|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 28, 2011 19:30:57 GMT -5
That's pretty much straight out of the fictional "Exploits and Adventures in Texas."
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 28, 2011 21:38:01 GMT -5
That's pretty much straight out of the fictional "Exploits and Adventures in Texas." It's a complete lift; almost word for word the creation of Robert Penn Smith in Exploits.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 28, 2011 22:10:59 GMT -5
And it was repeated in so many subsequent publications for the next century that it was widely accepted as fact. I wonder how Smith got the idea of showing Crockett surviving the battle. There's no way that HE saw the de la Pena papers!
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 29, 2011 8:08:01 GMT -5
I wonder how Smith got the idea of showing Crockett surviving the battle. There's no way that HE saw the de la Pena papers! Robert Penn Smith was writing during the summer of 1836, and by all indications, reading newspaper accounts of the battle, and incorporating the information into Exploits. I think he got the idea that Crockett survived the battle because that's what he read in the paper.
Ironically, De la Pena was writing his initial folio in Matamoros during that same summer, and did not include the execution story until he wrote the second folio (ca. 1838.)
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 29, 2011 8:55:36 GMT -5
I'm sure that de la Pena picked up the Crockett execution story from someone else, although it reads as if he was actually standing there in the text. As I recall, the page with the Crockett execution story is a separate sheet of paper inserted into the manuscript and in a different handwriting (not de la Pena's). Since its written in the first person, it could have been written out by someone else and given to de la Pena, and he inserted it into his handwritten notes or manuscript, intending to incorporate it later into his memoir. If so, it raises the question of who wrote that page and how did he know who Crockett was?
One explanation for the rise of execution reports is that Mexican captives at San Jacinto picked up from their interrogators that Crockett was somehow an important person to them and they did all they could to pin the blame for his death on Santa Anna, perhaps even embellishing the tale to have other Mexicans plead for his life and/or express disgust at the brutal executions. But, if someone wrote this account out and gave it to de la Pena for his memoir, that person would (presumably) not have been under any pressure to concoct the story in an attempt to save his own neck. On the other hand, since this guys were in prison for opposing Santa Anna they'd still have good reason to demonize him by creating the execution scene, perhaps having heard stories about executions at the Alamo or even having witnessed them, with or without Crockett. I'm guessing here. This is really a big guessing game at this point.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 29, 2011 14:43:13 GMT -5
Allen,
Everything you describe is factual, in terms of the De la Pena folios and the interrogation of Mexican POWs after San Jac. The conclusions that we reach based on those facts can be different, and those of us in the Alamo community certainly understand that.
In one of Santa Anna's battle reports dated 6 March, he makes that well-known reference to the Greys' flag: "the inspection of it will show plainly the true intention of the treacherous colonists, and of their abetors, who came from the ports of the United States of the North."
I think it is clear that if Crockett was executed, the Mexican army had no idea who he was at the time. Common sense and rationale do not always rule the day, particularly during armed conflict, but it seems obvious that capturing a former U.S. Congressman alive inside the Alamo compound would be a huge asset to propaganda.
Question: What's better than sending an American banner to Mexico City? Answer: Capturing a politician with ties to Washington City.
In the war of propaganda, a relatively healthy Crockett would be much more beneficial to Santa Anna, Tornel, and others than a dead Crockett.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 29, 2011 15:30:59 GMT -5
Hiram,
That thought has occurred to me many times ever since this issue was raised. That's one of the reasons the de la Pena version sounds contrived to me. Had Almonte, or anyone else among the Mexicans, actually known who Crockett was it's very likely that person would have pointed it out to his superiors and someone would think of that too. Shipping Crockett back to Mexico City and parading him as evidence of U.S. complicity in the Texas revolt would have been priceless propaganda. It would not matter that Crockett was a dedicated opponent of Jackson, Van Buren and Polk; the symbolism would have been too good to miss. Also, had Crockett been quickly executed before anyone had the chance to speak up, but was later identified as a famous U.S. congressman, it seems impossible that this would not have turned up in someone's memoirs or diary, or perhaps sent to the Mexican press. I have no problem with the idea that Crockett, or anyone else, survived the battle and was executed, but I've always found the story too good to be true and a little too convenient. In fact, Santa Anna did mention Crockett in his earliest report on the battle, along with Bowie and Travis, but made no mention of him being executed.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Apr 29, 2011 22:14:56 GMT -5
My impression of the executions is that if Almonte recognized Crockett as one of the survivors, he muttered it to General Cos (or whoever Dolson's informant was), but did not mention it to Santa Anna because Santa Anna was in a rage and Almonte wanted to keep out of his way, so to speak. I've worked for plenty of people I have been unwilling to interrupt when they've been like that! I was initially suspicious of de la Pena's account, and have often wondered if there actually was a "naturalist" taking refuge at the Alamo, as his description doesn't sound like my impression of Crockett, who wasn't especially tall, and Madam Candelaria said in 1899 that he looked a little effeminate, as I can imagine he might have from the pictures we have of him. Also, I'm reminded of the saying that people who look the part seldom are. I know that to be true from my experiences when I was an Elvis impersonator: the ones with the most elaborate and authentic costumes and wigs tend to have the worst acts! My first impression was that de la Pena had read that Crockett was one of those executed, and assumed he was the "naturalist". I realize there is no other evidence of such a person being there. While I still think de la Pena got his identification from another source, James Crisp has convinced me that he was too careful to make such a statement on the basis of a mere rumour.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 29, 2011 23:39:47 GMT -5
What would be the percentage of Americans who would recognize Crockett by sight? Or Andrew Jackson for that matter? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I believe we're talking about a relatively small number.
Andrew Jackson? Well, of course Americans would know what their president looked like...or would they? Yes, there are portraits, lithographs, political cartoons. But how many people actually saw the 1834 lithograph by David Claypool Johnson with Henry Clay sewing Jackson's mouth shut? How many folks actually gazed at the 1824 Sully portrait? How many people had access to books with prints of Jackson in them? Whatever the number, it would be even less for the percentage of Americans who would have seen images of Crockett.
There is an assumption that Almonte might have recognized Crockett based on the fact that he (Almonte) had spent some time in New Orleans during the year 1830. Are we safe in assuming that? Perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 30, 2011 7:25:15 GMT -5
It's hard telling if he'd have been recognized by seeing him alone. There are a lot of people I've heard of, but wouldn't know if I saw them unless formally introduced. Given the lack of Internet and instant news broadcasts in 1836, I'm guessing a lot of folks -- even norte americanos -- would certainly have heard of Crockett but wouldn't necessarily know who he was even if they passed him on the street. I imagine it would have been much the same for the Mexican army. And, unless he told them or someone else in the group of captives taken before Santa Anna said anything, he would have been executed without being asked who he (or the others) were before being executed.
My point is, I can't imagine the Mexicans really could have cared who these captives were. They were just nameless enemies -- "rebels" -- and no more. No time for small talk and getting to know them.
I'm just thinking out loud, here, but I think it is possible Crockett could have been captured alive only to be executed. Possible, but not necessarily plausible for pretty much the reasons Allen and others have already mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 30, 2011 7:47:39 GMT -5
Good point. In fact, more people may have seen pictures of Crockett than of Jackson. At the height of his fame, in 1834, engravings of him taken from the de Rose portrait were sold on the street for 50 cents and, although it did not sell well, there was a portrait of him in his second book, "Tour of the North and Down East." There even was a likeness of him cast in wax and displayed in Cincinnati. And, of course, thousdands saw him in the flesh during his 1834 speaking tour. It has been suggested that Almonte, who was in the U.S. at the time, could have seen a portrait of Crockett and thus recognized him. That sounds like a stretch to me, if only because I doubt people really looked like their painted portraits (many who met Crockett expressed "disappointment" at his appearance, perhaps expecting to really see a giant wild man). I can't imagine that Crockett looked anything like his portraits after 2 weeks of siege and a brutal battle. I don't think the Mexicans would have recognized him on sight; if he was identified, it had to have been by one of the survivors or my someone from the town, and that would not have happened until after all the defenders were dead.
However, although most of the Mexicans would not have known or cared who he was, nor recognized him on sight, Santa Anna clearly knew and saw fit to mention him in his earliest report of the battle. Again, I believe he became aware of Crockett's presense in the fort from people in town, who had learned who Crockett was in the weeks preceding the siege and also that he was of some importance among the Americans. Santa Anna also asked to be shown the bodies of the ringleaders; he knew who Bowie and Travis were, but why ask to be shown Crockett's body if he didn't attach some significance to him? Or, DID he ask to see it? Is it possible that when he asked to see the ringleaders, someone like Joe or Ruiz volunteered the information that Col. Crockett was among the leaders, along with Bowie and Travis?
Let's call this the Alamo Hot Stove League!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 30, 2011 10:07:28 GMT -5
One must also consider the possibility that someone, when facing the prospect of execution, might have identified himself as Crockett hoping that he'd be spared. Maybe it was Crockett, maybe it wasn't. This idea is, however, highly speculative.
Personally, I think we've fairly well established how Crockett was identified as a survivor (through a conflation of two very early newspaper accounts), and doubt seriously that anyone on the scene recognized him as one of the victims of execution. I think that came later, after the rumor mill started.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 30, 2011 10:14:51 GMT -5
I also think this ties closely to the discussion over WHERE Crockett died, which we've discussed elsewhere. We're as tied to the idea that he died late in the battle as we are to the Fess Parker image of him swinging his rifle; he may not have been around at the end at all.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 30, 2011 14:45:28 GMT -5
I place considerable weight in Crockett's actions on the 25th: "The Hon. David Crockett was seen at all points, animating the men to do their duty." Those actions "worked" for Crockett that day, so I think it plausible that he would be doing something of a similar fashion on the 6th.
When facing extremely critical situations, we as human beings tend to act instinctively. As Allen noted, our generation tends to lock on to this notion of Crockett being one of the last to fall, and perhaps that was not the case.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Apr 30, 2011 18:20:28 GMT -5
I suppose another possibility is that Almonte thought he recognized one of the captives as Crockett and mentioned it to Dolson's informant, but wasn't sufficiently sure to say so to Santa Anna.
|
|