How should we remember the Alamo? Has history told an incorrect story based on lies and racism? Or are modern interpretations of the most famous battle in Texas history distorted when viewed through a modern lens?
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) hosted a panel discussion Oct. 26 on the Texas revolution and the history of the Alamo.
Sherry Sylvester, a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, served as the moderator. Sylvester is a political communications and public policy expert who has directed multimillion dollar statewide campaigns in New York and New Jersey and has been involved in dozens of Texas political campaigns. She also has worked as a journalist and has a deep and abiding interest in history.
Sylvester said the Texas revolution led to the creation of an independent nation and then “the greatest state in the nation” with the world’s ninth-largest economy and a sterling record of productivity, innovation and pride.
Panelists included historian Stephen Hardin, former Texas general land office commissioner Jerry Patterson and Alamo curator Ernesto Rodriguez III.
Patterson is a former Republican state senator who served as public lands commissioner from 2013-15, ran for lieutenant governor and later tried to return to his old job. Rodriguez is a San Antonio native on Texas' most important historic site who has been focused on the scholarly research underpinning the planning for the Alamo museum as well as promoting a deeper understanding of the Alamo’s place in history through examining its archives and artifacts.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation says its mission is "to promote conservative public policies."
Hardin is considered the preeminent Texas historian, having published numerous award-winning books, written dozens of scholarly articles. He has been recognized for his scholarship and expertise of the subject.
They came together to discuss new interpretations of the 1836 siege at a San Antonio mission that became a brief, intense battle that has captivated millions for nearly two centuries.
The new book “Forget the Alamo” by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson and Jason Stanford argues the story popularized in schoolbooks, television, movie and Texas lore has been told without the proper perspective. The authors say slavery was at the heart of the battle between Mexico and the people who wanted to make Texas into either a free nation or a part of the United States.
The book also says the important role Tejanos, of Texans of Hispanic heritage, has been overlooked, while the three main heroes of the Alamo, the famed knife-fighter Jim Bowie, fledgling military leader William Barret Travis and folk hero, outdoorsman and former congressman David Crockett, are shown to be all too human with many faults and frailties.
“They can no longer be the holy trinity of Texas, nor can the Alamo be the shrine of Texas Liberty,” the book states.
Patterson, Rodriguez and Hardin rejected the book’s arguments.
Hardin said the influx of Americans to Texas came in the wake of the Panic of 1819, which led them to seek affordable land in Texas.
“It was a very good bargain,” he said.
The new Texans also were seeking somewhere to start over, to get a new chance at life. Texas provided that, Hardin said, especially for men who were risk-takers by nature, more interested in enjoying life instead of toiling their days away.
These were the men who came to Texas and were ripe for revolution, he argued, and they sought opportunity, wealth and freedom.
“Mexican Texas offered more opportunity than the Land of Opportunity,” Hardin said.
Rodriguez said it’s important to know the history of that era.
“To understand what's happening in Mexico, you have to go back because it's all connected. There's a movement in Europe that will end up basically affecting Mexico,” he said. “And it stems from the American Revolution.”
France also underwent a rebellion to rid itself of royalty, and that spilled over to Spain when Napoleon placed his brother on the throne. While Spain had ruled Mexico for three centuries, the country gained its freedom in 1821.
The early years, however, were filled with controversy and upheaval.
“The government of Mexico is constantly changing violently, for the most part,” Rodriguez said.
Former president Antonio López de Santa Anna agreed to resume power if granted sweeping authority. He abolished state legislatures, removed elected governors and replaced them with appointees and ignored the 1824 Mexican Constitution, Rodriguez explained.
He said all eight Mexican states rebelled against this tyranny, not just Texas. The Texas War for Independence was part of a larger civil war, Rodriguez said. Santa Anna, who originally took office as a federalist, sought to centralize power and rule as a dictator. That is why the Texans rebelled, which led Santa Anna to bring a massive army to San Antonio to attack the Alamo.
But his victory was short-lived, as the citizens of Texas rallied around Sam Houston, who defeated Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto two months later captured the Mexican leader and forced him to acknowledge Texas as an independent nation.
The panelists also rejected arguments that the Texans were motivated by slavery. That, Hardin said, is a misreading of history. He noted that the men at the Alamo came from around the nation and the world. Some were dedicated abolitionists.
Patterson said there are elements in the newer histories that are valid.
“The first thing Texans should need to know is what we did wrong, and for 100 years we taught the history of this period wrong,” he said. “We taught essentially Mexican bad, Anglo good. That was all you needed to know. And starting about 40 years ago, there was an awakening awakening that ‘No, that's not true.’ This was not Mexican versus Anglos. And that's one of the points that the other side that I've been referring to is the woke crowd has right. And that's why I think this 1836 project that we're on is important because we want to make sure we don't teach things that are wrong.”
Hardin said historians perform a valuable service, as long as they carefully research their subject, provide footnotes and prove they are revealing new information.
“One of the things that irritates me to no end is when people say, ‘Well, these damned revisionist historians.’ I'm a professional historian,” he said. “When I went to grad school, this was drummed into us, that whenever I write an article or a book, I'm expected to make an original contribution to knowledge. I've got to go into the archives and find stuff that nobody else has. And I need to present that to the public. So every time you read one of Steve Hardin’s books, you go, ‘Wow, I didn't know that.’
“Well, that's what makes history fun," he added. By definition that revises the historical record, and that's not a bad thing. I tell my students that history is not the past. The past is the past. History is our interpretation of the past. Based on available documentation, it's like a puzzle with a whole lot of the pieces missing.”
He said the new book on the Alamo is not history performed by academics.
“But those aren't revisionists,” Hardin said. “Those are cynical, Texas-hating people, and we need to call them what they really are.”
Sylvester said the story, the legend, the reality, remain a vital part of Texas history. That’s why it’s so important that the facts are known.
“The Battle of the Alamo, in particular, that is part of our identity," she said. "We are here in the greatest state in the nation. Another thing that Sam Houston said, which I love, was the Texas can get along without the U.S., but the U.S. can't get along without Texas. And we see that every day.”