|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 5, 2010 1:52:39 GMT -5
After a few days of searching my house, I've been unable to locate my original dissection of the fraudulent land claims for Henry Warnell. You never realize how many books/papers you have until you have to locate a single item. I'll try to reconstitute my Old Alamo Forum research from memory and the documents as best I can here. I hope this will be sufficient for the few that are interested in Warnell. There is actually only one Texas republic claim document for Henry Warnell and it does not tie him to the Alamo in any manner. It's a War Department pay certificate, which places Henry Warnell in Capt. Coleman's Company on March 6, 1836 and Edward Burleson was entitled to receive this payment in August, 1840 after Warnell's death. Capt. Robert Coleman commanded the Bastrop Volunteers in San Antonio in Dec. 1835, but I believe the unit was back in Bastrop by March and far from the Alamo. There's no contemporary proof that Warnell remained that I've seen. Republic Claim 110-510 tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/110/11000510.pdfRepublic Claim 110-511 tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/110/11000511.pdfThe General Land Office supplied a list of land patents for available grantees and assignees in the January 28, 1846 Texas Democrat in Austin, Texas. Henry Warnell, deceased, heirs of, was listed as having land located in Travis and Bastrop Counties. This is the 1st Class Land Grant ( Bastrop abstact # 793 ) patented in 1841 and probably an earlier attempt at Bounty Grant ( Travis abstract # 492 ) which was patented in 1851. These are almost certainly the first compensation attempts by Henry Warnell's supposed heirs, but they weren't the last. 1st Class, Bastrop abstract for arrival in Texas prior to March 2, 1836 wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/LandGrants/landgrants.cfm?intID=140884Bounty, Travis abstract for military service during the revolution. wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/LandGrants/landgrants.cfm?intID=121380* spelling correction and document added. |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 5, 2010 19:03:56 GMT -5
...You never realize how many books/papers you have until you have to locate a single item. Brother, you got that right! |
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Apr 5, 2010 19:19:58 GMT -5
This is a bit off topic, but what is even worse is when you spend a year to try locate a certain book on the internet and then one day while you are sorting through your library, lo and behold there it is and you have probably had it for about a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 6, 2010 12:37:25 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that info, RR.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 6, 2010 23:12:01 GMT -5
You are welcome and thanks for the brotherly concurrence book hounds. Now for the lengthy documents (66 pgs.) that I believe are an elaborate and sometimes amateurish land swindle of the state government. John Warnell of Sevier or Crawford Co. Ark. apparently kicked the whole claim off by hiring a shady Austin fellow named Henry Anderson as his agent in Texas and Anderson submitted young Warnell's claim to the General Land Office in early 1858. Although there seems to be a document omitted the claim was quickly approved on Feb. 24,1858. A few days later the claim was then withdrawn on the document (pg. 66) by Mr. Crosby. A clerk later wrote below Crosby's signature that the claim should be sent to the Legislature and recommended approval by the Committee. It appears that Mr. Anderson wasn't told why the land claim was withdrawn, so he took file 8490 to James H. Swindells (a Young Co. notary public), who was apparently in Austin. Swindells wrote his opinions of the claim's deficiencies on the cover sheet of the combination Headright Bounty and Donation land grant, which appears on the first page and transcribed 1-5 below with my notes. Swindell's opinions. 1. Bty Warrent No. 9579 for 960 acres has been here approved. - This was premature as this bounty was not approved. None of Henry Warnell's approved patents have the number 9579 or 960 acres. 2. See voucher 108 Mason his pay voucher was received by an administrator. - See Mason's 108 voucher in first post above (Republic Claim 110-511). 3. Not on Alamo List. 4. Is his head right not in this county? (Travis Co.) - see abstract # 793 above. 5. No evidence as to H. R. Has received all the bounty he was entitled to. - See abstract # 492 above. Filed Aug. 11, 1858 James H. Swindells Warnell, Court of Claims. - Click on View PDF to download documents. wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/LandGrants/landgrants.cfm?intID=491299* Clarifications. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 10, 2010 1:15:11 GMT -5
After John Warnell's initial failed attempt, his agent Anderson composed a letter to Commisioner of Claims, Hon. Edward Clark. It states that Henry Warnell was a single man, wounded at the Massacre of the Alamo, escaped and died at Port Lavaca, Texas. Strangely, the letter states that Warnell is entitled to 1st Class Headright (1/3 league), Bounty (1920 acs) and Donation (640 acs) grants for his immigration and services to Texas, which sounds like overkill for an introductory letter to the commissioner. This letter appears on page 18 of Warnell's Court of Claims PDF document above and is notorized by Anderson's new partner in crime, Jimmie H. Swindells. A clue to Henry Anderson's honesty problems are contained in the documents below. While Anderson was filing claims for John Warnell, he was also making claims for himself. In is own letter to Commissioner Clark, Anderson states that he arrived before '37 as a teenager, was a single man and implies that he is entitled to a headright (3rd class) of 320 acres. A bit shady, especially since he did not qualify for this land grant. By the way Swindells wrote on the cover of Anderson's letter that there is "No Evidence" for Anderson's claim anyway. Henry Anderson's Letter to Commissioner of Claims. Click on View PDFwwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/LandGrants/landgrants.cfm?intID=482917 |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 10, 2010 7:58:41 GMT -5
Excellent job RangerRod. Your detective work is greatly appreciated. I was getting tired of jumping through those hoops trying to figure out how the heck a wounded Alamo defender could end up dead more than 120 miles SE of Bexar.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 12, 2010 19:28:27 GMT -5
Thank you Hiram, good to be appreciated. The Warnell land Claim's exhausting and hard to decipher with all the florid legal writing. I think John Warnell and Mr. Anderson had to come up with the Port Lavaca story to explain why a Henry Warnell was not among the Alamo dead and there were no documents conecting him to the revolution other than a pay voucher. In 1860 they tried again. This time John Warnell stated in a letter to the Court of Claims (Page 44) that his father was killed in the Alamo under Col. Travis, which contradicts his earlier statement. They also had a lot of dodgy testimony from Susannah Hunneck (Hannig or Dickerson) and others. Some witnesses stated Warnell died in the Alamo and others said they weren't sure. They were equally contradictory on whether Warnell was single or married or where he was from. All of these problems weakened John Warnell's case. Beyond the lack of contemporary documention, Commisioner of Claims W. S. Hotchkiss rambled on for nine pages (Pg. 6-14) on the many reasons John Warnell's claim was deficient and ultimately rejected. It just sounds like a big land swindle to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 12, 2010 22:42:07 GMT -5
Ah, but even if Warnell was a fraud, we are still left with the mysterious account from the Arkansas Gazette of March 29, 1836, claiming that two men, one of them severely wounded, arrived in Nacogdoches, claiming that Bexar had been taken by the Mexicans and the garrison all killed, and that, as far as they knew, they were the only survivors. As is well known, this account appeared a full week before the fall of the Alamo was generally known.
In my opinion, it's no minor task to completely exterminate 189 - 200+ men, who don't want to die, with perhaps a large number of whom are breaking out into brush and thickets in the gray of dawn. I'd say the odds are that at least a very few made it out.
Santa Anna himself seemed to hint as much in his report: "....I can assure your excellency that few are those who bore to their associates the tidings of their disaster."
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 13, 2010 14:00:56 GMT -5
Well, I don't know much about other alleged Alamo escapees, but I doubt most got very far. I don't see Henry Warnell as an Alamo defender, but as a tough Coleman Ranger serving in Bastrop. He was no fraud, but his son, if he truly was a son was perpetrating several frauds in a conspiracy to get an Alamo donation land grant. John Warnell was later successful in obtaining various bounty grants from several gullible Texas counties. Sometimes crime pays quite well, especially when one is preying on people's patriotic heartstrings.  |
|
