|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 30, 2011 18:52:05 GMT -5
It's just possible that Crockett was executed, that he identified himself somehow but no one cared (until later), or that Almonte did report later that he thought he'd seen him and this was later confirmed when he learned that Crockett was one of the dead in the Alamo. He could have said something to Dolson's informant like "I thought that guy looked familiar, but he was such a mess by that time I couldn't really recognize him." All plausible.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 1, 2011 12:36:33 GMT -5
I've been on vacation so come to this one late...
I can't really add anything to the controversy as to whether or not Crockett was one of those executed other than what I and others have already said.
However, while cheerfully admitting (as ever) that I wasn't there and therefore don't know, it might be worth throwing a small spanner into the works and asking whether Santa Anna really did order the executions in person, other than perhaps in the most general sense in pre-battle orders. There's no doubt that they did occur, but I wonder if they were perhaps rather informal affairs carried out on the orders of NCOs or junior officers who wouldn't have known Crockett from a "Bar". I'm not rushing to defend Santa Anna, but there does seem to have been a pretty concerted effort by his officers to blame him personally for everything going.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 1, 2011 16:46:29 GMT -5
That's pretty much what happened at Goliad. Those executions sure took place and Santa Anna was nowhere near the place. Not defending him or excusing the barbarism, but the decree was pretty clear and officers would have known what they were expected to do.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 1, 2011 17:12:32 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! I haven't read any of the Crockett biographies before Shackleford, but suspected as much and didn't know "Exploits" was so plagiarized. Of course I've heard the accounts of Crockett killing a mound of Mexican soldiers, using his broken rifle as a club, being captured by Gen. Castrillion, but thought the description of Crockett's huge bloody Bowie knife and silvery hair made this article a little interesting and unique to me.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 1, 2011 17:22:19 GMT -5
It's a pity Castrillon didn't survive to give his account of what happened. The accounts are consistent about his role, and since he was killed soon after, it can't be a case of him trying to make himself look good or Santa Anna look bad.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 2, 2011 0:04:54 GMT -5
Some reports have Crockett's body surrounded by piles of Mexican dead; as many as 20. Let's see: the Mexicans suffered around 60 killed, total, in the battle, which would give Crockett a 1/3 share; legendary, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 2, 2011 9:56:03 GMT -5
As a very upset IMAX patron once informed me after a viewing of Alamo...The Price of Freedom (the scene where the Mexican bugler kills a Texan with a sword blow to the head) "Everyone knows it took at least five Mexicans to kill one Texan..."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 2, 2011 13:31:27 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
Moving back on thread...
I entirely agree with the suggestion that had (ex) Congressman Crockett been identified amongst the prisoners his propaganda value as a prisoner would have been both immense and instantly recognised - hence my scepticism that he was executed after being introduced. Its far more likely that he died anonymously, either in combat or at the hands of an impromtu execution squad without any intervention by either Santa Anna or Castrillon, and that the stories which emerged later only came about as the result of questions asked by American interrogators who thanks to the distortion of the Comanche story believed that he had indeed been executed and were determined to discover the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 2, 2011 13:34:49 GMT -5
It's a pity Castrillon didn't survive to give his account of what happened. The accounts are consistent about his role, and since he was killed soon after, it can't be a case of him trying to make himself look good or Santa Anna look bad. Have to disagree, partly per my two posts above. First there was obviously a concerted effort by Mexican officers to pin the blame for everything on Santa Anna, and Castrillon, being conveniently (and bravely) dead, made an obvious foil for his supposed villainy. Secondly, and following on from that, just how much do we really know about Castrillon? Was he really such a paladin, or has he just been held up as one to contrast with SA?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 2, 2011 14:13:10 GMT -5
Did being a US Congressman, or rather a former US Congressman who was not popular with the current (Jackson) Administration in Washington really hold that much weight in the early to mid-19th Century?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 2, 2011 15:35:50 GMT -5
Possibly not, except among those who knew him in Texas, which eliminates the Mexicans. He would have been far better known as a popular celebrity by that time than for his terms in office.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 2, 2011 15:49:20 GMT -5
Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 2, 2011 18:16:50 GMT -5
Secondly, and following on from that, just how much do we really know about Castrillon? Was he really such a paladin, or has he just been held up as one to contrast with SA?
[/quote] I must admit I know nothing about Castrillon other than what I've read in the eyewitness accounts, but the accounts are fairly consistent about his role in the incident, apart from the 1904 one William Zuber attributed to General Cos.
Regarding the notion that Crockett killed about 20 of the 60 Mexicans killed, I'd never thought about that. Ben said there were 16, and Joe said there were 21 killed by Crockett and his friends. Still, it seems an awfully high percentage, and rather detracts from their credibility as witnesses. Madam Candelaria's accounts of Crockett dying during the battle aren't much help either, since in 1890 she said he was one of the first to fall, then in 1899 said he was one of the last to fall.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 3, 2011 1:10:26 GMT -5
I must admit I know nothing about Castrillon other than what I've read in the eyewitness accounts, but the accounts are fairly consistent about his role in the incident, apart from the 1904 one William Zuber attributed to General Cos. They are consistent up to a point, and that point is that we don't know how "original" they are, ie; did each one of those telling the story actually see it happen, or is it just what they heard? Just because a rumor gains wide currency doesn't mean its true and the classic case of that is the evolution of the Comanche report. Now as to Castrillon, I'm comfortable with the report or reports that he died bravely at San Jacinto (though I'd like to know who recorded his supposed declaration) but other than that the only thing I know about him is his alleged chivalric behaviour as the good guy in the execution tale, and as I say knowing nothing else about the gentleman I'm not in a position to determine whether that tale is consistent and credible or whether, as I suspect, he is simply being set up as the aforementioned good guy in a pantomime to emphasise the black villainy of Santa Anna - ultimately expressed as: "We Mexicans are really OK and the Mexican Army is a proud and disciplined force which respects the laws of war and helps little old ladies across the street; we never wanted to storm of the Alamo or execute any of those prisoners but that nasty Santa Anna made us do it."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 3, 2011 7:19:08 GMT -5
Interesting discussion-I attended one conference where the speaker called Castrillion "The General Ney of the Mexican Army."
|
|