|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Sept 4, 2011 10:37:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Sept 6, 2011 11:40:37 GMT -5
There are a myriad of inconsistencies in the accounts given by or attributed to Madam Candelaria. Hansen gives a good summary of them in his commentary (p. 322-323.)
I don't rule out the possibility that she was in Bexar during the siege and battle, but nothing that has been written in reference to her presence within the Alamo compound is either significant or compelling.
One side note. It's quotes like these that continue to rankle me:
"I'm elated that the Tejanos are beginning to get the credit due them,” Gomez says.
In relation to the story of the Alamo, Tejanos have been interviewed since Barcena and Bergara rode into Houston's camp at Gonzales. Numerous newspaper articles, as well as scholarly articles in the SHQ dating back to the turn of the century have also highlighted the influence of the Tejanos in reference to the struggle for Texas independence. Their participation has been well-documented. Of course, documenting something and then having it widely read and understood are two different things. It's clear that John Q. Public may not necessarily be aware of the Tejano involvement, just as they are not aware of the fact that James Bowie was a Mexican citizen, as was Almeron Dickinson, Thomas Jackson, William Philip King, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 6, 2011 17:23:42 GMT -5
It's the glaring inconsistencies in Candelaria's various statements that discredits her, as well as the failure of anyone else who we know was in the Alamo corraborating them. I'm not sure where I got this impression (maybe from Enrique Esparza), but I have the feeling that Alamo witnesses and survivors who remained in Bexar long after the battle resented Candelaria, but kept some sort of truce whereby they didn't discredit her, but never endorsed her accounts either.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 7, 2011 0:20:35 GMT -5
That does raise the question of why the Esparzas should hold back from discrediting her?
Her accounts (as recorded) are indeed contradictory, but that's equally true of those Susannah Dickinson, yet no-one doubts her presence.
I posted a while back how when I was privileged to be invited to the Alamo Descendents memorial service, I was struck by how many Esparza and other Tejano defender descendents were present, and wonder whether in later years those families enjoyed a certain cachet, and whether Candelaria, who sounds as though she was lower down the social scale, simply exaggerated her role by way of shouting that she was there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Sept 7, 2011 8:45:41 GMT -5
"Her accounts (as recorded) are indeed contradictory, but that's equally true of those Susannah Dickinson, yet no-one doubts her presence."
Hear hear...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Sept 7, 2011 9:41:12 GMT -5
If contradictory accounts and/or statements are the sole criteria used to question the presence of individuals in the Alamo or in Bexar during the siege, there would be no one left for us to talk about. One example; Enrique Esparza gave two different accounts concerning the final disposition of his father's body: in one account (1907), Gregorio is given a Christian burial; and in a later account (1911), his father's body is part of the funeral pyre. Candelaria's presence is seriously doubted (as Allen mentioned) due to the combination of contradictory information and lack of corroboration. No one has ever questioned the presence of Susanna Dickinson; both Enrique Esparza and Juana Alsbury place her in the compound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 7, 2011 17:37:13 GMT -5
They all gave contradictory accounts over the years, but (IIRC) all but Candelaria have been confirmed by others to have been in the Alamo. I'd go a step further than Hiram and say that, if contradictory testimony is a criteria for being present, we can elminate most of the historical figures who ever reported anything they witnessed. In fact, it kind of strengthens their credibility, since eye witnesses are often unreliable. Doesn't mean they weren't there.
I'd add that contradictory accounts are not the same thing as totally outrageous accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 8, 2011 0:22:10 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's my point. If the Esparzas were freezing her out so to speak, perhaps her stories grew more shrill/outrageous over the years as much out of frustration and to ensure that she was listened to, as to give thse who did listen a bit of value for their money.
Susannah Dickinson's various recorded testimonies by contrast sound as though getting her to talk at all involved the words blood and stone - hardly surprisingly
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 8, 2011 19:56:52 GMT -5
Brief perusal of Hansen; seems none of the Esparza or Candelaria statements were made until around 1890 and went on into the early 20th century. Some of Dickinson's and a few others, including Mexican accounts, do date from 1836. Is there contemporary testimony that any of these people were in the Alamo, other than Dickinson and Joe? IIRC, Alsbury's presense (or someone's ) was confirmed in a Mexican account that has her standing too close to a cannon that's about to go off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Sept 9, 2011 16:59:34 GMT -5
Just some random thoughts.
It has always struck me that Madam C's accounts came well after Sue Dickinson's death and that in the depositions done by her husband(or at least the man she later claimed was her husband) in 1859 no mention of her being in the Moe is made-unless of course, I missed something.
It is interesting as well that the SA papers declared, at the time of her death, that she was the last survivor of the Alamo. Of course, Enrique Esparza was still alive. If the San Antonio Tejano community was so tight or at least aware of each other, a question arises of why, when the Express was writing up Madam C did not mention of Enrique come up as well?
Sorry to say, that just because Sue Dickinson's accounts are inconsistent(which I think is due in part to the folks taking down the information) that is not a reason to compare her presence in the Alamo (which is well documented from 1836) to Madam C.
I have to agree with Hiram on the Gomez quote. That quote suggests that Tejano participation and accounts have been ignored which is a gross mistatement and certainly an injustice to Alamo writers since Walter Lord, as well as the ever evolving interpretive programs at the Alamo.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Sept 10, 2011 0:00:42 GMT -5
I can never decide what to make of her accounts: they have a lot of details that have a ring of authenticity, but maybe she just had a good imagination for fleshing out incidents she'd read about, such as the line in the sand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 10, 2011 10:43:02 GMT -5
I agree with Hansen's assessment that the nature and variation of her statements renders them worthless as historical sources.
The deposition of Candelario Villanueva of August 26, 1859 (the alleged husband of Madame Candelaria) is found on pp. 92-93 in Hansen. It attests to his being a member of Seguin's company in 1835 and 1836, along with Gregorio Esparza. and took part in the battle of Bexar. He claims that, when the Mexican troops arrived in February, 1936, Esparza and Seguin entered the Alamo, but that Seguin sent him (Villanueva) back to lock up the Seguin house. He never got to the Alamo because, in his words, "Santa Annas' [sic] Soldiers got between me and the Alamo and I had to remain in the Town during the siege and assault of the Alamo." He describes his visit to the Alamo immediately after the battle, recognizing the bodies of Gregorio Esparza, Antonio Fuentes, Toribio Losoyo, Guadalupe Rodriguez "and other Mexicans who had fallen in the defense of the Alamo, as also the bodies of Col. Travis, Bowie, Crockett and other Americans that I had previously known. I saw Francisco Esparza and his brothers take the body of Gregorio Esparza and carry it off to the Campo Santo for interment; the bodies of the Americans were laid in a pile and burnt." He remained in Bexar until the return of Seguin's company from the Battle of San Jacinto, when he rejoined the company. Not a single mention of having a wife or her being in the Alamo or playing any role in the event.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Sept 10, 2011 20:34:35 GMT -5
You're probably right that her evidence is useless since even if she was there, we have no way of knowing which version is correct. However, I wonder if her 1890 account might be the correct one and if perhaps she later changed her story to make it conform with others when her presence at the Alamo was cquestioned. I wouldn't take her husband's failure to mention her in his deposition for a land grant petition as the last word: perhaps it didn't seem appropriate to him on that occasion.
|
|
