The battle of the Alamo is currently being fought all over again between Traditionalists, who present the "Texans as heros" view, and Revisionists, who view this heroic view with post-modern skepticism. Why is it being re-fought, and what is at stake? Simply, because the viewpoint that prevails will impact current social attitudes towards multi-culturism and racial diversity - a central motif of current American politics. Once again, the battle is fierce - with no mercy, and no prisoners. Deguello! It is almost impossible to find an objective presentation of the facts without this modern political spin. As a remedy, I recommend the following considerations, before reading any book about the Alamo:
1.) Mexicans and Texians were at war. Both sides had extremely prejuidiced views of the event - such is war. These extreme views are the source materials for ALL writers of the history of the battle.
2.) All but a few of the Texians that were present at the battle died without telling their stories. The Mexican view had far more voices left afterwards to tell their version. Even so, the Texians version has usually prevailed.
3.) Eyewitness reports are extremely contradictory. This is not suprising, considering that the climax events occured in the dark, within a small walled compound filled with black powder smoke, erupting cannons, fire, confusion, screams, panicked soldiers, etc.
4.) In a sentence, the war was between extremely independently minded American pioneers (regardless of their various personal agenda) and an army serving the will of an extremely controlling Mexican President (seeking rigorously centralized government power). In the simplest sense, the fight was between men who wanted minimal government influence on their lives, and a government who wanted maximum influence and control on their lives. (Somehow, this story always repeats itself.)
Nonetheless, as with all historical events, something of a coherent story can be tickled out of the confused mass of information. A good detective can "triangulate" the most probable facts of the event, if he or she approaches the information with common sense and a minimum of personal agenda.
I have read all but a few of the books available on the Alamo, and can attest that Walter Lord does one of the better, most complete, jobs of reporting the event objectively. He also does it within the shortest space - "A Time to Stand" is a comparatively brief book.
Revisionists will tell you that this book is "fluff", or biased - usually because they have a different bias they want to sell you. Beware the "historian" that has found "new information", has a "new and improved analysis", or who applies modern worldviews to an age when people saw the world differently. There is nothing new about rewriting history for political ends.
Walter Lords "A Time to Stand" is the standard. Read it first, before you sample the works of the combatants in the new battle of the Alamo.
And read it before you watch the new movie, to be released Christmas 2003. With Revisionist Stephen Hardin as one of the historical advisors, it promises to be the Revisionist "Manifesto".
Just a few opinions from a world-wise Texan...
The Texas Bible
Great introduction to Alamo history