|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 12:06:04 GMT -5
In an old, old discussion, an obituary of Albert Martin (?) surfaced that said Martin led a 60 man reinforcement from Gonzales to the Alamo.
Then there is Williamson's letter to Travis about a 60 man reinforcement that should have already reached the Alamo (when the Gonzales reinforcement is all that had).
The composition of the 32 has often been debated, but it seems that it was composed of two distinct groups a first group of men from the Gonzales area and a second group that joined them at the Cibolo (where some of the Texian Bexar garrison is reported to have been looking for land- when Santa Anna arrived in Bexar). David Cummings is one of the men generally included in this second group.
Additionally, it seems that some sort of listening post/forward operating base had been established at the Cibolo by Chenoweth.
Does it seem possible that when Travis referred to the Gonzales 32 he referred only to 32 men from Gonzales and not another 28/30 men that might have joined them at the Cibolo many of which were already members of his command? Does this possibly account for Williamson's letter and the Martin obituary?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 1:35:02 GMT -5
My gut feeling is no to this. Travis letters of the third are tallying body counts, not political groups. In one, he talks about the surrounding batteries and entrenchments and then says, "Notwithstanding all this, a company of thirty-two men from Gonzales made their way into us on the morning of the 1st. inst, at three o'clock, and Copl. J. B. Bonham got in this morning..." He is simply saying that men got in despite the enemy, not talking about who they are particularly. In the other letter, he says, "All our couriers have gotten out without being caught and a company of thirty-two men from Gonzales got in two nights ago, and Colonel Bonham got in today..." See what I mean? In both case, he's just talking about men getting through the enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 23, 2008 11:31:18 GMT -5
I guess I'm just thinking out loud. I agree with you Rich, it doesn't make sense otherwise, but still it's intriquing that the obituary and the Williamson letter match. I'll see if I can find the obituary and post it.
The other explanation, and perhaps makes more sense, is that when JW Smith returned to Gonzales On March 4th (?) he promptly left with around 25 men for the Alamo. Did these men perhaps join (enlist) with the original 32, but delayed their departure to settle their personal affairs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 13:59:08 GMT -5
On March 1st., Williamson wrote, "Sixty men have left this municipality, who in all probability are with you by this date." Seemingly, Williamson sent them as a group of sixty and expected them to arrive at the Alamo together.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 23, 2008 16:28:33 GMT -5
Well this is another one which we can talk around some without getting anywhere unless something else like the San Luis log turns up.
My feeling is that 60 set off, but for some reason half of them were left at the Cibolo and never made it in. Perhaps it was simply decided it would be too risky to try and run all of them in at once. Travis' accounts of the 32 getting in are pretty unambiguous but perhaps the reason why John Smith was sent out again so quickly was to fetch the rest of them. If so, we know he didn't make it in time.
What tends to be overlooked is that we have Smith carrying our confirmation that just 32 men made it in, and then we James Allen getting out on March 5 with no mention of anybody else getting in. Its greatly to our loss that he never appears to have told his story in later years, but at the time he must have carried out news of a second reinforcement if there was one and the fact that he didn't is probably the single strongest argument there wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 20:50:53 GMT -5
I am actually rereading Gates of the Alamo and am at the very point we are discussing. Now, only a few short years after its publication, the thought of 100 plus men trying to make a running entry at night and only a few of them getting in seems ludicrous, even though it was exciting speculation at the time. I just don't think anything like that happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewkent1830 on Jan 23, 2008 21:45:50 GMT -5
I am just an Alamo Defender Descendant of Gonzales Ranger, Immortal 32 Andrew Kent, but I find all of the comments and opinions here very interesting. I am pretty sure that I will never be able to match up to the intellect and expertise that is exhibited here, but intend to keep peeking in from time to time. And I have sent the web site to several of my many Cousins, Descendants of Andrew Kent.
Keep up the good work, we are reading and watching, as messengers of one of those that fell at the Alamo.
AndrewKent1830
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 23, 2008 22:12:06 GMT -5
I am just an Alamo Defender Descendant of Gonzales Ranger, Immortal 32 Andrew Kent, but I find all of the comments and opinions here very interesting. I am pretty sure that I will never be able to match up to the intellect and expertise that is exhibited here, but intend to keep peeking in from time to time. And I have sent the web site to several of my many Cousins, Descendants of Andrew Kent. Keep up the good work, we are reading and watching, as messengers of one of those that fell at the Alamo. AndrewKent1830 AndrewKent1830, You are certainly welcome here, and many thanks for your kind comments. I suppose when you boil it down to its essence, the real reason we Alamo students parse every word, squint at every squiggle in the old maps and sketches, is that we want so badly to get it right not for our own sakes, but in honour of the bravery shown by men such as your ancestor. They certainly have earned much, much more than the pop culture rubbish that is all too often piled upon their memory. Mark Lemon |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 24, 2008 1:29:58 GMT -5
Welcome indeed. I think you will find a true spirit emerging from the efforts on this forum that is aimed at honoring the memory of the Alamo defenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 24, 2008 9:30:34 GMT -5
Is it possible that some remained on the Cibolo in hopes of joining-up with Fannin while others (32) decided not to wait and made their way to the Alamo??
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 25, 2008 12:56:58 GMT -5
Looking for Martin's obituary, I remembered this article, which has a lot of information about the Gonzales 32: www.texasranger.org/dispatch/13/pages/Alamo_Rangers.htmIncluding this relevant passage: "From all indications, Albert Martin rode out of Gonzales with about sixty men for the Alamo. Not all of them made it there, of course. Two sources point toward Martin having departed Gonzales with more than just Kimbell’s Gonzales Mounted Rangers. First, Martin’s obituary, printed in July 1836 in the Manufacturers and Farmers Journal and the New Orleans True American, makes an interesting claim: He had left the fortress and returned to his residence, where he was apprized of the perilous situation in which in his late comrades were placed. His determination was instantly taken. In reply to the passionate entreaties of his father, who besought him not to rush into certain destruction, he said, “This is no time for such considerations. I have passed my word to Colonel Trav[is] that I would return, nor can I forfeit a pledge thus given. In pursuance of this high resolve he raised a company of sixty-two men and started on his way back. During the route, the company, apprized of the desperate situation of affairs, became diminished by desertion, to thirty-two. With this gallant band he gained the fort and the reinforcement, small as it was, revived the drooping spirits of the garrison. From this, one can pick up two important points. First, Martin reached Gonzales with a pledge from Travis that he would raise help. He immediately recruited more men, despite pleas from his father. Second, he left Gonzales with sixty-two men, but only made it into the Alamo with thirty-two. Some apparently dropped out along the way; others were cut off and unable to make it through the gates. In support of Martin riding out with a large number of men is a Major Robert Williamson letter to Travis written from Gonzales on March 1, 1836. He wrote: “From this municipality 60 men have now set out, who in all human probability are found, at this date, with you.” The sixty men Captain Martin left with included twenty-five of Lieutenant Kimbell’s Gonzales Mounted Rangers. It also included Lieutenant Jackson’s new company that was recruited on February 24, the day after Kimbell’s men were mustered into service. " |
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 26, 2008 9:35:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Wolf! That's a great article. Similar to Stuart's findings in the Alamo Journal , it helps debunk some of the assertions of TRL's second reinforcement theory.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 26, 2008 11:43:59 GMT -5
Thanks, Wolf! That's a great article. Similar to Stuart's findings in the Alamo journal , it helps debunk some of the assertions of TRL's second reinforcement theory. Glenn Some of us used this before, but we were mainly focused on the Tumilson and Smithwick arguments, what Moore said about the Gonzales 32 didn't truly sink in (at least for me), until I looked at it again yesterday. The riddle of the Williamson letter that has been troubling me for some time, now seems reasonably answered. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Feb 6, 2008 20:28:55 GMT -5
Hola Amigos! Coming in a bit late on this thread and with bias toward cousin-by-marriage andrewkent1830’s comments. From my limited gatherings of information, it is my opinion that the Gonzales 32 plus or minus were the only relief to the Alamo after the siege began, although there were some individual communications out and in as well as numerous Texians on the periphery observing the situation. Uncle Andy Kent is a prototype of Alamo Defenders, particularly one who came in quite late during the hopeless siege, against the arguments that Alamo Defenders and for that matter those fighting for Texas independence in general were a bunch of single male soldiers of fortune, outcasts and rebel rousers; or a plot to wrench Texas from Mexico. At age 44 he was the oldest of the known Gonzales 32 leaving behind a wife and nine children, three of whom were under six years (three died of exposure in the Runaway Scrape). He would not let his teenage son, a member of the Alamo garrison return in his place. He was one of 22 developed landowners, once loyal appreciative citizens of Mexico whose government betrayed them, of the 32 and one of the 3 public servants in the group. A Texas historical marker to Andrew Kent was dedicated in 2007. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Mar 3, 2008 20:45:18 GMT -5
This month Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas features The Gonzales Rangers Alamo Relief Force Only Force to Effectively Respond to Col. Travis' Appeal "to the People of Texas and All Americans in the World, Fellow Citizens & Compatriots" At dawn on the first of March [1836], Capt. Albert Martin, with 32 men.....from Gonzales and DeWitt's Colony, passed the lines of Santa Anna and entered the walls of the Alamo, never more to leave them. These men, chiefly husbands and fathers, owning their own homes, voluntarily organized and passed through the lines of an enemy four to six thousand strong, to join 150 of their countrymen and neighbors, in a fortress doomed to destruction. Does American history, or any history, ancient or modern, furnish a parallel to such heroism?---John Henry Brown in History of Texas. Isaac Baker--John Cain--George Cottle--David Cummings--Squire Daymon--Jacob Darst--John Davis--William Dearduff--Charles Despallier--William Fitzbaugh--John Flanders--Dolphin Floyd--Galba Fuqua--John Garvin--John Gaston--James George--Thomas Jackson--John Kellogg--Andrew Kent--George Kimble--William King--Jonathan Lindley--Albert Martin--Jesse McCoy--Thomas Miller--Isaac Millsap--George Neggan--William Summers--George Tumlinson--Robert White--Claiborne Wright Their Biographies, Widows and Orphans Oldest 44, 4 over 40, 5 aged 31-40, 14 aged 21-30, 4 teenagers, youngest 16 Over 4% of the total population of the DeWitt Colony, among them productive landholders, ranchers and farmers, merchants and civic leaders, died in the Alamo (Alamo casualties represented less than 0.5% of the total population of Texas) "....One, a lad of but sixteen, was the bravest of them all, for he fought after his weapon's were useless. He died throttling an antagonist, not relaxing his grip on the latter's throat even when death seized the boy. He and his foe died together.....they had to tear the boy's hands from the throat of his assailant,"-- Historian Charles Barnes |
|
