The Defenders of the Alamo--Why They Stayed

My mind has for the longest time tried to understand why the defenders stayed inside the Alamo when they knew the soldiers of Santa Anna’s Mexican army far out numbered them?
My answer to this is actually several answers that combined answer my main question.
Patriotism sounds the most noble of them all. I suspect some of the defenders fought for patriotic reasons. Yet, since so many of them had been in Texas only a few weeks before they went inside the Alamo, how could they have developed patriotic feelings so strong as to give their lives for patriotic causes in Texas?
Another reason may have been the success of Texans who a few months earlier stormed and took the Alamo from the Mexican army when it occupied the Alamo.
That would be a believable reason, but I think there are three other more important.
The first had to be the strong personalities of leaders inside the Alamo: Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie and, of course, William Barrett Travis. All were luminaries in their time, Bowie and Travis regionally, Crockett nationally. All achieved their status on the strength of their personalities, and, recalling the strength and simplicity of Travis’s famous letter to “All Americans” in the world, the other defenders were no doubt influenced to stay because of them.
The second of these three reaons is the hope for reinforcements. Everything suggest the defenders sent several messengers out seeking reinforcements, with the most famous being Albert Martin. He brought back 31 men from Gonzales. Martin, incidentally, came back with those men from Gonzales.
In a way, the arrival of those 31 men must have boosted spirits of those inside, but they may also have sealed the fate of the men from Gonzales as well as the other defenders. That may be because those reinforcements gave the defenders hope that other reinforcements were on the way.
Martin was not the last to go out. The final messenger seeking help went out the evening of March 5 before the final assault began in the pre-dawn hours of March 6. That again suggests that even at that late date the defenders still hoped for help.
The final reason, and maybe the most important reason, may have been the precedent in recent American history of the time of small Americans forces defeating much larger enemy forces.
Two examples come to mind, both from the War of 1812: the Battle of New Orleans, the most famous, and the Battle of Ft. Stephenson, Ohio.
Most of the men inside the Alamo knew of the Battle of the New Orleans. Some may have even been there, and some could have been at Ft. Stephenson or heard of it since three defenders in the Alamo were from Ohio.
The battle in what is now Freemont, Ohio, saw a superior force of 1,200 Indians and British soldiers assault the fort held by 160 to 200 Americans. The Americans won a convincing victory with a tactic similar to one used at the Battle of New Orleans.
Ft. Stephenson defenders dug a trench eight feet deep and seven feet wide (or visa versa) around the perimeter of their fort. Or, they dug it around the front of their fort. The back faced on a river, the Sandusky.
The British and Indians on their assault jumped down into the pit.
"Why" is one question because they would not only have had to scale the seven or eight foot wall of the pit, but also he walls of the fort that rose up from the pit. The walls were protected by bayonets that would have made it difficult for the assaulting forces to get past them to reach the top of the ramparts. They didn’t get that far, though, because the defenders had prepared a port hole which opened from inside of the fort into the trench. The main feature of the porthole was a canon filled with chains and all sorts of lead and metal pieces, ie., buckshot.
One who jumped into the trench on the assault, a certain British lieutenant colonel by the name of Short, had before hand promised the defenders “no quarter” when his force took it. When the lieutenant colonel got in the trench and saw the canon, it is said he waved a white handkerchief asking quarter. No quarter was given. The canon blasted killing or horribly maiming those in the trench. The British and Indians are said to have immediately abandoned their assault after that, loaded up into their boats and sailed away. It is said they did, however, send medical people back to tend their wounded from the battle.
(The Battle for Ft. Stephenson came after the final battle at Ft. Meigs over near what is now Toledo, Ohio. The commander at both battles, a certain British colonel by the name of Proctor, had been victorious in earlier battles with American armies. He also was blamed for allowing Indians to massacre American soldiers after those battles.)
Finally, there is the Battle of New Orleans. The similar tactic as at Ft. Stephenson was an eight foot wide by seven foot deep (or visa versa) trench, this time filled with water from a canal, in front of the American barricades. The Americans at New Orleans did not have the porthole trick, but they are said to have had Kentucky sharp shooters eight deep facing the ranks of British soldiers that came marching woodenly in formation across a flat, tree less surface. The British soldiers, by the way, had been promised “booty and beauty” or be allowed to loot and rape once the army got to New Orleans.
Three attempts by the British to storm the American fortifications below New Orleans failed with great losses to the British. Several thousand British soldiers were killed, wounded or captured compared to only a few handfuls of American casualties in the battle. The British quickly abandoned their quest in New Orleans, soon jumped into their boats and sailed away.
This last reason might have played more importantly in the minds of the defenders than many of the others in their decisions to stay inside the Alamo.
It is with all these reasons, but especially with this last one, that my own minds rests and is satisfied that it understands the motivations of those who died at the Battle of the Alamo.