|
Post by mjbrathwaite on May 19, 2011 20:55:20 GMT -5
I think we have to be careful not to condemn Bowie for being a man of his times. We accept now that the slave trade was a bad thing, but such a view would not have found universal acceptance in the first half of the 19th Century.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on May 19, 2011 22:45:55 GMT -5
I think we have to be careful not to condemn Bowie for being a man of his times. We accept now that the slave trade was a bad thing, but such a view would not have found universal acceptance in the first half of the 19th Century. Accepting the risk of going off-topic, I would add that in the 1st half of the 19th century, a distinction was made between the concept of slavery and the slave trade. On March 3, 1807, Jefferson signed a bill “to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.” In the same month, the British House of Lords passed an Act for the Abolition of The Slave Trade.The general public found the slave trade distasteful to the point of advocating it's abolition, while concurrently accepting the economic and moral arguments for bonded servitude.
IIRC, Fannin was the target of many in Texas for his alleged involvement in the slave trade, Bowie less so; being that Fannin's involvement was in Texas proper while Bowie's activity was in Louisiana.
Going off-topic completely, the heaviest influx of African slaves came through the ports of the mid-Atlantic and New England regions, not the South.
Slavery in New York t.co/eQ7QNcQ
Perhaps it was seeing the absolute horrors of 17th and 18th century human trafficking across the Atlantic which fueled the fires of abolition, not only of the slave trade, but of the concept of slavery in general. In the same vein, perhaps those in the Southern regions were "spared" from having the same visceral experience and simply viewed the economic benefits of slavery, as well as being able to place slavery within the context of a more pastoral setting within the rural areas of the American South.
Now attempting to get back on topic, I would surmise that some of the more recent evaluations of Bowie and his character, are directly related to his prior involvement in the slave trade, rather than the fact that he was a supporter of slavery and owned slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 19, 2011 23:43:37 GMT -5
One additional point about Bowie and Lafitte's slave operation - it was illegal because, as Hiram points out, importation of slaves was illegal after 1807. So Bowie was smuggling slaves, not importing them. He also ran a scam in this regard by claiming the reward, or bounty, on his own smuggled slaves, claiming they were either runaways or illegally imported by others, which he was merely turning in for the reward. So this was a more underhanded and criminal enterprise than the mere social stigma associated with importation of slaves.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 21, 2011 13:54:15 GMT -5
I want to thank Ranger Rob for reminding me about Bonham. I had to give a presentation about the Alamo many years ago. In the Q and A, I was asked if there were any famous people other than Bowie, Crockett and Travis at the Alamo. I thought for a second and blurted out the name of James Bonham. Who's he asked some people? I said, of all the men who died there, I believe he deserves the highest recognition because, "he came back." He had to know how hopeless the situation was, yet he challenged the Mexican lines to deliver the tragic message to his friends. People might give other possible motives for his actions, but nothing changes the circumstances that he was in the clear, but chose to return. Most accounts say Bonham was part of Travis' command. If so, they were cut of the same cloth.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 22, 2011 19:55:25 GMT -5
I want to thank Ranger Rob for reminding me about Bonham. I had to give a presentation about the Alamo many years ago. In the Q and A, I was asked if there were any famous people other than Bowie, Crockett and Travis at the Alamo. I thought for a second and blurted out the name of James Bonham. Who's he asked some people? I said, of all the men who died there, I believe he deserves the highest recognition because, "he came back." He had to know how hopeless the situation was, yet he challenged the Mexican lines to deliver the tragic message to his friends. People might give other possible motives for his actions, but nothing changes the circumstances that he was in the clear, but chose to return. Most accounts say Bonham was part of Travis' command. If so, they were cut of the same cloth. I think the weights may have tipped way over toward Bonham on the nobility and chivalry scale. As you probably know, he came from a prominent South Carolina family with martial roots to the American Revolution. When the Texas conflict broke out he formed a company of soldiers and came west to join the fray. At some point he left his unit and attached himself with Sam Houston by basically saying that he needed no compensation or rank from the government or army, only service to his adopted country. Bonham was reportedly a big (6' 2'), powerful and engaging man. He would have undoubtedly been greatly rewarded if he had survived the final fight. As everyone knows, Bonham's younger brother became a South Carolina governor during the Civil War. It seems to me that among the defenders, James Butler Bonham had the most potential in politics or the army. Sadly that potential was cut short at the Alamo as if by a Bowie-like scythe. Hey, I stayed on topic. Well, not really, but I tried.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 26, 2011 17:43:25 GMT -5
Not only did Milledge Luke Bonham become one of the war time governors of South Carolina, but he had served as colonel to the 12th US Infantry in the Mexican War and a Brigadier-General in the Confederate Army. The Bonhams were related to the Brooks/Butler families of South Carolina (Milledge was voted to take the seat in Congress vacated by the death of his cousin, Preston Brooks, the man who beat Charles Summer up on the floor of Congress).
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 27, 2011 10:51:56 GMT -5
Ranger Rod and Kevin, thanks for the info on the Bonham family. I would expect there are descendents of the Bonham's living today. It seems that public service and the military were central to the family character. Is any Bonham continuing this legacy? By the way, I don't think this is too far off the Bowie Thread.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 29, 2011 18:31:42 GMT -5
The only modern Bonhams I've heard about are English drummers and actors.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 14, 2011 15:41:48 GMT -5
Getting back to the Bowie knife and John Wayne's Alamo, I noticed that Bowie himself never uses the knife until the finale where he dispatches a poor Mexican by slashing his throat. Other than that, unless you see the Director's Cut where Crockett uses Bowie's knife to impale the Emil character in the basement of the San Fernando church, the knife hardly appears. It seems that the script should have had Bowie use his knife at least once to demonstrate how lethal he was with the weapon. Instead it seemed to focus on that stupid multi-barrel rifle, I suppose to allow him more carnage with the body count. I know we all have our opinions on the faults of Wayne's Alamo, and we really don't need to point out any more. This one came to me while reading this thread and, of course, there's nothing we can do about it. Then again, it really doesn't change my opinion that in spite of its flaws, it was a rousing good picture that I continue to enjoy over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 14, 2011 18:08:50 GMT -5
Also, the "Iron Mistress" prop Bowie knife they used is legendary itself among Alamo movies. Widmark's Bowie actually does use it to stab a sleeping Mexican or two during the cattle raid, but other than that, he pretty much sticks to his multi-barelled Nock Volley Gun. Here's a link to more info on this gun (and how you can get one of your own if you have the dinero), which really did exist, although I know of no connection with Bowie or the Alamo: therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/english_arms/(789).htmThere were actually several variations of the Iron Mistress, including a rubber model used for fighting sequences, including Bowie's death scene.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 15, 2011 15:58:04 GMT -5
Thanks Allen - what a bargain at only $2150. (My wife said "maybe next year.") I should have known Wayne wouldn't display a gun that didn't exist. He was quite a gun enthusiast with an extensive collection that he used in movies from time to time. You're right about Widmark. He does draw the knife while sneaking through the misty river with Crockett's men during the cattle raid. I was too busy looking at the Flamenco dancers to notice. And he does appear to dispatch a sleeping Mexican outside his pup-tent along with the other Texans. You have en enviable attention to detail.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 15, 2011 16:13:43 GMT -5
No, Lou, just a bizarre talent for storing generally useless information!
By the way, I think Joe Musso had an article on John Wayne movie knives in one of the knife magazines ("Blade" I think).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 15, 2011 17:19:55 GMT -5
In case it hasn't been said before, Joe Musso owns the complete set of Iron Mistress prop knives. That includes the "picture knife" (the steel finely detailed one used for close-ups), an aluminum double that collapses into itself like the kids' toy we all enjoyed, and several rubber doubles -- like the one that wiggles as Widmark slips it back into his sheath after clunking the roughian with it. Several of these prop Bowie's were on exhibit in the Alamo Gift Museum for the October Gala last year, thanks to Joe and John Farkis.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 15, 2011 17:33:05 GMT -5
I thought for a second and blurted out the name of James Bonham. Who's he asked some people? I said, of all the men who died there, I believe he deserves the highest recognition because, "he came back." He had to know how hopeless the situation was, yet he challenged the Mexican lines to deliver the tragic message to his friends. People might give other possible motives for his actions, but nothing changes the circumstances that he was in the clear, but chose to return. For me, Bonham has levelled off to being a normal Alamo hero rather than a super one. Yes, he did return, but it was to deliver the encouraging word (and a letter) to Travis from Travis' good friend Williamson saying that reinforcements were actively on the road if not already there -- 660 men! I have yet to see primary evidence that shows that Bonham (or Williamson) were aware that Fannin had turned back or that nearly half of the Gonzales group of 60 never made it into the Alamo. As he sat on Powder House Hill ready to sink spur, Bonham assumed that he was about to ride into a besieged fort that was about to become un-besieged. Most accounts say Bonham was part of Travis' command. If so, they were cut of the same cloth. Bonham arrived in San Antonio de Bexar as part of Bowie's company -- and he would have carried a Bowie Knife if someone had given him one. (There, we're back on track).
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 16, 2011 17:45:50 GMT -5
I'd like to learn more about this letter to Travis from Williamson that Bonham delivered. Could someone post a link or the names of the source material for this. I keep hearing snippets about this letter and the reinforcements, but haven't been able to locate any details. Perhaps a past issue of the Alamo Journal contains the occurance, or was this subject discussed in the Forum prior to my joining. Thank for your help. Lou
|
|