|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 2, 2009 23:31:37 GMT -5
The December 2008 Issue of the Alamo Journal had two related articles that I found to be rather compelling. The first one was “The De la Peña Controversy Fifteen Years On” and the other was “Yes, Laflin Again”.
The Laflin article is about the “alleged” forger of historic documents, John Matejka, who later used the name, John Nafsinger, then John Andrechyne Lafitte, as well as John Laflin.
The De la Peña article casts doubt on the published account of de la Peña in which David Crockett survives the battle only to be executed by Santa Anna’s orders.
I don’t want to generate a point, counter-point discussion about whether the published de la Peña account is accurate or authentic. Rather it’s about something not as emotion laden. On page 7 in one of the bullet points, the author, Mr. Bill Groneman stated:
“There is another day-by-day account of the Texas campaign in the papers which is in DLP’s handwriting but contains none of the dramatic information which made the published version famous.”
Where can one find this account?
It is probably written in a pretty dry fashion, but what does it say?
Does it contain anything of interest or new?
Why has it been suppressed? (Boy, if this last question doesn’t start a bunch of conspiracy rumors I don’t know what will!)
Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 3, 2009 5:46:11 GMT -5
Hi Paul, it hasn't been suppressed at all. The DLP papers comprise a number of documents including his daily notes. The published version of the De La Pena account is the fair copy written up, sometimes at his dictation, at a later date and incorporating material from other sources.
Bill Groneman and the late Tom Lindley have always insisted this other material is an indicator of forgery, but in fact its pretty standard for any set of memoirs.
Just to give you a simple and non-controversial example, I have in my possession a diary kept by my great grandfather while serving with 2/Highland Light Infantry in France in 1914. There is absolutely no doubt of its authenticity or of the fact that he was writing it up day by day; but several of the entries have been annotated at a later date to add information which he did not know at the time - on one day the death of the brigade commander, and on another the subsequent award of the Victoria Cross to a soldier in the battalion, for instance. None of these notes were contemporary, but they add value without detracting from the basic integrity of the original and so it is with the published version of DLP
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 3, 2009 12:32:37 GMT -5
Paul,
Bill G. , Joe Musso, and Tom Lindley were working on a book, that would include the original DLP campaign diary. Despite, Tom's death, the last I knew the book was nearing publication
A few years ago, Tom Lindley, shared some samples, at the Alamo Society Symposium. One of the most significant things, is that there was no entry for March 6th. Tom thought this was the final piece of evidence that proved the published version of DLP was a forgery. In my personal opinion, there's a far simpler explanation, after being up all night, fighting a battle at dawn, and being wounded, DLP did the obvious thing (which is what he wrote in the currently published version) he went to bed and slept until later in the afternoon. He simply never got around to making an entry for March 6th - and why should he? the memories would have been seared into his mind.
There are basically three versions of DLP out there, the original campaign diary which Bill G. and Joe Musso are about to publish, a second version DLP wrote to support Urrea right after the war and largely used by Greg Dimmick in his book Sea of Mud and the memoir version edited by Carmen Perry.
I think if one looks at the interrelationships of the three versions and what specific purpose each was written for, it pretty well answers the authenticity question.
The biggest problem the forgery advocates have and the question they have never adequately answered is motive. The memoir version is simply too long, and too complicated, and too many "unknown" facts have since been verified by archeology etc. to have been written as simple deception.
Authenticity is one thing, Accuracy is a whole another question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 3, 2009 23:05:29 GMT -5
In fact, the more likely document to forge would be the shorter diary entries, and a forger would surely have created one for March 6 to create a convincing piece of "evidence" for whatever he wanted to have DLP say. However, accusations of forgery are just the other way around -- it's the longer version that's claimed to be a forgery, because that is the document that names Crockett.
This has been kicked around ad nauseum, but I think a key point is that there is a world of distinction between authenticity and reliability. You don't need to prove forgery to suggest that DLP did not see everything he describes in his book. Among the things that have bothered me about the Crockett execution account (and, let's face it - that's what this is all about) is that DLP's text sounds as if he claims to have been an eye-witness, when it seems more likely that he was having his wound tended to when the executions were said to take place. Why the Crockett execution story was added later on is anyone's guess, but a number of suggestions have been put forward, such as Mexican politics at the time the full memoir was written. It's been a while, but it seems that the book is aimed at painting as damning a picture of Santa Anna as possible.
AW
|
|
