An accurate representation of history is a critical concern because it is the foundation upon which humans’ understanding and analysis of crucial historical events is created. Even though there are other primary sources of historical information, eyewitness accounts are still regarded with value as they contain a critical set of information, including emotional perspectives and motivations behind specific actions. This paper analyzes three eyewitness accounts associated with the battle of the Alamo, and shows the value and diverse nature of perspectives that can emerge from these primary sources of information.
Background
Battle of Alamo
The Battle of the Alamo is a significant and pivotal event when considering the Texas revolution and the independence of Texas. This battle took place in 1836, with the primary conflict between the Texan volunteer rebels who opposed an Alamo mission led by Mexican forces (Edmondson, 2022). The Mexican forces, reported to have been under the orders of General Antonia López de Santa Anna, won this battle against the Texan defenders, primarily because of their massive numbers in this attack (Edmondson, 2022). Even though the Texan defenders including prominent figures like James Bowie lost the battle of the Alamo, this event and their fierce resistance was a significant motivator for the greater Texan cause, inspiring subsequent victories like the decisive Battle of San Jacinto, where the Texan forces secured independence from Mexico (Edmondson, 2022). Because of its significance in shaping the history of Texas and in part that of the United States and Mexico, an accurate historical representation of this battle is necessary.
SOAPStone Criterion
The analysis of the battle of the Alamo presented in this paper is based on the SOAPStone criterion. This framework provides a foundation to understand the various eyewitness accounts and analyze their validity and contribution to historical knowledge (Shanahan et al., 2016). The following eyewitness accounts are subjected to this criterion for the following outcomes:
Account One: Susanna Dickinson Hanning
Mrs Dickinson (also referred to as Susanna Hanning) provides a poignant narrative reflecting on the harrowing events of between late February (from 23rd 1986) and early March (around 6th March). The unique nature of this eyewitness account is that it includes several characters including that of Captain Dickinson, who was directly involved in the conflict. In addition, Susan mentions individuals on the other side of the divide, including Commander Santa Anna. The primary occasion in this narration includes the events preceding the battle of the Alamo, specific civilian-related perspectives during the battle and the aftermath of the siege. The audience in this eyewitness account was James Morphis, a lawyer and writer operating in North Carolina, although it is possible that Susan provided similar accounts in other unrecorded instances. The purpose of this account is to illuminate a deeply personal perspective on the events associated with the battle on the Alamo, placing emphasis on the tremendous bravery and sacrifice exhibited by the Texan defenders and the egregious impacts on Civilians. This purpose is clear when considering the primary subject matter, which seems to revolve around the Battle of the Alamo and the courageous efforts of the Texan defenders in the face of adversity. Finally, a critical element in this account is that Susanna’s reflection is somber, conveying the profound sense of loss and sacrifice, while also including some form of admiration for the bravery exhibited by the Texans.
Account Two: Felix Nuñez
The second eyewitness account is by Felix Nuñez, a conscripted member of the Mexican army. The speaker’s identity in this case is palpable in the eyewitness account based on the factual recollection of the events and the apathetic description of most elements. The occasion, like the preceding account, includes the preceding events, the assault, siege, and eventual capture of the Alamo. It is unclear who the audience was, but the nature of the writing is reflective of some form of a journal or formal entry. The purpose of the account is to recount the assault, including an analysis of the tactical decisions made by the Mexican forces during the conflict. Even though Felix argues that his conscription was forcibly compelled, this personal anecdote is not reflected or explained in this account. The subject matter is centered on the Battle of the Alamo. The tone in this eyewitness account, as opposed to Susan’s, is devoid of emotional expression, with an apparent and conscious effort by Felix to only focus on the details of the military actions and the ensuing aftermath.
Account Three: Juan Almonte
The final eyewitness account is by Juan Almonte, who was around the period of the Battle of the Alamo, a secretary and advisor to Santa Anna. The eyewitness account is multi-dimensional because on one dimension it provides a recollection of the strategic military actions and decisions while on another it recollects the actual events as they unfold. The primary audience in this account is not indicated by could be the readers of the journal entries. The purpose of the account is to provide a basis to understand all the events. Juan’s secretarial skills are evident in how he details the events. The subject matter includes all the actions and strategies by the Mexican forces before and during the assault and siege. With a tone that remains factual and detailed, Almonte’s narrative eschews overt expressions of emotion, focusing instead on providing a comprehensive depiction of the practical aspects of the military engagements and the decision-making process that shaped the Battle of the Alamo.
Analysis
Considering the three accounts of Susanna Dickinson Hanning, Felix Nuñez, and Juan Almonte, there are clear corroborations in the accounts of the events. However, there are also apparent divergences, especially when applying precepts of the SOAPStone criterion. The primary foundation for the divergence is the unique nature of the perspectives; for example, while Susanna is a Texan civilian caught in the midst of the conflict Felix Nuñez is a conscripted member of the Mexican army. In addition, another foundation of the divergence is the nature of records; for example, while Juan Almonte, a key figure within the Mexican forces, offers a strategic examination in his detailed journal entries, Susanna Dickinson relies on her mental recollection in a verbal communication with James Morphis. These foundations of the divergence influence other elements; for example, Susanna’s account is inclined toward an emotional connection to the Texan defenders while Almonte’s account showcases a matter-of-fact perspective. Therefore, there are divergences that result from the varied roles, affiliations, and objectives of the eyewitnesses, which are reflected in the nature of historical narratives.
Each of the eyewitness accounts seems credible and their validity is enhanced by the limited conflicting facts in each of their stories. When considering the most credible account, an understanding of the eyewitnesses’ perspectives and affiliations is essential. Where all these accounts are available, I would recommend utilizing all of them in complementary fashion. Nonetheless, where only one choice is required, I think the account of Juan Almonte is most comprehensive because it provides a strategic examination, enhancing the overall understanding of the Battle of the Alamo. Nonetheless, using this account must recognize the inherent limitation in the fact that it might be less valuable when considering the effects of this conflict on American Civilians compared to Susanna’s account. Therefore, considering the unique nature of each of the accounts and how they will be utilized is necessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper provides a practical perspective about the complexities of using eyewitness accounts in historical documentation. The divergence and diversity in the eyewitness accounts of Susanna Dickinson Hanning, Felix Nuñez, and Juan Almonte illuminate the need to analyze every account using the SOAPStone criterion. These accounts and their corroboration of events and divergences of perspectives emphasize the complexity inherent in historical narratives and humans’ understanding of significant events.
References
Edmondson, J. R. (2022). The Alamo story: From early history to current conflicts. Rowman & Littlefield.
Shanahan, C., Bolz, M. J., Cribb, G., Goldman, S. R., Heppeler, J., & Manderino, M. (2016). Deepening what it means to read (and write) like a historian: Progressions of instruction across a school year in an eleventh grade US history class. The History Teacher, 49(2), 241-270. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24810476.
write