De La Pena

I think a lot of the "problems" with both the Dolson and de la Pena accounts to name but two arise from a too narrow focus. Supposed discrepancies of wording and punctuation are pounced upon with near theological zeal and used to denounce or reinforce entrenched views without drawing back and looking at the totality of what's actually being said, or for that matter what sort of knowledge the writer actually had and how he came by it.

The DLP manuscript is in fact a very typical example of someone fleshing out genuine personal notes and observations with things he may have heard or even researched about the bits he didn't see or only half understood. In this case its possible to argue that there is evidence de la Pena was wounded and so couldn't have witnessed the executions, but although there is a reference in another document to his having been struck on the head it doesn't say that he was incapacitated and neither does his narrative. There's no reason to doubt that he was present and whether he turned away is irrelevant. The real question is whether he was aware at the time that one of the murdered men was Crockett or whether this was something he "learned" some time afterwards.

I've written up my exposition for the Alamo Journal, but in the meantime for reasons that will be obvious I've stuck the relevant bit on the Dolson thread.

I won't take that bet because you're probably right. Almonte mentions nothing about Crockett or executions in his diary for March 6 or any date thereafter, nor do I see it in any other Mexican accounts prior to San Jacinto. It's not in any of the battle reports and even though Santa Anna did mention Crockett as being among the Alamo dead, he says nothing of any executions. In fact, he seems to use Crockett's presence as proof that the United States was behind the insurrection. I don't thing Santa Anna would have had reason to cover up any executions; it had been his outspoken policy from the beginning under the Tornel Decree and he openly wrote orders during the campaign reminding officers that there were to be no prisoners. I can almost imagining him boasting in his report of having captured the celebrated Crockett and then having him executed.

No, I think old Davy went down near the northwest corner somewhere.

AW

Since I'm no expert, my comments on this thread are directed toward De La Pena (DLP) and his account of the executions that took place and not the authenticity of the documents in question.

Prior to the executions, DLP relates his version of Travis' death. We've all read it so I won't repeat it, here. When I first read it, I, like many other's, passed it off as a simple mistake and let it go. But the more I thought about it the more I began to conclude it was a more then a mistake...it was a lie...a deliberate deception.
I think it's safe to say that DLP had no knowledge of Travis prior to the Alamo. He knew he didn't know who Travis was or what he looked like, but he makes the claim that he did, essentially, by stating that he saw Travis die. Pena even goes as far as to provide the reader with a description of Travis: "He was a handsome blond, with a physique as robust as his spirit was strong." Had DLP used something in his description like, "he may have been Travis", "might have been", "could have been", that would have been more honest, then I could cut him some slack.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't buy into the idea that DLP is this "paragon of truth and accuracy" that some would have us believe...that he isn't above stretching the truth for his own purpose or gain...whatever that may be. To me, it says something about his character and warns me to be careful...not to accept everything he says without question. Who of us can't remember a time not too long ago when anyone daring to question the accuracy of DLP's writings was ridiculed. Heck...it still happens today.

Fast forward to the executions. DLP describes the scene as Gen. Castrillon produces seven survivors. DLP immediately goes into a subjective if not romanticized description of David Crockett. Well, now, all kinds of questions pop up. Since Pena was totally clueless in regards to who Crockett was and what he looked like, the first and probably the most obvious question is: "where was DLP getting his information from?" Again, we have DLP failing to tell the reader how he was able to accurately identify someone he had never before seen. Pena continues on by providing the most generic and bland description of a person I have ever herd: "...well proportioned, with regular features..." Here, DLP plays it safe since he knows he has no idea what Crockett actually looks like...the less he says, the better. Now, we know David Crockett had anything but "regular features." He has been described to us as a man with a large or "Roman Nose", high cheekbones, a small or "Irish Chin", long dark hair that is parted in the middle, from 5' 10" - 6' tall, 180 - 190 lbs, and blue eyes. And then, of course, was the clothing he wore - his coonskin cap and hunting clothes. DLP didn't even bother with trying to describe what Crockett was wearing...too risky.
Next, we have Pena proclaiming David "The Naturalist". Wow! That sounds so much like "King of the Wild Frontier" doesn't it? DLP goes on to say that Crockett was known for his "unusual adventures." It sounds like someone got their hands on a Crockett Almanac. Have you ever noticed, in all the versions and accounts of Crockett's alleged execution....it's the Mexicans who are always identifying David and never do you have Crockett identifying himself? If you were Davy Crockett, how would you introduce yourself to Santa Anna? Would you say "I'm David Crockett, a "Naturalist" from North America! I'm known for my unusual adventures. Or would you say something like, I'm David Crockett, U.S. Congressmen and Tennessee Statesmen? I mean if you were trying to give Santa Anna a reason for sparing your life, what would you say?
Now, as far as we know, DLP didn't speak or understand a word of English, and yet, he goes on as Crockett's interpreter. Pena tells the reader that Crockett spoke in his own defense...explaining to Santa Anna that it was all just a big mistake...that he was simply exploring Texas and was not a defender but a victim of circumstance. If Pena knew nothing of Crockett's physical description, he knew even less of Crockett's character. DLP would have the reader believe that David...in an effort to save himself, turned his back on his friends and comrades and denied his involvement....as when Peter denied Christ (ok..so Jeff Long bought into it...but what do you expect, the guy is from Boulder). Well, I don't buy it. Nothing I've read about Crockett would lead me to believe that David could or would do anything of the kind. I see Crockett as someone who is honest, moral, loyal to his friends, and committed to his values. Let's remember, the men who died along side of Crockett are men he traveled with, ate with, snored with, suffered with, laughed and joked with, hunted with, sang, danced and partied with, and shared numerous dangers with. It was truly a band of brother's...bonded together. So the notion that David would desert, abandon, or deny his friends is unfounded. One also has to wonder about the six remaining captives. DLP acts as though they aren't even there. They have no names, no descriptions, and curiously...nothing to say. Only Crockett seems to merit attention...as usual.

Speaking of nothing to say...Santa Anna, the Saddam Hussian of his time, and his aid, Col. Almonte were surprisingly silent. Had Santa Anna been aware of who David Crockett was, I believe we would of heard more from El Presidente.

I stumbled across this very thoughtful piece by Stephen Harrigan, author of "Gates of the Alamo," which was published in 2000. Quite thoughtful and argues against the execution accounts from a novelist's point of view. Although he mentions Joe, he does not include the location of Crockett's body according to Joe and Ruiz, which would have added to his argument against the execution accounts.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3951/is_200010/ai_n8912074/pg_1

AW

Yes indeed, but then again he's only very eloquently articulating what we've already been saying on this forum; that the manuscript is fundamentally sound, but certain passages including that little bit about Crockett have been melodramatically overwritten for effect long after the event. I don't consider the Crockett execution story to be credible but still believe that DLP wrote or collected it. In one sense this might seem like semantics but that's a long way from pronouncing the whole document to be a 50 year old forgery.