|
Numbers
May 11, 2007 6:22:23 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 11, 2007 6:22:23 GMT -5
Discussion of what appears to be the execution of Tejano prisoners after the fall of the Alamo inevitably raises questions as to whether there may have been a fundamental misunderstanding in calculating the number of Alamo defenders.
When Sam Houston first reported the news of its fall he put the figure at 187, which is broadly consistent with the assumption that Travis started off with about 140 men; that the only reinforcement received during the siege was the 32 men from Gozales; and that the balance can be accounted for through the presence of non-combatants in the hospital.
However what has been consistently overlooked is the fact that Houston explicitly referred in at least two of his letters to the dead being white men, while Travis likewise left no doubt that his men were (white) Americans.
The immediate significance of this can be seen in a quick survey of named Alamo defenders. In his book Bill Groneman identifies 186 men as having been killed in the battle, in addition to up to three surviving combatants; Henry Warnell, Brigido Guerrero and Joe. If, as the evidence suggests, Warnell should be added to the dead, then we have accounted for the “official” figure of 187 dead, plus two survivors to make up the alternative number of 189 defenders sometimes bandied about.
Its neat, and its also quite wrong. Seven of the identified dead are of Mexican origin and so discounted by both Houston and Travis, as would have been both Joe and BG. This is not to deny for one moment that they served, fought and died bravely, but it does mean that at least seven white defenders remain to be identified – which makes it all the more important to track down those men on the Neill roll who do not appear on the traditional list.
It also of course means that in establishing the actual number of defenders we do indeed need to add the twenty or more Tejanos mentioned by Filisola to Houston’s 187 rather than absorb them within that figure
|
|
|
Numbers
May 11, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on May 11, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -5
Stuart, did you mean to say "but it does mean that at least seven NON-white defenders remain to be identified"?
The fact that the Texian leaders routinely omitted their Tejano soldiers from their head-counts is something new to me, and I don't recall seeing it in any of the literature. I think it is very revealing of the attitude and objectives that most of the leaders of the revolution had. I think Stuart's book is the first place that I saw mention of Houston's strong resistence to joining in any broader Mexican revolt, or of the idea that Tejanos ought to be marginalized in some way in an independent Texas. Houston also seems to have aimed for U.S. annexation as a goal from the beginning, and a short-term goal at that. Ironically, his plans were derailed by his own men, who resisted the retreat to the Sabine and forced him to fight at San Jacinto.
Again I mention Paul Lack's book on the revolution, which goes into detail regarding the marginalization of the Tejanos almost immediately. Juan Sequin ended up fighting for Mexico in the U.S.-Mexican War, although he returned to Texas later.
AW
|
|
|
Numbers
May 11, 2007 9:55:35 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 11, 2007 9:55:35 GMT -5
Stuart, did you mean to say "but it does mean that at least seven NON-white defenders remain to be identified"? AW Nope, I meant exactly what I said. If Sam Houston was right in saying there were 187 (white) defenders, only 180 of them are identified in Groneman's book - actually its probably more because as I seem to spend a lot of time arguing Stephen Dennison wasn't an Alamo defender and he may not be the only one.
|
|
|
Numbers
May 11, 2007 10:12:31 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on May 11, 2007 10:12:31 GMT -5
OK = I was a bit confused, but I see where you are getting the missing 7 whites now.
AW
|
|
|
Numbers
May 11, 2007 10:16:08 GMT -5
Post by Herb on May 11, 2007 10:16:08 GMT -5
The "numbers" is what I referred to in the other thread when I said that Jim and I had done a lot of work, since lost.
We didn't start out with any preconceived ideas, though we both tended to believe that the "accepted" number was wrong and thought there were some serious holes in the 70 man reinforcement theory.
As I recall, we started back with F. Johnson's letter about the number of wounded at Bexar in December, and worked forward. One of our conclusions, was that for some reason, some of the wounded were not being counted in the various reports. There could be a couple of reasons for this, some were not formally enlisted in Texas service, and some were to badly wounded to be considered present for duty. It also became very apparent, that the Tejanos were consistently not being reported/counted. Now, this may have been for racial reasons, or it may simply have been that they were not formally enlisted and truthfully could not be counted as members of the garrison.
While I can't recall all the details of our work (I wish I could or rather we had saved it hard copy) our basic conclusion was that Filisola's count of about 200 defenders was probably the most accurate of the counts from the scene.
|
|
|
Numbers
May 28, 2007 17:15:05 GMT -5
Post by Herb on May 28, 2007 17:15:05 GMT -5
This goes along with the current discussion under the army thread, but I just added the numbers that Huffines gives for the various companies on page 13.
Blazeby - 56 Baker - 32 Carey - 29 Forsyth - 21 Seguin - 10 Harrison - 16
Total - 164
This does not include the garrison staff. If these figures are correct the actual garrison strength on Feb 23 was close to 180.
Subtracting out the 15 or 16 wounded, the surgical staff, quartermaster, and ordinance staff your getting down around 150/160 combatants. Some of us have been speculating for some time that Travis's letters only reflected his combatant strength not the total manpower.
(?)
|
|
|
Numbers
May 29, 2007 1:04:54 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 29, 2007 1:04:54 GMT -5
Some of us have been speculating for some time that Travis's letters only reflected his combatant strength not the total manpower. (?) I don't think there's any doubt about that when he writes on March 3 about having "defended" the place with only 140 men. In the context of the other (related) discussion though I'm a touch wary both about Huffines figures, and the breakdown by company.
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 1, 2007 10:48:30 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 1, 2007 10:48:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but that Bigfoot fella over on the other site came up with a very interesting link to the San Jacinto website, which has alphabetical listings of those who fought there. This came up in response to queries regarding Crockett's nephew, William Patton, who also took the oath of allegiance when Crockett did, but apparently did not go to the Alamo. According to this information, he didn't even enlist until March 17, so what was he doing between January and March 17? He later fought at San Jacinton and, as I read this thing, claimed one land bounty but never claimed a second one to which he was entitled and disappeared from Texas after that. This is more information than I've seen before on Patton, who is often confused with the other William Patton -- William Hester Patton, who became Houston's aide-de-camp, later escorted Santa Anna to Washington, and was murdered by Mexican bandits at his ranch near San Antonio in 1842. Here is a link to the website; click on the letter "P" and check out the two William Patton bios: sanjacinto-museum.org/herzstein_Library/Veteran_Biographies/Browse_Biographies/default.asp?action=list&letters=pqrAW
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 1, 2007 15:44:27 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 1, 2007 15:44:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but that Bigfoot fella over on the other site came up with a very interesting link to the San Jacinto website, which has alphabetical listings of those who fought there. This came up in response to queries regarding Crockett's nephew, William Patton, who also took the oath of allegiance when Crockett did, but apparently did not go to the Alamo. According to this information, he didn't even enlist until March 17, so what was he doing between January and March 17? He later fought at San Jacinton and, as I read this thing, claimed one land bounty but never claimed a second one to which he was entitled and disappeared from Texas after that. I don't know how that Bigfoot feller fell into this whole Crockkett/Patton controversy. He doesn't even like Davy Crockett or know much about the Alamo. He 's just stirring up a big can o' worms because hardly anybody responded to his latest Yellow Rose/White Lily revelation. It looks like William Patton joined Teal's Company after his oath and then Irvine's unit for the San Jacinto fight. Crockett of course didn't tarry long with his young nephew, but headed out west. Are their any lists that place a Patton at the Alamo?
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 3, 2007 11:22:01 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 3, 2007 11:22:01 GMT -5
I haven't done any of this work, but others here, including yourself, have gone through muster rolls, etc.; I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the OTHER William Patton may have been at the Alamo before Feb. 23 and left as a messenger. He's the one who became an aide-de-camp for Houston and remained a long-time Houston supporter, but was murdered by Mexican bandits at his ranch near Bexar.
I don't think I've ever seen anything suggesting that Crockett's nephew ever went to the Alamo, but I agree that it is strange that such a young guy in a strange land, far from home, would split up with his uncle after they both enlisted.
I'm still confused about the reference to Patton enlisting on March 17, when the record shows he signed up at the same time that Crockett did. I guess it is just an error in his online bio.
AW
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 3, 2007 21:07:06 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 3, 2007 21:07:06 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever seen anything suggesting that Crockett's nephew ever went to the Alamo, but I agree that it is strange that such a young guy in a strange land, far from home, would split up with his uncle after they both enlisted. I suspected as much. I don't think Crockett nephew was anywhere near the Alamo. It's just wishful thinking without contemporary documents placing him there. Some are trying to make the battle some kind of Crockett/ Patton reunion with a lot of fireworks. See Ol' Bigfoot's last Alamo Forum post for this issue. Maybe he does know what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 4, 2007 7:38:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I think so. That's more info on William Patton than I'd ever seen before. I didn't realize he may have been from Mississippi or that Crockett had not actually met him until fairly recently. Given that fact, the boy seems to have been a very independent soul, not afraid to take off for Texas and probably no more afraid to part from Crockett when he joined Teal's unit. It is possible that he met friends of his in Texas and went with them, as you suggested.
In any event, for the purposes of this thread, neither William Patton appears to have been at the Alamo.
AW
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 4, 2007 17:34:22 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 4, 2007 17:34:22 GMT -5
RR, kudos on connecting the dots on William Patton, Crockett's kin. I don't think I've seen anyone else answer the questions about his whereabouts to anywhere near that extent. You ought to consider writing something on it for publication before someone beats you to the punch. Jim
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 4, 2007 19:08:48 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 4, 2007 19:08:48 GMT -5
I've been following your discussion on Patton, and have a suggestion on the confusion of his two enlistments.
When Crockett enlisted didn't he join the Voluntary Auxilary Corps? and only have an enlistment for three or six months? In all probability Patton did the same.
IIRC, Teal had begun enlisting his company for the spring campaign prior to Santa Anna's arrival in Bexar. By March 17th, when Patton joined Teal's company, the news that the Alamo was besieged (if its fall was not already known), would have been common knowledge in Nacogdoches. When Patton enlisted in Teal's company it was as a Volunteer for the duration of the war - a different term of enlistment then what he probably originally signed.
|
|
|
Numbers
Jun 4, 2007 19:59:11 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 4, 2007 19:59:11 GMT -5
Here is what Crockett said in the last extant letter we have of his, written from Nacogdoches and dated January 9, 19836:
"...I have taken the oath of the government and have enrolled my name as a volunteer for six months and will set out for the Rio Grande in a few days with the volunteers of the US...."
So he joined up as a 6-month volunteer and, as Stuart suggests, must have originally thought that he was joining the Matamoros expedition. He also refers to the volunteers of the U.S., by which I take it he meant the small group under Harrison at Nacogdoches, since there were many groups of U.S. volunteers in Texas at the time.
The lack of details about Crockett's movements and motivations after that is frustrating and tantalizing. Did he really understand the situation in Texas? Did he have a clue about the internal politics going on there? Did he think of looking up Houston? Did he believe that the major battles of this war were over?
AW
|
|