
The Custom Rifle
Have It Your Way. Here’s How.
While many shooters only use factory-built rifles, some eventually feel the urge to have one custom made to their personal specifications. This is admirable, but the rifle may take years to show up, and may not be exactly as desired.
Dictionary definitions of custom-made all include phrases such as “designed and built specifically for one person” or “made to individual order.” How can something we order turn out wrong? Well, as Barry Fitzgerald said in The Quiet Man, “Ooh, I could tell you tales….”
One gunsmith thought a barrel with a slower rifling twist would be just the thing for a custom 7×57. After all, the original twist was for 175-grain bullets, and nobody shoots those anymore, do they? So he installed a match-grade barrel with a 1:11.5-inch twist, which scattered any bullets longer than the 140-grain Nosler Partition into patterns, not groups.
Another put a new, hand-lapped .257 Roberts barrel on a Ruger No. 1. The barrel itself was fine, but he reinstalled the quarter-rib scope base so crookedly the rifle couldn’t be sighted-in with any scope in my collection. Apparently he never range-tested the rifle before shipping it to me. Oh, and he was a self-proclaimed expert on gunsmithing the No. 1.
Another gunsmith promised to build a nice, light .260 Remington. Along with a short Remington 700 action, I sent along a scope. When the rifle arrived it weighed well over 9 pounds, because he’d used a bulky stock with an aluminum-bedding block, plus a set of steel scope mounts sturdy enough to hold a truck axle.
This sort of stuff doesn’t happen only to me. The other day I was e-mailing back and forth with a friend, who told this tale: “I sent an action and barrel to a gunsmith, because he had the finish reamer for the chamber I wanted and the cost for him do all the work was less than $50, including the shipping and insurance. He ‘knew better’ than me and didn’t like my barrel, a stainless Hart, so he bought a barrel he liked and installed it. He never spoke to me about changing the barrel, and charged me full retail on a barrel I could have bought wholesale. We grumbled about this for a while, and he ended up removing his barrel and returning my action and barrel to me. Needless to say, I haven’t recommended him.”
However, screw-ups aren’t always the gunmaker’s fault. Melvin Forbes of New Ultra Arms is well known for delivering what the customer wants—though a few years ago my wife Eileen ordered a Model 20 in .257 Roberts. When it arrived four months late the barrel length and contour were wrong, and the stock had the NULA “soft-stripe” paint job instead of the camo Eileen had ordered. The mix-up was due to the woman who was then Melvin’s office manager, who not only shuffled orders like a deck of cards but sometimes diverted down payments to her own bank account. Luckily, Eileen still liked the rifle a lot, so left it the way it came.
There can be other twists of fate. A couple of years ago I decided to have a traditional .270 Winchester built on an FN Mauser commercial action, with a light-contour barrel and a fancy walnut stock. One gunsmith would do the metal work, and another the stock, and the delivery date would supposedly be “before next deer season.” But the metal guy became really ill shortly after receiving my action. This happens, especially since most traditional gunsmiths aren’t exactly young these days, and he runs a 1-man shop.
So he sent the action to the guy who made the barrel, another excellent gunsmith I’ve used before. However, his several-man shop was backed up, and he hasn’t been able to put my action and barrel together yet. “Next deer season” ended six months ago and the stock guy hasn’t even seen the barreled action.
Of course, gunsmiths often run on a calendar all their own. It may be tempting to call and ask how the project is coming, but more than one gunsmith I know says anybody who calls more than once before the agreed-on delivery date gets their rifle moved to the back of the line.
Most problems can be bypassed by spelling out every detail of the rifle in a written agreement before the work starts. Some custom gunsmiths have an actual contract, but many don’t. I prefer some sort of agreement, because then there shouldn’t be any surprises like different rifling twists or substituting another make of barrel.
The next problem is finding the right gunsmith—or gunsmiths. In building traditional rifles, such as my ongoing .270, the work’s often done by more than one shop, even if you only contract with one gunsmith. This is one reason traditional custom rifles can take so long to build. Yes, it takes more time to inlet, finish and checker a walnut stock than epoxy-bed and paint a synthetic stock, but here’s the sequence involved in making some traditional custom rifles:
1. A metal shop fits the barrel and does any action work necessary. 2. The unblued (“in the white”) barreled action and walnut blank are shipped to another shop, where a stock is custom-turned on a duplicating machine. 3. The turned blank and barreled action are sent to the actual stockmaker, who inlets and finishes the stock. 4. Because the barreled action gets sanded along with the stock, it’s returned to the metal shop for final polishing and bluing. (Somewhere in here it may be engraved as well, though usually by a specialist, not the metal shop. And even the bluing can be done in another shop.) 5. The stockmaker may not do checkering, instead sending the stock to a checkering specialist. 6. Many months or even years later, the barreled action and finished stock are put together and, hopefully, test-fired to make sure everything works right.

On rare occasions you can find a used custom rifle very close to what you want, for a
much lower price. This Mauser 8x57mm was made in Germany before World War II, and John
bought it at a gun show for less than 10 percent of what it would cost to reproduce today.
Some gunsmiths add a surcharge for the handling involved in sending a rifle to various shops. This is fair, because time is money, but it also means you can save some money by hiring individual gunsmiths for barreling, action work, stock fitting, etc. I’ve done this with some of my own rifles. (Another way to save money is to buy used. Like new pickup trucks, the value of custom rifles drops considerably once you take delivery. If you find a used rifle that’s exactly what you want, the price can be half what the original owner paid.)
You also need to hire the right gunsmith. The big problem with my .260 was the definition of “light.” It turned out he primarily made so-called tactical rifles. To him, a .260 weighing over 9 pounds scoped was light, while to me a light hunting rifle weighs no more than 8 pounds scoped.
This wasn’t really his fault. Once in a while a gunsmith approaches a gun writer and offers to make a rifle for a discounted price, hoping for some publicity. The guy approached me and I accepted his offer, without really understanding his background. I solved the problem by installing a lightweight Bansner High-Tech stock on the .260 myself, and switching to much lighter scope mounts, whereupon the rifle weighed a little less than 8 pounds. But if I were looking for a gunsmith to make a lightweight custom rifle I’d go to Melvin Forbes, Mark Bansner, or somebody else who frequently makes lightweights.
Similarly, if I wanted a rifle for African big game, I’d find a gunsmith who has some experience in Africa, like D’Arcy Echols. Many gunsmiths have relatively little experience in big game hunting, but somehow know all about building any sort of big game rifle. I once tested a .458 Winchester Magnum made by a traditional-rifle gunsmith on a commercial Mauser action. The stock was so bulky the bolt handle’s knob barely stuck out beyond the wood, not the ideal combination when a Cape buffalo charges. But by golly the wood was pretty, and the checkering fancy. It turned out the guy’s total hunting experience was Texas deer hunting.
This brings up your wishes vs. the gunsmith’s. You may want a certain feature, for example perhaps a detachable magazine. The gunsmith may recommend against it, not because he dislikes detachable magazines but because he hasn’t found a detachable magazine that will consistently work with the cartridge you want. It would be smart to listen to him.
On the other hand, if he simply rejects all your ideas with no real reason, or doesn’t ask for many details, he might not be an actual custom gunsmith. Many gunsmiths who claim to make custom rifles actually make one type of rifle, their way.
It can help to obtain some references from any potential gunsmith, but today a lot of information on various custom gunsmiths can be found on Internet chat rooms, such as 24hourcampfire.com. You’ll have to sift through a bunch of opinions to get anywhere near the truth, since the Internet makes experts out of everybody able to type (though not necessarily spell). But cyberspace can provide some useful information.
Aside from cost, one reason synthetic-stocked custom rifles are so popular is the entire job can be done in one shop. Two modern-type gunsmiths I’ve used who do provide exactly what the customer wants are Mark Bansner and Charlie Sisk. In fact Mark even makes his own High-Tech synthetic stocks, and Charlie has put them on all the rifles he’s made for me.
In recent years I’ve used Kilimanjaro Rifles for wood-stocked rifles. The stocks all feature their Stealth lamination process, with a strip of wood cut out of the center of the blank and then reversed, and most people don’t realize the wood is laminated unless it’s pointed out. While Kilimanjaro offers rifles designed around basic models, they’ll also build stocks to fit the exact shape of the customer, like the stock on my wife Eileen’s .308 Winchester.
Once you decide on a gunsmith, don’t send more than the deposit they request. Some clients don’t trust themselves with their own money, afraid they’ll spend it on something else before their custom rifle gets finished, so they send the gunsmith a couple hundred bucks now and then. But like taxidermists, most gunsmiths finish jobs quicker when they get paid at the finish line. One long-time custom ’smith (who actually does everything from metal-work to walnut stocks) doesn’t take deposits, admitting he’s more motivated by dollars dancing at the end of the project. Of course, he’s in high demand, so normally doesn’t deliver rifles by next deer season.
When your perfect rifle shows up there are several common reactions. One is happiness, especially if everything ends up the way you wanted. A second is a desire for yet another custom rifle. This isn’t a bad thing—unless you can’t afford it, so end up selling the first rifle to pay for the second. Believe it or not, this is a common syndrome, especially among fans of synthetic-stocked custom rifles.
Shooters who order wooden-stocked rifles seem to hold onto them, partly because the fancy wood, the checkering, and the dimensions of the stock are just as individual as the customer. Plus the rifle usually costs a lot more than a synthetic-stocked rifle, and the wait is longer. The cartridge is also usually a classic, often a round the client’s used for decades before finally springing for his dream rifle. Such customers are usually old enough to truly know what they want, so normally remain satisfied once the rifle’s in their hands.

This custom 7×57 was made on a Remington 700 action and a Bansner High-Tech stock,
and shot beautifully with 140-grain Nosler Partition. But the gunsmith put a
slow-twist barrel on it, without informing John, who discovered it wouldn’t
shoot any bullets longer than 140-grain Nosler Partitions.
Fads
Shooters who order synthetic-stocked rifles, on the other hand, tend to follow fads. By the time their new rifle shows up, another trendy cartridge has popped up on the Internet chat rooms, like spring fashions in Paris. Some are very experienced shooters, but some aren’t, since on average they’re younger than clients who order traditional custom rifles. Instead of ordering a rifle chambered for a cartridge they know will work, they’re hoping a new cartridge or rifle will change their lives. If it doesn’t, then they’re on to another project. Often they have several custom rifles in the works at once, and some rifles even get aborted before the finishing line. The Classified section of 24hourcampfire.com almost always has a few ads for an action, stock and barrel somebody’s purchased for their dream rifle, but now they’re selling the parts to finance some other trendy rifle.
This doesn’t mean either approach is right or wrong. The main point of a custom rifle isn’t just a finer firearm, whether in looks or function, but the fun of dreaming up a rifle as an extension of ourselves, and not just a tool we buy at a local store, like a post-hole digger. It’s immaterial whether the rifle is a classic made of walnut and blued steel we’ll treasure for decades, or another milepost along a highway of rifles. It’s us.
By John Barsness
Manufacturers:
Ballard Rifle and Cartridge Company
9562 Sand Lake Hwy.
Onsted, MI 49265
(866) 997-4353
www.gunsmagazine.com/ballard
Mark Bansner
High Tech Specialties, Inc.
P.O. Box 839, Adamstown, PA 19501
(717) 484-0405
www.gunsmagazine.com/hightech-spl
D’Arcy Echols & Co.
98 W. 300 S., Millville, UT 84326
(435) 755-6842
www.gunsmagazine.com/darcy-echols
Brian Gouse Engraving & Gun Sales
234 Montana St., Hinsdale, MT 59241
(406) 364-2227
bpgouse@netmont.net
Kilimanjaro Rifles
707 Richards St., Ste. 201, Honolulu, HI 96813
(877) 351-4440
www.gunsmagazine.com/kilimanjaro
New Ultra Light Arms
P.O. Box 340, Granville, WV 26534
(304) 292-0600
www.gunsmagazine.com/new-ultra-light
Sisk Rifles
400 County Rd. 2340, Dayton, TX 77535
(936) 258-4984
www.gunsmagazine.com/sisk
Doug Wells
Lock, Stock & Barrel
P.O. Box 460304, Huson, MT 59846
(406) 626-4152
here is the original article
http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/GUNS/GUNS0913/?page=60
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill to ban bump stocks and trigger cranks this week. (Photo: Wikipedia)
Just before leaving office Tuesday for good, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill (S3477/A5200) banning bump stocks.
Effective immediately, it is now illegal to sell or possess the popular rifle accessory. The ban also extends to trigger cranks.
Violators of the new law face stiff penalties, including three-to-five years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000.
There is no grandfather clause for current bump stock owners. Those who own the devices will have 90 days, until April 15, to turn them over to law enforcement. Retailers who sell bump stocks have 30 days.
The actual use of bump stocks was already prohibited in New Jersey, NJ.com reports. Hobbyists and collectors could own the device, however, they could not affix it to a rifle. Now, under the new law, the mere sale or possession is a crime.
“These are simple, easy-to-use devices that increase the firepower and killing power of firearms,” said former state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) who sponsored the bill before he retired last week. “There is no legitimate need for these devices.”
SEE ALSO: Christie Stands Up for Guns in New Jersey, Demands Shall-Issue
Christie offered no comment when signing the bill, which sailed through both Democratically-controlled chambers last month. Not really known for being a pro-gun politician, Christie’s 2A stance has nevertheless evolved over the years.
In a 2016 interview with Sean Hannity, the Republican governor explained why he changed his mind, going from supporting gun control to opposing it.
“Well listen, in 1995, Sean, I was 32 years old and I’ve changed my mind,” Christie said. “And the biggest reason that I changed my mind was my seven years as a federal prosecutor. What I learned in those seven years was that we were spending much too much time talking about gun laws against law-abiding citizens and not nearly enough time talking about enforcing the gun laws strongly against criminals.”
“I learned the difference, and I learned what the limitations are of these laws that people are talking about and how they much, much more greatly infringe on law-abiding citizens than they do anything to prevent crime,” Christie added later. “Having learned that, my position’s changed.”
Where was this sound logic when he signed the bump stock ban? Anyways, New Jersey now joins Massachusetts, which also recently voted to ban bump stocks. Other states, like New York and Connecticut, are also angling to criminalize bump stocks this year.
Spencer repeating rifle





Spencer repeating rifle
| Spencer 1860 | |
|---|---|
Spencer Repeating Rifle
|
|
| Type | Lever Action Rifle |
| Place of origin | |
| Service history | |
| Used by | United States Army United States Navy Confederate States of America Siam Japan Empire of Brazil |
| Wars | American Civil War Indian Wars Boshin War Paraguayan War Franco-Prussian War |
| Production history | |
| Designer | Christopher Spencer |
| Designed | 1860 |
| Manufacturer | Spencer Company Burnside Rifle Co [1] Winchester |
| Produced | 1860–1869 |
| No. built | 200,000 approx. |
| Specifications | |
| Length | 47 in (1,200 mm) rifle with 30 inch barrel 39.25 in (997 mm) carbine with 22 inch barrel[2] |
| Barrel length | 30 in (760 mm) 22 in (560 mm)[3] 20 in (510 mm)[4] |
|
|
|
| Cartridge | .56-56 Spencer rimfire |
| Caliber | .52 in (13 mm) |
| Action | Manually cocked hammer, lever action |
| Rate of fire | 14-20 rounds per minute[5] |
| Muzzle velocity | 931 to 1,033 ft/s (284 to 315 m/s) |
| Effective firing range | 500 yards[6] |
| Feed system | 7 round tube magazine |
The Spencer 1860 was an American lever action rifle. Designed by Christopher Spencer, the Spencer was the world’s first military repeating rifle, with over 200,000 examples of the Spencer produced in the United States by three manufacturers between 1860 and 1869. The Spencer repeating rifle was adopted by the Union Army, especially by the cavalry, during the American Civil War, but did not replace the standard issue muzzle-loading rifled muskets in use at the time. The Spencer carbine was a shorter and lighter version.
Contents
[hide]
Overview[edit]
The design for a magazine-fed, lever-operated rifle chambered for the .56-56 Spencer rimfire cartridge was completed by Christopher Spencer in 1860. Called the Spencer Repeating Rifle, it was fired by cocking a lever to extract a used case and feed a new cartridge from a tube in the buttstock. Like most firearms of the time, the hammer had to be manually cocked in a separate action before the weapon could be fired. The weapon used copper rimfire cartridges based on the 1854 Smith & Wesson patent stored in a seven-round tube magazine. A spring in the tube enabled the rounds to be fired one after another. When empty, the spring had to be released and removed before dropping in fresh cartridges, then replaced before resuming firing. Rounds could be loaded individually or from a device called the Blakeslee Cartridge Box, which contained up to thirteen (also six and ten) tubes with seven cartridges each, which could be emptied into the magazine tube in the buttstock.[7]
Unlike later cartridge designations, the .56-56 Spencer’s first number referred to the diameter of the case just ahead of the rim, the second number the case diameter at the mouth; the actual bullet diameter was .52 inches. Cartridges were loaded with 45 grains (2.9 g) of black powder, and were also available as .56-52, .56-50, and a wildcat .56-46, a necked down version of the original .56-56. Cartridge length was limited by the action size to about 1.75 inches; later calibers used a smaller diameter, lighter bullet and larger powder charge to increase power and range over the original .56-56 cartridge, which was almost as powerful as the .58 caliber rifled musket of the time but underpowered by the standards of other early cartridges such as the .50–70 and .45-70.
History[edit]
At first, the view by the Department of War Ordnance Department was that soldiers would waste ammunition by firing too rapidly with repeating rifles, and thus denied a government contract for all such weapons. (They did, however, encourage the use of carbine breechloaders that loaded one shot at a time. Such carbines were shorter than a rifle and well suited for cavalry.)[8] More accurately, they feared that the Army’s logistics train would be unable to provide enough ammunition for the soldiers in the field, as they already had grave difficulty bringing up enough ammunition to sustain armies of tens of thousands of men over distances of hundreds of miles. A weapon able to fire several times as fast would require a vastly expanded logistics train and place great strain on the already overburdened railroads and tens of thousands of more mules, wagons, and wagon train guard detachments. The fact that several Springfield rifle-muskets could be purchased for the cost of a single Spencer carbine also influenced thinking.[9] However, just after the Battle of Gettysburg, Spencer was able to gain an audience with President Abraham Lincoln, who invited him to a shooting match and demonstration of the weapon on the lawn of the White House. Lincoln was impressed with the weapon, and ordered Gen. James Wolfe Ripley to adopt it for production, after which Ripley disobeyed him and stuck with the single-shot rifles.[1][10]
The Spencer repeating rifle was first adopted by the United States Navy, and later by the United States Army, and it was used during the American Civil War, where it was a popular weapon.[11] The Confederates
Notable early instances of use included the Battle of Hoover’s Gap (where Col. John T. Wilder‘s “Lightning Brigade” of mounted infantry effectively demonstrated the firepower of repeaters), and the Gettysburg Campaign, where two regiments of the Michigan Brigade (under Brig. Gen. George Armstrong Custer) carried them at the Battle of Hanover and at East Cavalry Field.[12] As the war progressed, Spencers were carried by a number of Union cavalry and mounted infantry regiments and provided the Union army with a firepower advantage over their Confederate adversaries. At the Battle of Nashville, 9,000 mounted infantrymen armed with the Spencer, under the command of Maj. Gen. James H. Wilson, chief of cavalry for the Military Division of the Mississippi, rode around Gen. Hood’s left flank and attacked from the rear. President Lincoln’s assassin John Wilkes Booth was armed with a Spencer carbine at the time he was captured and killed.[13]
The Spencer showed itself to be very reliable under combat conditions, with a sustainable rate-of-fire in excess of 20 rounds per minute. Compared to standard muzzle-loaders, with a rate of fire of 2–3 rounds per minute, this represented a significant tactical advantage.[14] However, effective tactics had yet to be developed to take advantage of the higher rate of fire. Similarly, the supply chain was not equipped to carry the extra ammunition. Detractors would also complain that the amount of smoke produced was such that it was hard to see the enemy, which was not surprising since even the smoke produced by muzzleloaders would quickly blind whole regiments, and even divisions as if they were standing in thick fog, especially on still days.[15]
One of the advantages of the Spencer was that its ammunition was waterproof and hardy, and could stand the constant jostling of long storage on the march, such as Wilson’s Raid. The story goes that every round of paper and linen Sharps ammunition carried in the supply wagons was found useless after long storage in supply wagons. Spencer ammunition had no such problem.[16]
In the late 1860s, the Spencer company was sold to the Fogerty Rifle Company and ultimately to Winchester.[17] Many Spencer carbines were later sold as surplus to France where they were used during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.[18]
Even though the Spencer company went out of business in 1869, ammunition was manufactured in the United States into the 1920s. Later, many rifles and carbines were converted to centerfire, which could fire cartridges made from the centerfire .50-70 brass. Production ammunition can still be obtained on the specialty market.[19]
The Hamilton & Burr Duel

So you think that US Politics are at the bottom Pit of Hell right now?
Okay then try this one on for size. Imagine the Vice President of the USA blowing a hole in the Former Sec. Of the Treasury then. No? Well it actually happened!
Here is that story from Wiki:
The Burr–Hamilton duel was fought between prominent American politicians Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice President of the United States, and Alexander Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury, at Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804.[1]
The duel was the culmination of a long and bitter rivalry between the two men. Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton, who was carried to the home of William Bayard, where he died the next day.
Background
Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law, lost his Senate seat to Burr.
The Burr–Hamilton duel is one of the most famous personal conflicts in American history. It was a draw duel which arose from long-standing personal bitterness that developed between the two men over the course of several years. Tensions reached a boiling point with Hamilton’s journalistic defamation of Burr’s character during the 1804 New York gubernatorial race, in which Burr was a candidate. The duel was fought at a time when the practice was being outlawed in the northern United States, and it had immense political ramifications. Burr survived the duel and was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey, though these charges were later either dismissed or resulted in acquittal. The harsh criticism and animosity directed toward him following the duel brought an end to his political career. The Federalist Party, already weakened by the defeat of John Adams in the presidential election of 1800, was further weakened by Hamilton’s death.
The duel was the final skirmish of a long conflict between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists. The conflict began in 1791 when Burr won a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law, who would have supported Federalist policies. (Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury at the time.) The Electoral College then deadlocked in the election of 1800, during which Hamilton’s maneuvering in the House of Representatives caused Thomas Jefferson to be named president and Burr vice-president.[2]
Hamilton’s animosity toward Burr was severe and well-documented in personal letters to his friend and compatriot James McHenry. The following quotation from one of these letters on January 4, 1801 exemplifies his bitterness:
Nothing has given me so much chagrin as the Intelligence that the Federal party were thinking seriously of supporting Mr. Burr for president. I should consider the execution of the plan as devoting the country and signing their own death warrant. Mr. Burr will probably make stipulations, but he will laugh in his sleeve while he makes them and will break them the first moment it may serve his purpose.[3]
In a more extensive letter written shortly afterward, Hamilton details the many charges that he has against Burr, calling him a “profligate, a voluptuary in the extreme”, accusing him of corruptly serving the interests of the Holland Land Companywhile a member of the legislature, criticizing his military commission and accusing him of resigning under false pretenses, and many more serious accusations.[3]
Morgan Lewis, endorsed by Hamilton, defeated Burr in the 1804 New York gubernatorial election.
It became clear that Jefferson would drop Burr from his ticket in the 1804 election, so the Vice President ran for the governorship of New York instead.[citation needed]Hamilton campaigned vigorously against Burr, who was running as an independent, causing him to lose to Morgan Lewis, a Democratic-Republican endorsed by Hamilton.[citation needed]
Both men had been involved in duels in the past. Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shotless duels prior to his fatal encounter with Burr, including duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792–1793), James Nicholson (1795), James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804). He also served as a second to John Laurens in a 1779 duel with General Charles Lee, and to legal client John Auldjo in a 1787 duel with William Pierce.[4] Hamilton also claimed that he had one previous honor dispute with Burr;[5] Burr stated that there were two.[6][7]
Election of 1800[edit]
Burr and Hamilton first came into public opposition during the United States presidential election of 1800. Burr ran for Vice President on the Democratic-Republican ticket, along with presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson, against President John Adams (the Federalist incumbent) and his vice presidential running mate Charles C. Pinckney. Electoral College rules at the time gave each elector two votes for president; the candidate who received the second most votes became vice president. The Democratic-Republican Party, therefore, planned to have 72 of their 73 electors vote for both Jefferson and Burr, with the remaining elector voting only for Jefferson. However, the electors failed to execute this plan, so Burr and Jefferson tied with 73 votes each. The Constitution stipulates that, if no candidate wins a majority, the election is moved to the United States House of Representatives—which was controlled by the Federalists, at this point, many of whom were loathe to vote for Jefferson. Hamilton, however, regarded Burr as far more dangerous than Jefferson and used all his influence to ensure Jefferson’s election. On the 36th ballot, the House of Representatives gave Jefferson the presidency, with Burr becoming vice president.
Charles Cooper’s letter[edit]
| Wikisource has original texts related to: |
On April 24, 1804, a letter was published in the Albany Register in the context of opposing Burr’s candidacy.[8] It was originally sent from Charles D. Cooper to Hamilton’s father-in-law, former U.S. Sen. Philip Schuyler,[9] and made reference to a previous statement by Cooper: “General Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government.” Cooper went on to emphasize that he could describe in detail “a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr” at a political dinner.[10]
Burr responded in a letter delivered by William P. Van Ness, pointing particularly to the “more despicable” phrase, and demanded “a prompt and unqualified acknowledgment or denial of the use of any expression which would warrant the assertion of Dr. Cooper.” Hamilton’s verbose reply on June 20, 1804 indicated that he could not be held responsible for Cooper’s interpretation of his words (yet did not fault that interpretation), concluding that Hamilton would “abide the consequences” should Burr remain unsatisfied.[11] A recurring theme in their correspondence is that Burr seeks avowal or disavowal of anything that could justify Cooper’s characterization, while Hamilton protests that there are no specifics.
Burr’s reply on June 21, 1804, also delivered by Van Ness, stated that “political opposition can never absolve gentlemen from the necessity of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum”.[12] Hamilton replied that he had “no other answer to give than that which has already been given”. This letter was delivered to Nathaniel Pendleton on June 22 but did not reach Burr until June 25.[13] The delay was due to negotiation between Pendleton and Van Ness in which Pendleton submitted the following paper:
General Hamilton says he cannot imagine what Dr. Cooper may have alluded, unless it were to a conversation at Mr. Taylor’s, in Albany, last winter (at which he and General Hamilton were present). General Hamilton cannot recollect distinctly the particulars of that conversation, so as to undertake to repeat them, without running the risk of varying or omitting what might be deemed important circumstances. The expressions are entirely forgotten, and the specific ideas imperfectly remembered; but to the best of his recollection it consisted of comments on the political principles and views of Colonel Burr, and the results that might be expected from them in the event of his election as Governor, without reference to any particular instance of past conduct or private character.[14]
Eventually, Burr issued a formal challenge, and Hamilton accepted.[15] Many historians have considered the causes of the duel to be flimsy and have thus either characterized Hamilton as “suicidal”, Burr as “malicious and murderous,” or both.[16]Thomas Fleming offers the theory that Burr may have been attempting to recover his honor by challenging Hamilton, whom he considered to be the only gentleman among his detractors, in response to the slanderous attacks against his character published during the 1804 gubernatorial campaign.[17]
The duel[edit]
In the early morning hours of July 11, 1804, Burr and Hamilton departed from Manhattan by separate boats and rowed across the Hudson River to a spot known as the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey, a popular dueling ground below the towering cliffs of the Palisades.[18] Dueling had been prohibited in both New York and New Jersey; Hamilton and Burr agreed to take the duel to Weehawken, however, because New Jersey was not as aggressive in prosecuting dueling participants as New York. The same site was used for eighteen known duels between 1700 and 1845.[19] In an attempt to shield the participants from prosecution, procedures were implemented to give all witnesses plausible deniability. For example, the pistols were transported to the island in a portmanteau, enabling the rowers to say under oath that they had not seen any pistols. (They also stood with their backs to the duelists.)[20]
Burr, William P. Van Ness (his second), Matthew L. Davis, and another (often identified as John Swarthout) plus their rowers reached the site at 6:30 a.m. whereupon Swarthout and Van Ness started to clear the underbrush from the dueling ground. Hamilton, Judge Nathaniel Pendleton (his second), and David Hosack arrived a few minutes before seven. Lots were cast for the choice of position and which second should start the duel; both were won by Hamilton’s second, who chose the upper edge of the ledge (which faced the city) for Hamilton.[21] However, according to historian and author Joseph Ellis, Hamilton had been challenged and therefore had choice of both weapon and position. Under this account, it was Hamilton himself who chose the upstream or north side position. The duel took place near the area where Phillip Hamilton had dueled and lost three years before his father. [22]
All first-hand accounts of the duel agree that two shots were fired; however, Hamilton and Burr’s seconds disagreed on the intervening time between the shots. It was common for both principals in a duel to fire a shot at the ground to exemplify courage, and then the duel could come to an end. Hamilton apparently fired a shot above Burr’s head. Burr returned fire and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen above the right hip. The large-caliber lead ball ricocheted off Hamilton’s third or second false rib, fracturing it, and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm, before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra. According to Pendleton’s account, Hamilton collapsed almost immediately, dropping the pistol involuntarily, and Burr moved toward Hamilton in a speechless manner (which Pendleton deemed to be indicative of regret) before being hustled away behind an umbrella by Van Ness because Hosack and the rowers were already approaching.[23]
It is entirely uncertain which principal fired first, as both seconds’ backs were to the duel in accordance with the pre-arranged regulations of the duel and so that the men could later testify that they “saw no fire”. After much research to determine the actual events of the duel, historian Joseph Ellis gives his best guess:
Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr’s location. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his pre-duel pledge. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton’s gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill.
David Hosack’s account[edit]
Hosack wrote his account on August 17, about one month after the duel had taken place. Hosack testified that he had only seen Hamilton and the two seconds disappear “into the wood”, heard two shots, and rushed to find a wounded Hamilton when his name was called. Hosack also testified that he had not seen Burr, who had been hidden behind an umbrella by Van Ness, his second.[24] In a letter to William Coleman, Hosack gives a very clear picture of the events:
When called to him upon his receiving the fatal wound, I found him half sitting on the ground, supported in the arms of Mr. Pendleton. His countenance of death I shall never forget. He had at that instant just strength to say, ‘This is a mortal wound, doctor;’ when he sunk away, and became to all appearance lifeless. I immediately stripped up his clothes, and soon, alas I ascertained that the direction of the ball must have been through some vital part. His pulses were not to be felt, his respiration was entirely suspended, and, upon laying my hand on his heart and perceiving no motion there, I considered him as irrecoverably gone. I, however, observed to Mr. Pendleton, that the only chance for his reviving was immediately to get him upon the water. We therefore lifted him up, and carried him out of the wood to the margin of the bank, where the bargemen aided us in conveying him into the boat, which immediately put off. During all this time I could not discover the least symptom of returning life. I now rubbed his face, lips, and temples with spirits of hartshorn, applied it to his neck and breast, and to the wrists and palms of his hands, and endeavoured to pour some into his mouth.[25]
Hosack goes on to say that in a few minutes Hamilton had revived, either from the hartshorn or fresh air. Hosack finishes his letter:
Soon after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the outside, he said, “Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still cocked; it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows” (attempting to turn his head towards him) ‘that I did not intend to fire at him.’ ‘Yes,’ said Mr. Pendleton, understanding his wish, ‘I have already made Dr. Hosack acquainted with your determination as to that’ He then closed his eyes and remained calm, without any disposition to speak; nor did he say much afterward, except in reply to my questions. He asked me once or twice how I found his pulse; and he informed me that his lower extremities had lost all feeling, manifesting to me that he entertained no hopes that he should long survive.[25]
Statement to the press[edit]
Pendleton and Van Ness issued a press statement about the events of the duel. The statement printed out the agreed upon dueling rules and events that transpired, that being given the order to present, both participants were free to open fire. After first fire had been given, the opposite’s second would count to three and the opponent would fire, or sacrifice his shot.[26] Pendleton and Van Ness disagree as to who fired the first shot, but concur that both men had fired “within a few seconds of each other” (as they must have: neither Pendleton nor Van Ness mention counting down).[26]
In Pendleton’s amended version of the statement, he and a friend went to the site of the duel the day after Hamilton’s death to discover where Hamilton’s shot went. The statement reads:
They [Mr. Pendleton and an accomplice] ascertained that the ball passed through the limb of a cedar tree, at an elevation of about twelve feet and a half, perpendicularly from the ground, between thirteen and fourteen feet from the mark on which General Hamilton stood, and about four feet wide of the direct line between him and Col. Burr, on the right side; he having fallen on the left.[27]
Hamilton’s intentions[edit]
Hamilton wrote a letter before the duel entitled Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr[28] in which he stated that he was “strongly opposed to the practice of dueling” for both religious and practical reasons. “I have resolved,” it continued, “if our interview is conducted in the usual manner, and it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my first fire, and I have thoughts even of reserving my second fire.”[29][30]
Hamilton regained consciousness after being shot, and told Dr. Hosack that his gun was still loaded and that “Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at him.” This is evidence for the theory that Hamilton intended not to fire, honoring his pre-duel pledge, and only fired accidentally upon being hit.[27] Such an intention would have violated the protocol of the code duello. When Burr later learned of this, he responded: “Contemptible, if true.”[31] Hamilton could have thrown his shot away by firing into the ground, thus possibly signaling Burr of his purpose.
Modern historians have debated to what extent Hamilton’s statements and letter represent his true beliefs, and how much of this was a deliberate attempt to permanently ruin Burr if Hamilton were to be killed. An example of this may be seen in what a historian has considered to be deliberate attempts to provoke Burr on the dueling ground, specifically Ogden’s perspective that
Hamilton performed a series of deliberately provocative actions to ensure a lethal outcome. As they were taking their places, he asked that the proceedings stop, adjusted his spectacles, and slowly, repeatedly, sighted along his pistol to test his aim.[32]
Burr’s intentions[edit]
There is good reason to think that Burr had every intention of killing Hamilton.[33] The afternoon after the duel, Burr was quoted as saying that had his vision not been impaired by the morning mist, he would have shot Hamilton in the heart.[34]According to the account of noted English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who met with Burr in England in 1808 (four years after the fact), Burr claimed to have been certain of his ability to kill Hamilton, and Bentham concluded that Burr was “little better than a murderer.”[35]
There is, however, much evidence in Burr’s defense. Had Hamilton apologized for his “more despicable opinion of Mr. Burr”,[36] all would have been forgotten. However neither principal could avoid the confrontation honorably, and thus each was forced into the duel: Burr to regain his honor and Hamilton to sustain his.[37]
Furthermore, Burr was unsure of Hamilton’s intentions (as historians still are today). Seeing Hamilton fire into the brush above his head, Burr could not be sure if Hamilton had thrown away his shot or simply missed his target. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was entirely justified in taking aim at Hamilton, under the hypothesis that Hamilton had shot first. Continuing this line of reasoning, it is not clear that Burr did more than react to hearing Hamilton fire before he had any time to realize where the shot had gone.
Burr certainly knew of Hamilton’s publicly opposing his ascension to the vice-presidency in 1800. Hamilton made confidential statements against him, such as those enumerated in Hamilton’s private letter to Supreme Court Justice Rutledge. In the attachment to that letter, Hamilton had argued against Burr’s character on repetitive scores, for example “suspected on strong grounds of having corruptly served the views of the Holland Company … his very friends do not insist on his integrity … he will court and employ able and daring scoundrels … his conduct indicates [he seeks] Supreme power in his own person … will in all likelihood attempt a usurpation.”[38]
Pistols[edit]
The Wogdon pistols used in the duel
The pistols used in the duel belonged to Hamilton’s brother-in-law John Barker Church, who was a business partner of both Hamilton and Burr.[citation needed]
Later legend claimed that these pistols were the same ones used in a 1799 duel between Church and Burr, in which neither man was injured.[39][40] Burr, however, wrote in his memoirs that he supplied the duelling pistols for his duel with Church, and that they belonged to him.[41][40]
The Wogdon duelling pistols incorporated a hair-trigger feature that could be pre-set by the user.[39][42] Hamilton, familiar with the weapons, would have known about and been able to use the hair trigger. However, when asked by Pendleton before the duel if he would use the “hair-spring”, Hamilton reportedly replied, “Not this time.”[21] The “hair-spring” feature gives an advantage because it reduces the force required to engage the trigger, preventing unintentional hand movement while firing. It may also make people who are not familiar with the reduced force miss the target.
In 1801, three years before the Burr–Hamilton duel, Hamilton’s son Philip used the Church weapons in a duel in which he died.[citation needed]
The pistols reposed at Church’s estate Belvidere until the late 19th century.[43] In 1930, the pistols were sold to the Chase Manhattan Bank, now part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and are on display in the investment bank’s headquarters at 270 Park Avenue in New York City.[44]
Aftermath[edit]
The mortally wounded Hamilton was taken to the home of William Bayard in New York, where he received communion from Bishop Benjamin Moore.[45][46] The next day, after having seen his wife, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, and children, he died in the presence of more than 20 friends and family members and was buried in the Trinity Churchyard Cemetery in Manhattan (Hamilton was an Episcopalianat his death).[47] Gouverneur Morris, a political ally of Hamilton’s, gave the eulogy at his funeral and established a private fund to support his widow and children.
Burr was charged with murder in New York and New Jersey, but neither charge reached trial. In Bergen County, New Jersey, a grand jury indicted Burr for murder in November 1804,[18] but the New Jersey Supreme Court quashed the indictment on a motion from Colonel Ogden.[48] Burr fled to Saint Simons Island, Georgia. He stayed at the plantation of Pierce Butler at Hampton Point, but soon returned to Washington, D.C. to complete his term of service as Vice President. He presided over the Samuel Chase impeachment trial “with the dignity and impartiality of an angel, but with the rigor of a devil” according to a Washington newspaper. Burr’s heartfelt farewell speech in March 1805 moved some of his harshest critics in the Senate to tears.[49]
With his political career apparently over, Burr went west, where he became involved in “filibuster” plans, which some[who?] later claimed were intended to establish a new independent empire carved out of the Louisiana territory.[citation needed] General James Wilkinson, who had worked with Burr, later had a change of heart and betrayed their plans to President Jefferson. Another man Burr allegedly tried to recruit, William Eaton, accused Burr in letters to Jefferson, resulting in Burr’s arrest and trial for treason. Although he was acquitted of all charges, Burr’s reputation was further damaged and he spent the following years in Europe. He finally returned to New York City in 1812, where he resumed his law practice and spent the remainder of his life in relative obscurity.
Monuments[edit]
The first memorial to the duel was constructed in 1806 by the Saint Andrew’s Society, of which Hamilton was formerly a member.[50] A 14-foot marble cenotaph, consisting of an obelisk topped by a flaming urn and a plaque with a quote from Horace surrounded by an iron fence, was constructed approximately where Hamilton was believed to have fallen.[51] Duels continued to be fought at the site and the marble was slowly vandalized and removed for souvenirs, leaving nothing remaining by 1820. The memorial’s plaque survived, turning up in a junk store and finding its way to the New-York Historical Society in Manhattan, where it still resides.[52]
From 1820 to 1857, the site was marked by two stones with the names Hamilton and Burr placed where they were thought to have stood during the duel. When a road from Hoboken to Fort Lee was built through the site in 1858, an inscription on a boulder where a mortally wounded Hamilton was thought to have rested—one of the many pieces of graffiti left by visitors—was all that remained. No primary accounts of the duel confirm the boulder anecdote. In 1870, railroad tracks were built directly through the site, and the boulder was hauled to the top of the Palisades, where it remains today.[53] In 1894, an iron fence was built around the boulder, supplemented by a bust of Hamilton and a plaque. The bust was thrown over the cliff on October 14, 1934 by vandals and the head was never recovered; a new bust was installed on July 12, 1935.[54]
The plaque was stolen by vandals in the 1980s and an abbreviated version of the text was inscribed on the indentation left in the boulder, which remained until the 1990s when a granite pedestal was added in front of the boulder and the bust was moved to the top of the pedestal. New markers were added on July 11, 2004, the 200th anniversary of the duel.[55]
Anti-dueling movement in New York state[edit]
In the months and years following the duel, a movement started to end the practice. Eliphalet Nott, the pastor at an Albany church attended by Hamilton’s father-in-law, Philip Schuyler, gave a sermon that was soon reprinted, “A Discourse, Delivered in the North Dutch Church, in the City of Albany, Occasioned by the Ever to be Lamented Death of General Alexander Hamilton, July 29, 1804”. In 1806, Lyman Beecher delivered an anti-dueling sermon, later reprinted in 1809 by the Anti-Dueling Association of New York.

Some Eye Candy NSFW







On the eve of SHOT Show 2018, IWI just dropped a bomb of an announcement! It’s the company’s first ever bullpup shotgun! The Tavor TS12.
This 12 gauge semi-automatic, gas-operated scattergun feeds from one of three rotating magazine tubes, each capable of holding four 3-inch shells or five 2-inch shells for a total capacity of 15+1.
Of course, if it feeds Aguila mini shells, that capacity bumps up to 26 rounds. Talk about an ideal platform to have at the ready when something goes bump in the night.
“The TAVOR TS12 is our first entry into the home defense shotgun market and we held off until we had something unique and desirable that held the same characteristic quality and performance of the entire TAVOR line,” Casey Flack, CEO of IWI US commented.
“The TS12 is it; compact, easy to use and maintain, and with a large magazine capacity, it is ideal for home defense, as well as a sporting shotgun,”Flack added.
TS 12 Specs
- Gauge: 12GA/ 3” chamber
- Weight: 3.6 kg (mag empty) / 8 lbs.
- Barrel Length: 47 cm / 18.5”
- Overall Length: 720 cm (not including choke) / 28.34”
- Height: 260 mm / 10.23” (from pistol grip to top)
- Magazine: Tubular system, 15-rounds total capacity (five 2.75” or four 3”)
- Choke: Internal muzzle threads / Benelli / Beretta Type (one choke included)
- Picatinny Rail: one-piece, full-length 1913 standard top rail
- Safety: cross bolt safety
- MSRP $1,399
The TS12 can be loaded from either side and users can adjust for either right or left side ejection. Other features include IWI’s patented “Bullhead” bolt locking system, internal muzzle threads compatible with Benelli/Beretta choke tubes, a full-length Picatinny top rail, and M-LOK friendly forearm for the requisite bells and whistles.
The TS12 will be initially available in black, but IWI has plans to offer this bully in Olive Drab and Flat Dark Earth. MSRP is $1,399.
We plan on getting to know the TS12 at Industry Day at the Range this coming Monday. Stay tuned. In the meantime, visit IWI US for more information.
I just think that this is one of the Best Commercials ever made! Grumpy
Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Annalaunched an assault on the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, United States), killing all of the Texian defenders.
Santa Anna’s cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians, both Texas settlers and adventurers from the United States—to join the Texian Army.
Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, on April 21, 1836, ending the revolution.
Several months previously, Texians had driven all Mexican troops out of Mexican Texas. About 100 Texians were then garrisoned at the Alamo.
The Texian force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by eventual Alamo co-commanders James Bowie and William B. Travis. On February 23, approximately 1,500 Mexicans marched into San Antonio de Béxar as the first step in a campaign to retake Texas.
For the next 10 days, the two armies engaged in several skirmishes with minimal casualties. Aware that his garrison could not withstand an attack by such a large force, Travis wrote multiple letters pleading for more men and supplies, but the Texians were reinforced by fewer than 100 men.
In the early morning hours of March 6, the Mexican Army advanced on the Alamo. After repelling two attacks, the Texians were unable to fend off a third attack.
As Mexican soldiers scaled the walls, most of the Texian soldiers withdrew into interior buildings. Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape. Between five and seven Texians may have surrendered; if so, they were quickly executed.
Most eyewitness accounts reported between 182 and 257 Texians died, while most historians of the Alamo agree that around 600 Mexicans were killed or wounded.
Several noncombatants were sent to Gonzales to spread word of the Texian defeat. The news sparked both a strong rush to join the Texian army and a panic, known as “The Runaway Scrape“, in which the Texian army, most settlers, and the new Republic of Texas government fled from the advancing Mexican Army.
Within Mexico, the battle has often been overshadowed by events from the Mexican–American War of 1846–48. In 19th-century Texas, the Alamo complex gradually became known as a battle site rather than a former mission.
The Texas Legislature purchased the land and buildings in the early part of the 20th century and designated the Alamo chapel as an official Texas State Shrine.
The Alamo is now “the most popular tourist site in Texas”.[5]The Alamo has been the subject of numerous non-fiction works beginning in 1843. Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths and legends spread by many of the movie and television adaptations,[6] including the 1950s Disney mini-series Davy Crockett and John Wayne‘s 1960 film The Alamo.
Contents
Background
Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited many federalists to revolt.[7]
The border region of Mexican Texas was largely populated by immigrants from the United States. These people were accustomed to a federalist government and to extensive individual rights, and they were quite vocal in their displeasure at Mexico’s shift towards centralism.[8]
Already suspicious after previous American attempts to purchase Mexican Texas,[9]Mexican authorities blamed much of the Texian unrest on American immigrants, most of whom had made little effort to adapt to the Mexican culture.[10]
In October, Texians engaged Mexican troops in the first official battle of the Texas Revolution.[11] Determined to quell the rebellion, Santa Anna began assembling a large force, the Army of Operations in Texas, to restore order.[12] Most of his soldiers were raw recruits,[13] and a large number had been forcibly conscripted.[14]
The Texians systematically defeated the Mexican troops already stationed in Texas. The last group of Mexican soldiers in the region—commanded by Santa Anna’s brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos—surrendered on December 9 following the siege of Béxar.[11]
By this point, the Texian Army was dominated by very recent arrivals to the region, primarily adventurers from the United States. Many Texas settlers, unprepared for a long campaign, had returned home.[15]
Angered by what he perceived to be American interference in Mexican affairs, Santa Anna spearheaded a resolution classifying foreigners found fighting in Texas as pirates.
The resolution effectively banned the taking of prisoners of war: in this period of time, captured pirates were executed immediately.[15][16]
Santa Anna reiterated this message in a strongly worded letter to United States President Andrew Jackson. This letter was not widely distributed, and it is unlikely that most of the American recruits serving in the Texian Army were aware that there would be no prisoners of war.[17]
When Mexican troops departed San Antonio de Béxar (now San Antonio, Texas, USA) Texian soldiers established a garrison at the Alamo Mission, a former Spanish religious outpost which had been converted to a makeshift fort by the recently expelled Mexican Army.[18]
Described by Santa Anna as an “irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name”,[18] the Alamo had been designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, not an artillery-equipped army.[19]
The complex sprawled across 3 acres (1.2 ha), providing almost 1,320 feet (400 m) of perimeter to defend.[20] An interior plaza was bordered on the east by the chapel and to the south by a one-story building known as the Low Barracks.[21]
A wooden palisade stretched between these two buildings.[22] The two-story Long Barracks extended north from the chapel.[21] At the northern corner of the east wall stood a cattle pen and horse corral.[23]
The walls surrounding the complex were at least 2.75 feet (0.84 m) thick and ranged from 9–12 ft (2.7–3.7 m) high.[24][Note 1]
To compensate for the lack of firing ports, Texian engineer Green B. Jameson constructed catwalks to allow defenders to fire over the walls; this method, however, left the rifleman’s upper body exposed.[20]
Mexican forces had left behind 19 cannons, which Jameson installed along the walls. A large 18-pounder had arrived in Texas with the New Orleans Greys. Jameson positioned this cannon in the southwest corner of the compound.
He boasted to Texian Army commander Sam Houston that the Texians could “whip 10 to 1 with our artillery”.[25]
The Texian garrison was woefully undermanned and underprovisioned, with fewer than 100 soldiers remaining by January 6, 1836.[26]
Colonel James C. Neill, the acting Alamo commander, wrote to the provisional government: “If there has ever been a dollar here I have no knowledge of it”.[26]
Neill requested additional troops and supplies, stressing that the garrison was likely to be unable to withstand a siege lasting longer than four days.[26][27]
The Texian government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance.[28][Note 2]Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army:[Note 3] on January 14, Neill approached one of them, Sam Houston, for assistance in gathering supplies, clothing, and ammunition.[28]
Prelude to battle
James Bowie arrived at the Alamo Mission on January 19 with orders to destroy the complex. He instead became the garrison’s co-commander.
Houston could not spare the number of men necessary to mount a successful defense.[29]
Instead, he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to remove the artillery from the Alamo and destroy the complex.[28][Note 4] Bowie was unable to transport the artillery since the Alamo garrison lacked the necessary draft animals.
Neill soon persuaded Bowie that the location held strategic importance.[30] In a letter to Governor Henry Smith, Bowie argued that “the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Béxar out of the hands of the enemy.
It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march towards the Sabine.”[31][Note 5] The letter to Smith ended, “Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy.”[31]
Bowie also wrote to the provisional government, asking for “men, money, rifles, and cannon powder”.[31] Few reinforcements were authorized; cavalry officer William B. Travis arrived in Béxar with 30 men on February 3.
Five days later, a small group of volunteers arrived, including the famous frontiersman and former U.S. Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee.[32]
General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna led Mexican troops into Texas in 1836.
On February 11, Neill left the Alamo, determined to recruit additional reinforcements and gather supplies.[33][34] He transferred command to Travis, the highest-ranking regular army officer in the garrison.[31]
Volunteers comprised much of the garrison, and they were unwilling to accept Travis as their leader.[Note 6] The men instead elected Bowie, who had a reputation as a fierce fighter, as their commander.
Bowie celebrated by getting very intoxicated and creating havoc in Béxar. To mitigate the resulting ill feelings, Bowie agreed to share command with Travis.[34][35][36]
As the Texians struggled to find men and supplies, Santa Anna continued to gather men at San Luis Potosi; by the end of 1835 his army numbered 6,019 soldiers.[37]
Rather than advance along the coast, where supplies and reinforcements could be easily delivered by sea, Santa Anna ordered his army inland to Béxar, the political center of Texas and the site of Cos’s defeat.[37]
The army began its march north in late December.[37] Officers used the long journey to train the men. Many of the new recruits did not know how to use the sights of their guns, and many refused to fire from the shoulder because of the large recoil.[38]
Progress was slow. There were not enough mules to transport all of the supplies, and many of the teamsters, all civilians, quit when their pay was delayed.
The large number of soldaderas – women and children who followed the army – consumed much of the already scarce supplies. The soldiers were soon reduced to partial rations.[39]
On February 12 they crossed the Rio Grande.[40][Note 7] Temperatures in Texas reached record lows, and by February 13 an estimated 15–16 inches (38–41 cm) of snow had fallen. Hypothermia, dysentery, and Comanche raiding parties took a heavy toll on the Mexican soldiers.[41]
On February 21, Santa Anna and his vanguard reached the banks of the Medina River, 25 miles (40 km) from Béxar.[42][43] Unaware of the Mexican Army’s proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta.[44][Note 8]
After learning of the planned celebration, Santa Anna ordered General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma to immediately seize the unprotected Alamo, but sudden rains halted that raid.[43]
Siege
Investment
In the early hours of February 23, residents began fleeing Béxar, fearing the Mexican army’s imminent arrival. Although unconvinced by the reports, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower, the highest location in town, to watch for signs of an approaching force.
Several hours later, Texian scouts reported seeing Mexican troops 1.5 miles (2.4 km) outside the town.[44] Few arrangements had been made for a potential siege.
One group of Texians scrambled to herd cattle into the Alamo, while others scrounged for food in the recently abandoned houses.[45] Several members of the garrison who had been living in town brought their families with them when they reported to the Alamo.
Among these were Almaron Dickinson, who brought his wife Susanna and their infant daughter Angelina; Bowie, who was accompanied by his deceased wife’s cousins, Gertrudis Navarro and Juana Navarro Alsbury, and Alsbury’s young son;[46] and Gregorio Esparza, whose family climbed through the window of the Alamo chapel after the Mexican army arrived.[47]
Other members of the garrison failed to report for duty; most of the men working outside Béxar did not try to sneak past Mexican lines.[48]
response of José Bartres to Texian requests for an honorable surrender, as quoted in the journal of Juan Almonte[49]
By late afternoon Béxar was occupied by about 1,500 Mexican soldiers.[50]
When the Mexican troops raised a blood-red flag signifying no quarter, Travis responded with a blast from the Alamo’s largest cannon.[51] Believing that Travis had acted hastily, Bowie sent Jameson to meet with Santa Anna.[49]
Travis was angered that Bowie had acted unilaterally and sent his own representative, Captain Albert Martin.[52] Both emissaries met with Colonel Juan Almonte and José Bartres. According to Almonte, the Texians asked for an honorable surrender but were informed that any surrender must be unconditional.[49] On learning this, Bowie and Travis mutually agreed to fire the cannon again.[52][Note 9]
Skirmishes
The first night of the siege was relatively quiet.[53] Over the next few days, Mexican soldiers established artillery batteries, initially about 1,000 feet (300 m) from the south and east walls of the Alamo.[54]
A third battery was positioned southeast of the fort. Each night the batteries inched closer to the Alamo walls.[55] During the first week of the siege more than 200 cannonballs landed in the Alamo plaza.
At first, the Texians matched Mexican artillery fire, often reusing the Mexican cannonballs.[56][57] On February 26 Travis ordered the artillery to conserve powder and shot.[56]
Two notable events occurred on Wednesday, February 24. At some point that day, Bowie collapsed from illness,[58] leaving Travis in sole command of the garrison.[58] Late that afternoon, two Mexican scouts became the first fatalities of the siege.[59][Note 9] The following morning, 200–300 Mexican soldiers crossed the San Antonio River and took cover in abandoned shacks near the Alamo walls.[55][59][60]
Several Texians ventured out to burn the huts[60] while Texians within the Alamo provided cover fire.[61][62] After a two-hour skirmish, the Mexican troops retreated to Béxar.[55][62] Six Mexican soldiers were killed and four others were wounded.[55] No Texians were injured.[63]
A blue norther blew in on February 25, dropping the temperature to 39 °F (4 °C).[56] Neither army was prepared for the cold temperatures.[64] Texian attempts to gather firewood were thwarted by Mexican troops.[56]
On the evening of February 26 Colonel Juan Bringas engaged several Texians who were burning more huts.[65] According to historian J.R. Edmondson, one Texian was killed.[66]
Four days later, Texians shot and killed Private First Class Secundino Alvarez, a soldier from one of two battalions that Santa Anna had stationed on two sides of the Alamo. By March 1, the number of Mexican casualties were nine dead and four wounded, while the Texian garrison had lost only one man.
Reinforcements
excerpt from William B. Travis‘s letter To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World.[67]
Santa Anna posted one company east of the Alamo, on the road to Gonzales.[55][68] Almonte and 800 dragoons were stationed along the road to Goliad.[69]
Throughout the siege these towns had received multiple couriers, dispatched by Travis to plead for reinforcements and supplies.[51][70]
The most famous of his missives, written February 24, was addressed To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World.
According to historian Mary Deborah Petite, the letter is “considered by many as one of the masterpieces of American patriotism.”[71]
Copies of the letter were distributed across Texas,[72] and eventually reprinted throughout the United States and much of Europe.[59] At the end of the first day of the siege, Santa Anna’s troops were reinforced by 600 men under General Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma, bringing the Mexican army up to more than 2,000 men.
As news of the siege spread throughout Texas, potential reinforcements gathered in Gonzales. They hoped to rendezvous with Colonel James Fannin, who was expected to arrive from Goliad with his garrison.[73]
On February 26, after days of indecision, Fannin ordered 320 men, four cannons, and several supply wagons to march towards the Alamo, 90 miles (140 km) away. This group traveled less than 1.0 mile (1.6 km) before turning back.[74][75] Fannin blamed the retreat on his officers; the officers and enlisted men accused Fannin of aborting the mission.[76]
William B. Travis became sole Texian commander at the Alamo on February 24.
Texians gathered in Gonzales were unaware of Fannin’s return to Goliad, and most continued to wait. Impatient with the delay, on February 27 Travis ordered Samuel G. Bastian to go to Gonzales “to hurry up reinforcements”.[77]
According to historian Thomas Ricks Lindley, Bastian encountered the Gonzales Ranging Company led by Lieutenant George C. Kimble and Travis’ courier to Gonzales, Albert Martin, who had tired of waiting for Fannin.
A Mexican patrol attacked, driving off four of the men including Bastian.[Note 10][78] In the darkness, the Texians fired on the remaining 32 men, whom they assumed were Mexican soldiers. One man was wounded, and his English curses convinced the defenders to open the gates.[Note 11][79]
On March 3, the Texians watched from the walls as approximately 1,000 Mexicans marched into Béxar.
The Mexican army celebrated loudly throughout the afternoon, both in honor of their reinforcements and at the news that troops under General José de Urrea had soundly defeated Texian Colonel Frank W. Johnson at the Battle of San Patricio on February 27.[80]
Most of the Texians in the Alamo believed that Sesma had been leading the Mexican forces during the siege, and they mistakenly attributed the celebration to the arrival of Santa Anna. The reinforcements brought the number of Mexican soldiers in Béxar to almost 3,100.[81]
The arrival of the Mexican reinforcements prompted Travis to send three men, including Davy Crockett, to find Fannin’s force, which he still believed to be en route.[82]
The scouts discovered a large group of Texians camped 20 miles (32 km) from the Alamo.[83] Lindley’s research indicates that up to 50 of these men had come from Goliad after Fannin’s aborted rescue mission.
The others had left Gonzales several days earlier.[84] Just before daylight on March 4, part of the Texian force broke through Mexican lines and entered the Alamo. Mexican soldiers drove a second group across the prairie.[83][Note 12]
Assault preparations
On March 4, the day after his reinforcements arrived, Santa Anna proposed an assault on the Alamo. Many of his senior officers recommended that they wait for two 12-pounder cannons anticipated to arrive on March 7.[85]
That evening, a local woman, likely Bowie’s cousin-in-law Juana Navarro Alsbury, approached Santa Anna to negotiate a surrender for the Alamo defenders.[86]
According to many historians, this visit probably increased Santa Anna’s impatience; as historian Timothy Todish noted, “there would have been little glory in a bloodless victory”.[87]
The following morning, Santa Anna announced to his staff that the assault would take place early on March 6. Santa Anna arranged for troops from Béxar to be excused from the front lines so that they would not be forced to fight their own families.[87]
Legend holds that at some point on March 5, Travis gathered his men and explained that an attack was imminent, and that they were greatly outnumbered by the Mexican Army.
He supposedly drew a line in the ground and asked those willing to die for the Texian cause to cross and stand alongside him; only one man (Moses Rose) was said to have declined.[88]
Most scholars disregard this tale as there is no primary source evidence to support it (the story only surfaced decades after the battle in a third-hand account).[89]
However, Travis apparently did, at some point prior to the final assault, assemble the men for a conference to inform them of the dire situation and giving them the chance to either escape or stay and die for the cause. Susannah Dickinson recalled Travis announcing that any men who wished to escape should let it be known and step out of ranks.[90]
The last Texian verified to have left the Alamo was James Allen, a courier who carried personal messages from Travis and several of the other men on March 5.[91]
Final assault
Exterior fighting
| Commander | Troops | Equipment |
|---|---|---|
| Cos | 350 | 10 ladders2 crowbars 2 axes |
| Duque/Castrillón | 400 | 10 ladders |
| Romero | 400 | 6 ladders |
| Morales | 125 | 2 ladders |
| Sesma | 500 cavalry | |
| Santa Anna | 400 reserves |
At 10 p.m. on March 5, the Mexican artillery ceased their bombardment. As Santa Anna had anticipated, the exhausted Texians soon fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many of them had since the siege began.[94]
Just after midnight, more than 2,000 Mexican soldiers began preparing for the final assault.[95] Fewer than 1,800 were divided into four columns, commanded by Cos, Colonel Francisco Duque, Colonel José María Romero and Colonel Juan Morales.[92][93]
Veterans were positioned on the outside of the columns to better control the new recruits and conscripts in the middle.[96]
As a precaution, 500 Mexican cavalry were positioned around the Alamo to prevent escape of either Texian or Mexican soldiers. Santa Anna remained in camp with the 400 reserves.[93][97]
Despite the bitter cold, the soldiers were ordered not to wear overcoats which could impede their movements.[93] Clouds concealed the moon and thus the movements of the soldiers.[98]
At 5:30 a.m. troops silently advanced. Cos and his men approached the northwest corner of the Alamo,[96] while Duque led his men from the northwest towards a repaired breach in the Alamo’s north wall.[99]
The column commanded by Romero marched towards the east wall, and Morales’s column aimed for the low parapet by the chapel.[99]
The three Texian sentinels stationed outside the walls were killed in their sleep,[99][100]allowing Mexican soldiers to approach undetected within musket range of the walls.[99] At this point, the silence was broken by shouts of “¡Viva Santa Anna!” and music from the buglers.[95]
The noise woke the Texians.[100] Most of the noncombatants gathered in the church sacristy for safety.[101] Travis rushed to his post yelling, “Come on boys, the Mexicans are upon us and we’ll give them hell!”[99] and, as he passed a group of Tejanos, “¡No rendirse, muchachos!” (“Don’t surrender, boys”).[94]
This plan of the Alamo was created by José Juan Sánchez-Navarro in 1836. Places marked R and V denote Mexican cannon; position S indicates Cos’s forces.
In the initial moments of the assault, Mexican troops were at a disadvantage. Their column formation allowed only the front rows of soldiers to fire safely.[102]
Unaware of the dangers, the untrained recruits in the ranks “blindly fir[ed] their guns”, injuring or killing the troops in front of them.[103] The tight concentration of troops also offered an excellent target for the Texian artillery.[102]
Lacking canister shot, Texians filled their cannon with any metal they could find, including door hinges, nails, and chopped-up horseshoes, essentially turning the cannon into giant shotguns.[99]
According to the diary of José Enrique de la Peña, “a single cannon volley did away with half the company of chasseurs from Toluca“.[104] Duque fell from his horse after suffering a wound in his thigh and was almost trampled by his own men. General Manuel Castrillón quickly assumed command of Duque’s column.[23]
Although some in the front of the Mexican ranks wavered, soldiers in the rear pushed them on.[102] As the troops massed against the walls, Texians were forced to lean over the walls to shoot, leaving them exposed to Mexican fire.
Travis became one of the first defenders to die, shot while firing his shotgun into the soldiers below him, though one source says that he drew his sword and stabbed a Mexican officer who had stormed the wall before succumbing to his injury.[102]
Few of the Mexican ladders reached the walls.[105] The few soldiers who were able to climb the ladders were quickly killed or beaten back. As the Texians discharged their previously loaded rifles, however, they found it increasingly difficult to reload while attempting to keep Mexican soldiers from scaling the walls.[23]
Mexican soldiers withdrew and regrouped, but their second attack was repulsed. Fifteen minutes into the battle, they attacked a third time.[23][102]
During the third strike, Romero’s column, aiming for the east wall, was exposed to cannon fire and shifted to the north, mingling with the second column.[23] Cos’ column, under fire from Texians on the west wall, also veered north.[106]
When Santa Anna saw that the bulk of his army was massed against the north wall, he feared a rout; “panicked”, he sent the reserves into the same area.[107]
The Mexican soldiers closest to the north wall realized that the makeshift wall contained many gaps and toeholds. One of the first to scale the 12-foot (3.7 m) wall was General Juan Amador; at his challenge, his men began swarming up the wall.
Amador opened the postern in the north wall, allowing Mexican soldiers to pour into the complex.[105] Others climbed through gun ports in the west wall, which had few defenders.[108] As the Texian defenders abandoned the north wall and the northern end of the west wall,[105][108]
Texian gunners at the south end of the mission turned their cannon towards the north and fired into the advancing Mexican soldiers. This left the south end of the mission unprotected; within minutes Mexican soldiers had climbed the walls and killed the gunners, gaining control of the Alamo’s 18-pounder cannon.[98]
By this time Romero’s men had taken the east wall of the compound and were pouring in through the cattle pen.[108]
Interior fighting
Last words of Texian defender Almaron Dickinson to his wife Susanna as he prepared to defend the chapel.[106]
As previously planned, most of the Texians fell back to the barracks and the chapel.
Holes had been carved in the walls to allow the Texians to fire.[106] Unable to reach the barracks, Texians stationed along the west wall headed west for the San Antonio River.
When the cavalry charged, the Texians took cover and began firing from a ditch. Sesma was forced to send reinforcements, and the Texians were eventually killed. Sesma reported that this skirmish involved 50 Texians, but Edmondson believes that number was inflated.[109]
The defenders in the cattle pen retreated into the horse corral. After discharging their weapons, the small band of Texians scrambled over the low wall, circled behind the church and raced on foot for the east prairie, which appeared empty.[106][108][110]
As the Mexican cavalry advanced on the group, Almaron Dickinson and his artillery crew turned a cannon around and fired into the cavalry, probably inflicting casualties. Nevertheless, all of the escaping Texians were killed.[110]
The Fall of the Alamo (1903) by [[Robert Jenkins Onderdonk]], depicts Davy Crockettwielding his rifle as a club against Mexican troops who have breached the walls of the mission.
The last Texian group to remain in the open were Crockett and his men, defending the low wall in front of the church. Unable to reload, they used their rifles as clubs and fought with knives.
After a volley of fire and a wave of Mexican bayonets, the few remaining Texians in this group fell back towards the church.[109]The Mexican army now controlled all of the outer walls and the interior of the Alamo compound except for the church and rooms along the east and west walls.[111]
Mexican soldiers turned their attention to a Texian flag waving from the roof of one building. Four Mexicans were killed before the flag of Mexico was raised in that location.[Note 13][112]
For the next hour, the Mexican army worked to secure complete control of the Alamo.[113]Many of the remaining defenders were ensconced in the fortified barracks rooms.[114]
In the confusion, the Texians had neglected to spike their cannon before retreating. Mexican soldiers turned the cannon towards the barracks.[105] As each door was blown off Mexican soldiers would fire a volley of muskets into the dark room, then charge in for hand-to-hand combat.[114]
Too sick to participate in the battle, Bowie likely died in bed. Eyewitnesses to the battle gave conflicting accounts of his death. Some witnesses maintained that they saw several Mexican soldiers enter Bowie’s room, bayonet him, and carry him alive from the room.[115]
Others claimed that Bowie shot himself or was killed by soldiers while too weak to lift his head.[116] According to historian Wallace Chariton, the “most popular, and probably the most accurate”[117] version is that Bowie died on his cot, “back braced against the wall, and using his pistols and his famous knife.”[116]
The last of the Texians to die were the 11 men manning the two 12-pounder cannon in the chapel.[112][118]
A shot from the 18-pounder cannon destroyed the barricades at the front of the church, and Mexican soldiers entered the building after firing an initial musket volley. Dickinson’s crew fired their cannon from the apse into the Mexican soldiers at the door.
With no time to reload, the Texians, including Dickinson, Gregorio Esparza and James Bonham, grabbed rifles and fired before being bayoneted to death.[119] Texian Robert Evans, the master of ordnance, had been tasked with keeping the gunpowder from falling into Mexican hands. Wounded, he crawled towards the powder magazine but was killed by a musket ball with his torch only inches from the powder.[119]
Had he succeeded, the blast would have destroyed the church and killed the women and children hiding in the sacristy.[120]
As soldiers approached the sacristy, one of the young sons of defender Anthony Wolf stood to pull a blanket over his shoulders.[119]
In the dark, Mexican soldiers mistook him for an adult and killed him.[Note 14][121] Possibly the last Texian to die in battle was Jacob Walker,[122] who attempted to hide behind Susannah Dickinson and was bayoneted in front of the women.[123]
Another Texian, Brigido Guerrero, also sought refuge in the sacristy.[119]Guerrero, who had deserted from the Mexican Army in December 1835, was spared after convincing the soldiers he was a Texian prisoner.[121][124]
By 6:30 a.m. the battle for the Alamo was over.[123] Mexican soldiers inspected each corpse, bayoneting any body that moved.[121]
Even with all of the Texians dead, Mexican soldiers continued to shoot, some killing each other in the confusion. Mexican generals were unable to stop the bloodlust and appealed to Santa Anna for help.
Although the general showed himself, the violence continued and the buglers were finally ordered to sound a retreat. For 15 minutes after that, soldiers continued to fire into dead bodies.[125]
Aftermath
Casualties
A crypt in the San Fernando Cathedral purports to hold the ashes of the Alamo defenders. Historians believe it is more likely that the ashes were buried near the Alamo.
According to many accounts of the battle, between five and seven Texians surrendered.[Note 15][126][127]
Incensed that his orders had been ignored, Santa Anna demanded the immediate execution of the survivors.[128]Weeks after the battle, stories circulated that Crockett was among those who surrendered.[127]
However, Ben, a former American slave who cooked for one of Santa Anna’s officers, maintained that Crockett’s body was found surrounded by “no less than sixteen Mexican corpses”.[129] Historians disagree on which version of Crockett’s death is accurate.[Note 16][130]
Santa Anna reportedly told Captain Fernando Urizza that the battle “was but a small affair”.[131] Another officer then remarked that “with another such victory as this, we’ll go to the devil”.[Note 17][2]
In his initial report Santa Anna claimed that 600 Texians had been killed, with only 70 Mexican soldiers killed and 300 wounded.[132] His secretary, Ramón Martínez Caro, later repudiated the report.[133]
Other estimates of the number of Mexican soldiers killed ranged from 60–200, with an additional 250–300 wounded.[2] Most Alamo historians place the number of Mexican casualties at 400–600.[2][3][4]
This would represent about one-third of the Mexican soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is “a tremendous casualty rate by any standards”.[2] Most eyewitnesses counted between 182–257 Texians killed.[134]
Some historians believe that at least one Texian, Henry Warnell, successfully escaped from the battle. Warnell died several months later of wounds incurred either during the final battle or during his escape as a courier.[135][136]
Mexican soldiers were buried in the local cemetery, Campo Santo.[Note 18][132] Shortly after the battle, Colonel José Juan Sanchez Navarro proposed that a monument should be erected to the fallen Mexican soldiers. Cos rejected the idea.[137]
The Texian bodies were stacked and burned.[Note 19][132] The only exception was the body of Gregorio Esparza. His brother Francisco, an officer in Santa Anna’s army, received permission to give Gregorio a proper burial.[132]
The ashes were left where they fell until February 1837, when Juan Seguín returned to Béxar to examine the remains. A simple coffin inscribed with the names Travis, Crockett, and Bowie was filled with ashes from the funeral pyres.[138]
According to a March 28, 1837, article in the Telegraph and Texas Register,[139] Seguín buried the coffin under a peach tree grove. The spot was not marked and cannot now be identified.[140] Seguín later claimed that he had placed the coffin in front of the altar at the San Fernando Cathedral.
In July 1936 a coffin was discovered buried in that location, but according to historian Wallace Chariton, it is unlikely to actually contain the remains of the Alamo defenders. Fragments of uniforms were found in the coffin, and it is known that the Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms.[139]
Texian survivors
Susanna Dickinsonsurvived the Battle of the Alamo. Santa Anna sent her to spread word of the Texian defeat to the Texas colonists.
In an attempt to convince other slaves in Texas to support the Mexican government over the Texian rebellion, Santa Anna spared Travis’ slave, Joe.[141]
The day after the battle, he interviewed each noncombatant individually. Impressed with Susanna Dickinson, Santa Anna offered to adopt her infant daughter Angelina and have the child educated in Mexico City. Dickinson refused the offer, which was not extended to Juana Navarro Alsbury although her son was of similar age.[2]
Each woman was given a blanket and two silver pesos.[142] Alsbury and the other Tejanowomen were allowed to return to their homes in Béxar; Dickinson, her daughter and Joe were sent to Gonzales, escorted by Ben.
They were encouraged to relate the events of the battle, and to inform the remainder of the Texian forces that Santa Anna’s army was unbeatable.[2]
Impact on revolution
During the siege, newly elected delegates from across Texas met at the Convention of 1836. On March 2, the delegates declared independence, forming the Republic of Texas.
Four days later, the delegates at the convention received a dispatch Travis had written March 3 warning of his dire situation.
Unaware that the Alamo had fallen, Robert Potter called for the convention to adjourn and march immediately to relieve the Alamo. Sam Houston convinced the delegates to remain in Washington-on-the-Brazos to develop a constitution. After being appointed sole commander of all Texian troops, Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400 volunteers who were still waiting for Fannin to lead them to the Alamo.[143]
Within hours of Houston’s arrival on March 11, Andres Barcenas and Anselmo Bergaras arrived with news that the Alamo had fallen and all Texians were slain.[144]
Hoping to halt a panic, Houston arrested the men as enemy spies. They were released hours later when Susannah Dickinson and Joe reached Gonzales and confirmed the report.[145]
Realizing that the Mexican army would soon advance towards the Texian settlements, Houston advised all civilians in the area to evacuate and ordered his new army to retreat.[146] This sparked a mass exodus, known as the Runaway Scrape, and most Texians, including members of the new government, fled east.[147]
Despite their losses at the Alamo, the Mexican army in Texas still outnumbered the Texian army by almost six to one.[148]
Santa Anna assumed that knowledge of the disparity in troop numbers and the fate of the Texian soldiers at the Alamo would quell the resistance,[149] and that Texian soldiers would quickly leave the territory.[150]
News of the Alamo’s fall had the opposite effect, however, and men flocked to join Houston’s army.[149]The New York Post editorialized that “had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren”.[151]
On the afternoon of April 21 the Texian army attacked Santa Anna’s camp near Lynchburg Ferry. The Mexican army was taken by surprise, and the Battle of San Jacinto was essentially over after 18 minutes.
During the fighting, many of the Texian soldiers repeatedly cried “Remember the Alamo!” as they slaughtered fleeing Mexican troops.[152]Santa Anna was captured the following day, and reportedly told Houston: “That man may consider himself born to no common destiny who has conquered the Napoleon of the West. And now it remains for him to be generous to the vanquished.”[153]
Houston replied, “You should have remembered that at the Alamo”.[153] Santa Anna’s life was spared, and he was forced to order his troops out of Texas, ending Mexican control of the province and bestowing some legitimacy on the new republic.[153]
Legacy
Cenotaph memorial of the Alamo defenders
Closeup of the Alamo defenders at the Cenotaph memorial
Following the battle, Santa Anna was alternately viewed as a national hero or a pariah. Mexican perceptions of the battle often mirrored the prevailing viewpoint.[154]
Santa Anna had been disgraced following his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto, and many Mexican accounts of the battle were written by men who had been, or had become, his outspoken critics.
Petite and many other historians believe that some of the stories, such as the execution of Crockett, may have been invented to further discredit Santa Anna.[130] In Mexican history, the Texas campaign, including the Battle of the Alamo, was soon overshadowed by the Mexican–American War of 1846–48.[154]
In San Antonio de Béxar, the largely Tejanopopulation viewed the Alamo complex as more than just a battle site; it represented decades of assistance—as a mission, a hospital, or a military post.[155]
As the English-speaking population increased, the complex became best known for the battle. Focus has centered primarily on the Texian defenders, with little emphasis given to the role of the Tejano soldiers who served in the Texian army or the actions of the Mexican army.[156]
In the early 20th century the Texas Legislature purchased the property and appointed the Daughters of the Republic of Texas as permanent caretakers[157] of what is now an official state shrine.[5]
In front of the church, in the center of Alamo Plaza, stands a cenotaph, designed by Pompeo Coppini, which commemorates the Texians and Tejanos who died during the battle.[158] According to Bill Groneman’s Battlefields of Texas, the Alamo has become “the most popular tourist site in Texas”.[5]
The first English-language histories of the battle were written and published by Texas Ranger and amateur historian John Henry Brown.[159]
The next major treatment of the battle was Reuben Potter’s The Fall of the Alamo, published in The Magazine of American History in 1878. Potter based his work on interviews with many of the Mexican survivors of the battle.[159][160]
The first full-length, non-fiction book covering the battle, John Myers Myers‘ The Alamo, was published in 1948.[161] In the decades since, the battle has featured prominently in many non-fiction works.
According to Todish et al., “there can be little doubt that most Americans have probably formed many of their opinions on what occurred at the Alamo not from books, but from the various movies made about the battle.”[162]
The first film version of the battle appeared in 1911, when Gaston Méliès directed The Immortal Alamo.[6] The battle became more widely known after it was featured in the 1950s Disney miniseries Davy Crockett, which was largely based on myth.[6]
Within several years, John Wayne directed and starred in one of the best-known, but questionably accurate, film versions, 1960’s The Alamo.[163][Note 20]
In 2004 another film, also called The Alamo, was released. CNN described it as possibly “the most character-driven of all the movies made on the subject”. It is also considered more faithful to the actual events than other movies.[164]
A number of songwriters have been inspired by the Battle of the Alamo. Tennessee Ernie Ford‘s “The Ballad of Davy Crockett” spent 16 weeks on the country music charts, peaking at No. 4 in 1955.[165] Marty Robbins recorded a version of the song “The Ballad of the Alamo” in 1960 which spent 13 weeks on the pop charts, peaking at No. 34.[166] Jane Bowers‘ song “Remember the Alamo” has been recorded by artists including Johnny Cash[167] and Donovan.[168]
Singer-songwriter Phil Collins collected hundreds of items related to the battle, narrated a light and sound show about the Alamo, and has spoken at related events.[169] In 2014 Collins donated his entire collection to the Alamo via the State of Texas.[170]
The U.S. Post Office issued two postage stamps in commemoration of the Battle of Alamo and Texas Statehood.[171][172]

