|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 14:34:31 GMT -5
If that's right, then maybe the revulsion mentioned by some of the Mexican officers at the executions was not simply because the victims were Bexarenos. Maybe they were, as you suggest, Federalistas taking refuge from Santa Anna but they weren't combatants. This could explain the outrage, Filisola's numbers, and Travis's comment. Is it likely though, that Travis would have let them stay in the Alamo considering his comments that the locals should be considered hostile and their properties confiscated? Seems to me that Travis, especially at this point, would have considered anyone willing to take up arms in oppostion to SA, in his camp, whether or not they favored independence Jim.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 26, 2007 15:04:53 GMT -5
Stuart wrote: "Its also worth noting just how few hispanic names appear on the voting roll. At the time the voting was done there must surely have been more armed Tejanos in Bexar, yet only 3 (co-incidence?) appear on the roll."
I'm away from my references this weekend, but I'm pretty sure the the scenario went more or less as follows: the Tejano inhabitants of Bexar elected their own representatives to the Convention (including Jose Antonio Navarro and several others). Neill and his garrison, not being able to vote in their home districts, believed they had the right to elect two representatives to the Convention, so they held the election and drafted a memorial to the Convention asking that the representatives be recognized.
Thus, perhaps the absence of many Tejano names from the February (2?) voting list may be accounted for because they already had voted in the regular local election.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 26, 2007 16:40:45 GMT -5
Quite possibly, but either way I'm struck by the possible co-incidence that there only appear to be three hispanic names on the voting roll for the garrison and that Travis grumbled about only three Mexicans belonged to his garrison. They may not be the same three of course, but given the way that the Tejanos are consistently ignored in accounting of numbers, I'm still very much of the opinion that the 20 reported by Filisola weren't counted by Travis not because they came in later as part of TRL's supposed second reinforcement, but because they were Federalistas who kept aloof from Travis' American "Secesh" - which could also explain why they might have been executed and then buried rather than cremated.
I know to some extent we might be going around in circles here, but looking at the Alamo from my slightly different (Federalist) perspective, I feel that a lot of the Alamo mysteries come from the Federalistas being effectively written out of the story by American historians, and that some of the issues we're discussing - the numbers and the identities of the defenders, the executions and those bones, are all tied in together.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 26, 2007 16:49:30 GMT -5
It still seems odd to me that Travis would refuse to acknowledge 20 men who were standing with him in arms. Once faced with imminent danger, it seems to me that splitting political hairs would have been beside the point. When Travis mentions the three Mexicans who stand with him, it seems to me that it's in the context of condemning the townsfolk who either openly oppose him or refuse to take a stand. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 27, 2007 3:28:57 GMT -5
Yeah, but if so where did all those others identified as dead defenders (not non-combatants) come from. Either they were Federalistas whom Travis refused to recognise, or TRL is right...
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 27, 2007 9:39:38 GMT -5
Or Travis had men in the hospital he wasn't counting because they weren't capable of contributing to the defense... Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 27, 2007 13:33:43 GMT -5
I think you're both right. I do not believe Travis was counting any remaining, from December, hospitalized wounded, nor do I believe he was counting most of the Tejanos or even possibly some Texians who might be from Bejar. While some of the citizens of Bejar enlisted in one of the four formal forces that formed the State (until March 2) of Texas' forces, I suspect most did not and as such constituted a militia force that opposed Santa Anna. Given the known complex interactions, it is very possible that such a force could have been in the Alamo and refused to acknowledge Travis as their commander, while still serving along side the other defenders. Such an action would infuriate the hot-headed commander and lead to statements such as his letter. The second part of this, is that legalistically, these men/militia were not part of Travis's command. Remember, one of Travis's last letters he separates the reinforcements from Gonzales, technically belonging to another commander, Williamson, from the 146 men of his own command.
I truly think this militia issue is something that is being overlooked. Again, I refer to the two Smiths, Deaf and JW, they're not mentioned on rolls, etc. But both participated in December and JW, certainly played a prominent role in Feb/Mar.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 27, 2007 20:51:27 GMT -5
Maybe this belongs on another thread, but for ignorant folks like me, can someone explain the four different forces Wolf mentions? For example, some were volunteers, but not militia (Crockett, for example). Travis and Bowie agreed to share command before Bowie got sick; Travis to command the regulars and Bowie the "volunteers." Since there was no conscription, wasnt' everyone really a volunteer? Was there any real professional army in Texas (that is, professional soldiers who were career military, rather than militia, who mustered and disbanded with the ebb and flow of crises, or short-term volunteers, which is what I think Crockett was (a 90-day enlistment, I believe).
As you see, this can get awfull confusing and probably led to a lot of the indecision, conflicting orders and priorities among the key players. Throw Grant into the mix and you've got various forces hither and yon with no clear idea of a central command or, indeed, much of a command structure at all.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 28, 2007 10:15:32 GMT -5
OK, the four forces were:
The Regular Army: 2 year enlistment The Permanent Volunteers: Enlisted for the duration of the War Volunteer Auxiliary Corps: Enlisted for six months Rangers: Two specifically enlisted forces, the earlier organized by region, the latter a Ranger Battalion organized under Williamson.
Militia, were soldiers not formally enlisted in one of the above forces that turned out for an emergency and then returned home when the emergency passed - or they felt like it. True citizen soldiers.
The Alamo companies,
Forsyth's Cavalry: Regulars Blazeby's Infantry (NO Greys): Permanent Volunteers Baker's Infantry (Bowie's men from Goliad): Permanent Volunteers Carey's Artillery: Permanent Volunteers Harrison's Company: Auxiliary Volunteers Seguins Cavalry: Seguin and some men were Regulars, the rest unknown.
The Gonzales 32: Were a mixture: Kimbell was a lieutenant enlisting men into Williamson's Rangers when word reached Gonzales about the Alamo. He and some of his previously enlisted men made up part of the 32, another portion were militia that turned out and joined Cpt Martin a member of the Alamo garrison and one of Travis' first messengers.
Besides these companies there was also Neill's Staff: Maj Evans, Ordinance; Maj Jameson, Engineer; Cpt Dickinson Artillery; LT Melton, Quartermaster; Chief Surgeon Pollard; Cavalry Battalion Cdr LTC Travis; and others. Most of these men were either Regulars or Permanent Volunteers.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 28, 2007 10:32:21 GMT -5
Just Noticed Stuart's similar post in Armies, will copy the above over there and suggest that we carry this discussion on in that thread.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 18, 2008 10:25:42 GMT -5
I was just checking Huffines' Osprey book for something else, and reread his passage about the truce.
The way I understand him, is that he is stating the truce started on Feb 29th (and was proposed by the Mexicans), was supposed to last for three days, but ended, early when Travis fired on Santa Anna's HQs March 1st after the Gonzales 32 arrived.
In a way this scenario, makes sense. The Gonzales 32's arrival changed the conditions of the truce, but it's interesting to note that Huffines doesn't mention any notice being given to the Mexicans on March 1st to the ending of the truce - before the cannon shots. IF this was the case, it would be more evidence to Santa Anna that he was dealing with "pirates".
There are two problems, as Jim first mentioned there is no documentation for Huffine's reasoning - and Esparza's account is the only thing I've been able to find. The second is according to Almonte, a Mexican soldato was killed the night of Feb 29th (is this tied in somehow to the 32?).
Still if Esparza's account is true, this does seem to be a sensible scenario.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 18, 2008 12:21:00 GMT -5
There are two problems, as Jim first mentioned there is no documentation for Huffine's reasoning - and Esparza's account is the only thing I've been able to find. The second is according to Almonte, a Mexican soldato was killed the night of Feb 29th (is this tied in somehow to the 32?) The "documentation" exists, in Huffines' other book, Blood of Noble Men, and it seems to be entirely based on Enrique Esparza's accounts of Nov. 22, 1902 and May 12, 1907, where he talks about a three-day truce, in which time, among other things, Crockett "had conferences every day with Santa Anna." (A high private negotiating with the commander-in-chief of an army? Doubtful.) Why would a cease-fire have benefited Santa Anna and his army? The only reason I can think of is to negotiate with the Texans for a surrender. Wouldn't that have been worthy of notice by at least one of the Mexican scribes? Neither Almonte, Santa Anna, de la Peña, nor Filisola mentioned it. Even the San Luis Battalion journal, which is about as primary a document as it gets, says about February 29: "The siege of the Alamo continues. At 7:30 this night the enemy killed the soldier of the 1st company Secundino Alvarez, who approached the Alamo by order of the president." If there really was a cease-fire on February 29, it must have been so brief it was over before anybody much noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 18, 2008 22:44:32 GMT -5
Yeah, it's mighty thin. I want to give Esparza the benefit of the doubt on this truce, it seems like something significant that he would remember. But, there is just no way it was for three days what with all the contrary documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 18, 2008 22:48:20 GMT -5
I'm struck by the possible co-incidence that there only appear to be three hispanic names on the voting roll for the garrison and that Travis grumbled about only three Mexicans belonged to his garrison. Rereading all this, this does appear to be too coincidental - for whatever that's worth! I'd bet Jim's salery this month, that they're the same! ;D
|
|