Post by George Mabry on Mar 9, 2009 9:47:07 GMT -5
This subject is being beat around on the Second Reinforcement thread but I think it deserves one of it’s own.
I'm not convinced that Travis' letter doesn't correctly identify the number of Tejano defenders. This situation and the political climate of the times were ripe for a little skullduggery. Anytime there is financial gain to be made by swearing out an affidavit and presenting it to the government, we need to look hard at it. This is especially true when the headright is going to be granted based solely on the strength of that affidavit.
First of all, who is attesting to the fact that this person or that died at the Alamo? I seem to remember Ruiz was behind a couple of them and Sequin attested in at least one other. Some of you who have researched this may be able to help out here. I suspect that most of the affiants were local politicians or members of the dead man’s family.
Politicians. What can you say? Politicians back then are pretty much the same as they are now...bought. What better scam than to get the former alcade (as an example) to write out a statement identifying someone as having died at the Alamo when, for example, he died three years later from having been kicked in the head by a horse. The family gets a headright grant and the good alcalde gets his kickback. It works that way today and it worked back then too.
Family members. We need to look hard at this. In the few cases I’ve seen, the family presented the claim 20 or more years after the battle. I don’t know when Texas started issuing headrights to families of the slain but I would expect it was long before the 1860’s. If that is the case, these affidavits don’t look so good. If, as I suspect, the deceased’s family was in the San Antonio area all that time, this is especially so.
How many dead Tejano defenders are listed as having died in the fight but their families were denied a headright for their loss? Without having researched it, I know of at least one. Now, as I suspect is true back then, the stated reason for the denial of a claim is not always the real reason. “Failed to make proper application”, sounds innocent enough but sometimes, and maybe oftentimes, there is a very good reason for that failure and that reason is not so innocent.
Secondly, there is some good indication that the 20 townspeople who were in the Alamo at one time, chose not to die there. Could some of those 20 people been the ones Enrique Esparza mentions as leaving the fort? Maybe some of the them were the nine “defenders” that the Mexicans say (DeShields) came over to their side and betrayed the location of an arms cache in Bexar.
I’m very interested in hearing what the other members here think about subject. I don’t profess to know how many Tejanos died in the fighting. But I’ll bet Travis did. Granted there were likely Tejanos in the fort that he did not consider as defenders but I’d doubt these were able bodied young men shouldering muzzleloaders.
I know it’s been offered that the reason Travis skimmed on the numbers is because he was a racist. Maybe he was but so what? He could still count. What is there to gain from saying you have three instead of say, nine? None whatsoever. Nine says just as clearly as three that the Alamo defenders were not supported by the townspeople and that is obviously his purpose in mentioning the numbers. This is substantiated by numerous other sources and that attitude is certainly understandable. Had I been a Tejano townsman, I very likely would have been a fence-sitter too.
George
I'm not convinced that Travis' letter doesn't correctly identify the number of Tejano defenders. This situation and the political climate of the times were ripe for a little skullduggery. Anytime there is financial gain to be made by swearing out an affidavit and presenting it to the government, we need to look hard at it. This is especially true when the headright is going to be granted based solely on the strength of that affidavit.
First of all, who is attesting to the fact that this person or that died at the Alamo? I seem to remember Ruiz was behind a couple of them and Sequin attested in at least one other. Some of you who have researched this may be able to help out here. I suspect that most of the affiants were local politicians or members of the dead man’s family.
Politicians. What can you say? Politicians back then are pretty much the same as they are now...bought. What better scam than to get the former alcade (as an example) to write out a statement identifying someone as having died at the Alamo when, for example, he died three years later from having been kicked in the head by a horse. The family gets a headright grant and the good alcalde gets his kickback. It works that way today and it worked back then too.
Family members. We need to look hard at this. In the few cases I’ve seen, the family presented the claim 20 or more years after the battle. I don’t know when Texas started issuing headrights to families of the slain but I would expect it was long before the 1860’s. If that is the case, these affidavits don’t look so good. If, as I suspect, the deceased’s family was in the San Antonio area all that time, this is especially so.
How many dead Tejano defenders are listed as having died in the fight but their families were denied a headright for their loss? Without having researched it, I know of at least one. Now, as I suspect is true back then, the stated reason for the denial of a claim is not always the real reason. “Failed to make proper application”, sounds innocent enough but sometimes, and maybe oftentimes, there is a very good reason for that failure and that reason is not so innocent.
Secondly, there is some good indication that the 20 townspeople who were in the Alamo at one time, chose not to die there. Could some of those 20 people been the ones Enrique Esparza mentions as leaving the fort? Maybe some of the them were the nine “defenders” that the Mexicans say (DeShields) came over to their side and betrayed the location of an arms cache in Bexar.
I’m very interested in hearing what the other members here think about subject. I don’t profess to know how many Tejanos died in the fighting. But I’ll bet Travis did. Granted there were likely Tejanos in the fort that he did not consider as defenders but I’d doubt these were able bodied young men shouldering muzzleloaders.
I know it’s been offered that the reason Travis skimmed on the numbers is because he was a racist. Maybe he was but so what? He could still count. What is there to gain from saying you have three instead of say, nine? None whatsoever. Nine says just as clearly as three that the Alamo defenders were not supported by the townspeople and that is obviously his purpose in mentioning the numbers. This is substantiated by numerous other sources and that attitude is certainly understandable. Had I been a Tejano townsman, I very likely would have been a fence-sitter too.
George
