| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| richfed |
Posted - October 19 2003 : 5:30:18 PM
... a new book by Thomas Ricks Lindley. It comes with some high praise. I'm not so sure. Lindley, a private investigator, uses the techniques of his trade to sift through primary documents for evidence to debunk common perceptions about the siege of the Alamo in 1836. The book is subtitled, New Evidence & New Conclusions.
I'm not quite through with it yet, but have formed some opinions.
Though the book is interesting reading, I just don't buy all his arguments. Still have to read his conclusions on Mexican casualties, but, so far, he has discussed:
- Sam Houston and his "orders" to blow up the Alamo, as well as his failure to assist in a timely fashion. Basically, he has Houston changing his story as time goes by to cover his tracks - and I believe he is correct in that, to a degree. Lindley, though, makes it all sound more sinister than necessary.
- Next up is a dissection of a heretofore accepted study of the composition of the Alamo Defenders. I don't know enough about this to really argue his points, but some seem a stretch.
- So far, the most fascinating section has been on the reinforcements the Alamo received. He claims the accepted 32 from Gonzales - the usually alloted reinforcement - were supplemented by maybe 50 more 2 days, or so, later ... he lays out a scenario, based on testimony, where Davey Crockett goes out to fetch this last batch. Pretty convincing in this chapter!
- Several chapters predictably focus on Travis' line in the dust - or lack of. He talks at length about Moses/Louis Rose, reportedly the one man to not cross the line, and whether they were even the same person. He makes much of an impossible March 3rd date. But, what of the 5th? I don't know what happened in the Alamo compound those last few days, obviously, but I do know that at the end they knew their fate was sealed. They opted to go down fighting. That's enough for me - line or no line.
A lot of good info ... and he leaves you thinking, but for the most part I'm not sure he really makes his case strongly enough to rewrite history.
Anyone else read this? If so, what did you think?
All prepping for the new Alamo film! |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dillon1836 |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 11:54:41 PM
Rich,Two kettles,
Mr.Lindley is working on an Alamo Traces 2. If I remember correctly,he's found eveidence that supports the execution of David Crockett. |
| Two Kettles |
Posted - October 29 2003 : 10:53:17 PM
Tom's research is incredibly valuable, because he's doing research into primary sources that no one else has touched (county records, etc.). Even those who don't agree with him seem to respect him and definitely pay attention to him, because of the groundbreaking nature of his work. But, I think he could be a little more critical of his own sources. He's one of the people "leading the charge" against the Pena manuscripts, and made some valid points. But I wonder if his own sources could withstand similar scrutiny.
Two Kettles |
| Dillon1836 |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 9:24:45 PM
I read it and have it rich. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
