|
Mr Rose
Nov 3, 2011 18:10:07 GMT -5
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 3, 2011 18:10:07 GMT -5
A UTSA prof named Kellerman went to France and found a Napoleonic record for Louis Rose, who he felt was the Rose of Alamo fame. This Rose served in Spain, got the Legion of Merit ad was made a sub adjutant. I had some doubts at the time...and asked were was the documentation that this Rose was th same one at the Alamo. Another problem was that the Alamo Rose was suppose to be illiterate and the question arose how could he perform the duties of an adjutant (then again, there is a way around anything).
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 3, 2011 18:41:04 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 3, 2011 18:41:04 GMT -5
I'm not convinced one way or the other if there was an Alamo Rose. Tom Lindley made a good case against the Rose story in Traces, but Tom's over riding purpose in Traces was to prove his second reinforcement theory. If the Rose story is true, it basically proves the second reinforcement false.
The one thing I am convinced of, is that if Rose was at the Alamo, he did not depart before the attack, but instead was one of the few men that escaped the Mexican Cavalry due to the blood soaked clothes. There just wasn't that kind of bloodshed until the morning of March 6th.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 17:16:51 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 4, 2011 17:16:51 GMT -5
I'm not convinced one way or the other if there was an Alamo Rose. Don't forget James M. I've seen the 'M' given as 'Madison' but only on one site, is there a general acceptance of this? That scenario had never occured to me before, though it Rose had related that version of events to the Zubers, would he not then have been regarded as a 'hero' of the Alamo? Travis did of course refer to several 'bloody' actions before the 6th: To Huston on the 25th:And from the same letter: To the President of the Convention, March 3rd:To Jesse Grimes, March 3rd:What niggles me is that Travis wrote to Huston on the 25th stating that ‘Today at 10 o'clock a.m.’ (referring to the first fight) Then to Grimes: You have no doubt seen my official report of the action of the 24th Did Travis mean to say the ‘action of the 25th' or is there a missing letter from the 24th? Confused, Paisley.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 18:33:55 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 4, 2011 18:33:55 GMT -5
Just a guess, but it's more likely Travis was confused about dates; he may have been writing in the wee hours, shortly before or after midnight at times, when the actual date wasn't certain. It's not really significant. As to the bloody battles, all the ones Travis refers to has the Mexicans doing the bleeding, while boasting not a man down in the Alamo. Thus, I think Herb is right in saying there was no kind of heavy bleeding by the garrison until March 6.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 19:00:11 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2011 19:00:11 GMT -5
You are of course correct, about the earlier actions, but I'll stick to my conclusion about the morning of March 6th being the only day that produced the kind of bloodshed, Rose (Zuber) reported. It's generally accepted from Travis' letters that other than some possible minor wounds/scratches that the Texas suffered no losses prior to March 6th. There were four distinct actions prior to the 6th that we know of. The occupation of Bexar, Feb 23; the reconnaissance in force, Feb 25, the demonstration, the night of the 25th. There were apparently other night demonstrations conducted by the Mexicans, but when and what strength can't be pin pointed. Finally there was the Texas sally the night of the 3rd. On the 23rd the Mexicans suffered 2 KIA, 8 WIA, the 25th (day), 2 KIA, 4 WIA. No combat losses are recorded for the various night actions. Unless, you were one of the unfortunates, the actions weren't bloody enough prior to March 6th, to produce pools of blood.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 19:15:49 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2011 19:15:49 GMT -5
As far as being regarded as a hero if he survived the 6th, personaly, I think it would have been just the opposite. By leaving before the battle with Travis' release, it's simply a story of a volunteer exercising his discretion//rights. Being the sole survivor deserting his comrades the day of the battle carries a whole other connotation.
This might be the reason that the 2 other reported survivors (see Lord) disappeared from history.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 19:36:58 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 4, 2011 19:36:58 GMT -5
Just a guess, but it's more likely Travis was confused about dates; he may have been writing in the wee hours, shortly before or after midnight at times, when the actual date wasn't certain. It's not really significant. As to the bloody battles, all the ones Travis refers to has the Mexicans doing the bleeding, while boasting not a man down in the Alamo. Thus, I think Herb is right in saying there was no kind of heavy bleeding by the garrison until March 6. Again, I am slightly confused here, the blood on the clothing that Rose referred to was Mexican blood, not Texian, no?
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 19:40:22 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 4, 2011 19:40:22 GMT -5
Unless, you were one of the unfortunates, the actions weren't bloody enough prior to March 6th, to produce pools of blood. Yes, that was my thinking too, I mentioned the other actions for completeness / further discussion.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 19:54:52 GMT -5
Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 4, 2011 19:54:52 GMT -5
Being the sole survivor deserting his comrades the day of the battle carries a whole other connotation. Hmmm, not so sure about this one, if there was a break-out, with many Texian deaths due to combat with Mexican horsemen, where would the 'desertion' come in? He would have been one of many, he survived, where would be the shame in that scenario? He would have been the lucky one among many unfortunates. Did Henry Warnell not claim that very same thing? Whether his story is true or not, I have never read of him being called a coward.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 20:02:46 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2011 20:02:46 GMT -5
We've only really known about the cavalry action for about 20 years (and there's still quite a few who hotly deny it). I'm not too sure, how easily accepted the idea would have been after San Jacinto.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 23:18:12 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Nov 4, 2011 23:18:12 GMT -5
Herb: I have not read the Zuber/Rose story for a long time, and I will try and get it out tomorrow. As I remember it though Zuber said Rose climbed the wall droped to the outside and picked up his wallet (not the modern word but something containing his clothes) which somehow became soaked in blood. So far so good, but the rest of the escape and evasion as related by Zuber I don't recall being anyway consistent with an ongoing battle.
So while I agree with you in this one area about when, the rest is just not consistent with that when.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 4, 2011 23:30:07 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2011 23:30:07 GMT -5
Chuck, you're right. The route out of Bexar, as related was impossible, anytime after the Mexican army arrived the 23rd. So my conclusion is the story is either total fiction or Rose was covering up the circumstances of the escape. Dropping the clothes in a blood, is either another lie or evidence of the real circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 5, 2011 8:41:39 GMT -5
Herb: I don't place any faith in the whole business. Always did sound to me like a prairie Sir Walter Scott wantabe conjuring up a bucksking Ivanhoe.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 5, 2011 12:22:47 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 5, 2011 12:22:47 GMT -5
Did Susanna and Rose (if he existed) ever meet face to face after the Alamo? If so, did she identify him as a member of the garrison at any time? Did she or anyone else ever vouch for his having been there at all? I just haven't seen anything persuasive on this other than Lindley's work. I agree that he was trying to prove his second reinforcement theory, but the scholarship on Rose is very convincing.
As to the blood stained clothes or a bundle of any kind, is it likely Rose (or anyone) had such an article with them when they took part in the breakout? I can accept that someone in the breakout groups might have gotten away, but I doubt they had packed anything to take with them.
|
|
|
Mr Rose
Nov 5, 2011 15:51:40 GMT -5
Post by George Mabry on Nov 5, 2011 15:51:40 GMT -5
I enjoy reading the turmoil generated by Zuber’s story. I haven't given up on Rose. After all, he did testify on more than one occasion before the land board so to my way of thinking his pedigree/reputation was established somewhere. Lindley was looking for "proof." I doubt we'll ever prove his presence inside the Alamo at this late date but I'm not ready to discount it either.
The Rose account does have a lot of holes in it but keep in mind that is due to Zuber's account of the event and not Rose’s. We have no idea of what Rose told Zuber's family. We also don't have any idea of what Zuber's mother told her son. All we have is Zuber. Making a liar/fabricator out of Zuber doesn't disqualify Rose. It’s not so hard to envision a situation where Zuber hears an account from his mother and years later decides to embellish it to the point where he had a good war story to peddle. Blood stained clothing? If the Texas underbrush and cactii tore Rose up as much as Zuber says, I'd think everything in Rose's possession had blood on it...his blood.
Even Lindley's claim that Rose gave false testimony on one of the land board cases isn't necessarily fatal to his account (whatever that account may be) of having left the Alamo during the seige. I don't find it shocking that Rose might have been the kind of man that acting alone or in concert with another would have concocted or participated in a scheme to use his position to pull off a swindle that would benefit him financially. Land swindles involving military service were probably as common as poor hygiene back then. Proving Rose a thief/low life is still short of disproving his escape/exit/retreat from the Alamo.
My two cents says there is a kernel of truth in Zuber’s story. the fun part is in ferreting it out.
George
|
|