|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 14, 2009 15:33:40 GMT -5
Outside of the introduction thread, this is my first post here. I’ve spent many pleasurable hours reading over all the past threads. The knowledge base on this site is so tremendous that I don’t want to let an opportunity like this pass without asking your opinions on several questions I have concerning this battle. This is my first question.
I realize that the authenticity of the De La Pena papers, particularly the death of Crockett, has been beat to into the ground with no universal resolution in sight. I don’t mean to reopen that fight but I do have a question concerning the DLP account and how it relates to the Ruiz account.
Ruiz basically says that Crockett’s body was found inside a small, fortified area. De La Pena suggests that the execution was carried out in the courtyard or possibly outside the walls of the mission. How do you reconcile these two differences? Since so many of our professional historians and professors embrace the DLP account, I was wondering how they, or anyone else who accepts this story, resolved the conflict in these accounts.
Without researching it, I believe all the execution stories except one have the prisoners brought before Santa Anna. In the one exception, the defenders’ offer to surrender was refused and they were killed in place. From what I’ve seen so far on these threads, most members believe Crockett’s body was found at Fortin de Condelle or at the 6 pounder position at the Castaneda house. Neither one of these positions is likely to be a place where a small group of defenders would be apt to hold out long enough to surrender or try to surrender at the end of the battle. How do you get around that?
The obvious way to get around these conflicts is to take Crockett’s name out of the mix then there is no conflict. However, a lot of people more knowledgeable than me accept the DLP account as fact. This puzzles me. Is the Ruiz statement being dismissed as to where Crockett’s body is found? It seems to me that you would have to do one or the other.
It is my own opinion that the DLP papers are genuine but I think DLP was mistaken in his identification of Crockett in much the same way as he was mistaken about his identification of Travis. Executions probably took place but at this late date, I don’t expect we’ll ever know the names of any of the victims.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 14, 2009 16:26:37 GMT -5
George, I think the DLP account is genuine; meaning I don't believe it to be a forgery or a part of any conspiracy theory. Having said that, I think there are places where it is inaccurate because DLP was probably utilizing later sources of information.
Somewhere on this site is a thread with a lot of info about secondary sources that DLP might have used (if someone can locate it before I do, please post the link), and I think it's likely that DLP may have seen some executions and was later told that one of the victims was Crockett. I still think it's possible (but unlikely) that Crockett was executed. The idea that the most famous man in the Alamo survived the battle to face down Santa Anna makes for good storytelling, but I think the odds are long.
I tend to accept the Ruiz account of the location of Crockett's body, which I interpret as somewhere along the west wall, but not the northwest fortin. Stuart and I have discussed this a lot over the years and, if I'm not mistaken, Stuart thinks the NW corner is the likely location. If I can find the link for that discussion I'll post that as well.
Thanks for contributing.
This is one aspect of Alamo studies we never tire of discussing.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Feb 14, 2009 18:12:16 GMT -5
The Alamo Journal has published numerous articles on this most interesting topic over the years. The series of articles by the late Thomas Ricks Lindley and Dr. James Crisp remain particularly noteworthy. And William Groneman's article in the December 2008 issue (#151), "Defense and Offense: The De La Pena Controversy Fifteen years On," identifies nine major clarifications about the de la Pena account that were not known or acknowledged in 1994.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 14, 2009 19:30:02 GMT -5
Jim,
I read the discussion you had with Stuart as to the actual location of Crockett’s body. It was a good discussion. My guess is that he was found at the artillery position just south of the NW corner. The problem I have isn’t just that the most celebrated defender there was identified as being executed but that for it to be true, one must first dismiss Ruiz. If Crockett was one of the executed, Ruiz had to be mistaken in his identification. Do you agree or am I way out on a limb here? If one of the two have to be mistaken, it’s my guess that it’s DLP because DLP never says that he witnessed the execution. Ruiz says he saw the body. Big difference between the two.
Hello Bill,
Thanks for the reply. I followed the debate between Lindley and Crisp and I’ve read Groneman’s stuff that I can find. As I said earlier, I’m not interested in dismissing the DLP account as a forgery. I think it is in all likelihood a genuine historical document. As Wolfpack stated on another thread, there is a difference between authenticity and accuracy and I think that is what we’re dealing with here.
If I remember correctly, Lindley wrote a piece saying that Ruiz wasn’t in San Antonio at the time of the battle. He’s the only person I’m aware of that dismissed Ruiz. I’ve never seen Lindley’s theory followed up so I’m guessing it was dismissed too.
Are there any members of this board that believe Crockett was executed? If so, how do you reconcile DLP with Ruiz?
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 14, 2009 19:47:34 GMT -5
Are there any members of this board that believe Crockett was executed? If so, how do you reconcile DLP with Ruiz? George I think it's possible that Crockett was executed, I just don't think it is probable. Gary Zaboley, in "Blood of Noble Men" drew Crockett being executed at the S. Castenada House - which if that indeed happened resolves the conflict! The only feasible way that could happen in my mind, would be that as Santa Anna was inspecting the Alamo after the battle, he was at that point when the surviors were brought up to him. But, to me personally if Crockett was found in the NW portion of the Alamo (as I believe) that is more indicative that he fell during the fighting. Beside Ruiz, I think Juana Alsbury indirectly places Crockett here. According to Alsbury, this was originally Bowie's quarters until he fell to sick and he was moved to the Low Barracks. Also, according to Alsbury, Bowie entrusted her to Crockett's care. This implies to me that Crockett's quarters were also in the S. Castenada House - or very nearby. You wouldn't entrust a woman's care to a man living/stationed at the opposite side of the compound. Not when she was living amonst 150 strange men. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 14, 2009 19:51:28 GMT -5
Oh, and Tom Lindley discussed his theory that Ruiz wasn't in Bexar during the battle in one of the last chapters of his "Alamo Traces".
|
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 14, 2009 20:38:50 GMT -5
I think it's possible that Crockett was executed, I just don't think it is probable. Gary Zaboley, in "Blood of Noble Men" drew Crockett being executed at the S. Castenada House - which if that indeed happened resolves the conflict! Hello Wolfpack, It’s certainly possible that Crockett was executed. Every defender with the possible exception of Travis is a candidate. But like you, I think it highly unlikely if you accept the Ruiz account of where he found Crockett’s body. I’ve seen Gary’s drawing and I don’t think it resolves anything. DLP says that the prisoners were “brought before Santa Anna.” Most of the other execution stories have the prisoners taken to Santa Anna. Wherever these men were when they surrendered, it wasn’t where they were executed. George |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 14, 2009 22:13:47 GMT -5
George, I'm not sure Ruiz actually cancels out DLP. DLP only states that the prisoners were "brought before Santa Anna," he doesn't say where in the compound this occurred.
It's within the realm of possibility that they were somewhere near that west wall/NW location. It's also possible they were brought to Santa Anna, then moved to another location to be executed...say near a wall to accommodate a firing squad (although DLP's account of the mode of execution is different).
By the way, if I remember correctly, Tom Lindley thought there were actually 2 groups executed...one inside and the other outside the compound. That's opening another can of worms though, and it was a subject on which there was a lot of disagreement. Tom had developed a theory based on what became known as the "lancer account," wherein Crockett was run down outside the walls. He and I batted that one around in "The Alamo Journal" some years ago.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 15, 2009 0:56:54 GMT -5
Jim,
This is what I wanted opinions on. Is there anyway way to accept the DLP account without discarding Ruiz’s. I haven’t found one so far without arbitrarily altering the DLP version.
Of course anything is possible. But to have Crockett executed (in the way that has come down to us from DLP) and to find his body afterwards “in a small fortin” requires an almost unbelievable sequence of events. I prefer looking first at the simplest explanation and then playing probabilities. The simplest explanation is that the man who told his story based on second and maybe third hand accounts made a mistake. This is made even easier when you consider that we know he misidentified Travis.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 15, 2009 10:42:47 GMT -5
George, I'd agree with your assessment.
While I think both accounts are legit, the most likely explanation is that DLP (or his source) misidentified Crockett. I still think it's within the realm of possibility that if Crockett was executed, the location may have been at the Ruiz site, but I think it's far more likely that Crockett fell in combat in that position.
I've never thought Tom Lindley made a very good case for Ruiz being out of town at the time and all of his information being second-hand. If you have "Alamo Traces," it's worth investigating, but I think it's another case of a simple explanation being the most likely, and Tom's scenario isn't simple.
I don't remember discussing this with Tom in person, and I should point out that Tom was one of the few people I've known that could make his point much more clear verbally. It was always an educational experience talking (and arguing) with him. The High Holy Days visits to San Antonio just aren't the same without him.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 15, 2009 11:08:34 GMT -5
Hi George,
I have had my own concerns with Ruiz's take on events. Frankly, I have serious doubts he was on-the-scene at all. In my opinion, much of what he claimed to witness was a fabrication. My belief has nothing to do with Tom Lindley's premise. I simply use Ruiz's own words and recollections to challenge his so-called first-person observations and questionable participation.
If you haven't already viewed it, I'd encourage you to jump over to the "Potter, Ruiz, and Crockett" thread (page 3) and read my post. My comments can be found on page 9 of the thread; post #121. I present what I feel are a very logical set of points that counter Ruiz's claims. But don't take my word for it, check it out and decide for yourself. At the very least it will cause you to question; it may even raise some doubt about the accuracy (and honesty) of Ruiz's comments.
In regard to Crockett, I agree with Jim and Herb. Its possible Crockett was executed but its just as possible he went down fighting. DLP's account of the siege is probably the real deal but his take on Crockett is rather doubtful. DLP certainly didn't and couldn't know who Crockett was. So his ability to identify David is highly questionable. He was simply passing on a rumor that had been passed along to him, and that's all it really amounts to...IMO.
In his excellent book, "Lone Star Rising, "William C. Davis make a very insightful comment on Crockett's death at the Alamo. "Somewhere outside - know one will ever know where - fell Crockett. None who knew him or saw him go down lived to tell of his fate, while none of the Mexicans who killed him or saw him fall had any idea who he was." We may or may not agree in total with what Davis wrote but it does underscore the continuing controversy surrounding David's demise.
BTW, welcome to the forum and the discussion(s), George.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Feb 15, 2009 11:29:33 GMT -5
If, as I believe, David Crockett's body was found in the cannon position in the ruined northern portion of the S Castaneda house, it seems that he would almost certainly have died early in the fighting. According to the Sanchez-Navarro map, that area of the Alamo wall was the focus of the final attack (after shifting from the North wall) by Cos' column.
This thread is comparing the De la Pena and Ruiz accounts but I'm wondering what the majority opinion of Susannah Dickinson's account in which she says she saw Crockett's body when she was led out of the church. Personally, I'm of the opinion that her statement about seeing Crockett falls in with DLP's statement of Crockett's execution, i.e. not too reliable, especially since she didn't mention seeing Crockett until quite late and after giving several other statements in which she didn't mention Crockett.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 15, 2009 11:59:10 GMT -5
Bob,
I'm with you, I recently reread all of her accounts to include her affidavits in Hansen's The Alamo Reader. The thing that jumped out at me is that in her "legal" statements ie made under oath or to government officials her remarks are very restrained versus her "reported" remarks by reporters. Nothing really unusual there, but the fact is in her legal statements about Crockett are all about when he was alive - and the closest thing she says about his death was that he was killed, she believes. IF she indeed had seen the body and recognized it by his pecular cap as claimed by a reporter, why would she be so unspecific in official testimony. Quite frankly, I believe the whole statement about being found between the Church and Hospital and pecular cap to be nothing but a reporter's invention to literally sell the account.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 15, 2009 12:09:46 GMT -5
In his excellent book, William C. Davis make a very insightful comment on Crockett's death at the Alamo. " Somewhere outside - know one will ever know where - fell Crockett. None who knew him or saw him go down lived to tell of his fate, while none of the Mexicans who killed him or saw him fall had any idea who he was." We may or may not agree in total with what Davis wrote but it does underscore the continuing controversy surrounding David's demise. Glenn, I'll second this point with an important proviso. Almonte very clearly knew who Crockett was, the question though of whether or not he could visually identify him is very debatable. Some of the senior officers were no doubt aware of Crockett, but he was an American folk hero - not an international phenom. For example how may Americans of the time would have been aware of who Hidalgo was? Sanchez-Navarro provides us evidence of this for his sketch clearly shows where Travis and Bowie fell - but no mention of Crockett. I would submit it was only after the fall of the Alamo and more probably San Jacinto that most of the Mexican soldatos became aware of how important Crockett was to the Texians. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 15, 2009 12:31:27 GMT -5
I agree completely with Wolfpack's comments about Mrs. D.
I'll take a slight issue with Glenn's quote from William C. Davis about the Mexican's knowing Crockett.
James Crisp has argued the possibility that Almonte might have recognized Crockett after having possibly seen a painting of him during his time in the states. I think this is a stretch, but it is possible.
Personally, I doubt any of the attacking force would have been able to identify Crockett visually, but many of the officers would likely have recognized his name had it been presented to them. It's hard to overstate the amount of press Crockett was getting from 1834 on. Santa Anna would surely have known who Crockett was, even if he didn't know what he looked like.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but Crockett was certainly known, if not recognized.
I also think that one should take into consideration the possibility that a captured survivor might have identified himself as Crockett in hopes of saving his own skin. Had that been the case, both the Ruiz and DLP accounts make sense.
Jim
|
|
