Post by stuart on Mar 11, 2009 6:45:24 GMT -5
I’m just thinking out aloud on this one but discussion of the “three Mexicans” business has set me to looking at all of the March 3 letter. Hansen rightly comments on the fact that it’s the most informative of Travis’ known despatches, but re-reading it again, I’m inclined to wonder.
Hansen uses a published transcript and compares it with another with slight, (but quite unimportant), variations. The original however is not referred to. Does it exist? And if not what assurance do we have that the published transcripts correspond in any way with what Travis actually wrote.
The timing may well be significant. Travis had previously and very properly been communicating with Houston. As we know, after failing to stop Grant going down to the Rio Grande, Houston took himself off east on a “mission” to the Cherokee – nearly a month before the siege began. We can therefore rule out the notion that Travis suddenly started writing to the “President of the Convention” because communications had broken down as a result. Houston, as his own despatches show was certainly aware of what Travis had written in his earlier despatches, particularly as to numbers of defenders, which would suggest that they were getting through to him. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to put me straight but I also believe that Williamson, who sent off the Gonzales reinforcement, was also working closely with Houston.
Now notwithstanding his earlier reports, on March 3 Travis suddenly writes to the President, setting out a full history of the siege, breathing fire and defiance and helpfully suggesting that the government pay for the war by seizing Mexican property. Why?
Does the answer lie in Houston’s reluctance to assemble a relief force and his reported assertions that he didn’t believe the Alamo was under siege at all and that it was all a bit of political grandstanding by Travis and others (Crockett?)?
The letter clearly contradicts such a stance and cries out for action. Was it a political letter “improved” for publication to justify a move into West Texas – which Houston opposed, but was where those Mexican properties ripe for seizure were to be found – and were his protests really about this letter, rather than the genuine despatches which he had earlier received?
Just as a final point, there is the question of Santa Anna. He was there from day one, and Jameson at least must have been aware of this following his exchange with Almonte, yet Travis speaks as though the Mexicans were commanded by Sesma. Was he really in ignorance, or does this reflect what was thought not in Bexar but in Washington?
There are therefore a number of questions to consider:
1. does the original letter still exist or do we only have the printed transcripts?
2. if not, leaving aside the content, does the sentence construction and vocabulary harmonise with other Travis correspondence?
3. If the answer to the above is no, then how much of the Alamo story do we need to re-think?
Hansen uses a published transcript and compares it with another with slight, (but quite unimportant), variations. The original however is not referred to. Does it exist? And if not what assurance do we have that the published transcripts correspond in any way with what Travis actually wrote.
The timing may well be significant. Travis had previously and very properly been communicating with Houston. As we know, after failing to stop Grant going down to the Rio Grande, Houston took himself off east on a “mission” to the Cherokee – nearly a month before the siege began. We can therefore rule out the notion that Travis suddenly started writing to the “President of the Convention” because communications had broken down as a result. Houston, as his own despatches show was certainly aware of what Travis had written in his earlier despatches, particularly as to numbers of defenders, which would suggest that they were getting through to him. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to put me straight but I also believe that Williamson, who sent off the Gonzales reinforcement, was also working closely with Houston.
Now notwithstanding his earlier reports, on March 3 Travis suddenly writes to the President, setting out a full history of the siege, breathing fire and defiance and helpfully suggesting that the government pay for the war by seizing Mexican property. Why?
Does the answer lie in Houston’s reluctance to assemble a relief force and his reported assertions that he didn’t believe the Alamo was under siege at all and that it was all a bit of political grandstanding by Travis and others (Crockett?)?
The letter clearly contradicts such a stance and cries out for action. Was it a political letter “improved” for publication to justify a move into West Texas – which Houston opposed, but was where those Mexican properties ripe for seizure were to be found – and were his protests really about this letter, rather than the genuine despatches which he had earlier received?
Just as a final point, there is the question of Santa Anna. He was there from day one, and Jameson at least must have been aware of this following his exchange with Almonte, yet Travis speaks as though the Mexicans were commanded by Sesma. Was he really in ignorance, or does this reflect what was thought not in Bexar but in Washington?
There are therefore a number of questions to consider:
1. does the original letter still exist or do we only have the printed transcripts?
2. if not, leaving aside the content, does the sentence construction and vocabulary harmonise with other Travis correspondence?
3. If the answer to the above is no, then how much of the Alamo story do we need to re-think?