In the early 1930s, University of Texas historian Amelia Williams created what had been considered THE definitive list of defenders as part of her doctoral thesis.  Her subsequent article, "Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of its Defenders," in the 1933-1934 "Southwestern Historical Quarterly," set the standard for identifying Alamo heroes.  However, new evidence indicates that much of Amelia William's research was flawed and the number of defenders could actually be much higher. With other defenders, there is no hard evidence that they even belong on the list. In these instances, Williams relied on rather tenuous family histories without basis or documentation.  Should we accept William's research as gospel or should we hold ourselves to a stricter standard of scholarly conduct? Should there be hard documentation for each defender on the list?

From: Phillip De La Peña
Date: 02/02/00

I think any list is opened to debate, since no truly accurate roster of defenders was made, it is still very possible that there were some unknown names of defenders lost to history.

From: Kevin R. Young
Date: 02/02/00

Of course the list should be updated a revised from time to time as research allows. William's list should not be the final word, and I am not opposed to names being taken off that can not be documented as well as new names added when documentation makes a clear case.

In regard to changing the plaques at the Alamo, well folks, if you would help the DRT come up with the $20,000 to recast all the plaques then I think they would be interested. Remember the rule: the minute you cast something in bronze, it becomes incorrect!

Of course, if the Alamo list needs to be changed, then so do the Goliad and San Jacinto lists.

Kevin R. Young

From: Glenn Hadeler
Date: 02/03/00

While not a proponent of "Revisionist History," I would have to say yes, there should be a revised list of Alamo defenders generated. Careful consideration must be given such an undertaking however, few lists hold such a prestigious place in history, and this one is literally "carved in stone." The addition of new names to the list is certainly warranted if reliable documentation can be found to substantiate that the subject was present during the siege, there will always be glory enough for all; BUT, removal of any name from the list is a matter that must be scrutinized with the utmost gravity. The names of individuals who have long been believed were in the garrison should stay on the list, even if based on the skimpiest of circumstantial evidence. To strip a name of such a proud title is something that can only be done if a preponderance of evidence deems it justifiable.

In a previous submission it is suggested that the placards within the Alamo might be replaced, with this I must disagree. If we replace the plaques in the Alamo should we also chip the names from the granite monument on the State Capitol grounds at Austin? Yes, a new list should be compiled, peer reviewed, and endorsed. It can then be referenced by posterity as desired, for future literary works, new placards, or just those who seek the truth. Let the imperfect memorials of the past however, remain as they are.

Glenn Hadeler 

From: Phillip de la Peña
Date: 02/03/00

I support the idea for replacement of the plaques in the Alamo, what also might be nice is a small note at the bottom with an inscription "Other Defenders not listed also possibly present" 

From: Randell Tarin
Date: 02/03/00

This is great that everyone supports the idea of new plaques, but that's not the question that was asked. Can we please get back on the subject.

Most researchers and historians agree that the list compiled by Williams is flawed, and that once she reached a number in the range of 189 she more or less ended her research. The problem with the research that she did do was that she accepted stories from families who believed that their GGGrandfather or uncle or cousin had perished in defense of the Alamo, she basically accepted hearsay. There is also some evidence that she purposely left some defenders names off the list. There are names that appear on the Alamo lists that also appear on the list of those killed at Goliad and vice versa making for much confusion. The Williams list needs to basically be discounted and serious unbiased and comprehensive research begun to try and find the names of those who did truly die on March 6th, 1836. The long held numbers of 185-189 needs to be revised and noted that the actual number of defenders was in the range of 250-257, numbers that show up again and again in the Mexican accounts and reports. For many years now anything Mexican was immediately discredited as lies, these biases need to be dropped and any and all Mexican accounts reexamined and studied and the information obtained added to the overall story of the Alamo. As researchers and historians, we should hold ourselves to a high degree of scholarly conduct and to only put forth information that advances knowledge not confuses it. There are enough myths and legends concerning the Alamo. Let us enjoy them as just that, but let us also know the difference.

From: Torrey Hunter
Date: 02/06/00

Amelia Williams' list should be examined in the same way any research might be double checked. Unfortunately most of the time such things are merely repeated over and over again without rechecking or examination.

My interest in Williams' work began in an attempt to document the presence or absence of one particular individual. I found that most of the sources given by Williams' for my soldier's presence at the Alamo were incorrect or could not be located in the archives. For instance, I was told that the CMSR references could not be located because they had been either lost or renumbered since William's time.

Considering how much fruitless effort I have expended from time to time on this one man, I can imagine what a monumental task it would be to do this for each of the 189 names, especially the ones about whom little is known.

It would be fascinating, though, and perhaps someday an energetic soul might undertake the task.

Torrey Hunter

Not only should Williams' research be viewed as flawed, discriminatory and sloppy, a commission under the auspices of the Alamo might be formed to re-research the garrison's roster of martyred defenders, using greater attention to scholarly detail and any primary and secondary sources not available or ignored by Williams. I don't know the man, but Alamo sleuth and scholar Thomas Ricks Lindley seems a likely head of this commission. Neither history nor Texas is served by a roster list that may well include undeserving names or be shy the names of men who died there heretofore anonymously.

Steve Hedgpeth
Pennsylvania

I concur with the comments made by Glenn Hadeler. The true story of the Alamo deserves to be told and the names of all her defenders should be recorded. Leave fiction to Hollywood. With that said I also feel that the names currently listed should not be removed unless it can be proved without a shadow of doubt that the name or names listed are in error. Too many people have lived their lives with the belief that they are related to one of the Alamo's defenders to have a name removed with out the strictest of proof.

In regards to redoing the existing plaques, I believe there are more important tasks at the Alamo that the money should be used for.

Rick Lawrence

In the last comments, Mr. Lawrence states that existing names should not be removed unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that certain individuals were not there.  This, he concludes, was because many families have lived their whole lives believing they are a descendent of an Alamo defender. I understand his thinking, but isn't this the very thing that led Williams to add names for which there does not seem to be any documentation?

We should use the list we have now. If researchers can't find definitive proof of an individual's presence at the Alamo, then that name should be removed. Family legends are wonderful things. Unfortunately, as any genealogist will tell you, research doesn't always prove the family story to be true. It's time we got over the fear of stepping on toes and strive to create as complete a list as possible. I would love to know who the other 65 -70 men were who died that morning and would like to know that ALL the names we remember for their sacrifice are deserving of that remembrance.

John Bryant

With regard to Mr. Bryant's comments of  02/04 and 02/10, I agree, as does everyone, that a new list should be researched and that historians must hold themselves to the highest standards of scholarly conduct. The modern historian is by nature skeptical and with good reason. We have seethe results of legend, myth, and folklore on written history.

I myself spent seven years researching an early German settler, who is represented in a book in the "nonfiction" sections of many libraries with the most preposterous fabrications about his exploits. It is essential in this day to have solid documentation that confirms persons and events connected with the early years of Texas history.

I do not believe however, that "tenuous" family stories are totally useless. Nor do I believe that what holds true for the present need be applied to a subject researched 67 years ago. While I can certainly understand why a researcher would and should be cynical about a family story that recalls an ancestor who died in the Alamo, we should not simply discard such a story.

The question need be ask, is there circumstantial evidence that would corroborate the story? Also there is the question of the integrity of the source. While it is preferable to have first hand documentation and if possible archival evidence to support a story, they are not in every case reliable. I would apply more credibility to a secondhand story provided by a respected family in the 1930s than I would to the sworn testimony of the chief executive of our nation today. In those cases where no evidence can be found to support the claim that an individual was present at the fall of the fortress, this may well be a matter more of ethics than procedure.

As Mr. Hunter discovered much of the documentation has been lost. At the time Ms. Williams released her findings it was regarded as fact, therefore there must have been some basis for the belief that the person was present. It is a great injustice to have the name of an unworthy person inscribed alongside the Alamo heroes. It would be a greater injustice to remove a worthy name simply because the trail has grown too cold to trace his participation.

In closing let me say that I agree with Mr. Bryant that all sources should be considered in researching the names of the Alamo defenders. I also agree that much of the current list appears to be flawed, but I do not believe that the work of Ms. Williams should be completely discounted. To do so would be to apply the same prejudice that he claims has been applied to "anything Mexican" in the past.

Glenn Hadeler 

From: D. Gomez
Date: 02/13/00

As a genealogist for over 15 years, I feel that everything should be backed up with actual documentation. Word of mouth from old timers is not reliable nor are entries in bibles, etc. Some errors are made in many instances. So, hold the authors responsible for what they write by enforcing documentation. Truth should be the norm.

D. Gomez, Lt Col, USAF

From: Renee Smelley
Date: 02/15/00

I don't think you should accept anybody's research as gospel. Any History research that is going to be published should be backed up with documentation if it is going to be use to tell the truth. I also think that the defenders of the Alamo should have only been listed if it was proven that they were there. Why would anybody use a source that was based mostly on family tradition especially when it was going to be used to create something like a list of Alamo defenders? That was negligent within itself. It will not be an easy task to try and document those present at the Alamo and there are going to be those that are going to really fuss if their ancestor is removed due to the fact they can't or don't have any documentation proving they were there. I sure wouldn't want to be on the board of the Alamo if that ever happens.

I have visited the Alamo quite a few times in my 32 years of life, the last time being July 1999 when I took my children for the first time and am saddened to realize that some of the names of people listed on the Alamo walls may not have actually been there. I guess I always took it for granted that they would not have been listed unless there was proof they were actually there.

Although we always realize that there is going to be some mistakes in most research, I sure wouldn't use somebody's published research if they did not have any real documentation to prove their work. People's memories are good to use when you are looking for leads, but a lot of times things remembered is not exactly remembered as it happened and if you ask several family members about the same topic it is most always going to be somewhat different from person to person and some will argue about it. You start with family tradition looking for leads, then you look for documentation to back it up. If you don't find documentation then it should be listed as "Family Tradition." This lets others know that there is no actual proof.

As for Mrs. Williams' research, I think that it should be used as a lead for finding documentation on those that she lists as being defenders of the Alamo. Memories and family tradition are leads to the past, but it should not be used as proof.
 
 
 
 

THE WAR ROOM ARCHIVES Previous War Room Questions