|
Dolson
May 19, 2007 18:26:17 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 19, 2007 18:26:17 GMT -5
If we're going to dig into DLP once again, then how can we avoid discussing the Dolson account? Who was the informant? Almonte? I know there are some opinions about this one. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 19, 2007 18:47:24 GMT -5
Post by Herb on May 19, 2007 18:47:24 GMT -5
I'm convinced that Crisp's arguments over the construction of the letter is valid. Almonte is not the informant of Dolson's letter, but Almonte is the source for Dolson's informant on Crockett - at least according to Dolson's informant!
Given when and where Dolson says the interview took place, Galveston, I believe that Dolson's informant is probably General Cos.
But, that still brings us back to authenticity, accuracy and reliability,
|
|
|
Dolson
May 19, 2007 19:08:09 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 19, 2007 19:08:09 GMT -5
I agree. The problems with clarity are more easily (and logically, IMO) explained by a printer's error than by yet another conspiracy. I think that the Cos explanation is logical as well. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 4:24:15 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 4:24:15 GMT -5
The identity of Dolson's "informant" is to some extent irrelevant because I'm not at all convinced that any Mexican officer "informed" anyone that they had executed Crockett. I firmly believe it was actually the other way around:
The first detailed accounts of the Alamo’s fall seemingly arrived in New Orleans with some passengers on the schooner Comanche and on March 28 the (New Orleans) Commercial Bulletin reported how “the battle was desperate until day-light, when only 7 men belonging to the Texian Garrison were found alive who cried for quarters, but were told there was no mercy for them; they then continued fighting until the whole were butchered.” Only after relating that Mrs Dickinson and “a negro of Col. Travis” survived, did the report go on to say that “We regret to say that Col. David Crocket, his companion Mr Benton, and Col. Bonham of South Carolina, were among the number slain.” So far so good. In this initial version although Crockett’s probable death is regretted, he is clearly not included in the seven. However next day the New Orleans True American reprinted exactly the same story with a subtle but very significant alteration:
The Mexicans fought desperately until daylight when seven only of the garrison were found alive. We regret to say that Col. David Crockett and his companion Mr. Benton, also the Col. Bonham of South Carolina, were of the number who cried for quarter but were told there was no mercy for them. They then continued fighting until the whole were butchered.
Note how this time instead of merely regretting the fact that the three were believed to be amongst those killed, they are now “of the number who cried for quarter.” Although both versions imply that the seven then fought to the death, it was widely understood they had in fact been executed; and it was the True American version which spread up the river and to points east; being reprinted for example in the Arkansas Gazette of April 12.
Now the point of this is that these reports pre-date the Texian victory at San Jacinto on April 21, and accompanied the rush of American volunteers flocking to Texas throughout April, May and beyond. This will inevitably have coloured the interviews and perhaps less formal and less gentle interrogations of Mexican prisoners that followed. The Dolson letter is cited as a confirmatory source for the Crockett execution, but did the un-named officer concerned, whether it was Almonte, Cos or anybody else, freely volunteer his personal identification of Crockett, had he heard it from someone else - or did he merely assent that if his interrogator told him one of the men he saw executed was the famous David Crockett, then it must surely be so.
We don't know and can't know because we don't have the statement in the officer's own words.
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 9:24:19 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 9:24:19 GMT -5
One question I've had is, who were these passengers on the Comanche, and how would they have been party to this information? Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 9:59:22 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 9:59:22 GMT -5
Can't name names but the original report, before it got twisted, is very clearly based on the Bergara/Barcena story which so far as I can see was pretty widely broadcast through Texas
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 10:14:49 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 10:14:49 GMT -5
That's the way I see it. The passengers were repeating something they had heard, therefore they aren't really corraborative of anything. What the episode shows is the rumours that were already about very early in the game. The story that the passengers told was then embellished by the press, like a game of telephone. I suspect that the story of Crockett being among the executed originated here, and was echoed from then on by DLP, Dolson, and everyone else. In many cases, the identification was likely prompted by the interrogator. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 10:53:16 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 10:53:16 GMT -5
That's the whole point, as I'm arguing. The first news of the fall of the Alamo was brought by Bergara and Barcena, which basically amounted to saying that the place had been stormed and everybody ("187 Americans" according to Houston) killed, and that 7 had asked for quarter before being executed.
This story, surprisingly unembellished, was taken to New Orleans, where deliberately or otherwise one editor altered it to include Crockett (and Bonham) amongst the 7 who asked for quarter.
That version of the story then gets copied from newspaper to newspaper until everybody knows it to be true - long before anybody on the Mexican side connects Crockett's name with what happened.
That's why I think arguing over the punctuation of the Dolson letter is a pretty futile exercise. That officer, whoever he might have been, was not the source of the story.
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 11:17:49 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 11:17:49 GMT -5
I think TRL hoped to dispute the veracity of the officer, who supposedly claimed to have witnessed the event rather than having reported it as secondhand information. The second newspaper report quoting the Comanche passengers is obviously tainted, and I used a comparison of the 2 reports to refute some of TRL's defense of the Perry account a couple of years ago. Like you, I don't see Dolson as corroborative of DLP, I think they're both fruit from the same poisoned tree. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 11:39:39 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 11:39:39 GMT -5
In order for Dolson to corroborate the DLP account's identification of Crockett as among the executed, Dr. Crisp made the connection that Almonte could have visually identified Crockett having possibly seen the Chapman portrait on display. I think this is the primary reason for linking the two accounts. I've mentioned to Dr. Crisp that I found this to be the weakest part of his argument...that we have no real way of knowing whether Almonte did, in fact, see this portrait, or whether or not the portrait was a good indication of what Crockett looked like after a 13 day siege. Almonte mentioned Crockett briefly in his journals much earlier, but it is only a passing and unflattering reference, seemingly based on newspaper reports of Crockett as an uncouth boor. There's no indication that Almonte ever made Crockett's aquaintance. It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but one must take a rather large leap of faith to accept the scenario. Having said that, I've always come down on the side of Crisp in his debates with TRL over the DLP and Dolson accounts. If anything, taken together the accounts verify that there were survivors and executions. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 12:54:43 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on May 20, 2007 12:54:43 GMT -5
It's been a while, but when the Crisp-Linley-Groneman debate was raging over several months and several publications, I read through them very carefully several times and, like almost everyone else, concluded that Crisp had clearly won the debate, which had not been argued particularly well by the opposing side. But, as I recall, the Bergara/Barcena story either was not even raised, or did not play a big part in the debate, which focused on de la Pena and Dolson. Much of Crisp's well-constructed argument was aimed at discrediting the arguments of his opponents. The basis of the execution reports and Crockett's name getting mixed in with them was not really part of the debate, which was over the reliability or authenticity of the de la Pena manuscript. Since a lot of the argument revolved around Linley and Groneman's claim that it is a forgery, a lot of the debate addressed that point.
Stuart's argument is perfectly sensible and often the simplest explanation is the correct one. I've also thought that Joe or Susannah Dickinson would have at least been aware of any executions, whether or not they actually saw them.
I also wonder if the 7 who asked for quarter, but were denied and then went on fighting could have been the same Tejanos who also may be among those who were beheaded. No way to know that and the numbers don't add up (weren't there around 14 beheaded?).
AW
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 13:01:27 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 13:01:27 GMT -5
I just posted under the "beheaded" thread, but I'm skeptical about the report of these bodies being found. There doesn't appear to be any corroboration for the story. Where were the bodies reinterred if they were uncovered? Why was there nothing in the press? Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 13:02:06 GMT -5
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 13:02:06 GMT -5
I also wonder if the 7 who asked for quarter, but were denied and then went on fighting could have been the same Tejanos who also may be among those who were beheaded. No way to know that and the numbers don't add up (weren't there around 14 beheaded?). AW This is actually covered in other threads but in fact there isn't a discrepancy at all. Tom Lindley pointed out that there actually appear to have been two quite distinct sets of executions. Those reported by Barcena/Bergara and a couple of other cited witnesses appear to have taken place outside the Alamo, while Mexican sources refer to 5 or 6 being killed inside the Alamo. Taking the two together we're pretty close to that estimated 13 or 14 bodies.
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 13:09:38 GMT -5
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 13:09:38 GMT -5
I don't think Lindley made that link though, between the alleged beheaded bodies and the 2 separate executions, one inside the fort and one outside. If I remember from conversations, TRL figured those executed outside the compound were probably included in one of the funeral pyres. Also, the witness who reported seeing the outside the compound executions doesn't mention beheading. Reportedly, the beheadings took place and then the bodies were moved to the north wall area for burial because the ground was softer there. There's a lot about this that isn't adding up. Jim
|
|
|
Dolson
May 20, 2007 13:11:58 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on May 20, 2007 13:11:58 GMT -5
And again I'm bothered by the lack of any mention of executions in the immediate Mexican accounts or reports.
AW
|
|