Sources used in this document:

Examples from History in the Making: An Absorbing Look at How American History Has Changed in the Telling over the Last 200 Years show how the American understanding of the Alamo has shifted over the years. In 1867, the Texas patriot Davy Crockett was portrayed in an ostensibly objective history book as being surrounded by bloodthirsty Mexicans. But, the book said, spirit of Crockett could not die with his body and lived on to inspire others to fight for freedom (146-147). In some history textbooks in the 1880s the Battle of the Alamo was not acknowledged at all, given that the battle ended in defeat. Another textbook noted that although Mexicans triumphed in the battle, American fortitude was simply too strong to withstand the determination of the Texans to secure independence in the long run (148). One textbook from 1915, with clear racial overtones, openly stated that the 'Anglo-Saxon blood' of the Americans and the independent spirit of the frontiersmen inevitably came in conflict with the weak, dictatorial government of Mexico. Well into the 1950s and 1960s, textbooks stressed how the superior numbers of Mexicans (2,400 strong) were held off by the handful of Texans led by William B. Travis, David Crockett, and David Bowie (151)

This one-sided perspective was challenged in the 1990s. "Myths about that battle have magnified the rebel's valor at the Mexican's expense," noted one contemporary textbook (150). A 1995 rendition tried not to take a particular side but presented the facts as dispassionately as possible: 187 rebels did indeed hold off a Mexican assault for days. But the most famous heroes of the conflict -- Davy Crockett included -- did not fight to the death but were rather executed by the Mexican Army after the fact. The book notes that at the time, an equally inspiring event to spur more men to join the Texan independence movement was when a 350 men-strong Texan detachment were killed by the Mexican forces (151). However, it is the memory of the Alamo that has been memorialized in the historical imagination.

However, even this 1995 account is not entirely satisfactory. To understand the determination of Mexico to continue to keep the Texas territory within its national borders, the Mexican-American conflict must be presented as a whole, without undue weight given to the events at the Alamo. The Alamo has become part of the iconography of the taming of the West, and the dominion over the frontier has become synonymous with defeating nonwhite people who symbolize more primitive, less democratic cultures. The fact that the Alamo stood for a long time in a surprising fashion seems to confirm an ideal of American superiority, and by giving it undue weight -- even without racial overtones or inflated language -- tends to confirm this myth in the eyes of students, unless the story is properly contextualized.