Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 26, 2007 17:34:47 GMT -5
Though there's a discussion of the Ruiz account ongoing in the "Where's Juana?" thread, I figured the various Potter accounts warrant a thread of their own.
Reuben M. Potter published two accounts of the Alamo battle, and he was the first person to attempt a real critical analysis of the events.
His first version, "The Fall of the Alamo: A Reminiscence of the Revolution of Texas", was published in 1860. The study of the Alamo battle was apparently an ongoing process for Potter, and he published a second, revised version in 1878, using additional information provided him by Juan Seguin. He notes that some of his information, including the location of Bowie's body, was provided by Sergeant Becero, who worked as Potter's servant for a time.
Both the 1860 version and the 1878 revision contain information about Crockett's death. The 1860 account reads:
In the mean time the turning of Travis' gun had been imitated by the garrison. A small piece on the roof of the chapel or one of the other buildings was turned against the area while the rooms were being stormed. It did more execution than any other cannon in the fortress; but after a few effective discharges all who manned it fell under the enemy's fire. Crockett had taken refuge in a room of the low barracks near the gate. He either garrisoned it alone, or was left alone by the fall of his companions, when he sallied to meet his fate in the face of the foe, and was shot down.
By 1878, Potter had talked with Francisco Ruiz and others, and filled out his story:
Before the action reached this stage, the turning of Travis' gun by the assailants was briefly imitated by a group of the defenders. "A small piece on a high platform", as it was described to me by General Bradburn, was wheeled by those who manned it against the large area after the enemy entered it. Some of the Mexican officers thought it did more execution than any gun which fired outward; but after two effective discharges it was silenced, when the last of its cannoneers fell under a shower of bullets. I cannot locate this gun with certainty, but it was probably the 12 pound carronade which fired over the center of the west wall from a high commanding position. The smallness assigned to it perhaps referred only to its length. According to Mr. Ruiz, the Alcalde of San Antonio, who, after the action, was required to point out the slain leaders to Santa Anna, the body of Crockett was found in the west battery just referred to, and we may infer that he either commanded that point or was stationed there as a sharpshooter.
We've debated Potter's (and Ruiz's) placement of Crockett's body in another thread. Stuart thinks that Potter refers to the NW corner, due to his description of the area as a "high commanding position". I disagree and tend to go with the "center of the west wall" location.
Add the Ruiz account to the mix and you get Crockett's body "toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city".
Again, Stuart finds this western location (west of Travis' position on what Ruiz describes as the "north battery", that is) to be the NW corner, a position directly west of Travis (if Travis was on the center battery of the north wall). I think that had Ruiz meant the NW battery, he would have used the word "battery" to designate it, rather than the term "small fort". Stuart disagrees, pointing out that the NW battery was a considerably smaller position than the battery in the center of the north wall.
All this brings me to another source I uncovered a day or two ago.
Potter's 1878 account wasn't his last word on the Crockett controversy. In August of 1884, The Century published an article on Sam Houston written by Alexander Hynde. The article touched briefly on the Alamo battle, and repeated the story of Crockett's capture by Castrillon and subsequent execution by order of Santa Anna.
In the October, 1886 issue, Reuben M. Potter wrote a letter to the editor disputing the details of Crockett's death related in the Houston article. Here's the full statement:
Captain Reuben M. Potter, U.S.A., writing to correct some statements in an account of the fall of the Alamo that appeared in an article on General Sam Houston, in The Century for August, 1884, states that Crockett was killed by a bullet shot while at his post on the outworks of the fort, and was one of the first to fall. Captain Potter says that the story of Crockett being captured with a gun barrel in one hand and a huge knife in the other, and a semicircle of dead Mexicans about him is pure fiction. Bowie was ill at the time of the fight, and was found murdered in his bed; and a single bullet-hole in the forehead of Travis tells the whole of his death. Nothing else, he adds, can be known. (emphasis mine, JB)
Potter's description of an "outwork" is more specific than either of his earlier statements. The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any way to establish the existence of a west wall outwork by the archaeological record. Mark Lemon informed me that excavations in that area are all for naught due to the basements that were dug for all the businesses that occupy that space.
At any rate, now we have a third Potter account. We can consider these accounts either contradictory or progressive revelation. I tend to favor the latter.
Jim Boylston
Reuben M. Potter published two accounts of the Alamo battle, and he was the first person to attempt a real critical analysis of the events.
His first version, "The Fall of the Alamo: A Reminiscence of the Revolution of Texas", was published in 1860. The study of the Alamo battle was apparently an ongoing process for Potter, and he published a second, revised version in 1878, using additional information provided him by Juan Seguin. He notes that some of his information, including the location of Bowie's body, was provided by Sergeant Becero, who worked as Potter's servant for a time.
Both the 1860 version and the 1878 revision contain information about Crockett's death. The 1860 account reads:
In the mean time the turning of Travis' gun had been imitated by the garrison. A small piece on the roof of the chapel or one of the other buildings was turned against the area while the rooms were being stormed. It did more execution than any other cannon in the fortress; but after a few effective discharges all who manned it fell under the enemy's fire. Crockett had taken refuge in a room of the low barracks near the gate. He either garrisoned it alone, or was left alone by the fall of his companions, when he sallied to meet his fate in the face of the foe, and was shot down.
By 1878, Potter had talked with Francisco Ruiz and others, and filled out his story:
Before the action reached this stage, the turning of Travis' gun by the assailants was briefly imitated by a group of the defenders. "A small piece on a high platform", as it was described to me by General Bradburn, was wheeled by those who manned it against the large area after the enemy entered it. Some of the Mexican officers thought it did more execution than any gun which fired outward; but after two effective discharges it was silenced, when the last of its cannoneers fell under a shower of bullets. I cannot locate this gun with certainty, but it was probably the 12 pound carronade which fired over the center of the west wall from a high commanding position. The smallness assigned to it perhaps referred only to its length. According to Mr. Ruiz, the Alcalde of San Antonio, who, after the action, was required to point out the slain leaders to Santa Anna, the body of Crockett was found in the west battery just referred to, and we may infer that he either commanded that point or was stationed there as a sharpshooter.
We've debated Potter's (and Ruiz's) placement of Crockett's body in another thread. Stuart thinks that Potter refers to the NW corner, due to his description of the area as a "high commanding position". I disagree and tend to go with the "center of the west wall" location.
Add the Ruiz account to the mix and you get Crockett's body "toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city".
Again, Stuart finds this western location (west of Travis' position on what Ruiz describes as the "north battery", that is) to be the NW corner, a position directly west of Travis (if Travis was on the center battery of the north wall). I think that had Ruiz meant the NW battery, he would have used the word "battery" to designate it, rather than the term "small fort". Stuart disagrees, pointing out that the NW battery was a considerably smaller position than the battery in the center of the north wall.
All this brings me to another source I uncovered a day or two ago.
Potter's 1878 account wasn't his last word on the Crockett controversy. In August of 1884, The Century published an article on Sam Houston written by Alexander Hynde. The article touched briefly on the Alamo battle, and repeated the story of Crockett's capture by Castrillon and subsequent execution by order of Santa Anna.
In the October, 1886 issue, Reuben M. Potter wrote a letter to the editor disputing the details of Crockett's death related in the Houston article. Here's the full statement:
Captain Reuben M. Potter, U.S.A., writing to correct some statements in an account of the fall of the Alamo that appeared in an article on General Sam Houston, in The Century for August, 1884, states that Crockett was killed by a bullet shot while at his post on the outworks of the fort, and was one of the first to fall. Captain Potter says that the story of Crockett being captured with a gun barrel in one hand and a huge knife in the other, and a semicircle of dead Mexicans about him is pure fiction. Bowie was ill at the time of the fight, and was found murdered in his bed; and a single bullet-hole in the forehead of Travis tells the whole of his death. Nothing else, he adds, can be known. (emphasis mine, JB)
Potter's description of an "outwork" is more specific than either of his earlier statements. The problem is, there doesn't appear to be any way to establish the existence of a west wall outwork by the archaeological record. Mark Lemon informed me that excavations in that area are all for naught due to the basements that were dug for all the businesses that occupy that space.
At any rate, now we have a third Potter account. We can consider these accounts either contradictory or progressive revelation. I tend to favor the latter.
Jim Boylston
