Having praised Mr.
H.A. McArdlethe author of the letter for his insights, research, and ability to present a tableau vivant, however, Texas historians will be hard-pressed to interpret the minor role that chief Travis plays in the article. The author, after all, told revisionist historians that it did not really matter whether or not Colonel Travis drew the line, for he should have drawn it. (Texans are still drawing such lines of moral commitment today, sometimes in very difficult Middle Eastern sand.) When push comes to shove, other recent studies remain essential to understanding the mythological interpretation of Travis's line in the sand.
Ben Procter, for example, has closely studied the story of Louis (Moses) Rose, the man who left the Alamo like Josephus is sometimes have been alleged to have left Masada, and whose letter to the editor in the 1873 Texas Almanac was the original source of the "line" myth. Minor sins of omission and commission occur in both Texas and southern history because many historians remain dedicated to a Whiggish "usable past"--Ben Procter's "objectivity" is one example, and Gibbons's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was even used to stuff a Comanche war shield. (Too bad Dobie and Walter Prescott Webb were too late for that honor.) Sins of commission are usually a bit more difficult to explain. Because of questions surrounding the diary of Jose Enrique de la Pena, published as With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, it is possibly unwise to rely too heavily on its short passage concerning Davy Crockett's surrender and execution until a historical verdict has been more fully rendered.
In conclusion, I think that Mr. H.A. McArdle describes Chief Travis as perpetrator of the soldiers deaths.
Nevertheless, Travis was one of the heroes to whom we as Americans should be thankful and grateful for the country we have today.BUY custom non-plagiarized Essay of 100% high quality. From PHD writers at our Supreme custom writing service...
