|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 24, 2008 10:14:03 GMT -5
The Dual of Eagles is probably the last book I would refer to...if at all. I don't think much of Jeff Long's cynical and politically correct interpretation of the battle. He's also a little reckless with the facts.
Pablo Diaz was 90 when he gave that interview, so age and foggy memory must be taken into account. The Ruiz story had been around for 46 years by the time Diaz told his tale and Diaz may have simply borrowed the "bodies in the river" for the sake of great story telling.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 11, 2008 14:58:54 GMT -5
Question: Why does the "Alamo community" accept Antonio Ruiz's account as accurate and seemingly without question? It's as if he was the "Teflon" eye-witness. With the exception of Tom Lindley, I can't think of anyone who has cast doubt on Ruiz. I once believed the Ruiz story...that is until I read TRL's book - Alamo Traces. Usually, I find myself in disagreement with Lindley. However, after reading the Ruiz account numerous times I believe TRL was correct in his assessment of Antonio Ruiz and his tale. Let's be honest. There is a lot to call into question. From Ruiz's assertion to have been the mayor of San Antonio to his claim of 1600 Mexican casualties and tossing bodies into the river. Clearly, the Ruiz account, his alleged participation in events, even his presents in San Antonio, are problematic at best. First, let's take a look at Ruiz's claim he was mayor of Bexar at the time of the battle. According to TRL, public record indicates the alcalde of San Antonio was Francisco Flores not Ruiz. Documentation supporting Ruiz's claim has yet to be found. Then we have Santa Anna's statement that there was "no political authority" in San Antonio. This makes sense. The political leaders in Bexar opposed Santa Anna, were pro-Texas and had recently loaned the garrison 500 pesos. So it's no surprise the local leaders were absent when Santa Anna entered the town. Ruiz, of all people, had good reason to stay clear of Bexar. His family were well known federalists, openly opposed to Santa Anna, supported Texas independence and gave assistance to the norteamericanos. Santa Anna's supporters and spies would have informed him of this. And if there was one thing Santa Anna hated more then the rebellious norteamericanos...it was any tejano who sided with them. They were viewed as the worst kind of traitor and deserving of the severest punishment. So I believe it is unlikely that Ruiz would had lingered in Bexar while it was occupied by Santa Anna. To do so would have been suicide. There are other indicators that would suggest that Bexar's invisible alcalde, Antonio Ruiz, was not in San Antonio during Santa Anna's occupation. Ruiz's recollections are exceedingly vague for someone who claims to have been the mayor and an eye-witness. In the months prior to and leading up to the siege, San Antonio was a town bustling with activity and purpose. Hundreds of strangers wandering about, the Alamo getting a make-over, colorful individuals like Crockett and Bowie making appearances here and there, rumors of invasion, nervous locals packing carts and leaving town. And yet, Antonio Ruiz is nowhere to be seen or heard. Neither does Ruiz record anything about the goings-on in his town or any interaction with the garrison leaders like Neill, Travis, Bowie, and most of all David Crockett. This seems unusual to me. There is also a noticeable lack of any acknowledgment of Ruiz in the correspondence penned by Neill, Travis, Bowie, or G.B. Jameson. This, too, I find odd. It's as if Antonio Ruiz didn't exist or as I described him earlier - invisible. Even after Santa Anna's arrival and occupation of the town, Ruiz had no comment. Surely, as alcalde he would have witnessed a lot of activity and many events. But all he could find to say about the days leading up to the final attack was: "...from the 23d of February to the 6th of March...the roar of artillery and volleys of musketry were constantly heard." This statement is inaccurate. There was little exchange of gunfire between the Mexican forces and the Alamo. It was mostly the Mexicans lobbing an occasional cannon ball into or at the Alamo. An eye-witness would have known that. The lack of any interaction with the Mexican army and Santa Anna in particular is very strange. Where was Ruiz and what was he doing during the Mexican occupation? Ruiz doesn't mention any communication, cooperation, or interaction with Santa Anna until the 6th of March. Santa Anna doesn't mention Ruiz at all. His town is occupied by hostile forces, thousands of Mexican soldados camped near by, the town is in a state of flux, it's residents living in fear...and the mayor has almost nothing to say. In fact, for 24 years he said nothing. Ruiz did manage to write a few lines about the final assault on the Alamo...all incorrect. He begins by stating the attack began at 3:00 A.M. which we know to be wrong. The attack started on or about 5:00 A.M. He further states that 4000 Mexicans were employed in the assault. This too is incorrect. The number of soldados used in the morning attack were around 1200 to 1300. Ruiz then claims the Mexicans charged the Alamo and were twice repulsed but were successful on the third attempt. This statement is inaccurate. The Mexicans may have reformed their attack columns but did not make three separate charges. Ruiz goes on to say the Toluca battalion suffered heavy casualties. Out of 800 men, only 130 were left alive. This is a gross distortion of the truth. In fact, the battalion strength at that time was 364 men and their causalities were considerably less - 20 dead and 74 wounded. After the final attack, Ruiz relates his alleged participation in the events that took place. According to Bexar's invisible mayor, Santa Anna ordered Ruiz and members of the "Corporation" along with the Curate, de la Garza to attend to the wounded. This would have been a monumental undertaking for Ruiz and his small party of helpers as there were hundreds of wounded soldados that needed to be transported and treated. While it's possible Santa Anna called on the local populace to aid with the wounded, he most likely relied on the large number of soldaderas who had followed the army into Texas. Strangely, Ruiz makes no mention of them. And likewise, neither Santa Anna or his aid Col. Almonte mention Ruiz. In addition to the huge task of caring for the wounded, Ruiz also claims Santa Anna directed him to recruit some of his neighbors for mortuary service. Ruiz now had to separate the Mexican and Texan dead, transport and bury the fallen soldados in the local cemetery, Campo Santo, a distance of 1/2-3/4 mile. The Texan dead were to be burned on funeral pyres. This really appears to be an improbable if not impossible tasking. Ruiz simply didn't have the manpower, the resources, or the time to carryout Santa Anna's directive. On the other hand, Santa Anna had the manpower and the carts to do the job.
Ruiz's credibility is damaged even further by making the wild claim that the Mexican losses numbered 1600. This figure is ludicrous. If Ruiz was truly an eye-witness and responsible for disposing of the dead as he claims, he would have known the causality count was significantly lower.
Then there is Ruiz's assertion that there were so many Mexican dead that the local cemetery couldn't accommodate them all, thus compelling him to toss bodies into the river. This is something we have discussed at length and in detail and have concluded that this claim is also false. The best and most reliable evidence in regards to the interment of the Mexican soldados comes from the Mexicans themselves. According to DLP and others, the Mexican buried their own - not Ruiz. The handling of the Texan dead is another questionable claim. Ruiz states that after all the Mexicans (dead and wounded) were removed , Santa Anna ordered wood be brought to burn the bodies of the Texans. According to Ruiz's account, the Mexicans finally lend a helping hand by assigning a company of dragoons to help gather wood for the funeral pyres. Of the funeral pyres, Ruiz doesn't offer much information such as location and number. When reading Ruiz's story, one gets the impression that there was but a single pyre while the evidence indicates there were two and possibly three funeral pyres. And because he doesn't say if or where the Texan dead were removed, we are left with the sense that the fallen Texans were burned on the spot, inside the Alamo. However, we do know the Alamo's defenders were removed and were burned by the Alameda. Again, if Antonio Ruiz was an eye-witness and responsible for the disposition of the dead, he would known without question the correct number of funeral pyres and the location(s). Santa Anna had yet one more task for the alleged alcalde to fulfill - identify the bodies of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett. This is one of the more interesting claims made by Ruiz and, like many of his other statements, is somewhat vague and confusing. Ruiz begins by telling the reader that he found and identified the body of the Alamo's commander - Travis. Ruiz claims Travis' body was located "On the north battery of the fortress..." and "was shot only in the forehead." Sounds reasonable enough but there were two battery's on the north wall. So which battery did Ruiz mean? Likewise, when Ruiz claimed to have found Bowie's body he simply says "in one of the rooms of the south side." OK, but which room...there were several. And what was the condition of Bowie's body? Ruiz's most vague and puzzling description was saved for Crockett. First, there is no evidence that Ruiz ever met Crockett or knew what he looked like. If Antonio Ruiz was indeed the mayor of San Antonio and was in town at the time when Crockett was there, then it is certainly possible he would have been casually acquainted with Crockett. But the record indicates he was not the mayor and the evidence strongly suggests he was not in San Antonio nor an eye-witness.
Ruiz's statement: "Toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city, we found the body of Col Crockett." This single line has been responsible for more confusion and frustration then any other comment made by Ruiz. "Toward the west." What did Ruiz mean by that? Some interpret it to mean that Crockett was killed along the west wall while others maintain he was found near the "low wall" just west of the church. And how about "in the small fort." Was Ruiz describing the Alamo as "a small fort" or did he mean to say "Fortin" as in gun battery? And finally, what about "opposite the city?" What did Ruiz mean here? Was it a reference to San Antonio or La Villita? The debate to these questions will no doubt continue as will the varying interpretations. However, I believe I can provide some clarity to the confusion. First, we need to go back to 1860 when Ruiz wrote of his purported experiences. It will also be helpful if you have a copy of Nelson's Alamo Illustrated on hand. By 1860, 24 years after the fall of the Alamo there were approximately 600,000 people in all of Texas. Many of these same people had never seen the Alamo or knew of the true story. When Antonio Ruiz penned his account for the Texas Almanac, he was writing a piece of "entertainment" for the reading audience of that time - 1860. This would have allowed him to embellish, color, even fabricate the facts about the Alamo and the battle. Heck, people have been doing this for years and they are still doing it today. Now, open your copy of Nelson's Alamo Illustrated to the painting of the Alamo ca. 1861. I'm convinced this is the Alamo Ruiz was talking about in his 1860 account and not the three acre structure that stood in 1836. When Ruiz said "the small fort opposite the city" he was clearly referring to what was left standing - the church, convento, long barracks, and main gate...not a cannon battery. By 1860, the Alamo had indeed become a "small fort." This would make perfect sense to anyone reading Ruiz's account and seeing the Alamo for the first time. This is the same misconception we are battling today. Years ago it was the so-called eye-witness distorting the facts, today it's Hollywood. For years people have been deceived into believing the Alamo they see today is all there ever was. That the battle was fought entirely from within the church and the remaining structures. Anyway, this theory, and I admit it's only a theory, explains why Ruiz's statements in regards to Travis, Bowie, and in particular Crockett, appears so confusing and vague to us. When Ruiz described the location where Bowie was found, "one of the rooms of the south side," he may have been referring to a south side room in the church. After all, it was reported by some that Bowie died in the baptistry - a south side room. As for Ruiz reporting the location of Travis as "the north battery," this could have been anywhere north of the church. Anyone unfamiliar with the true layout of the Alamo would not have known any better. Remember, Ruiz was addressing an 1860 reading audience, people largely unaware of the Alamo's 1836 appearance.
So, what about Crockett? Where did he die? Well, I don't believe it was the west wall or anywhere near the west wall. There are two places where Crockett is reported to have fallen. One is in front of the church and the other is a room in or near the main gate. But the majority of evidence points to the area of the palisade - Crockett's assigned position. Now, I know some of you guys are partial to Ruiz's claim and the whole "toward the west" thing, but the evidence is somewhat dubious. We all know the Dickinson testimony by heart and I understand the skepticism that some of you have. But in her defense let me remind you...she was there. She was in San Antonio before Santa Anna arrived and she was in the Alamo for the 13 day siege. She was an eye-witness. With the possible exception of Sam Houston, there is no one more qualified or able to recognize and identify Crockett then Sue Dickinson. And unlike Ruiz's vague and confusing description, Dickinson provides positive physical identification, a very specific location of the remains, body condition, and garment identification. So I have little doubt she saw Crockett's mutilated body as she was being escorted out.
OK. You are going to need your copy of Hansen's Alamo Reader. In support of Sue Dickinson's claim of seeing Crockett's body "between the church and the two story barracks" is John Sutherland's account. Sutherland interviewed several individuals in preparation for the narrative he wrote shortly after 1860. Sutherland spoke with Dickinson, Joe, Santa Anna, Almonte, and Santa Anna's secretary, Caro. There are actually two copies or versions of Sutherland's narrative. We have what appears to be a rough draft by Sutherland and also a polished copy by John S. Ford. I'll quote both for the benefit of those who don't have a copy of Hansen's Alamo Reader.
Sutherland/Ford. "Near the picket-wall, reaching from the corner of the barracks to the Southwest corner of the church, lay in one promiscuous heap, disfigured in their mangled gore, twenty-five of the enemy, and Davie Crockett, with his twelve "Tennessee boys." They had bravely defended their position during the whole siege." (Hansen, pp 155)
Sutherland draft. "Col Crockett and his twelve Tennessee boys, (as he called them) fell in the line marked R he and his twelve friends and about twenty five Mexicans lay cross & Pile together on R which was assigned to his defense, in the writers presence, they there fell as reported by Col Travis boy, in front of the chappel." (Hansen, pp 176) The "R" Sutherland refers to was part of the key used to designate points on a map alleged to have been drawn by Sutherland. In this case the "R" is key for the palisade.
So in addition to Sue Dickinson seeing Crockett's body in front of the church, we have conformation from Joe.
But John Sutherland and James Morphis were not the only one's to document the location of Crockett's body. In 1855, Henderson Yoakum, an early and respected Texas historian and close friend of Sam Houston, wrote a narrative. And of Crockett and Travis he writes: "Travis and Crockett fell - the former near the western wall, the latter in the corner near the church - with piles of slain around them." As his source he cites Sue Dickinson and the Texas Telegraph, March 24, 1836.
So it appears we have corroborating testimony and supporting documentation of Crockett's body location prior to Sue Dickinson's 1874 interview with James Morphis.
Getting back to Ruiz, I believe his account is mostly a colorful fabrication. It's what I refer to as the "Ruiz Ruse." Nearly all of his facts are wrong. He was not the mayor of San Antonio as he claimed. There is no evidence that places him in Bexar at the time of the battle. His entire account appears to be contrived from a few facts he gleaned and from rumors and hearsay. His claims are untrustworthy and unreliable. The indication is that he was not an eye-witness.
So the next question is: "Why would Ruiz write such a fabrication?" This is a good question...and a fair one. Truthfully, no one can say for sure, but I have a couple of theory's.
There is evidence that Antonio Ruiz was in San Antonio a month after the battle. According to record, Ruiz was elected to public office on 6 April, 1836 as regidor or alderman. His election to a public position could explain why he deceptively called himself the mayor at that time.
So what was he doing in Bexar? Well, I think after the fall of the Alamo and with Houston's army in constant retreat toward the U.S. border, Ruiz may have decided the cause was lost and accepted Santa Anna's offer of amnesty or pardon to any tejano who had previously opposed him. So Ruiz came in from where ever he had been laying low, pledged his loyalty to Santa Anna and got on with life.
Now we fast-forward to 1860. Once again we find Texas in a state of flux. Slavery and succession are hot topics of discussion and racist attitudes are on the rise. Tejanos are dismissed, disregarded, degraded and disrespected by the Anglo majority. There is a large white supremacist presents in Texas, including San Antonio. Ruiz may have written his exaggerated account to gain favor with the racist Texans. Ruiz even managed to include in his account the fact that his father, Don Francisco Ruiz, was a member of the Texas Convention and signed the Declaration of Independence. If a tejano could identify themselves with the Alamo in a positive way they may be looked upon as "good Mexicans" and incur favorable treatment. Who knows? Enrique Esparza and "Madama Candelaria" seemed to be successfully entraining the Anglos with their tall tails. If it worked for them why not Antonio Ruiz?
One other possible reason is rather simple...but possible. Antonio Ruiz just wanted attention. He may have been dissatisfied with his limited role and he may also have been envious of other tejanos whose contributions in the struggle for independence dwarfed his. So he fabricated a story for the Texas Almanac. The rest is history.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 11, 2008 15:32:07 GMT -5
A good analysis Glenn; the only point on which I'd take issue is the question of Crockett's body, but only to sound a note of caution. Sutherland knew that when Travis began his hasty defence of the Alamo on February 23 Crockett was assigned to the palisade area. Whether there is any independent corroboration for him staying there is a different matter. Those dispositions, it needs to be emphasised, were for a hasty defence and once Travis got himself settled down and organised properly there could well have been a re-adjustment. we know from one of the early skirmishes that Crockett was seen at all points - which is hardly compatable with sticking by his post. The trouble is that we just don't know how the defensive routines were organised.
This isn't, notwithstanding the old doubts about the various Dickinson accounts, to say he couldn't have died in front of the church. Her statement is a positive one. On the other hand while I agree with the generality of your argument against Ruiz, there was clearly some knowledge in the Tejano community of where the bodies were found. I don't have a problem with the notion of Santa Anna getting the equivalent of a coroner's jury to come up and identify who was who amongst the dead and although the balance of probability is that Ruiz wasn't amongst them, the locations - so far as he describes them may most likely be correct, but the vagueness is down to him retelling the story not as the witness he claimed to be but at second hand.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 11, 2008 17:44:16 GMT -5
Glenn,
Some real good points, to me the problem is much simpler - virtually EVERY account that was taken down after 1836 has been corrupted by the legend of the Alamo and/or the agenda of the reporter who took the account down.
Traces provides the most effective attack against Ruiz to date, but it is also important to realize that Tom had to discredit Ruiz and every other account that contradicted Tom's theory of Crockett leading a 70 man reinforcement into the Alamo on March 3rd. If you really look at Tom's analysis of the Ruiz account you'll find some serious flaws.
The account that he cites "Benites" clearly says that they had returned to Bexar by mid February despite Tom's claims. Tom's logic is seriously flawed when he claims that LTC Neill writing in January, would not complain about the lack of supplies if he knew a supply train was going to arrive in a few weeks. If Neill was unsupplied he was simply going to complain until he wasn't.
If you follow the rest of Tom's argument through he's making assumptions that disregard what people actually said and building his next assumption on that previous foundation of sand.
There's a problem with all of the accounts about where bodies were found. Sutherland who seems to collaborate Dickinson's claim about Crockett near that "pile of sticks" also places Travis' body in the corral and Bowie's body in his (former) room on the West Wall!
What about the genuine problems with the Ruiz account that you very effectively lay out? First off let's remember that we don't have Ruiz's actual account we have Quinterro's (?) version of of what Ruiz supposedly said. It is written in 1860 for the Texas Almanac when certain facts are very prominently "known" ie the 1600 dead Mexicans. It is very probable, given the racial attitudes and the "known" facts of the Alamo in 1860 that parts of the story were changed or omitted to fit the climate. Two other things jump out at me, the further from an event, an account is told, the more likely that things that stood out in a persons memory, will be exaggerated and along with this is the tendency the further from the event for a person to exaggerate their own importance to the event. All of these things, imo, impact on the reliability and credibility of the Ruiz account.
But, there are some collaborations for portions of the Ruiz account. Fairly, recently it's come out that Colonel (brevet general) Mora and the cavalry was tasked with disposing of the bodies, the Toluca Battalion was the hardest hit of the Mexican Battalions and most importantly Travis was killed on the North Wall and Bowie in the Low Barracks - where Ruiz places them.
To me this all simply comes down to separating the wheat from the chaff. Beccera, who we're told was one of the assaulting Mexican troops left one of the most factually horrendous accounts of the battle, Lorcana the Mexican cavalryman's account is also factually challenged. But, they all still have some "wheat". Even the more reliable accounts taken down at the time - Almonte's diary, Sesma's report, the San Luis Journal have contradictions and possible mistakes. I can't say Crockett didn't die near the palisade, Dickinson did say she witnessed the body there - so that's a definite possibility, but she also contradicted herself in other accounts (or at least their authors did). Ruiz got two of the three bodies right (the only account that places all three that does) so to me personally, based on that simple fact, I give his account, in this particular case, more weight.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 11, 2008 18:39:36 GMT -5
Stuart
I agree with you about Crockett being "seen at all points" during the attack made by the Mexicans against the south wall defenses. Crockett was mobile for a couple of reasons. First, if Crockett wanted a clear shot at the attackers he would have to move to a better position. The abatis of felled trees directly in front of the palisade would make it very difficult for Crockett or any one to "draw a bead" on a target. Second. I think Crockett was just doing what he did best - using his natural charm and personality to make people feel good. He was on a short but effective motivational tour along the south wall encouraging the men and cheering them on. That's where the danger was directed. I don't think he got any closer to the west wall then the eighteen pounder.
And for the record let me say that I do not believe Crockett was nailed down to his assigned position. I simply have no evidence that he was. But other then Travis' statement, I'm unaware of anything that would imply Crockett was a "floater."
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 11, 2008 21:10:24 GMT -5
Wolf
I didn't base my conclusions about Ruiz on Tom's wagon-train theory. In fact, nowhere in my post did I mention the wayward carts Tom wrote about. It seemed a little convoluted and "iffy" if you know what I mean. No...I drew my conclusions from the available facts and compared them to Ruiz's claims. And I think my theories are pretty reasonable. So I stand by my position.
Yes, you are right. We only have Quinterro's translation of the original document. But we also have Quinterro's assurance that "The forgoing is a correct translation of the original document." So I feel we have to go with that. Besides, if Quinterro botched the translation, Ruiz had sixteen years to comment on it and amend it...he did neither. So if Ruiz accepted it I think we can also. As Tom said: "the problem with the report is not the translation, but with the author, Francisco Ruiz." I agree.
I think I know where you're going with this and I would advise caution. I think we need to be very careful about challenging translated documents without very good cause. Once we begin down that road I feel we'd be creating troubles for ourselves rather then resolving them. I'd hate to see us getting into the habit of questioning or disputing a translated document simply because it disagrees with a taken position.
I agree there are discrepancies with Sutherland's narrative. Every account, report, narrative, or study that I have read has flaws. We just need to separate fact from fiction, move ahead and avoid the temptation of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" unless there is overwhelming reason to do so.
Yes. There is some corroboration of facts in Ruiz's story, but I feel certain these are facts that were learned and not necessarily witnessed. There were plenty of documents, stories, newspaper articles, etc. circulating around and I believe Ruiz gleaned information from these sources and tried to persuade readers they were his findings...IMO. Also there were survivors of the siege Ruiz could have spoken with to gather information such as: Juana Alsbury, Gertrudis Navarro, Anna Esparza, Maria Losoya. These women were eye-witnesses with accounts of there own. I'm sure the siege was the talk of the town for many years.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 12, 2008 13:22:24 GMT -5
Yes, you are right. We only have Quinterro's translation of the original document. But we also have Quinterro's assurance that " The forgoing is a correct translation of the original document." So I feel we have to go with that. Besides, if Quinterro botched the translation, Ruiz had sixteen years to comment on it and amend it...he did neither. So if Ruiz accepted it I think we can also. As Tom said: "the problem with the report is not the translation, but with the author, Francisco Ruiz." I agree. I think I know where you're going with this and I would advise caution. I think we need to be very careful about challenging translated documents without very good cause. Once we begin down that road I feel we'd be creating troubles for ourselves rather then resolving them. I'd hate to see us getting into the habit of questioning or disputing a translated document simply because it disagrees with a taken position. Glenn No that's not where I was headed. What I'm trying to say is that virtually every Alamo account that was taken down and reported by a second person has flaws that can be traced to the time and place and more importantly the attitudes of that time. Quinterro may have indeed provided an honest complete account, but that would make him the only secondary recorder from the mid 1800s that did so. Now, the collaborations I mentioned for the Ruiz account - may have been common knowledge among the Tejano community - but they weren't known to students of the until fairly recently. So again to me even if Ruiz, exaggerated his role, his account includes truths that were not common knowledge to those outside of Bexar in March 1836. I freely grant you all of the problems that you cite with the Ruiz account - we both agree that there are problems with virtually every account of the battle. But, the bottom line reason, I give more weight to Ruiz's account of where Crockett's body was - is the simple fact that of all the accounts that mention the "big three" his is the only one that got Travis and Bowie's locations right. Dickinson is remarkably consistent in her accounts of certain facts (Hansen covers this fairly well) she is remarkably inconsistent about Crockett. I pretty much accept her accounts where she is consistent, but the inconsistency on Crockett while it doesn't cause me to reject her account; it does cause me to give it significantly less weight. Significantly, Dickinson never mention Crockett's body before Sutherland's' account was published. Again that doesn't mean her account is inaccurate, but it does raise the possibility of cross contamination. For me adding all this up, with what little we know today about the flow of the battle, I just find the Ruiz account more believable - in this instance. I'm not tied to any particular theory and will gladly change my mind, if some new evidence or interpretation emerges. In fact, the only theory that I am kind of tied to right now is that Santa Anna designed his attack to force as many defenders as possible out the SE end of the compound into the arms of the cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 12, 2008 16:26:11 GMT -5
Not exactly. Henderson Yoakum wrote his narrative in 1855 and one of his sources was Dickinson. Yoakum included in his account that Crockett was found "in the corner near the church," which sounds like the same place Dickinson mentioned.
And lets not forget Sutherland stated that Joe also recognized Crockett's body "in front of the chappel". So it wasn't just Sue Dickinson who claimed to have seen Crockett's body near the church.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 23, 2008 8:53:53 GMT -5
Just another thought as to where Crockett's body was found. Initially, there were references to Crockett's body being located near the Low Barracks. In the Fulton thread, the diagram shows where it was said Crockett fell. His body location appears to have been marked very close to Bowie's room. And, as in many of the reports, Crockett is found surrounded by dead soldados.
I imagine this information was supplied by the townsfolk and was accepted for some time. In Potter's initial account, he too, placed Crockett near the Low barracks. Believing Crockett may have taken, or attempted to take, refuge in one of the rooms.
The location isn't that far from where Mrs. Dickinson stated she saw Crockett. Maybe some confusion?
If Crockett was at the palisade, chances are he, as well as his "boys" didn't remain there very long. With Morales threatening the main gate and attacking the SW corner, I feel the defenders at the palisade would have been compelled to respond to Morales' assault. So Crockett could have met his end by the main gate while engaging Morales' men.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 24, 2008 11:06:08 GMT -5
My problem with his body being found in front of the church is that he would have had no reason to be there, unless he was attempting to retreat into the church when he was killed. The idea that he was engaged with Morales' men is more plausible and he could have died near the Low Barracks. Maybe he really was at the palisade, but when no attack materialized there, he and others moved to where the action was.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 26, 2008 12:29:58 GMT -5
Allen
I think there are a couple of things to consider. The defenders planned a second line of defense that ran north and south. This second line included the granary, the convento, and possibly the jacales. These structures were designated as "fall-back" points of defense. I believe this would have included the area directly in front of the church.
The cannon placed at the opening of the so-called "low wall" indicates the Texans planned to aggressively contest this area. Keeping the church out of enemy hands would have been considered important. The church protected the garrisons powder supply, provided access to fortin de Cos, and was a refuge for non-combatants. So there was adequate incentive to protect the church.
The number and size of the various rooms along the east wall of the Alamo's compound could only accommodate so many defenders. So I believe the security of the area in front of the church - the cemetery - became the responsibility of the men defending the palisade. This would have included Crockett.
As the threat posed by the attack became clear, the Texans at the palisade were forced to respond to Morales' assault. The main gate, the guns guarding the gate (Espaldon), the 18-pounder, and Jim Bowie, would have been of primary concern. But the gains achieved by Morales, combined with the huge wave of soldados surging from the north, compelled the defenders to withdraw to the planned second line of defense.
The "low wall" would offer some decent protection at least until the Mexicans got the 18-pounder cranked-up. At this point, the defenders in the palisade would have three choices, Fall back to the 4-pounder (still loaded) at the palisade for a last stand, withdraw into the church, or escape out the gate.
There is no evidence that Crockett died outside the Alamo, nor is there evidence he fell inside the church. So it's possible he: went down in front of the church...died by Bowie's room trying to protect the main gate...or perhaps he was killed in an effort to protect Bowie. We'll never know for sure. But the preponderance of evidence does place him in front of the church. In separate interviews, both Joe and Sue Dickinson claimed to have seen Crockett's body. And David, apparently, did not die alone. In addition to the "piles" of Mexicans Joe reported seeing around Crockett's body, some of his friends or "boys" were seen close by. So, we have some evidence that fighting did take place in front of the church.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 24, 2009 18:49:10 GMT -5
While it’s true my assertion that Potter and Ruiz never met is based on conjecture, I think the available evidence suggests they did not. Here are some observations and questions.
Potter began his interest/study in the battle of the Alamo in 1841 – 19 years before he released his findings. He was stationed in San Antonio from 1857 to 1861, during which time he questioned/interviewed numerous people in an effort to ascertain the truth behind the stories of the 13-day siege. In 1860, Potter completes his study and presents it to the San Antonio Herald to print as an article for the local paper. A short time later it was produced in pamphlet form.
What I find curious, is that Potter and Ruiz apparently didn’t cross paths. During the years Potter was in San Antonio - actively researching the battle and interviewing people - how could he have missed Ruiz, or Ruiz Potter? As he went about talking with various people you would think Potter’s search for eye-witnesses or for people who had valuable first-hand information would have led him to the man who: claimed to have been the mayor, watched the battle, identified the bodies of hero’s, gathered/burned the corpses of defenders, and buried/tossed into the river the 1600 Mexican dead. But as far as we know or I should say as far as well can tell, Potter had no contact with Ruiz; Ruiz remained an unknown; possibly because he had nothing evocative to contribute. I mean, wouldn’t someone from the local community have mentioned Ruiz’s name to Potter? For example: “Senor, there is a man you should speak with. He is our former mayor and he was a witness to the 13-day siege,” or something like that.
Now, in 1860, based on the information he gathered from local sources, Potter accepted that Crockett had died near the main gate. Coincidently, this is the same location Col. George Fulton was directed to by Judge Joseph Baker in 1837. So it would appear local consensus - as it applies to Crockett’s location - is in conflict with the Ruiz claim. This itself is puzzling if we’re to believe the story that Ruiz and some prominent men in San Antonio (the Corporation) were in-charge of collecting and identifying the bodies. For 24 years, the people living in San Antonio believed Crockett perished by the low barracks. So I have to ask myself; why would locals disregard the claims of several respected people? It just seems to me that if Ruiz’s claims were true, they’d have been common knowledge in San Antonio and that information would have been passed on to Potter. If Crockett did die on or near the west wall, why did it take 24 years for someone to point that out? And why is Ruiz the only one making that claim?
There is some question about the timing of Ruiz’s account. We know that when Potter’s narrative was published and read in 1860, John Sutherland – who refers to Potter as “the Pamphlet writer” – wrote his narrative in response to Potter’s findings. But what of Ruiz; are we to believe his 1860 account that appeared in the Texas Almanac was an amazing coincidence or did he, like Sutherland, read Potter’s in-depth study and decide to write his own story? Could Ruiz have borrowed some of the information revealed in Potter’s work as a basis for his version? After all, it was printed in a San Antonio newspaper.
In 1878, Eighteen years after the pamphlets were initially printed, Potter felt it was necessary to release an update to his earlier work with some additional information that had surfaced which included Ruiz’s claims. Again, there’s no evidence that Potter had any contact with Ruiz and I am of the opinion they probably didn’t. Had Ruiz and Potter met and spoke, I feel the location of Crockett’s body and even that of Travis’ would have been more clearly defined. For example; Ruiz says Travis died at "the north battery". Sounds plain enough, but the problem is that there were two battery’s located at the north wall. So which did Ruiz mean? Potter seemed to believe Travis died at the northwest corner (Fortin de Condelle) while others (Sanchez-Navarro) believe it was the three-gun battery at the center of the north wall (Fortin de Teran). In his study, Henderson Yoakum states that Travis died “near the west wall.” Does this statement support Potter…could this have been a reference to the northwest battery? And if indeed Ruiz did find Travis’ body at Fortin de Condelle, then the speculation that Ruiz was saying Crockett was found to the west of Travis is no longer valid. Apparently, which ever battery Travis fell at, Potter didn’t believe Crockett fell toward the west of Travis. He had the idea that Crockett was killed at a battery at the center of the west wall. He writes; “I cannot locate this gun with certainty, but it was probably the twelve-pound carronade which fired over the center of the west wall from a high commanding position.” Potter adds, “Crockett was found in the west battery just referred to.” Now, if Potter had actually met or communicated with Ruiz - and Ruiz was truly an eye-witness as he claims - then there would be no ambiguity about who was found where or where the west batteries were truly located. Ruiz (if he was there), could have, and should have told Potter that his cannon set atop a high platform was a fantasy.
It’s hard to say when Potter first learned of the Ruiz account. He could have read it in 1860 when it was published by the Texas Almanac, but why then would he wait 18 years to amend his narrative? I feel he probably didn’t read it or was unaware of its existence until years later. Ruiz died in 1876, two years before Potter’s undated his version and possibly before Potter was able to interview him. Yes, Potter did state that Ruiz was a source of information but the indication is that it was Ruiz's account from the Texas Almanac Potter relied on and not a face-to-face chat.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 24, 2009 19:20:47 GMT -5
I don't know about that...there's plenty of ambiguity in the various Dickinson accounts, right? If we're going to discount anything ambiguous, we've just lost a lot of source material! I'm not convinced, but that's okay.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 25, 2009 1:50:33 GMT -5
There is another, and far simpler way of looking at this.
Potter had been gathering information on what happened for quite some time - he interviewed some of Grant's men in Matamoros back in '36 - so I don't know why he doesn't seem to have spoken with Ruiz before he published his first account of the battle.
What is significant is that notwithstanding what he originally learned and wrote, when he came to revise his narrative he accepted that Ruiz' account, (whether obtained at first hand or through the Almanac) was more authoritive than the sources he'd earlier used.
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 25, 2009 8:55:52 GMT -5
Glenn,
I enjoyed your discourse on the Dickinson vs Ruiz issue. I guess when it comes to placing Crockett’s body, each of us have to decide on which side of that line to stand.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid no one will be able to answer some of the questions you pose as to who and why Potter chose the sources he did for the 1860 paper. You present a good argument but what settled it for me is that Potter did change his story. If he did so based solely on the Ruiz letter, then he must not have any much respect for the sources he used in his initial paper. His changing of Crockett’s location almost certainly had to have come about because he came across a better source or sources (Ruiz?) than he used for the 1860 account.
George
|
|