Byline: Joseph C. Goulden, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The bravery of the men who died defending the Alamo in 1836 was drummed into my head on an annual basis beginning in the third grade at Van Zandt Elementary School in Marshall, Texas. To me, the Alamo was a continuation of the American Revolution, with the Texians - as they were called in that era, and I will use the term, as does author James Donovan - fighting for freedom as an independent nation.
Mr. Donovan's gripping book is history at its best - exactingly sourced and written with a vividness that challenges you to put it down. Even those familiar with an oft-told story will delight in the richness of his detail. And in my view, he demolishes contentions by revisionists that the defenders were frontier roughnecks trying to seize land that properly belonged to Mexico, which had just cast off Spanish domination.
To be sure, in the early 19th century, much of North America west of the original 13 Colonies was up for grabs. President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803 transferred a vast swath of the continent from the cash-strapped Emperor Napoleon of France into U.S. possession. Jefferson thought at the time that Texas was included. But Spain exerted old treaty rights to the territory, and Jefferson reluctantly yielded, lamenting later, The province of Techas [sic] will be the richest state of our Union, without any exception.
Alas, after Spain, Mexico fell under even worse governance, that of Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who wielded dictatorial powers and dissolved the country's nascent congress. He declared, "A hundred years from now my people will not be fit for liberty ... despotism is the proper government for them.
Meanwhile, thousands of English-speaking settlers spilled out of Southern states into Mexico, some as squatters, others with land grants from the Mexican government. Despite the richness of the vast territory, the Mexicans, oddly, paid meager attention to permanent settlement. The Spaniards' chief interest had been gold (they found none) and converting Indians to Catholicism.
Nonetheless, the influx of settlers, and their insistence on creating their own government, rattled Santa Anna, who dispatched ragtag troops to occupy an old mission complex named the Alamo, the present site of downtown San Antonio.
The Alamo was not a fort. Dominated by a 100-year-old church with thick, crumbling walls, its compound covered about 3 acres, with stone houses in the interior. It was built to resist Indian attacks, not modern cannon, and it lacked features such as parapets atop the walls or banquettes to protect riflemen.
In 1835, the Texians responded by sending their own force - what Donovan terms little more than a well-intentioned mob - to seize the Alamo and expel the Mexicans. After harsh fighting, the Mexican occupiers surrendered on terms that enabled them to keep their arms. Mexicans and Texians joined in a friendly fandango.
Enraged, Santa Anna dispatched a stronger army that outmanned the 200-odd Texians 6-1. …