|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 1, 2011 8:41:51 GMT -5
Is it fair to say that, absent Crockett, the Alamo would be just a regional phenomenon instead of a worldwide one? I think the Alamo was elevated in importance and tragedy because Crockett died there. Absent Crockett, it would have been one in a series of disasters that befell the Texians once Santa Anna marched north, along with Grant, Robinson, Fannin. More noble and memorable (and remembered) than Goliad, perhaps, because they battled to the end and were wiped out fighting. Almost from the minute word of the Alamo went out, Crockett's name was linked to it in news reports, rallying cries, songs that began being written about the Alamo almost immediately, and later in pulp fiction, movies and TV shows. It's interesting that a TV series about Bowie followed the Disney Crockett craze, which lasted for 2 years. It focused on fictional adventures that cast Bowie as the same sort of defender of "right" as most TV westerns did. It's interesting that the pilot for the series involved Bowie defending one of his slaves, but when the show premiered that was replaced with the story of his "inventing" the knife. Other episodes included historical characters, including Crockett, Houston, Audubon, Bradburn, and even Johnny Appleseed and John Howard Paine (who wrote "Home Sweet Home"), as well as Bowie's mother, his brother, Rezin, and his future wife Ursula and her family, all in fictional tales. It was a fun series and Scott Forbes did a good job humanizing Bowie, but there was not a word about his underhanded dealings. Hey, this was 50s TV! Allen |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 1, 2011 11:21:18 GMT -5
In a word, yes. One could argue, though, that Crockett and the Alamo have a symbiotic relationship. Had he not fallen there, he'd have likely become a land speculator and, ultimately, nothing more than an historical footnote.
Even so, the early Crockett Almanacs, Crockett's autobiography, and the spurious "Exploits and Adventures in Texas," provided plenty of grist for the mill. Once Crockett was seen as a martyr, there was plenty of backstory already in place. This wasn't the case with Travis or, to a lesser extent, Bowie, who had something of a reputation but seemed like he'd rather have remained "under the radar."
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 2, 2011 0:17:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 2, 2011 4:32:47 GMT -5
Ah, yes, Tom -- but we are talking about Texas at a time when it was not part of Jackson's United States. Truly, Crockett was politically "dead" in Tennessee and the U.S. -- he assured that by standing up for the little man and Native Americans. Texas was the new frontier, offering people like Crockett opportunities they didn't have back "home". In fact, his whole motive for signing on with the Texas militia, or whatever you want to call them, was for the promise of land. Serve a few months, get the fight over, get some land. He was in debt back home, so here was a chance to get a fresh start, build a new life for him and his family, and own something of his own, for a relatively short commitment in time and service.
I have to side with Jim on this one -- I think land speculator was not out of the picture, and I'm guessing that perhaps he had ambitions to get involved with post-independence Texas politics.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 2, 2011 8:52:06 GMT -5
I agree, Paul. He even mentions becoming a land agent in his only surviving letter from Texas. Crockett didn't just want squatters to own the land they personally farmed; he wanted them to have some additional acreage to lease or sell, so that they, too, could become land owners and dealers. There was nothing particularly evil in dealing in land; it was the major commodity of the day. What he objected to was the inability of most Americans to ever get in on it and the way laws were structured to ensure they'd never rise from their condition. Giving them some land was a way for them to finally move up, socially and economically, as their wealthier counterparts (including Jackson and Polk) had done. But Crockett's string had played out in Texas for the reasons you state, and Texas was offering vast quantities of fertile land in exchange for military service. Crockett stood to gain thousands of acres and that must have been a no-brainer for him, as well as many others who had GTT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 2, 2011 9:41:58 GMT -5
Tom, in Crockett's letter to his daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Wiley Flowers, of January 9, 1836, he described the land in Texas he had scouted. Then he wrote:
"I have great hope of getting the agency to settle that country and I would be glad to see every friend I have settled there."
You are quite correct that Crockett railed against the speculator class in Tennessee for years, but what he really wanted was equal opportunity for all. The Tennessee speculators had rigged the game in any number of ways, making it almost impossible for someone without a lot of ready cash to either buy property or get goods to market.
Crockett hoped to level the playing field and enable subsistence farmers to own a little property, sell a little property, and move up in society. He saw in Texas an opportunity to do just that, something that seemed nearly impossible in Tennessee given the status quo.
If your really want to get "down in the weeds" and study all the shenanigans going on over Tennessee lands and banking practices, I'd refer you to "David Crockett in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Poor Man's Friend," the book Allen and I wrote on Crockett's political career.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 2, 2011 11:38:20 GMT -5
In the region of "what if" history. Had they managed to survive the Alamo and have post-Revolution careers, I wonder how Bowie and Crockett would have faired...and how they would have done with "Jackson's man" Houston around...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 2, 2011 11:44:01 GMT -5
That poses an interesting question, Kevin. Crockett had GTT, largely to remove himself from the remnants of the Jackson administration, specifically Van Buren. Had he survived, he'd have been dealing with Jackson's proxy in Texas, which might have led to the same stonewalling he'd faced in Tennessee and Washington.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 2, 2011 12:01:36 GMT -5
Ayuh, a classic case of deja vu all over again.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 2, 2011 12:33:17 GMT -5
Houston had a robust opposition in Texas, IIRC, so Crockett may have ended up allying with them, if Houston was that big a problem for him. Houston and Jackson were both pushing for annexation, and it was Crockett's old opponent James K. Polk who moved for annexation and then war with Mexico. I wonder if Crockett would have had misgivings about annexation, which he might have seen as putting Texas smack under the thumbs of the very people who had driven him out of office in the U.S. Hard to say, but fun to game out. And, we're assuming that Crockett would have entered politics in post-revolution Texas, which is a possibility but not a certainty. I think land and the wealth it could finally bring to him was his priority and real objective. However, once he had land and wealth, he'd have more power and the ability to battle his opponents on equal turf, with equal resources, something he never had in Tennessee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 2, 2011 13:10:24 GMT -5
It's hard to say what, if any, political plans Crockett had. He was very vocal about his disillusionment with politics, to the point of accepting a dinner invitation with the caveat that he would not even talk about the subject (letter from LaGrange, Fayette County, September 30th, 1835).
While he does mention the possibility of being elected to a constitutional convention to help draft a constitution for Texas (Flowers letter, Jan. 9, 1836...he wasn't elected), he also states in the very next sentence, "I had rather be in my present situation than to be elected to a seat in congress for life." That may be hyperbole, but perhaps not. He continues, "I am in hopes of making a fortune yet for myself and family bad as my prospect has been."
If one takes the Flowers letter at face value, it certainly seems that Crockett's motivation for joining the revolution was the promise of free land...a LOT of free land. Keep in mind that, at this point in his life, Crockett was, for all intents, broke. He did not have the money to develop the quantity of land he was promised, but he could certainly parcel it out and sell it to newcomers after his service requirement. This would ostensibly get him back on his feet and pave the way for increased land speculation as a land agent.
I'm of the opinion that free land was the "hook" for Crockett. Leaving ideology aside, he probably thought that a relatively short enlistment was well worth the risk.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 2, 2011 14:41:15 GMT -5
Houston and Jackson were both pushing for annexation, and it was Crockett's old opponent James K. Polk who moved for annexation and then war with Mexico. I wonder if Crockett would have had misgivings about annexation, which he might have seen as putting Texas smack under the thumbs of the very people who had driven him out of office in the U.S.
Sounds like you're describing a "Lamar man"...which I think Crockett may well have become if he had survived the revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 2, 2011 14:47:53 GMT -5
"Lamar Man"-Then how would have Crockett delt with the Lamar Adminstration's Indian policies?
And perhaps we had better get a new thread going as we are all drifting from Bowie's death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 2, 2011 14:58:52 GMT -5
If one takes the Flowers letter at face value, it certainly seems that Crockett's motivation for joining the revolution was the promise of free land...a LOT of free land. Keep in mind that, at this point in his life, Crockett was, for all intents, broke. He did not have the money to develop the quantity of land he was promised, but he could certainly parcel it out and sell it to newcomers after his service requirement.
A small clarification I think should be made. The headright grant that Crockett described was unrelated to military service. It was issued to those who arrived before March 2, 1836. Heads of families received one league (4,428 acres) and one labor (177.1 acres), while single men received 1/3 league (1,476.1 acres). Military service was not a prerequisite for land to be granted.
Crockett came without his family and would have been granted the 1/3 league if he had survived. That of course would be in addition to the 320+ acres of land issued to him as a bounty grant for the 3+ months of service he would have accrued from January to April.
I think it is clear that Crockett was looking for prosperity when he entered Texas, the point being that prosperity could potentially be gained without having to volunteer for military duty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 2, 2011 15:02:29 GMT -5
"Lamar Man"-Then how would have Crockett delt with the Lamar Adminstration's Indian policies? And perhaps we had better get a new thread going as we are all drifting from Bowie's death. |
|
