|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 30, 2007 20:12:13 GMT -5
I just posted this on the other forum, but thought I'd put it here too. I'm wondering if there were some executions, even if the Crockett story in de la Pena is hearsay or bogus. Would the Mexicans actually bothered taking any prisoners at that point? It seems like nothing was going to stop them from killing on sight.
AW
This chronology has always bothered me too. If Susannah was shot by a stray bullet while being taken out of the fort, the soldados must still have been shooting and bayoneting (corpses, one assumes, although there may have been a stray Texian here or there). We know she was brought before Santa Anna, as all the non-combatants and Joe were, but that was in town somewhere.
On the other hand, the alleged executions are said to have been carried out on Santa Anna's personal order and with him present. We also know he was in the fort after the battle because he asked to see the bodies of Bowie, Crockett and Travis. So, why wasn't Susannah brought before him at that point -- while the two of them were in the fort?
If all of these events actually occurred, the explanation might be quite simple. Susannah was taken out of the fort, as presumably all of the others were, while some firing was still going on, quite possibly for their own safety. Didn't the English-speaking officer go looking for Susannah and, when he found her, told her that she must leave at once if she wanted to live? This would have been done regardless of Santa Anna's movements at the time, which were on anything but civilian survivors. He would have been concerned with surveying the battle scene, finding those all-important corpses, and giving his men a pep talk (which, I believe, de la Pena mentions). The non-combatants would have been taken to safety in the town and later brought in to see Santa Anna. Also, Susannah's bullet wound needed attending and that, too, would have taken priority.
All of the bodies seem to have been mutilated, Crockett's included. Those wounds could be from dying in battle or by execution, but if Susannah noticed him on her way out, it is unlikely that the executions would have already taken place. On the other hand, Susannah never mentioned Crockett in any of her statements until the 1870s, creating some doubt about her actually having seen him, or having been coaxed into saying something about him by interviewers.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 30, 2007 21:26:54 GMT -5
Well, the execution accounts are pretty numerous from both sides, so I don't doubt that executions in fact happened.
It seems when you break it down there are two possible formal executions, one that occured at the end of the battle and outside the Alamo Compound as Santa Anna rode up . This was supposedly witnessed from a jacale outside the Alamo by Arocha (Hansen 520 - 21) and appears to be some men that remained hidden outside until they saw an official party and tried to surrender to them.
The second formal execution of course is the DLP and other similar versions. The common story is that some men, 5 or 7, were hidden in a room and saved by a senior officer, usually Castrillion, in violation of Santa Anna's orders. He then brought them before Santa Anna asking for mercy. Santa Anna ordered them executed and there was considerable dismay among the officers when it was carried out.
It's pure speculation, but why would Castrillion violate these orders and why would carrying them out cause dismay? I expect that these men were the doctors and some of the wounded that survived the storming of the hospital ie noncombatants.
In an unpublished account, that Tom Lindley has, that he has shared in the past, the family Susannah thingyinson (OK, we have a minor problem with the porn editor) stayed with in Gonzales recorded that she told them that after she was rescued, she was escorted from body to body as the soldatos bayonetted the bodies of the defenders. She said she fainted when she came to the body of her husband.
If all this was going on, and it had to for there to be no survivors. Why would the post battle execution of some combatants be recorded with such repugnance? I just think it all adds up to they were noncombatants from the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 1, 2007 8:18:40 GMT -5
That's a good summary, Wolf. I wonder if there were any similar feelings of revulsion by Mexicans at the Goliad executions.
The Alamo executions may well have been wounded and doctors from the hospital; it makes more sense that the soldados would have been reluctant to kill them outright than guys still shooting at them, especially if a decent officer, like Castrillon, were with them.
I had never heard that account of Susannah's. It almost sounds like they were torturing her, in a sense, by forcing her to watch them mutilating the bodies. Whatever she saw, the woman had to be in shock in a major way. She was only a teenager, for cripes sake, with this horrendous battle going on outside, not knowing if they were going to be killed as well, and trying to protect an infant while also facing the realization that her husband was probably dead, along with all these other people she'd spent the past two weeks with. I can't even imagine the horror; it shouldn't be surprising that she either didn't remember things or was confused in what she said or thought she remembered. Some things she's pretty consistent on, but others seem to come out of thin air and, since she was illiterate and wrote nothing of her own, colored by the reporters who interviewed her.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 1, 2007 13:38:50 GMT -5
That's assuming it happened. This does sound like another of those "thin air" or "improved stories". While I'm going along with Wolf's analysis of the execution sequence I still hold to the convergance between the total number reported executed - in the two groups - and the discovery of the decapitated bodies in the 1870s(?). I'm still very much of the opinion that those executed were Tejano members of the garrison, executed because they were an inconvenient proof that it was also a federalist uprising - hence the reluctance to say much about them. I think that if those murdered were indeed doctors and patients that fact would have been made more explicit as further proof of Santa Anna's villainy
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 3, 2007 16:06:29 GMT -5
I had never heard that account of Susannah's. It almost sounds like they were torturing her, in a sense, by forcing her to watch them mutilating the bodies. Whatever she saw, the woman had to be in shock in a major way. She was only a teenager, for cripes sake, with this horrendous battle going on outside, not knowing if they were going to be killed as well, and trying to protect an infant while also facing the realization that her husband was probably dead, along with all these other people she'd spent the past two weeks with. I can't even imagine the horror; it shouldn't be surprising that she either didn't remember things or was confused in what she said or thought she remembered. Some things she's pretty consistent on, but others seem to come out of thin air and, since she was illiterate and wrote nothing of her own, colored by the reporters who interviewed her. AW Being that Susannah was a young woman at the time, I have come to think that certain aspects of the battle were seared into her memory while some of the more horrible events were blocked out by her mind. It may have taken her years to overcome the sights and sounds of seeing so many people killed, mutilated and burned. We're probably lucky that she related at least some of her memories even though they might be tainted by misguided reporters. She is certainly unreliable on certain issues, but it's understandable.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 3, 2007 19:31:24 GMT -5
I had never heard that account of Susannah's. It almost sounds like they were torturing her, in a sense, by forcing her to watch them mutilating the bodies. Whatever she saw, the woman had to be in shock in a major way. She was only a teenager, for cripes sake, with this horrendous battle going on outside, not knowing if they were going to be killed as well, and trying to protect an infant while also facing the realization that her husband was probably dead, along with all these other people she'd spent the past two weeks with. I can't even imagine the horror; it shouldn't be surprising that she either didn't remember things or was confused in what she said or thought she remembered. Some things she's pretty consistent on, but others seem to come out of thin air and, since she was illiterate and wrote nothing of her own, colored by the reporters who interviewed her. AW Being that Susannah was a young woman at the time, I have come to think that certain aspects of the battle were seared into her memory while some of the more horrible events were blocked out by her mind. It may have taken her years to overcome the sights and sounds of seeing so many people killed, mutilated and burned. We're probably lucky that she related at least some of her memories even though they might be tainted by misguided reporters. She is certainly unreliable on certain issues, but it's understandable. Yeah; I was just thinking of how young she was, uneducated and illiterate, suddenly seeing all this carnage and all these people she'd spent two weeks with killed and mutilated, as well as her husband. How much of that could she have stood? I think she must have blocked a lot of it out. But I think Stuart is right about the more graphic version; sounds embellished. AW
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jul 8, 2010 20:38:40 GMT -5
I'm new to the forum and am not sure whether or not this is an appropriate place to jump into the discussion. Also, I must admit to feeling a little nervous about doing so in view of the complex arguments I've been reading in the various threads regarding the executions and the reliability of the witnesses. Up to now, most of my reading on the subject has been largely confined to the writings of James Crisp, Bill Groneman and Tom Lindley. I have no difficulty in accepting the possibility that Almonte might have been capable of identifying Crockett, and that Crockett may have been among those executed - although I recognize the validity of the arguments against both. Also, while I am aware there are reservations about Susanna Dickinson's claim to have seen Crockett's body in the chapel courtyard, I am inclined to believe her. However, for her to have seen his body there and for him to have been executed, one would assume that the executions of the men found by Castrillion would have to have taken place there, which raises a problem with De la Pena's statement that his regiment was close to Santa Anna at the time, as I wouldn't have thought a whole regiment would have followed him into the courtyard - unless, of course, Santa Anna was just inside the entrance while the regiment remained in the plaza. I'm not sure how much faith one should put in De la Pena's identification of Crockett: while I don't believe he was capable of recognizing Crockett, after reading "Sleuthing the Alamo", I'm not sure he would have made the identification merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated rumour - although I am aware that some of his other information is incorrect where it concerns things he couldn't have seen (such as Travis's death). I see no reason to doubt his statement on the position of his regiment after the battle. I am wondering what others think of the possibility of the executions taking place in the courtard. MJB.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 8, 2010 21:38:21 GMT -5
MJB:
I think there's pretty close to unanimous agreement that some executions took place. While I believe the DeLaPena document to be authentic, I don't necessarily take it to be 100% accurate.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 9, 2010 6:58:57 GMT -5
I have to agree with Jim, here. Executions? Yes -- without question. Was Crockett among those who survived the battle only to be executed? I'm not so sure.
I would tend to believe those, like Susanna, who had spent two weeks or so around the man, than an enemy who probably only knew of him. Let's face it -- many of the defenders wore similar clothing and such, and all were probably pretty raggedy and dirt after 13 days of siege. And, probably to the Mexican troops, many of these Norte Americanos looked alike. My mind's a blur this morning, but I don't believe Susanna is the only person who places Crockett's body somewhere in the church courtyard, with many dead Mexicans around him. She may have been in shock, but she would have recognized Crockett, dead or alive, I'm certain.
I hadn't thought of the possibility of those who were executed being the doctors and sick/wounded people they were treating, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Interestingly, there were doctors spared from the Goliad massacre to treat the Mexican wounded from the Alamo battle. It does make sense, but, doubtless, there were some defenders who hid, or tried to, and placed their fate at the hands of the victors.
I'm guilty of focusing too much on the notion of a single incident involving executions, but might it be possible that there was more than one incidence involving the execution of more than one group of defenders? Considering the number of recorded statements concerning executions, I truly wonder if this might account for some of those differing accounts of executed defenders? Two or more groups executed, and at different places (inside and outside the walls)?
Thoughts?
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 9, 2010 11:17:44 GMT -5
Actually, Dickinson is the only first hand account (as relayed by Morphis' 1874 account) of Crockett being found in front of the church, but as mentioned elsewhere she gives contradictory testimony in other accounts. Which of these accounts are truly her words and which are the reporters? All other first hand accounts, except for Ruiz, don't specify a location - at all. Ruiz of course, points to a totally different location, along the West Wall.
There were of course mutiple executions, rereading the Mexican Accounts there seem to be at least three different executions, that merited mention, (at least one outside the walls). More importantly when you stop and think about the wounded defenders that were "adminstered" a coup de grace, probably close to 1/2 the garrison was actually executed/murdered.
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jul 9, 2010 16:09:51 GMT -5
There is this reference. While many may not hold with it, I think that it is of interest that it was published in 1837
Edition Notes A pseudo-autobiography; the pref. purports to be written by an Alex. J. Dumas, who claims that he received Crockett's papers from a Charles T. Beale, who wrote the final chapter “gathered from Castrillon’s servant, and other Mexican prisoners.” The work is generally ascribed to Richard Penn Smith.
General Castrillon was brave and not cruel, and disposed to save the prisoners. He marched them up to that part of the fort where stood Santa Anna and his murderous crew. The steady, fearless step, and undaunted tread of Colonel Crockett on this occasion, together with the bold demeanour of the hardy veteran, had a powerful effect on all present. Nothing daunted, he marched up boldly in front of Santa Anna, and looked him sternly in the face, while Castrillon addressed " his excellency," — "Sir, here are six prisoners I have taken alive ; how shall I dispose of them ?" Santa Anna looked at Castrillon fiercely, flew into a violent rage, and replied, “Have I not told you before how to dispose of them? Why do you bring them to me?" At the same time his brave officers plunged their swords into the bosoms of their defenceless prisoners. Colonel Crockett, seeing the act of treachery, instantly sprang like a tiger at the ruffian chief, but before he could reach him a dozen swords were sheathed in his indomitable heart ; and he fell, and died without a groan, a frown on his brow, and a smile of scorn and defiance on his lips. Castrillon rushed from the scene, apparently horror-struck, sought his quarters, and did not leave them for several days, and hardly spoke to Santa Anna after.
COL. CROCKETT'S EXPLOITS AND ADVENTURES IN TEXAS Published 1837 by R. Kennett in London. Page 143
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 9, 2010 16:39:46 GMT -5
"Exploits and Adventures" was cobbled together by Crockett's publishers to make some money off of his death. They enlisted Penn Smith to write the book and used a couple of letters they had received from Crockett as a jumping off point (Penn Smith wove them into the early part of the book). The remainder of the volume is a total fabrication, but it fooled some people for a long while.
Edgar Alan Poe was the critic who outed Penn Smith as the real author of the book.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 9, 2010 16:52:49 GMT -5
Jim,
I was aware of the fabricated aspect of the book (in fact it was covered fully in "Eyewitness to the Alamo", which I completed this morning). I didn't know that POE outed the actual writer.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 9, 2010 17:04:48 GMT -5
I have no doubt that executions took place immediately following or perhaps during the battle when one considers that there were quite a few outside the walls. I would think that those that may have been captured were executed on the spot while the pursuit or direct combat with others continued.
I do have a problem with the sword in the bosom stuff though. I do love the above story, as it is written in the very colorful language of the time. It seems to me though that any of them that were formally executed, and in particular the one related in the story at Santa Anna's direct order would have been carried out in the old fashioned way - a firing squad. Maybe not even that formal - just shot, then bayoneted to insure death.
As far as the general theme of prisioners go though, I think there comes a time in every combat situation that men, of their own accord, just stop killing, regardless of orders to the contrary. We might attribute Castrillon's conduct to just such a revulsion. Don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 9, 2010 19:34:24 GMT -5
As far as the general theme of prisioners go though, I think there comes a time in every combat situation that men, of their own accord, just stop killing, regardless of orders to the contrary. We might attribute Castrillon's conduct to just such a revulsion. Don't know. But there are some things we do know about Castrillon which support this behavior in the aftermath of the Alamo. 1. He argued against Santa Anna's no quarter tactics and wasn't afraid to call the dictator on it. 2. He tried to get Santa Anna to wait on the arrival of the twelve-pounders so the wall could be breached and they would lose as many men taking the fort. 3. He was the only officer at San Jacinto who tried to stand his ground. Thus, a brave and honorable man who wasn't afraid to butt heads with his presidente-general. So would he have tried to save men at the Alamo? We don't know for sure, but I do believe that it was within his nature to do this.
|
|