|
Post by chrism on Oct 2, 2010 17:50:24 GMT -5
Hi
Well thank you for letting me join your group. Following a discussion on Tucker's book I realized that I wanted to check out the original sources on the Alamo, so I picked up a copy of "Eyewitness to the Alamo" . I should have done it a long time ago!
One thing that jumped out was a comment in a statement given by Susanna Dickinson that there were already 50 to 60 wounded in the Alamo from "Cos' fight". I have never seen or heard anything about this before. Of course the number is significant because it makes up for the difference between the two body counts without needing the "second reinforcement". Of course that many wounded still lingering that long after the 1835 battle also seems odd
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 2, 2010 18:44:39 GMT -5
I think you will find that the jury is still out on this one. I know there are comments made by folk more reliable than Susanna's latter-day doctored rememberances. I think Dr. Pollard even says something in a pre-siege letter. Can't track it down right now. On the other hand, Susanna -- if the particular account could successfully run the gauntlet of spuriousness -- was there and was possibly one of the people helping in the hospital(s).
My own considered opinion is that the number -- if holdovers from the Bexar siege -- was much much lower.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 3, 2010 3:04:25 GMT -5
Yes, I'm not sure how easy its going to be to find the discussion way back on this one, but there's a fair consensus that the interviewer misheard her actually saying 15 or 16, like Rick I can't call to mind the location of Pollard's return of wounded men, but the lower number is going to be a lot more consistent.
As always the real problem with introducing another 50 defenders into the equation is identifying them. Sure there will always be a few individuals slipping through the net - but that number dying unnoticed. One of the things which has always fascinated me about the Texan revolution is they way in which nearly all of the individuals on the Texan side can be identified by name and other personal details. It was a very intimate war, so "losing" 50 really isn't credible
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 3, 2010 9:16:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chrism on Oct 3, 2010 18:21:55 GMT -5
So James McGee and George Main were both wounded in 1835 and counted amongst those killed in 1836. So that pretty much ends that train of thought. There weren't any unaccounted for wounded in the Alamo
Chris
|
|
|
Post by pff on Oct 5, 2010 15:32:10 GMT -5
|
|