Alamo Traces

by Thomas Ricks Lindley

Destined to be a controversial history of one of the most popular Americna landmarks, Alamo Traces is Thomas Ricks Lindley's masterpiece. Fifteen years of research makes this critical examination of the Alamo story a volume of historical truth and accuracy. The author burrows deep into the records and shovels away deposits of myth, folklore, and faulty research that are generations deep. Never wavering in its search for the bedrock of fact, this convincing speculation about what might really have happened during that courageous fight for independence.

Genres: History

404 pages, Paperback

First published September 25, 2003

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Alamo, along with the Little Big Horn, is one of my favorite historical hobby horses. That is, I read far more books on the subject than would be safely recommended by my physician. I like to get into the minutiae and minor controversies. I enjoy reading book reviews where commentators take a person's belief in the South Skirmish Line way too personally. One of the great advances of the internet is that it allows people like me, with disposable time/brain capacity, to indulge our passions.

You might ask, what's the point? But then again, what's the point of anything? Exactly.

The connectivity of the internet allowed me to find a book like Alamo Traces: New Evidence and New Conclusions which is a book for specialists. As the author, Thomas Ricks Lindley states up front, Alamo Traces isn't a narrative. Instead, it's a detailed discussion on certain aspects of the battle.

Now, I've never had the opportunity to head down to the Texas State Archives and poke around, so I can't say whether Lindley's "new" evidence is new or not, but I can say that I didn't feel like his "new" conclusions really shook the world.

This isn't to say I wasn't engaged, or that this is an inaccessible book. To the contrary, the writing style is serviceable. The points that the author is trying to make are comprehensible. On the other hand, the topics are microscopic. I guess there are people who really care about arguing about the names of the Alamo muster roll, but I have to ask: what does it really add to our understanding of the event? (Nothing, I'd say).

I was entertained at points, but mostly I was shaking my head. For instance, the first chapter - of which Lindley seems inordinately proud - is dedicated to destroying the reputation of Sam Houston. Lindley's big point is that Houston didn't order the destruction of the Alamo. Lindley's evidence: a letter Houston wrote to Governor Henry Smith asking if he should blow up the Alamo. Now, Lindley isn't a historian. Instead, he's a former criminal investigator for the US Military - a detective, I suppose. Maybe this letter caused his instincts to twitch; even so, he's reading an awful lot into a semi-ambiguous letter.

Lindley also keeps repeating how much of a drunk Houston was. Far from persuading me to abandon Houston, this made me like him all the more. When I get drunk, I start to advocate for dissolving the US Senate (it's undemocratic, I tell you!), then pass out in the bathroom; the next day, I usually throw up till 4 in the afternoon, then go to sleep by 8. Houston, on the other hand, managed to beat Santa Anna at San Jacinto. Color me impressed.

Another thing that bothered me about Lindley's savaging of Houston is his insistent reliance on the writings of Houston's political enemies. Anyone who's read the history of the Texas Republic knows its politics were particularly cutthroat. The two opposing sides - Houston v. Mirabeau Lamar - traded the presidency for years. Even though Lindley acknowledges this, he still gives this evidence credence. This would be like taking Keith Olberman's word on George W. Bush, or Rush Limbaugh's word on Barack Obama. Early on, then, I started worrying where this book would take me.

Lindley devotes an entire chapter to Amelia Williams' famous dissertation, A Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of its Defenders. It is this chapter in which the aforementioned debate about the names of the actual defenders takes place. Aside from adding little to the overall discussion, Lindley's constant attack began to feel...a little pre-modern. Maybe I'm off-base, but I started to wonder how much of this stridency had to do with Williams' alleged shoddy research (this was a pioneering study, after all, even with its flaws) and how much of it had to do with the fact that a woman was poking her nose into the man's world of Alamo studies.

I suppose the best part of the book was the untangling of the Moses Rose legend. Rose was the man who allegedly left the Alamo after refusing to cross Travis's line in the sand. His story was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by Walter Lord. Lindley does a fair job of debunking this. However, his main arguments consist of his attacks on the interpretations that other historians have placed on historical documents. Instead of new evidence, though, Lindley substitutes his own interpretation. At times, it's very hard to see that his view is any better than the previous view. Indeed, in the Moses Rose story, the best evidence that Moses Rose never left the Alamo is the physical implausibility of Rose hopping over the Alamo walls in broad daylight and sauntering down San Antonio's main street (cue the mariachi music) while several thousand of Santa Anna's soldiers look the other way.

This was the same problem I had with the chapter on casualties. Lindely eventually comes to what I think is a fairly responsible number of Mexican killed and wounded. But he spends many, many pages refuting the contention of Sutherland and Ruiz that 1600 Mexicans were killed in the battle. Why waste that time? A quick glance at Dave Grossman's indispensable On Killing would show such casualty figures as eminently impossible. In the fiercest battles of the Civil War, it is estimated that 6 men were killed a minute. The battle for the Alamo lasted roughly 1 hour. Thus, in a Cold Harbor-like scenario, the number of Mexican killed would've topped out at 360 (60 minutes x 6 men per minute). However, Cold Harbor was fought in daylight, with packed ranks. The Alamo battle happened at dawn, with tired men shaken from a deep sleep. With 19th century weapons, under the adverse conditions in which the battle took place, it's not possible that 1,600 Mexican soldiers could've been slain. That's the total of the entire assaulting force!

Still, nearing the end, I would've given perhaps two stars, maybe three, if I'd just eaten and was feeling expansive. Then, after the last chapter, I started reading the notes (the book is very well-sourced), and in the first note for the final chapter Lindley complements Norman Mailer's book on the Kennedy Assassination.

This book is an excellent piece of research and writing. Mr. Mailer makes a convincing presentation that Lee Harvey Oswald most likely acted alone in the killing of John F. Kennedy. Still, I don't believe it.

Then I threw the book across the lawn, for I was reading on the patio.

You don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone? I just spent a couple hours listening to your arguments, buying into your interpretations, trusting in your judgments, your investigative skills, then in the last page of the book you admit that against all actual evidence you believe in a conspiracy in Dallas? I felt rickrolled. Hoodwinked.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but no, I don't think I am. I was already doubting the investigative skills put to use in this book. The part of me that went to law school worried about the overuse of negative evidence - that is, using a lack of direct evidence as circumstantial evidence that something happened. This was the last straw.

Every responsible investigator who ever looked into Kennedy's murder has come to the same conclusion. Common sense also dictates this result. I'm not saying conspiracies don't exist; I am saying they don't remain secret. The conspiracy to murder Lincoln unraveled in a matter of hours, and all the conspirators caught. And this was in 1865. President Clinton couldn't even keep his sexcapades with an intern quiet. Yet Lindley takes rank with those people who believe that there was a fine-tuned conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, coupled with a high-reaching cover-up to keep it all quiet? And I'm supposed to take his word on the Alamo? Lindley spends a great deal of time calling certain people charlatans. Yet he is on the side of the charlatans.

This book almost makes Jeff Long's Duel of Eagles seem persuasive. Well, I wouldn't go that far.

[Douglas]

You should be a serious Alamo history buff to read Alamo Traces. This book is a good reminder that narrative histories may rely on recitation of legends and other authors' stories. Alamo Traces is like an academic historian detective dissertation whose main purpose is to expose the holes in the stories and legends of the Alamo, reminding us that since there were no survivors (save a few non combatants) we really don't know some of the details of what happened there. I think Lindley did a good job of exposing the weaknesses without taking away from the story or being disrespectful of the work of other conscientious historians- even the ones he exposed.

[Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work of nonfiction is an attempt to clear-up some misconceptions that have arisen about the Battle of the Alamo in particular and the Texas Rebellion in general. So, it is not a work that tells the story in detail of the Battle of the Alamo. The book just focuses on disputed “facts” associated with the Alamo. The misconceptions the author addresses are:
• Was Sam Houston really doing anything meaningful to support the Alamo garrison?
• Should Dr. Amelia William’s doctorial dissertation “A Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and the Personnel of Its Defenders” be considered as the definitive investigative work on the Alamo event?
• Was the garrison at the Alamo really abandoned or were meaningful efforts made to reinforce the garrison?
• Was the story of Travis’ “line in the dirt” a myth or true?
• Was a man named Moses Rose the only man who refused to cross the Travis “line in the dirt” and escaped the Alamo approximately 3 days prior to the final assault?
The problem with all of the above questions is the known Alamo documentation is often incomplete, inconsistent and contradictory. Plus, clear lines of authority within both the provisional government of Texas and the Texas Army were nonexistent. Then communication between San Antonio, where the Alamo was located, and the Texas government officials in San Felipe and Washington on the Brazos was also difficult and not timely due to the distances. Thus, while the author makes a real effort to present his case for the answers to the above misconceptions, I don’t think he has definitive answers to all of them. If you are interested in the authors take on these misconceptions, it would be helpful for the reader to have a good grasp of the Battle at the Alamo and the Texas Rebellion before tackling this book about the disputed “facts” and misconceptions concerning those events.