|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 28, 2008 17:27:08 GMT -5
Both Gen. Filisola and de la Pena made statements in their respective accounts that a bexarena left the Alamo and provided Santa Anna with some interesting information.
The versions of the story differ a little bit but according to the bexarena informant, Travis was contemplating surrender. Now, both accounts were based on information they obtained from other sources. They were not derived from first-hand experiences. However, there is some corroboration from another source - Sue Dickinson.
In her 1874 interview with James Morphis, Dickinson says: "A Mexican woman deserted us one night, and going over to the enemy informed them of our very inferior numbers, which Col Travis said made them confident of success and emboldened them to make the final assault, which they did at early dawn on the morning of the 6th of March."
So we have three independent sources claiming a bexarena left the Alamo shortly before March 6th and provided Santa Anna with information regarding the garrison. If the claim is accurate, and it certainly possible, then a number of questions come to mind.
First - who was the bexarena in question?
Was this woman acting of her own accord or was she an envoy sent by a discouraged Travis?
If she was acting on her own, why then, did she abandon the Alamo and provide Santa Anna with critical intelligence about the garrison?
If she was sent by Travis, was Travis actually considering surrender?
If Travis was seriously contemplating surrender, would he have allowed the volunteers to decide for themselves?
Did the bexarena return to the Alamo with a message from Santa Anna?
Was the alleged information about the condition of the garrison the catalyst for Santa Anna's decision to assault the Alamo on the 6th?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 28, 2008 18:15:57 GMT -5
In one of her accounts, Dickinson very bitterly identifies the Bexerena as the wife of H. Alsbury, or Juana, Bowie's sister-in-law.
With Mark's detective work, identifying her room in the S. Castenada House, in close proximity to Travis's HQs and with her close relationship with Bowie - if the story is true - her participation kind of makes sense.
The fact that she very clearly was in the Alamo, when the Mexican attack came, pretty much rules out deliberate betrayal, and raises the probability that Travis may indeed have been negotiating.
It's simply another one of the many things, where there is sufficient evidence to not rule something out, but there's definitely not enough to say that it indeed happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 29, 2008 3:59:07 GMT -5
Going back to my earlier comment on the other thread about Travis not expecting the attack because he thought it wasn't yet time for an assault, I don't have a problem with the notion of some kind of negotiations going on. This was entirely normal in siege warfare without necessarily implying sincerity on either side.
Furthermore we do know that were was a two way traffic between the town and the Tejano elements of the garrison anyway, and quite apart from her geographical location within the compound Alsbury would have been a logical choice for carrying messages from Travis given her family connection to the "white" side of the garrison.
As to the substance of the messages, it doesn't necessarily mean that a surrender was imminent. Travis may have been exploring clarification of what was on offer - after all the initial message implied the garrison would be spared but not the officers, which from a personal point of view could hardly have been very appealking to Travis. Or he may have been trying for one of those deals so common in European warfare; if not relieved by a certain date he would surrender. He may simply have been trying to spin out time with a truce for negotiations, or trying to secure safe passage for non-combatants like Mrs Dickinson, or any of a number of things.
We don't know, but the point is that the mere fact of messages being exchanged does not automatically imply that a surrender was in prospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 29, 2008 9:19:13 GMT -5
Herb, Stuart
As always, I appreciate the input and insight. But at least one burning question remains. Is it possible the alleged negotiations influenced Santa Anna's decision to take the Alamo by storm rather then waiting for the bigger guns to arrive?
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 29, 2008 9:30:51 GMT -5
Depends what you mean by "influenced"; I doubt that he will have learned anything he didn't already know about the state of the Alamo and its defences.
On the other hand the fact that some kind of negotiation, however tentative or innocuous was going on, may well have strengthened the feeling that the Texians weren't weren't expecting anything so dramatic any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 29, 2008 10:55:40 GMT -5
There was an agreement to allow the Tejano defenders to leave the fort without being harmed by the Meixcans. Most of them, apparently, did leave and were not harmed. That deal had to have been negotiated in some form between the two sides, so negotiations did take place during the siege.
I wonder why Dickinson would say that Alsbury "betrayed" the garrison by telling the Mexicans how desperate they were? It sounds like hindsight and finger-pointing to me. The conditon of the defenders would not have been surprising to the Mexicans, who were well aware of what they had been doing and enduring for 2 weeks. Our discussions here suggest that this was, in fact, part of Santa Anna's calculations in ordering the attack when he did.
I have to agree that, if Travis was initiating discussions with the Mexicans, it had to be out of hope that they'd reconsider their position on surrender, or a way to buy time while he continued frantically writing appeals for help.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 29, 2008 11:18:56 GMT -5
De la Pena believed the bexarena told Santa Anna or gave him the impression that Travis and the garrison were on the verge of either surrendering or escaping under cover of darkness.
De le Pena continues to say Santa Anna "would have regretted taking the Alamo without clamor and without bloodshed, for some believe that without these there is no glory" If de la Pena's statement is accurate, it sounds to me like Santa Anna may have been concerned about the prospect of winning an inglorious victory. Given Santa Anna's notoriously shallow character, I can see why he may have been influenced by the information and motivated to assault the Alamo as soon as possible.
It wasn't enough for Santa Anna to win. He wanted to make a statement - to send a message to all who opposed him. A quiet capitulation by the defenders simply would not do.
Another question comes to mind. If Travis was indeed negotiating with the Mexican Army, why all the cloak-and-dagger?
What I'm asking is "why send a woman to negotiate and why under cover of darkness?" Why not use an officer as your envoy and why not during the day - under a flag of truce? In fact, the idea of using a woman as an intermediary and exposing her to danger seems to go against the southern code of chivalry. So maybe the bexarena was acting on her own.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 29, 2008 23:09:55 GMT -5
Stuart, posted something about the rules of sieges in another topic, but in some ways the negotiations were almost like a well known dance where everybody understood the steps.
The besieging force would first demand an unconditional surrender or threaten that everybody would be put to the sword. The defending commander would issue some sort of defiant reply, and to his utmost to defend his position. These postures would continue to there was a very real change in the situation.
If Travis tried to enter negotiations including Alsbury makes sense to me, but I agree that an officer would have carried the message. But Alsbury's personal relationships make her a trusted translator, imo, and would make her invaluable even to an officer that spoke some Spanish - understanding nuances, and the written word requires an expertise that with JW Smith and H. Alsbury gone probably only the sick Bowie had within the garrison. Just my thoughts.
We don't know for sure if the incident happened or not, or whether an officer was included in the negotiating party. The unusual inclusion of a woman in the party may in itself be why both Filisola and DLP mention it.
As for the Cloak and Dagger, remember how upset the Mexican Battalion commander and Sanchez-Navarro were upset with Cos' surrender in December and how they considered fighting on? or the how upset some of Fannin's men were? Plus the cloak and dagger may explain some of Dickinson's accounts - why they tend to substantiate but differ so far from the Mexican accounts, she may not even have known about it, until the women and children were gathered together after the end of the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Jun 29, 2008 23:41:47 GMT -5
I have done a fair amount of research on Horatio Alexander Alsbury and a lot of it is included in Sea of Mud. He was a fascinating character. I found some information on his wife, Juana Navarro Alsbury. My recollections are that the early accounts about her note that she left the Alamo before the 6th. Her later accounts give many details as to that day. I have noticed that some accounts of the individuals involved seemed to change after 1870 when the state of Texas started giving pensions for participants. Could it be that Juana Alsbury felt that she had a better chance at a pension if she claimed to have stayed to the bitter end?
Dr. Horatio Alsbury came through Filisola's camp on May 9th and de la Pena spent the evening talking with him. Dr. Barnard, who was in Bexar caring for the Mexican wounded, said in his journal that Dr. Alsbury had come into town. I can not remember the exact date but it was about the 20th of May.
Alsbury fought in the siege of Bexar in 1835 (where he met his wife), fled Bexar when Santa Anna showed, fought at San Jacinto, joined with his brother Y. P. Alsbury and others in chasing Santa Anna from San Jacinto, spent the night at the Mexican camp on May 9th, ran for congress from Bexar in 1837 and received one vote, was captured by Woll in 1842 and spent two years in a Mexican prison and was eventually killed in the Mexican American war. What a fascinating unknown character.
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 30, 2008 7:51:23 GMT -5
This makes sense - sounds like a real possibility to me. While there may have been some genuine negotiations conducted between the two parties, Travis' true intent could have been to simply by time for the garrison. And, if by good fortune, the negotiations led to favorable conditions, so much the better.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 30, 2008 10:09:51 GMT -5
I have done a fair amount of research on Horatio Alexander Alsbury and a lot of it is included in Sea of Mud. He was a fascinating character. I found some information on his wife, Juana Navarro Alsbury. My recollections are that the early accounts about her note that she left the Alamo before the 6th. Her later accounts give many details as to that day. I have noticed that some accounts of the individuals involved seemed to change after 1870 when the state of Texas started giving pensions for participants. Could it be that Juana Alsbury felt that she had a better chance at a pension if she claimed to have stayed to the bitter end? Dr. Horatio Alsbury came through Filisola's camp on May 9th and de la Pena spent the evening talking with him. Dr. Barnard, who was in Bexar caring for the Mexican wounded, said in his journal that Dr. Alsbury had come into town. I can not remember the exact date but it was about the 20th of May. Alsbury fought in the siege of Bexar in 1835 (where he met his wife), fled Bexar when Santa Anna showed, fought at San Jacinto, joined with his brother Y. P. Alsbury and others in chasing Santa Anna from San Jacinto, spent the night at the Mexican camp on May 9th, ran for congress from Bexar in 1837 and received one vote, was captured by Woll in 1842 and spent two years in a Mexican prison and was eventually killed in the Mexican American war. What a fascinating unknown character. That's fascinating info Gregg. The entry for Juana on the Texas Handbook Online has some of this. I'm curious what the sources are for the conflicting accounts of her actions at the Alamo. Most of what I read claims she was there during the battle and nearly killed when soldados broke into the room where she was sheltered. What are the sources for her leaving the Alamo before March 6 (with her father, according to THO, although he was said to be a Mexican loyalist)? Pure speculation: Juana may have taken part in the negotiations that granted amnesty to all Tejano defenders who would leave the fort. Since most of them DID leave, maybe Juana did too, hence Dickinson's conclusion that she had somehow betrayed the garrison. Thanks for posting. AW |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 30, 2008 21:04:19 GMT -5
Could it be that Juana Alsbury felt that she had a better chance at a pension if she claimed to have stayed to the bitter end? Gregg, this would mean that Enrique Esparza was falsifying information in his interviews. One example is his November 9, 1901, interview. He states, "At daylight [on March 7], they [the women and children who were brought out of the Alamo and spent the night in the Musquiz house] were required to go before Santa Anna and take the oath of allegiance. Each mother was then given a blanket and two dollars by Santa Anna in person. The only two who escaped this additional humiliation were the two daughters of Navarro, who were spirited away from the Musquiz house by their father [uncle] -- Jose Antonio Navarro." In his 1907 interview, he (or Charles Merrit Barnes) says, "Alsberry [sic] left his wife and sister-in-law there. His sister-in-law afterward married a man named Cantu. She and Mrs Alsberry stayed in the Alamo until it fell. They feared to leave, believing the Mexicans under Santa Anna would kill them." Of course, this is in the same paragraph where he (or Barnes) tells of Rose leaving the Alamo "after Travis drew the line with his sword," so... |
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Jul 1, 2008 0:03:32 GMT -5
I believe that I got this information from the vertical file on Juana Navarro Alsbury at the Center for American history. I think there were a few newspaper articles and possibly an account from one of his relatives or descendants. I was not researching her but her husband so I did not make copies of the papers.
As to Esparza's account I can only say that it is my general impression the the accounts of the locals as to what happened at the Alamo seemed to be questionable at best and tended to get worse as they got older. I have no idea how accurate Esparza was. I want to make sure to reiterate that I am a Mexican army guy and not an Alamo guy so I can only add information when it involves the Mexican army or happens to touch on something that I stumbled across. I will leave the Alamo details to those of you that know more about than I would ever hope to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 1, 2008 10:56:40 GMT -5
I think the Esparza accounts have to be taken with a grain of salt. They are a mixture of a little bit of fact and a lot of vivid imagination. For my money, they're only a little bit more reliable than the Candelaria reports.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 1, 2008 16:22:32 GMT -5
I agree. Like Dickinson, Esparaza changed his story over the years and I have to doubt how much he actually saw or remembered after so many years. It's a great frustration in researching the Alamo to find so little reliable info from those who were there, or trying to separate what is credible from what is not.
AW
|
|
