|
Post by ronald on Aug 8, 2010 9:36:14 GMT -5
Are there any books, or books that contain his comments about his last days at the Alamo, since he left late in the siege it looks like he would have had a lot of knowledge of what the men were thinking, Maybe even where Crockett was positioned? Why are there doubts about Sutherland's accounts?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 8, 2010 10:13:54 GMT -5
Why are there doubts about Sutherland's accounts? If you're asking about the Sutherland account in general or Crockett in particular - there are very different reasons. The primary arguement against Sutherland is that his claim against the Texas government for reimbursement for his time in Bexar ended on 19 February and then picked up on the 25th in Gonzales, thus raising doubt in some that he was even present in Bexar to record the events he said he witnessed on the 23rd. I personally find the Sutherland accounts pretty valuable, but like almost all of the accounts there are problems and you have to evaluate the particular statements. The Sutherland accounts consist of things he claimed to witness, and had personal knowledge of, but also consists of a lot of assumptions and statements that we have no idea where he got the information - for instance he places Travis in the Horse Corral. The problem areas for me are almost always in these latter areas, where his writings were not based on personal knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 8, 2010 10:42:31 GMT -5
Are there any books, or books that contain his comments about his last days at the Alamo, since he left late in the siege it looks like he would have had a lot of knowledge of what the men were thinking, Maybe even where Crockett was positioned? Why are there doubts about Sutherland's accounts? Ronald, the idea that Crockett was positioned at the palisade originated with Sutherland. Of course, we have no idea if that was his permanent assignment, but it's one of those things that's accepted by many as fact. And there's the added benefit of placing the garrison's most famous defender in front of the church...the compound's most iconic spot. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 8, 2010 11:05:06 GMT -5
Why are there doubts about Sutherland's accounts? The Sutherland accounts consist of things he claimed to witness, and had personal knowledge of, but also consists of a lot of assumptions and statements that we have no idea where he got the information - for instance he places Travis in the Horse Corral. The problem areas for me are almost always in these latter areas, where his writings were not based on personal knowledge. Not unlike de la Pena.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 8, 2010 11:08:13 GMT -5
Ronald, the idea that Crockett was positioned at the palisade originated with Sutherland. Of course, we have no idea if that was his permanent assignment, but it's one of those things that's accepted by many as fact. And there's the added benefit of placing the garrison's most famous defender in front of the church...the compound's most iconic spot.Jim Makes a great setting for paintings and cinematic portrayals of the battle, always placing it's most iconic hero and location at stage front. Allen
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 8, 2010 15:45:54 GMT -5
Plus the latter-day, highly embellished Mrs. Dickinson account that his body was "between the church and the two-story barracks..."
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 8, 2010 18:04:09 GMT -5
Yes; that too.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 8, 2010 20:32:22 GMT -5
...or that instead of being the weakest point in the fortifications, that area was probably one of the strongest....
....one of the reasons I really like Eric von Schmidt's painting is that instead of having Crockett defending the area, he is trying to get folks to fall back into the church as the Mexicans take the plaza...
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 9, 2010 1:06:23 GMT -5
Sutherland's account is extremely valuable, subject to the caveats mentioned by Wolfpack where he speaks of things which he himself could not have witnessed, but presumably heard of from people who did - just like any other memoir writer. The only real "problem" with his account is that it flatly contradicts the late Tom Lindley's second reinforcement theory, which is why TRL attempted to discredit it by highlighting the apparent gap in his subsistence claim - while ignoring that part of it further down the page in which he claims for the horse which Travis bought into the service on sending him off as a messenger (Hansen p162).
That said I've always taken his reference to Crockett defending the palisade as a red herring. While I've no reason to doubt it, he was describing the chaotic all round defense established as the Texians were piling into the Alamo during the first hours of the siege and I've no doubt that once things calmed down a little a more organised deployment was sorted out. Crockett may have stayed by the church, or he may not - he was after all reported by Travis "at all points" during one fight - we just don't know.
|
|