|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 11, 2009 11:10:15 GMT -5
Folks, I received a call yesterday from an old friend, who related to me that he had discovered a very interesting new account of the Alamo from a very obscure journal from the late 1870s. It is strikingly different from the Zuber account of crossing the line, and tells to the story of one unnamed man choosing to escape from the Alamo. There is no line, but the tale is remarkably similiar. I told him to sent it to Bill C. Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 11, 2009 13:22:19 GMT -5
Interesting, Tim.
And good to see you posting! It's been way too long since we've heard from you, old friend!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 11, 2009 13:37:26 GMT -5
A "new" account? Wow! Deja vu.  |
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 11, 2009 14:50:55 GMT -5
Jim and other old friends, I am at not liberty to reveal the discoverer of the account, although he was on the old movie website. I have no idea what he plans to do with the account.
This account is clearly a precursor of the Zuber account, but it does not include the story of crossing the line in the sand. However, a tale somewhat similiar yet striking different. Jim, Bill C., Staurt Reid, Wolfpack, Allen W. email me offline, and I will tell you more. Nothing new about Crockett, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 12, 2009 2:31:15 GMT -5
And here we go again. I'm sure everyone, but yours truly feels slighted by the announced revelation of this information in private messages and not on this thread. For some reason, an unknown account by an anonymous survivor, which was discovered by an unnamed researcher (probably Ol' William Walker) just doesn't pique my normally curious nature. I have chuckled a little over this strange non-disclosure though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Don Allen on Sept 12, 2009 8:25:59 GMT -5
Rod...I'm with you.
Why post something like this in a forum and then tell that same forum that you're not going to discuss it? If your intention was only to share it with one or two people then email it to them or PM them and keep the rest of us out of it....seems to remind me of junior high....."I have a secret and I'm not telling"
Sorry if this comes across as a bit harsh. Yall can look at my posts on this board and know that I am not a confrontational person, but this is over the top.Tim, I don't know you and certainly mean you no ill will, but either disclose what you have and let this excellent group discuss it and stop with the whole "only a few of you get to see this" thing, or don't post it in a semi-public place like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 12, 2009 8:26:25 GMT -5
Surely there should be a straightforward protocol here; if the document in question is a manuscript which has turned up in an archive or even in some-one's attic then it is perfectly legitimate to keep it under wraps until ready for publication.
If, on the other hand, it has previously been published in a journal - no matter how obscure - then it is already in the public domain and there should be no question of holding anything back pending the discoverer's consent.
|
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 12, 2009 11:03:07 GMT -5
Folks, my relevation of the account was done without the discoverer's permission. Last night on the phone, he asked me to restrain any public comment until he returns to his office. And no he is not William Walker, but he is an author on the Texas Revolution. I suggested that he write an article about the account. Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Sept 12, 2009 11:33:04 GMT -5
I don't believe any account should be discountered off-hand, although I do agree with Ranger Rod that such a presentation, as it was presented here, sounds suspect on the surface.
The best protocol would have been to contact Bill or whoever you wished in private before posting something here on the open forum. The thing that amazes me is the knowledge and experience of so many of the folks here. I can't pretend to know the subject in as much depth as many of the guys here do (although I do pride myself in being knowledgeable and still learning on the subject of the Alamo).
Hopefully, we'll all have a chance to read and discuss the new account soon.
Still, I'm intrigued about the possibility of a new document or account on this subject.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Sept 12, 2009 14:45:26 GMT -5
Quote: Folks, I received a call yesterday from an old friend, who related to me that he had discovered a very interesting new account of the Alamo from a very obscure journal from the late 1870s. It is strikingly different from the Zuber account of crossing the line, and tells to the story of one unnamed man choosing to escape from the Alamo. There is no line, but the tale is remarkably similar. I told him to sent it to Bill C. Tim Hmmm, Tim, this sounds interesting, but in my pitiful opinion not likely to make any great revelations that haven't been considered and discussed before. Since it was already published it probably didn't make any startling revelations at the time but it will add to the stockpile of lore that one uses when considering what actually happened in 1836. I've encountered several historical journals (US history, Texas History, Southwest History) while doing Google book-searches. I'm curious to know what other obscure journals ( The Journal of Things Starting with the Letter Q  ) are out there that might contain accounts of the Alamo. I look forward to hearing more about this account but expect to be find no surprises in in. Thanks for sharing with us. - Paul Meske |
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Sept 12, 2009 19:36:08 GMT -5
I have a problem with this account being a precursor of the Zuber account if it was published in the late 1870's. The Zuber account was apparently written in 1871 and published in the 1873 Texas Almanac.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 13, 2009 17:29:45 GMT -5
Thanks fellas. At first I thought I was the only one that saw all the ambiguity in this strange announcement of some mysterious author's discovery of a lost Alamo survivor story. Dr. Nemo (Walker, Borreol or whatever!!) has apparently found an anonymous account, which were common in early American publications for various events. He seems to have placed a lot of weight on the text being that it was written anonymously after the Zuber Account was published. The piece is supposedly similar, but different to Zuber's memories and the unnamed survivor sounds like Moses Rose. I obviously havn't seen the account and might be wrong, but this sounds like a bastardized tale of an earlier work. I agree that it might have some value, but there might be good reasons why it was forgotten if it added nothing original to the story of the Alamo. |
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 13, 2009 20:56:20 GMT -5
Rod, Indeed, you are correct. The discoverer was of the account was informed of the issue of the date of the Zuber account by his friend, a renowned Alamo expert. Clearly neither the discoverer nor I am an expert on the Alamo sources. I did finally hear a reading of the account by phone, replacing his abstraction of it previously given to me while he was on a business trip. It comes from a biographical sketch of Jim Bowie. It does have a problem of a mixing of voices by the reporter, who quotes extensively from a previous California newspaper article about Bowie. The renowned Alamo scholar thought that it was a garbling by the second newspaper reporter. However, the story is quite different from the Zuber account, making me want to see the original Bowie story from the other newspaper article, which is described by the extracts of California newspaper article as coming from an old man in California who had traveled extensively in Louisania and Mississippi, which would be a logical place for another Louis Rose story to have come from. Hopefully, inter-library loan of the California newspaper on microfilm will be able to determine if the 1879 newspaper report is simply a mistake by the reporter or part of the original newspaper article from California. Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Sept 14, 2009 13:41:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads up, Tim. Looking forward to reading it, wherever it may appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 15, 2009 13:46:28 GMT -5
Wade, Thanks, if I was the discoverer of the account, I would send it to the Alamo Journal, but only after the background of the newspaper article was throughly researched. However, I am not the discoverer of the article in question. Tim
|
|
) are out there that might contain accounts of the Alamo. 
