Yet this heroic stand is conjured from thin air (actually, a sentence of testimony that the cannons were firing from the chapel). Tucker does this a lot. No one knows where any of the bodies were found (except for Travis's and Crockett's), but that doesn't stop Tucker was placing individuals at certain places on the battlefield with absolute certainty.

Then, to top of this crap cake, Tucker passes on the story of Almeron Dickinson jumping off the roof of the chapel with his son in his arms. The only problem is that Dickinson didn't have a son. He had a daughter named Angelina. She survived. We know this because her mother also survived, and spent the next 50 years telling the story. If her infant son had died, she probably would've mentioned that. For God's sake! John Jakes made a fricking picture book out of it! It's called Susanna of the Alamo. I read it when I was five!

I'm just about out of characters, and I've spent my anger. It takes a certain kind of book to make me want to tear up my ACLU membership card and seriously consider joining a rural militia. This book achieved that feat. It is a fraudulent, bankrupt revisionist history.

I noticed on the back flap that Tucker is listed as living in "the vicinity of Washington D.C." Based on the inevitable reactions from the natives of Texas, this vagueness is probably not vague enough.

[Jimmie Kepler · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you remember the 1960 movie "The Alamo" with John Wayne and use it as your primary source for understanding the Alamo you will not like this work. The book presents an interpretation that is different from the traditional view and anything I previously encountered.

As I started reading I was at first shocked finding the book unsettling. It just wasn't the story being told the way I had learned. My family's roots are in Gonzales County, Texas near the Cost community.That is where the Battle of Gonzales happened in Oktoberfest 1835. As a sixth generation Texan, member of Texas First Families (member # 5255), holder of a bachelor of arts in history from the University of Texas at Arlington, a person who has studied Texas and military history on the university level, and one how has been to the Alamo over a dozen times I found myself realizing the book lives up to its title - "Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth ". The title is accurate. The author cuts open and examines the story of the Alamo.

The historian in me started looking at the research and documentation of the author. After all, I was reading the story from a point of view totally foreign to my experience. The author used letters and reports of Mexican officers written immediately after the battle. The book is well referenced. I knew we had slavery in Texas prior to the battle of the Alamo, but keeping the "peculiar institution" had never been listed as a primary motivating factor for the Texas War of Independence in my previous study. Most shocking to me was the author's conclusion that the battle of the Alamo was a short predawn clash that held no real military significance. He concludes that the inexperienced defenders of the Alamo were overconfident, caught asleep in their beds, run scared when attacked (hence "The Exodus") and routinely killed by Mexican cavalry who were guarding the rear exits. This is not the heroic last stand the 1960 movie told.

Comment: The research is hard to argue against. Just because the story doesn't match the myth doesn't mean the story isn't true. I'm still reflecting on the book. I say let the scholars read and react to his research. Let the average white person reflect on the content. Let those of Hispanic heritage hold their heads high. I had never viewed the Alamo as a bunch of rebels trying to break free from the legitimate government or the Mexican Army as simply soldiers trying to suppress a rebellion. Time will tell how this point of view and research is received. I hope this is just the first of several works to reexamine the battle of the Alamo.

Myth or fact? The research is pretty straight forward. Read all of it with an open mind before drawing your own conclusions. You just might surprise yourself. Remember, as the book's title warns, the author is challenging a 175 years old myth.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m not going to waste time addressing the 5,000 words or whatever of vomitorious blather that an “Alamohead” like “Matt,” at the top of the reviews list, spills on this book, but I will take on a couple of things. (“Alamohead” comes courtesy friend Chris Tomlinson. He confirmed, as expected, that this book was on the bibliography of his and his coauthors’ new book and referenced extensively.) “R” is another. And, it’s “interesting” that they don’t allow comments on their reviews.

11. Strawmanning? That’s Alamoheads in spades, not Tucker. I’ll offer a couple of specific examples of how Matt is wrong on other stuff to show that, because his wrongful claims are an example of him being the strawmanner.
2. Slavery? “Show your work,” goes the social media meme, and Tucker does. By page 100, he documents not only fear of slave revolts inside early Anglo Texas, but an actual revolt in 1835. Related? He documents cotton prices per bale, land prices per acre that fueled this, and New Orleans speculators behind much of this. Don’t forget that even after Texas joined the Union, New Orleans, not Houston, was home to filibustering expeditions like Walker’s.
3. Crockett? By 35 percent of the way into the book, Tucker is indeed discussing Crockett’s anti-slavery bona fides. In fact, he ties this to Democrat vs Whig, Jacksonian vs anti-Jacksonian, politics back in the States, and extends this to wrap up Houston vs Crockett in Texas.
4. Class divisions? No, by this point, and including point 3 above, and the tail end of point 2, Tucker is discussing that.
5. Santa Anna? Again, Strawman Matt is wrong. By page 100, Tucker has more than once compared Santa Anna to Napoleon both favorably and unfavorably on the military side, and without “favorable” and “unfavorable” really being in play, also compared the two on the political side. (He notes both overextending themselves.)
6. As for the claim that much of what Tucker says isn’t new? It’s new to a lot of people, and not being new doesn’t mean that it’s been accepted by the likes of Alamoheads like Matt, let alone Dan Patrick. In fact, what percentage of Alamo defenders tried to flee, in how many groups, etc.? Matt rejects all that.
So, by the time I was 35 percent into the book, I knew that Matt was not wrong but rather, was Not.Even.Wrong. He’s also not only strawmanning, he’s posturing.

Now, that said? As to the facts of the matter at hand? The book is more 4-star than 5-star, and it’s had so many reviews that trimming my rating level to the wind wouldn’t matter. The writing, while not turgid by any means, is convoluted at times and a bit dense. AND, very repetitive. Plus, the repeated “Anglo-Celt” instead of just “Anglo,” as all of Scotland and all of Ireland were then part of the UK, got tiresome. Also, early March, or even late February, is not winter in south Texas.

And, while it’s pretty good, it’s not perfect on content, or THAT close.

What it gets right?
First, the run-up.
Political factions within the Texians Anglos, many of whom supported remaining under Mexican rule with an upheld Constitution of 1824, while many others wanted independence, followed by American annexation in most cases. (A few, as shown up to 1845, wanted independence without annexation.)
A lesser split within Tejanos; the majority of them wanted 1824 Mexico, but a non-insignificant minority wanted independence, usually followed by annexation, though Tucker doesn’t follow that up.
A split between “old” and “new” Texians, with many of the old wanting nothing to do with defending the Alamo.
As noted above, American political splits tied to some of this, plus rivalries in politics in general.
Second, the battle.
The biggest thing he gets right is the number of people killed OUTSIDE the Alamo while trying to escape. Tucker reminds us that this is why Santa Anna attacked on March 6 rather than waiting for heavier artillery for a tighter, tougher siege: He had heard credible rumors of a breakout attempt for that next night.
He notes that NUMEROUS Mexican sources mention 62 men breaking out to the southeast. That right there is one-third the garrison.
He then estimates about 50 breaking out to the south and a dozen or so to the west. Even if these are off by 50 percent, still, half the garrison was killed outside trying to escape.
This might have included Crockett, though Tucker allows for some accounts saying he was killed inside. (Contra Alamoheads, Tucker doesn’t say that Crockett LED any escape attempt, while being semi-agnostic as to whether he was a part of any of them.)
He adds there was no shame, and plenty of smarts, in the escape attempt. Why the Alamoheads get in a huff about this? It can only be due to the Alamo legend of sacrifice.
Besides, with limited ammo, and a lot of the power, even amongst massive stores, being crappy, it made sense to get outside of what Crockett reportedly called a death trap.
That’s especially true, he notes, in light of a pre-dawn assault where powder in guns would have been damp, not to mention moisture creep in powder kegs that contained generally crappy powder.
He also seems to get right actual Mexican casualties, which were no more than 300 and at least one-third friendly fire. Per the above, no surprise.
Finally, he notes that apparently half a dozen of the would-be escapees turned out to be actual ones. He says this is likely what happened with Louis/Moses Rose. (Per Wiki, though, he’s probably wrong there, as well as wrong about the pre-American identification of Rose.)

What does he get wrong on the content side (other than climate as noted above)? He overstates the racism of Texian Anglos against Tejanos. Oh, it existed and was real. But, not universal and blatant. Even with Seguin, it was moderated and later lessened. He was Reconstruction-era county judge in Wilson County, after all, and he made his final return to Mexico to live with his son. Navarro? Supported annexation, not just independence, early on. Doesn’t fit this part of Tucker’s narrative. Owned slaves to the end of the Civil War, and pre-Texas Independence, pushed the “law of contracts” to allow lifetime indentured servitude, slavery by the back door. So, half right there, but also half wrong, and it’s also part of a legend that’s a narrative on his part. That legend or narrative is “racism” vs. “enlightenment.” In reality, New Spain pre-1820 and early Mexico afterward was not nearly as racially enlightened as Tucker claims. Let’s remember that “mulatto” comes directly from Spanish. Ditto (from either Spanish or French) on “quadroon,” etc.
Also, in the epilogue, he claims Texas was permanently lost to Mexico after San Jacinto. Really? That would be news to the residents of San Antonio, who faced later invasions. Had he said “EAST Texas,” ie, the Red River entry from Arkansas, the Red Lands around Nacogdoches, etc., and stuff otherwise on, say, the east bank of the Trinity, or maybe up to the east bank of the Brazos, yes. But all of Texas? No.

So? 5 stars for refuting the Alamoheads, and 3.5 on content and writing quality overall? 4.25 stars, rounding to 4.

Or, another way? 5 stars for the battle itself, 3.5 for everything else. And, were it not for the Alamoheads, the repetitiveness and lack of good editing might have pushed the whole book down a star.

Oh? Alamoheads commenting here who don’t allow comments on their own reviews will have comments deleted, at a minimum.

[Bob Young · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the author had about 100 pages of good material that he stretched in about 350. This is a fresh look at what happened at the Alamo and the time leading up to the battle. I did learn some new things, but it seemed to me that the author would make a point, and then make it again several more times over the course of the book. I know you can’t have a book that only goes for 100 pages, so you have to pump some air into it. If you are an Alamo buff then you certainly should read this. If you are mildly interested in this event, then you might find the book a bit tedious. I will also say that this is probably the most complete and realistic description of the actual battle for the Alamo.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really enjoyed the historical accuracy and clarification of the actual events surrounding the Alamo. History is always written by the victors and it is good to see the record being set straight. However, this book repeats itself throughout, citing several sources and relaying the exact same information over many pages. The book could have been about half as long without missing anything substantial.

[Cleokatra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was slow reading for me, but it was interesting. I knew nothing about the Alamo going in. I think we covered it in about 5 minutes in my tenth grade U.S. history class. So, I learned a lot and I'm motivated to learn more, because this book revealed some gaps in my education.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well written analysis of the legend of the Siege of the Alamo. While stating that the Pena Diary is suspect, he still bases many of his observations on it and other recently "discovered" documents. He attempts to make the Texas Revolution about slavery and land ignoring Santa Anna's violations of the Mexican Constitution and the role of Tejanos at the Alamo and in the Texas army. He ignores statements by adult female survivors and instead uses the faded memories late in life of a young boy at the Alamo who was probably prejudiced by the eventual Anglo control of the land. While there are grains of fact in what is stated most of the authors references were written years after the event. His Mexican sources are questionable as to they really participated in the battle and if their accounts where written to appease Santa Anna when he came back to power. It does give a counter view to other historians efforts.

[R · Rating 2 out of 5]

This could have been an intiguing and compelling argument, part of an important debate and re-examination of the myths surrounding the Texas Revolution. But it ultimately falls short because the author uses his own voice rather than the primary sources. To drive his points home, he repeatedly uses double superlatives, weakening instead of strengthening his persuasive force. I was very disappointed. I will keep it on my shelf but will look for other works that directly quote more primary sources.

[Tfkreidler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book on the history of the Alamo and how different it is from the John Wayne move of the Alamo.

[Charles Soste · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exodus From The Alamo: The Anatomy Of The Last Stand Myth is a meticulously researched, well written, exceptionally coherent work of non-fiction that seeks to change long held views about the famous last stand at the Alamo. It proposes that the story many grew up believing that the battle was one where a heroic, out numbered force, fought and died valiantly to defend freedom, was in fact a battle of minimal consequence in which the Mexican Army was more successful than Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and their brethren. It does this by examining the lack of significance the battle has received from Mexican historians,(This being interesting given the fact that by the normal standards of winning and losing in any conflict, the Mexicans would be considered the victors.) demonstrating how the Alamo myth was concocted based on the false racial belief of the time that the white race was superior to all others, and turns on its head the idea that those who died at the Alamo were fighting to preserve freedom when the state that they hailed from was in fact seeking to preserve slavery, while Mexico had completely abolished it by 1829. Like all good and credible historical works, the book’s contentions are backed up by clear, very difficult to dispute facts. Additionally, a nice element of the book is that aside from being intriguing reading, its prose are very graceful and engaging.
For all of its impressive characteristics, the book is not without foibles or some controversies. Firstly, there are times when its goal of trying to destroy the myth behind the battle at the Alamo and the assertions that it continuously makes to do this, can feel a little heavy handed and slightly like overkill. Secondly, for those who have grown up with a completely different view of what transpired at the Alamo, the argumentative essence of the book that turns a widely held assumption upside down might be off putting. Finally, there are moments where in seeking to enlighten the reader to see a new perspective, the contentions made in it do feel a bit like a nod to cancel culture, which I personally find abhorrent. Still, these defects are extremely minimal and in no way take away from the first rate qualities of Exodus From The Alamo.
So, if you’re a history buff, you should read Exodus From The Alamo. You’re almost certain to love it. If you’re one who likes to see arguments from all sides or are interested in contrarian views, you’re almost sure to love it too. If you grew up believing the Alamo was one of the great moments in the history of Texas and you are open minded, you should take a look at it. It will give you something to ponder. Or if you are just one whose looking to read a thought provoking, well constructed piece of non-fiction, you should check out Exodus From The Alamo. It will not disappoint you.

[Adam E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The battle of the Alamo which took place on March 1836 near the city of San Antonio is an important part of Texas History. In Exodus from the Alamo, Phillip Thomas Tucker has thoroughly researched the people involved in and around the battle through personal letters, diaries, and news articles from that time to shine a different light on what actually took place.
The popular version of the battle at the Alamo has become a fantastic myth that supports that the defenders of the Alamo were heroes who fought for the freedoms of the Republic of Texas. Yet, there is evidence from General Santa Anna's diary that supports the battle at the Alamo was not as significant and glorious as some Historians have claimed.
Colonel Juan Almonte who fought with the Mexican Army against the Alamo fighters wrote in his diary that many of the men and boys who were defending the converted Spanish mission tried to flee during the attack. Since all of the defenders of the Alamo, who were mostly volunteers, perished in the battle, there were no survivors of the Texas Army to tell their version of what took place.
Tucker compares the battle of the Alamo to Custer's last stand in the way that as time has gone on, these historic battles have become grander and more fantastic.
The volunteer fighters for the Texas Army were promised Texas land in exchange for their military service to help fight against the Mexican Army. Slavery was an important factor that is rarely mentioned when it comes to the retelling of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution. Where Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, it was still legal and prevalent in the United States. Texas used slave labor for their cotton and sugar cane production. Land and the preservation of slavery were the main causes of the Texas Revolution.
There is a lot of information about General Santa Anna, who led the Mexican Army against the Alamo. He was of upper class Creole descent from Vera Cruz, Mexico and studied the military tactics of French Military Leader Napoleon Bonaparte. He went as far as making his army wear uniforms that looked like what the French soldiers wore.
There is background on the most important fighters at the Alamo. Through personal letters of Travis, Crockett and Bowie, who are regarded as heroes of Texas history to this day. Tucker has proven that there were many other circumstances and factors that surrounded the eventual showdown at the Alamo in 1836. If you like history books, this is an enlightening read.

[Shannon Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

With this book, Phillip Thomas Tucker takes a huge leap toward telling the truth about what happened at the Alamo. In a time when much of history is under scrutiny for being "whitewashed," Exodus from the Alamo provides a necessary re-examination of the events near San Antonio in 1836. First, we learn that the reason for "defending the Alamo" was mostly for the right to keep slaves. At first blush, this seemed ludicrous, because after all, I was always taught that the battle at the Alamo was to save Texas. It was only after reading Tucker's evidence that the soldiers at the Alamo didn't really care whether Texas was independent, part of Mexico, or part of the U.S. as long as they could keep their slaves. Since Mexico had recently liberated slaves in that country, the Alamo defenders simply aligned themselves against Mexico.

Next, we discover that the Alamo should never have been a place for a defensive stand to begin with. It was not meant to be a military installation, it was far too large to defend, it didn't have the proper defensive features, it was too far from San Antonio to do the city any good, and it was more suited to corralling animals than protecting a city from an attack. Only the hubris of overconfident leadership kept the men at the Alamo, which turned out to be a big mistake.

Finally, and probably the saddest lesson of all, is that we find out that it was not the heroic battle that historians have depicted. It was a slaughter. The Alamo soldiers didn't stand a chance against the properly-trained, well-prepared, and appropriately-equipped troops of Santa Ana. The fate of Davy Crockett is still not well-established, but it appears he was not nearly as heroic as we've been led to believe, and no one really "fought to the end."

While it's difficult to let go of ingrained historic tales that paint our national history in such a romantic light, it's important that we force ourselves to re-examine certain events to gain a better understanding of how we got to where we are today. It makes complete sense to me that the Texans were willing to fight to retain their slaves in 1836, when less than 30 years later, they would do it again in the Civil War. I'd never made this connection to the Alamo before, and Tucker's book really made me think about this historic event in a whole new way. That alone is worth the time I invested in reading this book.

[Dorman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very well-written and captivating book for anyone who has even a slight interest in U.S. history. Whatever you learned about the Alamo in school will likely be challenged by the theory put forth by Dr. Tucker.

The author’s many alternative views of how and why the battle was fought are intriguing to say the least, and challenging for those of us who were fed the mainstream versions of this history. For example, most standard history texts make no mention of how the issue of slavery was an important part of the Alamo battle. Dr. Tucker actually focuses on this aspect of the confrontation and shows how racial animosity among blacks, whites and Mexicans was an integral part of the scenario leading up to the Alamo fighting.

There’s no sugar-coated history here. The author goes into detail about the senseless loss of life by the low-ranked fighters on both sides. While the romantic fairy tale of the Alamo that we learned in grade-school is a wonderful story, the reality is much more depressing. Dr. Tucker explains how one of the key reasons for the huge loss of life was simply due to the venue’s poor fortifications. Namely, the Alamo was poorly designed for its defenders to stand their ground. The result was a senseless slaughter that somehow made its way into history books as a brave “last stand” by daring, motivated soldiers. In the author’s view, nothing could be further from the truth.

I’ve read some of Dr. Tucker’s other works and he is a stickler for detail, research and impartial examination of historical events, even when the truth goes against the grain of accepted “mainstream” texts we all grew up with. This look at the Alamo in a new light, backed up with reasonable evidence and logic, is a real eye-opener for someone like me who for many years thought he knew what the Alamo battle was all about.

Due to its interesting story-telling, revealing historical explanations, logical laying-out of the facts, and an impartial discussion of all the issues involved, I’m giving Dr. Tucker’s “Exodus from the Alamo” five stars. I’d love to see his take on many of the other romantic myths of American history.

[Bob Lundquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Alamo was doomed from the start. There were competing factions in the nascent Texas government that did not allow it to send supplies or men to reinforce the fort. So the defenders had to rely on bad black powder for their guns, had little food, lousy leadership, and factions within the fort itself that divided command between different leaders; mainly, regular or volunteer troops. There were many cannons but they were positioned poorly with little ammunition. On the day the Mexicans attacked, before dawn on a Sunday, the defenders were asleep and not prepared to fight. Mexican troops quickly overran a wall, and this inspired the defenders to desert the fort and be killed piecemeal by Mexican lancers outside the fort. Virtually all the defenders were killed with minor casualties for the Mexicans, and most of those by friendly fire. This debunks the story that the Alamo defenders intended to fight to the last man in the fort as has been told by many since the 19th century. It was a massacre well-planned by Santa Anna. Too bad he lost the battle of San Jacinto six weeks later that really gave the Texans its start to real independence.

This book explains too well how the Alamo was taken by the Mexicans. There are excruciating details in many aspects of the story. Details are repeated giving the sense that the author forgot he explained a certain situation once or twice before in different words; or even the same words. An editor seems to be missing in action. There are errors beyond what is expected in this kind of history. It does clarify the many sides and cultures involved and how they helped start the battle for the Alamo. The Mexicans could be called the good guys since they were opposing the slavery the Texans wanted to impose from the southern United States. It was a clash between Catholic Mexicans and Protestant Texans. It is recommended to get a clear understanding of what happened but a relatively slow read due to all the detail.

[Michelle Strozzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are a history buff or just intrigued by our history then Dr. Phillip Thomas Tucker is your guy. I would really like to see more of his work utilized in the school system as he really digs into the real history. I find it somewhat disturbing that we are taught about these events in school but now we are hearing the real story... Why teach it if we're not sure that's what happened? I would like to have my daughter read some of Dr.Tucker's work but sadly I don't think she is quiet as interested in U.S. History as I am.
Dr. Tucker is obviously very intelligent and well spoken. I truly enjoy reading his work. History isn't exactly exciting but Dr. Tucker has a knack for pulling the reader in and keeping them intrigued. He thoroughly explains his version and backs it up with well researched facts.
The Alamo to me has always just made me think of John Wayne and various other westerns. Unfortunately the true story of the Alamo isn't quiet as the movies portray either. I actually don't remember much of the story as I was very young when my dad was watching these movies. I actually didn't realize that the Alamo was based on slavery. I find it very interesting how the Mexicans attacked in the middle of the night taking the soldiers by surprise. It's pretty cocky to be so comfortable in a battle that you wouldn't be prepared for a nighttime attack. It's actually a very sad event and such a waste of lives but this is kind of a trend throughout history. People throughout time have been driven by power, greed, and religion and the outcome is always tragic for one side or the other if not both. Sad yes, but still a very interesting book.

[Rachel foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phillip Thomas Tucker the author of Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth did a marvelous job of taking a new viewpoint on one of America’s craziest times. I love how he did include a map in the book it makes me feel like it’s a positive touch on something that was prod tragedy. He is extremely detailed and this novel kinda of brought me back to a time when I was younger. My father and I would watch the movie The Alamo and break down piece by piece. So for this book the detail and the passion he has really spoke to me. The new evidence is remarkable. I think its interesting that this book is not talked about more. You would think people would want to know the truth but for some its difficult to take in. I want to share a passage of what I think is interesting the most “As dawn was about to break on that hellish March 6, an organized group of 62 men prepared to march out of the Alamo under the shroud of darkness. They began to file swiftly through the sally port, while the vast majority of Santa Anna’s troops remained busy, rooting out defenders in the Long Barracks, the hospital, and other dark, dank buildings that had become death-traps for their defenders. In an orgy of killing, the Mexicans now “went from room to room looking for an American to kill.” But their sacrifice was not wasted. The struggle swirling around the Long Barracks and hospital allowed a large percentage of the garrison to assemble and take the inviting bait of an escape route left open by Santa Anna, if that was the case, while those still fighting tied up Santa Anna’s attackers and bought additional time—though unwittingly—for the evacuation through the palisade.”

[Cair-Paravel De Loulay · Rating 5 out of 5]

What really happened?

"Remember the Alamo!" is a very famous cry, and yet, why in particular must we remember? What happened at the Alamo really? There are stories that circulate and as they do, it becomes a game of whisper down the lane. What is the true story?

Mr. Tucker is very succinct in his storytelling. This is the third book I have read by him and this is, besides a typo here and there (probably due to formatting), this is the best written book so far. He always has a unique perspective and is not shy in sharing it with the world.

I have read quite a bit about Napoleon and it was very interesting to see him take a place in the story, especially given that he never set foot in the USA. Santa Anna is the man who intrigued me the most. He takes on an almost Arron Burr-ish position, given the fact that he won the battle and yet, disgrace would follow him to his deathbed.

If you have ever seen Bullwhip Griffin, you will immediately see the similarities between the dime novels and the story created about the Alamo. It seems that story inflation is not a new thing, especially if it suits the people driving the story, particularly in the direction that will help them.

It is also a story of pride, stubbornness, improper preparation and misplaced priorities. What might have happened if the Alamo hadn't been just a broken down fortress? This we will never know, but the truth is out there and we will continue to learn something new every day. 

I am volunteering an honest review for the benefit of others. 

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Exodus” brings to new life a story that is pretty well glossed over in American history classes. What is summed up in a paragraph or two is expanded here and tells a much more engrossing story. The story or legend of the battle at the Alamo is much more complex than believed, and here we are presented with a great deal of information to help us understand the who’s, what’s, and whys behind this historical tale. History buffs will thoroughly enjoy this book as it really expands upon the Alamo and gives context to the actions that surround the activity. You’ll come away with a new appreciation for the major players and also for the minor players. Casual viewers of history books (i.e. myself) will be enthralled at how much is left out of the story when it is taught in school. This is true of most subjects taught in school, seemingly not enough time to provide students with a full appreciation of all the moving parts that built America’s history. Thankfully books such as these exist to give curious and interested persons the ability to dive head first into the lore and come out with a new appreciation for these big events. I particularly enjoyed the section that included pictures, such as drawings and photographs of pertinent landmarks. These pictures helped to bring the story to life and connect with the reader. Having been to the landmark on my travels, I now have a better appreciation for the people and persons who made the Alamo a legend in American history. I hope to travel there again as I’ll have a better appreciation for the landmark and perhaps find something new to enjoy on my travel to Texas.

[Charlene Gibson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a really great book. The author did an excellent job writing about the Alamo. It was very well researched and a great story. I found out somethings from reading this story I didn’t know before. The author describes it very thoroughly. The author gave an interesting analysis of what happened in this battle. The way he described the two groups one called the escapers, who didn’t help just ran away. This seemed sad.
Dr. Tucker described the battle very thoroughly and explained a lot of things that I didn’t even understand when I was a student reading about this in history class. The author did an excellent job doing his research for this book. I would recommend it to teacher friends of mine. I really believe he gave a very accurate explanation of what really happened in the Alamo. He really gave a different picture of what I thought happened in this battle. It really makes you think about all the different stories there are out there about it.
This reader would give the author a 5-Star rating. This reader looks forward to reading more from the author. He did an excellent job recounting facts, with even more information than this reader has read before. This reader looks forward to reading more from the author. This reader will look for more books from the author. This book has a lot of good material and analysis about what happened in the Alamo. It makes you think about what happened during that day, and makes you see it differently.

[Mick Meyers · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book I read with a bit of trepidation,a lover of all American history I found this to be biased towards the Mexicans,probably the author was trying to redress the balance.as with many points of historical interest there seems to be the odd book that deals with the dark side,or say things that others dare not.the facts and figures gathered were impressive it was only after I read the book,I then read the essay written by another reader which really goes into depth regarding the holes in the book.other books printed about Custer,the Alamo,rorkes drift only seem to want to find a flip side to what we think has become history.with Custer in was a self publicist or spin doctor who led his men into battle against insurmountable odds.the Alamo again doing the same thing albeit different reasons,rorkes drift some books proclaim that the amount of Victoria crosses handed out was to take attention away from the British armies defeat at islandwana.i would like to think of general Custer,the trinity at the Alamo with the other men as portrayed on film fighting a brave and valiant battle to the end.the only thing this book goes to prove there are no winners in war.to quote the newspaper man in the 1962 film the man who shot liberty valane"when the legend becomes fact print the legend".i know it sounds naive but without hero's where would we be.

[Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me say first off, that the book is well written, well crafted, and just plain good. I bumped on it as I was looking for a good, historical read. It had me hooked! It is an interesting revisit to the bloody battle of Alamo that will keep you on the edge of your seat. It’s a very intense book…The author carries the action in such vivid, mental pictures. This book came easy to read yet thorough enough to give the reader a solid grasp of the issues and peppered with well-told human interest stories. It also spends some time looking at the myths about the battle. This book vividly brought the battle to action in my imagination. It was personal, making it horrible.

I’m now curious about the new books the author will come up with! Surely worth giving him a follow. I literally sat and stared into space for an hour after I finished this book contemplating it and wishing it hadn’t ended. It is simply a feast for me those who love military history! Don’t pass it up! You’ll find it brilliant and intellectual. I pray we never see something as terrible like this ever again. I recommend this book to anybody who loves history, battles and wars.

[William Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is always good to read about history, especially those events that are rooted and part of people. However, the best part of this book is the critical thinking the author had. All the questions about what really happened, really make you put some thought of it. I’m always down for a good history book, so convincing that makes me do some research aside. After all, the Alamo is part of Texas history, but as the beginning of the book and many other narratives indicate everything happened in the darkness and there’s no digging in what really have happened.

A different point of view, the story told from another perspective. There’s always an agenda when it comes to land, profit and richness. Is it slavery? Is it petroleum? Is it free land? Surely, there are always two sides for a story. The romantic for one side and despicable for the other and vice versa. As usual, do your research.

I’m not an historian and this is just my personal opinion, as books that encourage critical thinking are necessary. We cannot just go with what we are told, it is ok to ask questions if something doesn’t add up. This is my second book about the Alamo, and yes, I liked it.

[Bernd Velling · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an alternative approach to the Alamo certainly worthwhile the read but I think the book could have saved some trees by being about 150 pages shorter and still be worthwhile. Towards the end it became a drag.
The author likes flogging dead horses.
Eg. In the chapter about the escape attempts he mentions the fact that the first group had 62 people in it more then 30 times !!!!
The same with numerous other items. It gets to the point where as a reader you think “yeah I got it moving on I read that 30 and 20 and 10 pages ago.

Some sources he uses made me raise an eyebrow.
At one point he quotes a Mexican cavalry man that states ( you guessed it ) that 62 people attempted to escape.
At that point I was like: So you are telling me sitting on a horse about 400 meters away in the morning twilight he could pinpoint that accurate a number ?
If the quote had said about 50 or 60 ok but 62 ??

Editing leaves to be desired towards the end as well.
Spelling and grammar mistakes that could have been avoided I think.

Good points were analysis of political and military background of the protagonists and a good review of the military blunder that the Alamo was.

So from the perspective of new idea not bad but the execution of the project could have been a lot better.

What did surprise me is that this book was actually sold at the Alamo gift shop as it quite radically goes after the essence of the Alamo : The glorious last stand.

[David Couvillon · Rating 3 out of 5]

SOME interesting information. Sometimes difficult to read due to the regurgitation of the same information several times throughout the book on different subjects. Author routinely dismisses 'Anglo-Celtic' references as biased, but accepts all Mexican references as truthful - even when he documents Mexican contradictory information. Book is a blatant attempt to stigmatize the Texan Revolution as simply a slavery issue. Yet, without any apology, he skims over the fact that (despite the Mexican Constitution), Mexico gave colonist 4ooo acres of land and increased it by 400 acres for each slave the colonist brought with him! Also, even while presenting Santa Anna's despicable war/humanity crimes, praising him as the self-proclaimed "Napoleon of the West." Description of the actual fighting at the Alamo is quite interesting and has some plausible insights (though, they're mostly speculation).

[Grace · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't wait to turn the page as I read this book, eager to see what happens next in the riveting tale of a major time in the history of the United States and more specifically, Texas.

Exodus from Alamo gives an account of how Texas attained its independence. It is filled with unexpected facts that will surprise you at every turn.

I loved that the author did his own research, without relying solely on the available literature. But what really impressed me about the book is how the simply it is written. I think everyone will find it easy to follow along.

I've read a few of Phillip Thomas Tucker's books and I am quickly growing into a huge fan. His books are always chock-full of unknown facts, which is a breath of fresh air from all books that only seem to recant the old known facts. As such, I highly recommend this book to all lovers of history.

[Grant · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, I think the author backs up his thesis, that a "last stand" at the Alamo was, at best, only a few people and for only a short time with, probably, close to half the troops killed outside the fort.

BUT

It's a tough read. The author gets extremely repetitive in the text, saying the same things again and again, just a paragraph or two apart. Also, the extreme focus on the slavery aspects of the start of the war, where a large amount of the book takes place, gets over bearing after a while. Plus, lots more repetition. It all makes the book quite difficult to keep up with. I was practically rage reading after a while.

Still, I think the basic thesis is well supported in the book. I'd love to see a more thorough book on the topic written by someone a little more skilled.

[Linda Nichols · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is a book that all Texans should read. I don't recommend the recorded book because the reader is an ignoramus as to the pronunciation of Spanish and listening to him is like listening to fingernails scraping a blackboard. The book, though, is an in-depth study of the siege of the Alamo, using Mexican records and other sources and not just a thorough white-washing of the men who lost their lives there. They weren't as heroic or as nice as they've been made out to be. A total myth-buster of a book that I highly recommend. And please note that I am a native Texan; I've lived here all my 76 years and was definitely into the Alamo myth until I started learning more about history, which is written, after all, by the winners.

[Erwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remember This Alamo

Tucker pulls aside the myth surrounding The Alamo and exposes the probable truth surrounding the days just before the collapse. There are many who will disagree with his idea that many came to Texas to maintain slavery. And honestly he doesn’t offer much in support of his idea other than his opinion. But his rendition of Santa Ana’s breach of the walls and his tactics once inside ring true. The defenders were not professional soldiers, were not disciplined and were not truly prepared for a fight in the dark. John Wayne would not like this book

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

This needed a good editor. A handful of typos and a narrative that stalled in its flow as ideas are repeated again and again.

However, it is well researched and well citied basically a detailed account of the real causes of the Texas rebellion, the siege and battle.

Another knock because it does not address the myth of William Travis’ line in the sand, how or why Santa Anna allowed certain survivors to live. He also doesn’t go into detail of which historians fed the myth over the years especially in comparison of the authors of “Forget the Alamo.”

[Stephen Andersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is probably factually correct. It certainly opened my eyes to the number of men who never actually fired a shot. The author also does well to show how Texas is really birthed on a myth leading to many present day American right-wing populist sentiments

My reason for the three stars is the writing is very repetitive. Its bluntness and in appreciation for other’s work also does no favours in trying to convince disciples of traditional Alamo events to open their eyes to what is likely the reality.