|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 18, 2011 17:07:22 GMT -5
Reinforcements "diminished by desertion" from sixty-two to thirty-two? That's interesting in light of the Williamson letter. Also has implications for the "second reinforcement" theory and estimate of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Manuel on Jul 18, 2011 18:42:13 GMT -5
Wasn't there a section on Allen in the book, Alamo Legacy, by author Ron Jackson I do beleive Allen died in 1901
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 18, 2011 20:52:55 GMT -5
Reinforcements "diminished by desertion" from sixty-two to thirty-two? That's interesting in light of the Williamson letter. Also has implications for the "second reinforcement" theory and estimate of numbers. Exactly. I've always believed that the Gonzalez 32 were the remnants of the "Williamson 60."
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 19, 2011 12:05:52 GMT -5
quote author=loucapitano board=alamohistory thread=1290 post=18515 time=1311022971]Hey guys, please fill me in. Where were there 660 men anywhere near the Alamo on March 3rd? They certainly weren't with Houston who was out with the Indians. Gonzales could only send 32 exceptionally brave volunteers. The only other substantial force was at Goliad and it was clear to Travis they were not coming. [/quote]
I believe the 660 is an error - the Williamson letter (Hansen, p 601) believed to have been carried in by Bonham to Travis is the basic source of this information.
The original letter has not been located, all we have is an English translation of the Spanish translation of the original - and Santa Anna's cover letter saying this (and other documents) had been captured with the fall of the Alamo.
The letter dtd March 1st, says that 60 men had departed Gonzales and should already be with Travis. It also says that Fannin was on the march to relieve the Alamo with 300 men and four cannon (in fact according to John Brooks, Fannin's Adjutant the force consisted of 450 men and four cannon).
The Sutherland notes (Hansen, pp. 165 - 184) Says there were indeed a larger number that departed Gonzales, however, somewhere they divided in two parties. Smith and Martin with the 32 rode to the Cibola Crossing on the San Antonio/Gonzales road and then into the Alamo. Sutherland and the party he rode with went to the Cibola Crossing on the San Antonio/Goliad road, where they planned on linking up with Seguin and the new company he was raising, Cpt Chenoweth's mounted company (from Fannin) already operating in the area, and Fannin's main body, advancing supposedly from Goliad.
According to Sutherland, Seguin and probably Chenoweth, and the Gonzales men waited for Fannin until March 2 - when they gave up on Fannin and returned to Gonzales.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 20, 2011 9:30:46 GMT -5
Making some sense here Herb.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 20, 2011 9:56:06 GMT -5
It's one thing to accept one's fate and remain in the Alamo, it's even more remarkable that some would ride back in once outside the walls. That speaks a lot to the unselfishness of the couriers who could have lived another day, but rode back to knowingly face certain death. True unsung heroes, if you ask me.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 28, 2011 11:06:31 GMT -5
Seguin's departure and movements after he departed the Alamo tend to be a bit confusing.
For starters, most all of the books I've read claim Seguin and Arocha encountered a Mexican patrol after they left the Alamo on the 25th. As the story goes, the pair bluffed their way past the sentinels, then suddenly spurred their horses and made good their escape. However, I've not seen any documentation that supports this. Was this something that actually occurred or is just a matter of creative story telling that has been past on?
~Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 28, 2011 15:46:41 GMT -5
Huffines' Blood of Noble Men:60 usefully pastes everything relating to his escape on the same page.
In one version Seguin claimed that he left the Alamo accompanied by his orderly Antonio Cruz, but another suggests that Cruz was waiting for him outside with a horse - both are at least agreed that Seguin crawled out stealthily rather than galloped out.
The escape on horseback (Bowie's) and bluffing his way past the sentries comes from the ever reliable Esparza.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jul 28, 2011 16:02:57 GMT -5
Herb - if I understand you correctly, the 660 men in the Williamson letter was a misinterpretation of the Spainish translation Santa Anna reported after the battle. It's not too far a stretch for 60 men to become 660, especially if their handwriting was as atrocious as mine. So about 60 men started out from Gonzales, but only 32 reached the Alamo. God Bless Them.
As for the other 30, I'd like to think they eventually joined up with Houston. Maybe there is some indication of that on the record. It's pretty certain they didn't hang around too long and joined in the "runaway scrape."
As far as Seguin - I've read a number of sources that tell the story of his encounter with the Mexican patrol. It may have gotten a little more dramatic in the retelling, but there's no reason to question Seguin. Mexican patrols were certainly on duty. Seguin's knowledge of the language may have surprised the sentinals who did not expect to be answered in their own language long enough to make the escape. In this case, I say: "Print the legend."
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 28, 2011 18:41:09 GMT -5
No, sorry for the confusion, 60 some men had left Gonzales, before Williamson wrote his letter, when he wrote it he did not know Fannin had turned back. With Fannin's men (near 600 total, but he left a portion at Ft Defiance), seguin's new company, Chenoweth's men, Williamson probably genuinely concluded that 660 men were indeed already in the Alamo, or enroute.
Minus Fannin's men, it appears that most of these men did muster into Houston's army. The second group of Gonzales men, made up the core of the second reinforcement that JW Smith led, that departed Gonzales on March 6th and returned at the same time as Mrs Dickinson.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 29, 2011 8:32:25 GMT -5
Actually, Reuben Potter's 1878 narrative is the source for both claims. Potter received a lot of input from Seguin for his updated account. So it would appear, in addition to Esparza, Seguin himself was a source for the Bowie horse as well as the encounter with the Mexican patrol.
I do have another Seguin question that is puzzling. Did he ride to Goliad or to Gonzales? In two accounts (1858 and 1887), Seguin says Travis sent him to Goliad with a message for Fannin. Probably a request for aid. However, in another account (1890) Seguin says he was sent directly to Gonzales where he and Arocha met with Sam Houston.
Some writers have him riding straight to Gonzales, while others have him going to Goliad.
I feel he went to Goliad first and then went on to Gonzales, but I can't be sure. Seguin's memory may have been a bit fuzzy at the time the accounts were written.
Anyone have a good grasp on Seguin's ride as courier?
~Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 29, 2011 10:11:43 GMT -5
Glenn, in the AJ article I wrote I used the Gonzales account, however, the account I now find most credible is the one where he said he rode toward Goliad and gave the dispatches to someone else (the name escapes me) who took it on to Goliad.
I've reached this conclusion based on time and distances. There just isn't enough time, imo, to have ridden to Gonzales, delivered the dispatches, ride to recruit part of his new company and return to Gonzales with Sutherland.
As you well know, we tend to forget travel times for even express riders, and that we're talking days not hours for all these movements (and the transfer of letters/messages and information).
BTW, according to Moore, iirc, Seguin's assembled about 14 men , before returning to Gonzales, the rest of his company enlisted there (about 15 men, many who had fled Bexar, when Santa Anna arrived).
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 29, 2011 15:08:58 GMT -5
Thanks Herb for the info. When did you write the article for AJ? I have a stack of them, but I can't recall which year/quarter you wrote it.
Another Seguin question for you. Juan says he was on his way to Goliad when he crossed paths with DeSauque at the Cibolo. As the story goes, DeSauque, who was foraging for Fannin, told Seguin that Fannin was on his way to the Alamo. Seguin then sent a message to Fannin telling him to hurry to the Alamo. Seguin then says that Fannin replied to him through Lt. Finley with a message, telling him that he turned around and went back to Goliad. Seguin then says he went on the Gonzales to join Houston.
Here's the wrinkle. John Sutherland says he, Alsbury, and ten others joined Seguin and 24 Tejanos on the morning of February 28, and the group then rode to the Cibolo to wait for Fannin who never showed up.
You can probably see where I'm going with this. If Seguin knew that Fannin wasn't going to the Alamo, why didn't he tell anyone about it? Up until March 1, when Bonham stopped in Gonzales, everyone believed Fannin was well on his way to Bexar.
I've been trying to reconcile Sutherland's account with Seguin's and it's giving me a headache.
Do you have anymore helpful insight?
~Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 29, 2011 16:25:19 GMT -5
Glenn, I think the problem is we assume that Fannin promptly notified everybody the moment he turned back. Given Fannin's history ( and the date of Williamson's letter) the time it took couriers to travel Gonzales probably didn't receive the news until Mar 2d. If that is the case, Seguin, Sutherland, and all, on the Cibola, may have learned it on the 1st, and returned to Gonzales the next morning.
Despite all the apparent contradictions, between the two (and each of their own contradictions with their other writings) the accounts to me seem to agree in the major details. Good topic for Ernie's.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 30, 2011 8:15:38 GMT -5
There seems to be a little confusion as to when Benjamin Highsmith rode to Goliad. What is your take on it?
~Glenn
|
|