|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 26, 2008 11:11:58 GMT -5
While researching old newspapers for our upcoming Crockett book I found this odd account of the Alamo battle in the March 30, 1836 Baltimore Gazette. Stuart will be happy to learn that James Grant was not killed either. Since we don't have an "alternate history" section, I decided to post it here!  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 26, 2008 15:44:35 GMT -5
Ah, the value of primary documents reporting directly from the field! It almost sounds tongue-in-cheek when you read it with the benefit of hindsight.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 26, 2008 20:35:41 GMT -5
This news account almost begs a study of the genesis of such a mass of misinformation. The New Orleans Bee is available online, and I haven't noticed the original reporting referred to before. When I get some time, I'll have to revisit the Bee and see if I can find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 26, 2008 20:55:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I found it pretty amazing that they could get so much wrong!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 27, 2008 13:43:04 GMT -5
I'd hazard a guess that its largely down to Dimmitt, who as you'll recall was sent out to scout the Mexican Army with Lieutenant Nobles but took the opportunity to get out. A lot of the report seems based on his recce and he might well have excused his failure to return to the Alamo by inventing a famous battle.
Again, the report of Grant's survival isn't actually that far off. This is clearly based on Johnson's arrival at Goliad after being bounced at San Patricio, rather than the actual Agua Dulce survivors.
Yes, at first glance its spectacularly wrong, but if you look into it closely you can see where its all coming from easily enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 27, 2008 17:27:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 29, 2008 19:26:09 GMT -5
The article posted above seems to me to be an exaggeration of the battle of February 25, not the final battle. Sorry, I couldn't locate the Bee article on the link as given. It also fits the time frame better. I can't imagine the March 6 battle being reported second hand in the Baltimore newpaper only 24 days later, but I can accept the battle of the 25th. getting there in 34 days. However, this is just a gut response on my part -- not based on checking dates of other newpaper reports for comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 29, 2008 20:46:37 GMT -5
My gut's telling me the same thing. I read this is an account of the Feb. 25th fight, not the March 6th assault.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 29, 2008 21:47:47 GMT -5
Trouble is, "Travers" wasn't commanding at the Battle of Bexar. I'm with Stuart on this one.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 30, 2008 6:04:04 GMT -5
You're certainly right. "Travers" was not at the Battle of Bexar, in late 1835, but he was at the Alamo through the seige in February-March 1836.
Considering the accuracy of the article in question (he says, tongue-in-cheek), I'd say that very little has change in the world of journalism in the ensuing 172 years. Still, it's a fascinating read.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 30, 2008 7:09:51 GMT -5
Sorry, I couldn't locate the Bee article on the link as given. Zoom the page, go to the second column, down a couple of inches, headline = "Important from Texas." |
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 30, 2008 11:17:32 GMT -5
That newspaper article has to be correct.  After all, why would the Monroe Democrat print the following in its April 5, 1836 issue?: "We are happy to state, on the authority from a letter from Tennessee, that the report of the death of the eccentric Davy Crockett is not true."  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 30, 2008 14:40:46 GMT -5
That newspaper article has to be correct. After all, why would the Monroe Democrat print the following in its April 5, 1836 issue?: "We are happy to state, on the authority from a letter from Tennessee, that the the report of the death of the eccentric Davy Crockett is not true." Phew! I certainly will sleep better tonight knowing the media got it right.  |
|
