|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 3, 2011 8:16:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 3, 2011 16:01:58 GMT -5
Poor Crockett - he can't get a break. Did he surrender or did one of the garrison who did surrender claim to be David Crockett of Tennessee in hopes of being spared? Since virtually every Texan with prior reputation has several stories about how they died, we'll never know.
I get the picture in my head of Santa Anna and his staff, which probably included Castrillion and the other senior officers who did not lead troops in the assault approaching the burning fort in the early dawn through the postern gate in the North wall. The carnage should have been sickening to at least some of his staff. As they inspected the grounds, they were probably praising the foot soldiers and each other on their victory. Santa Anna apparently wanted to see the bodies of the leaders who had troubled him all these days. As he proceded South to the Chapel area, five or six combatents are brought before him. The fact that they weren't discovered and killed during the last killing frenzy makes me think that the firing had stopped and the soldiers were going about their duty. They would be tending to the wounded, locating fellow soldiers, mourning the dead and forming up into their companies. To this scene, emerge five or six Texan survivors who may have been hiding in the Long Barracks or Convent area. They are marched to the nearest senir officer, Castrillion, and one claims to be David Crockett. At this news, they are marched to Santa Anna where they are either shot, bayonetted, or as some say, killed with swords by the officers who did not participate in the assult. The last action is probably too dramatic.
Anyway, it's just a thought I've had over the years. It might be plausible, or it might be full of holes. Which, of course, is why I love this site and spend so many hours on it. Please be sure to honor your Mothers this Sunday. Lou
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 3, 2011 17:26:11 GMT -5
That's pretty much the image I have, except I don't think Castrillon was with Santa Anna when he found the survivors, or that one claimed to be Crockett in Santa Anna's presence, although he may have told Castrillon. I suspect that if Castrillon knew one was Crockett, Santa Anna didn't give him the chance to say so. Also, I imagine Almonte thinking he recognized Crockett and muttering something to that effect to another officer, probably General Cos, but either not being sufficiently sure to mention it to Santa Anna, or deciding discretion was the better part of valour and not interrupting Santa Anna while he was angry. I don't claim any of this is what really happened, and still consider it possible that Crockett died in the battle. The most realistic account of that, I think, is Madam Candelaria's 1890 one, but am not sure how much weight to put on that since she later contradicted it, and we can't even be sure she was there.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 4, 2011 1:18:23 GMT -5
Its certainly the image which has been generally accepted by all but the the "De La Pena is a fake" camp, but as discussed above there are real problems with it, such as how Crockett was identified and by who and why having bagged a well-known former US congressman they carelessly went and shot him instead of parading him through the streets of Mexico City - which is why I stick by reckoning that he died anonymously either in battle or afterwards, and that the Mexican officers who wrote of him being shot on Santa Anna's direct orders were only elaborating on what their American captors told them.
The big point to bear in mind is that thanks to the inflamatory editorial alterations to the Comanche report, the Americans "knew" that Crockett had been executed long before any eyewitness accounts emerged
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 5, 2011 17:02:48 GMT -5
You're right of course, and I'm certainly not saying it's a definitive version of what happened, or that Crockett's execution is an established fact, but I still think it's possible that he was executed because no-one had the nerve to interrupt Santa Anna and identify Crockett to him when he was in a rage. Maybe it happened so fast that before Almonte had a chance to say anything Crockett had been killed, making it pointless to tell Santa Anna who he was.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 5, 2011 18:39:16 GMT -5
For some reason -- and based on nothing else but gut instinct and Mrs. Dickenson's observations as she left the church (flawed or not) -- is that he fell in battle. It's not that I prefer it as so; it really doesn't matter to me whether he fell in battle or was executed after surrendering. I just think he was taken down during the fight.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 5, 2011 18:40:52 GMT -5
My mind tells me either version of Crockett's death are plausible and ultimately unknowable.
However, my heart sees him at his post, swinging Old Betsy, ala Disney. Please forgive this old romantic. But by golly, that's the way it should have happened!
Lou ("Give em what for Davy")
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 5, 2011 20:27:12 GMT -5
You're quite right about the manner of Crockett's death being unknowable, but I never get tired of discussing it. The first "eyewitness" account I saw, and until a few years ago the only one, was the one supposedly by Santa Anna that appeared in "Men's Illustrated", although I found it in a rather more reputable publication. I was 12 at the time, and assumed it was factual until about seven years later, when I learned that it wasn't the only version. Accordingly, from a young age I was open to the possibility that Crockett survived the battle, although I don't claim to know whether he did so or not. I place a lot of weight on Susanna Dickenson's claim to have seen his body in the chapel courtyard, but I'm not entirely sure she didn't see it after the executions.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on May 6, 2011 8:11:59 GMT -5
In reference to Dickinson's account (Morphis 1875), she mentions seeing Crockett's body after being led out of the church, moments after Walker was killed in front of her. If we are to believe her description, then Crockett was dead before the compound was secured and before Santa Anna entered the area. This account has some inherent problems in terms of its usefulness in establishing material facts about the siege and battle. It's a source, to be sure, but not a particularly solid one.
The public in general holds in their minds a general fascination with Crockett, and in particular, the circumstances surrounding his demise. Questions come up every day on the subject, and depending who they talk to, they can get different answers from members of the Education Department.
Some may be surprised that there's not an "official position" held by the DRT on this and other points of history. The only "official position" is held by Bruce Winders, and that position is to be as factual as possible and be able to "footnote" whatever information you're relaying. You can talk to a member of the Education Department and they will tell you that the Alamo garrison numbered 250+ and you can walk across the Shrine and talk to someone else who will tell you the number was closer to 200.
Personally, I don't believe there is enough solid information to say with any certainty what happened to Crockett on March 6, other than his life ended; but for now at least, I lean towards Crockett falling in battle.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on May 6, 2011 21:29:42 GMT -5
I have seen other posts that stated the belief that Crockett was killed early on in the final siege. If Dickinsons recollection of seeing Crocketts' body in the courtyard near the church is factual,( and by most accounts it would be late in the battle when the fighting neared this location), how would it be that his slain body was identified near the church. I too am one of those who doesn't care where or how he died. He chose to stay and fight along with all the others, so to me he was a helluva man, They all were.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on May 6, 2011 21:41:53 GMT -5
Excuse me fellas, I just read my post and even I don't understand what I said, so I'll try again. For those who believe that Crockett died early in the final siege (when the heavy struggle was away from the church area), how do they explain his body being identified in the area near the church.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 7, 2011 6:31:18 GMT -5
Well, one of my more knowledgeable colleagues can correct me if I'm astray, here, but I recall reading and hearing about some suspicions that Crockett did not necessarily hang around the area by the stockade, but may have been elsewhere, near where the fighting was taking place during the onset of the final assault. In my opinion, most of us get locked into the notion of Crockett manning a position in charge of his "Tennessee boys" at the stockade between the church and Low Barracks, because of the movies. Certainly, if he did that, you'd expect to see his body somewhere in front of the church. But if he didn't -- if he fought where the fighting was thickest early on (and where the greatest nneed for defenders was at that stage) -- he COULD have fallen elsewhere, perhaps overrun by the Mexicans who were flooding into the plaza from the North Wall.
But you are right in saying this is all "what if" speculation. The only known facts are that Crockett was at the Alamo and that he died there. How and where really doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change the final outcome.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 7, 2011 9:12:27 GMT -5
Excuse me fellas, I just read my post and even I don't understand what I said, so I'll try again. For those who believe that Crockett died early in the final siege (when the heavy struggle was away from the church area), how do they explain his body being identified in the area near the church. Bill, other accounts (Ruiz) put Crockett's body elsewhere (on the west wall by my interpretation, but that's another discussion). All of the accounts are problematic to some degree. With Ruiz, we don't have the original language, with Dickinson, the remarks were made much later in life and probably after considerable prompting. The church area is bolstered a bit by a comment made by Sutherland that Crockett was assigned to the palisade, but that information isn't corroborated by another source (and even Travis mentioned that Crockett was seen "at all points" during an earlier action), and I doubt the palisade was even attacked during the March 6 assault (again, another discussion). Fact is, we don't know where Crockett's body was found. As far as I know, Bowie's is the only body that has been located with any degree of certainty. Even the location of Travis's body is open to some debate (north or northwest?). Jim
|
|
|
Post by ronald on May 7, 2011 14:16:29 GMT -5
I have always believed that the execution of Crockett was played up by the Texans to make Americans mad enough to send money or come help them fight. A lot of the first news paper accounts said he was killed in cold blood after being able to surrender, and after his book was published the story grew.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 8, 2011 18:52:35 GMT -5
It seems the only death location we can be reasonably sure of is Travis, since his surviving man-servant Joe says he died at the North wall. Crockett is assumed to have remained with his Tennessee boys at the Southern stockade and was overwelmed there. But, as Travis reported, Crockett seemed to go where he was needed. Does that mean he may have been part of the North wall defense and was either killed there or retreated to the Long barracks or Chapel? Any number of plausible opinions could be valid. Lately, I've read a number of opinions that locate Bowie in a room in the low barracks for 12 days of the siege, but then moved to one of the stronger Chapel rooms when the attack seemed immanent. (I must confess I like that opinion because those rooms still exist on either side of the door and I stood in them and let my emotions take hold.) But we just don't know.
Last week as we celebrated the death of Osama Bin Laden, we found many reports were pre-mature and certain details were found to need rivision. It may be some time before we get an accurate account of what actually happened minute by minute. So far, we know Osama is dead by gunshot wounds. The rest is still subject to the "fog of war." For now, the media will piece together what is known and versions will differ between Time, Newsweek and hundreds of other media outlets. If this is how things play out in 2011, it's amazing we can really be sure of anything in 1836. Again, being prone to the dramatic, I mostly agree with the last words sung by the chorale at the end of Wayne's Alamo. "Once they fought to give us freedom, that is all we need to know..." That does not mean we should ever give up trying to learn the truth of this or any other historical event. Perish the thought! It's just a call for patience and understanding while we try to peel the artichoke of history while enjoying the journey. Hope you all wished your Mothers a Happy Mother's Day.
|
|