|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 9, 2010 19:39:22 GMT -5
And reading back over these posts since 2007, I noticed a detail we should straighten out just for the record. Susanna Dickinson was not a teenager. She was twenty-two years old in 1836. She was born in Tennessee in 1814. Likewise, James L. Allen still gets misrepresented (not on this forum that I've noticed) as a sixteen-year-old. He was 21 and a college student. I find it ironic that one of the more literate members of the garrison -- who survived -- never wrote a word about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 9, 2010 20:02:42 GMT -5
Jim, I was aware of the fabricated aspect of the book (in fact it was covered fully in "Eyewitness to the Alamo", which I completed this morning). I didn't know that POE outed the actual writer. A magazine Poe edited published an anonymous biographical piece on Smith, which revealed Smith as the author of "Exploits" and in 1841 Poe corroborated the information in another piece. Poe has another literary connection to Crockett as well. It was through a Poe review that the writer of "Sketches and Eccentricities," the first Crockett bio, was identified as James Strange French. "Sketches" has been mis-credited to Matthew St. Clair Clarke many times over the years, an error I hope we finally put to rest in "Crockett in Congress" by reproducing the actual contract for the book, signed by French. On a related note, Poe also reviewed Crockett's "Tour" book. Panned it, by the way! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 9, 2010 20:38:36 GMT -5
Likewise, James L. Allen. . . . I find it ironic that one of the more literate members of the garrison -- who survived -- never wrote a word about it. Was Allen ever interviewed by land claims commissioners to verify who was in the Alamo? Dickinson and Rose both were, so why not him? In fact, do we have a single word about this guy after he left the Alamo? Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 9, 2010 20:43:29 GMT -5
I belive that the listing of Castrillon's atributes serves to reinforce my point, rather than detract in any way from it. He was by all accounts a excellent soldier, of great personal courage. He advised waiting to save casualties in the assault, thus preserving the force for future needs. He was also probably a throughly decent man who saw no need to slaughter for its own sake once the position had been taken.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 10, 2010 5:10:51 GMT -5
There were of course mutiple executions, rereading the Mexican Accounts there seem to be at least three different executions, that merited mention, (at least one outside the walls). More importantly when you stop and think about the wounded defenders that were "adminstered" a coup de grace, probably close to 1/2 the garrison was actually executed/murdered. This is an extremely important point and where Hollywood probably has a lot to answer for. The action commenced in poor light and was all over in a very short space of time. It will have been an extremely untidy business. There is absolutely no way in which every defender will have been killed outright during the fight itself and light will have revealed scores of wounded men scattered about both inside and outside the Alamo, who were then systematically finished off. Those "executed" were only those still capable of standing up, either because they were only lightly wounded or had survived that far without getting wounded at all. I'm a little wary of the Castrillon stories because I really don't know much about him and have this nagging suspicion that he's just being put up as a chivalric foil to Santa Anna's beastliness (good cop/bad cop). Nevertheless, there is a difference between finishing off inconveniently wounded enemy personnel and executing men who have been accepted as prisoners of war so there may well be a factual basis to the story in there somewhere. As to Crockett, its possible, but again it comes down to the old old convention that heroes don't die anonymously in the darkness and if he didn't have the common decency die dramatically then history needs to be rewritten to ensure that he did.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 10, 2010 9:29:15 GMT -5
Not exactly true. There were other accounts that placed Crockett in front of the church. There was Henderson Yoakum's 1855 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg. 693), and there was John Sutherland's 1860 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg 176).
Additionally, Reuben Potter's 1860 account placed Crockett by a room in the low barracks, although he would later revise this claim in his 1878 version after reading Ruiz's dubious account.
In regards to Ruiz, he didn't actually place Crockett along the West Wall. He simply states "toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city," which is a rather vague location.
The question of the seven survivors has always been an interesting topic. Were they all found together or did the Mexicans discover them individually? DLP simply says "some seven men had survived the general carnage" and Castrillon intervened on their behalf (Alamo Reader, pg 427).
I have difficulty believing that Mexican soldados, under orders to take no prisoners and full of blood-lust, would stop killing. Although DLP did claim some soldados were induced to take prisoners because of the white cloth or socks poking out the loopholes in the long barracks (Alamo Reader, pg 426).
One scenario I think possible has the Mexicans attempting to storm the second floor of the convento/hospital. The door, if there was one, may have been barred or barricaded with doctor Pollard and the sick/injured on the other side. Maybe Castrillon communicated with Pollard and convinced him and the others to surrender. Just another possibility to toss into the mix.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 10, 2010 10:30:49 GMT -5
Not exactly true. There were other accounts that placed Crockett in front of the church. There was Henderson Yoakum's 1855 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg. 693), and there was John Sutherland's 1860 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg 176). Additionally, Reuben Potter's 1860 account placed Crockett by a room in the low barracks, although he would later revise this claim in his 1878 version after reading Ruiz's dubious account. In regards to Ruiz, he didn't actually place Crockett along the West Wall. He simply states "toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city," which is a rather vague location. The question of the seven survivors has always been an interesting topic. Were they all found together or did the Mexicans discover them individually? DLP simply says "some seven men had survived the general carnage" and Castrillon intervened on their behalf (Alamo Reader, pg 427). I have difficulty believing that Mexican soldados, under orders to take no prisoners and full of blood-lust, would stop killing. Although DLP did claim some soldados were induced to take prisoners because of the white cloth or socks poking out the loopholes in the long barracks (Alamo Reader, pg 426). One scenario I think possible has the Mexicans attempting to storm the second floor of the convento/hospital. The door, if there was one, may have been barred or barricaded with doctor Pollard and the sick/injured on the other side. Maybe Castrillon communicated with Pollard and convinced him and the others to surrender. Just another possibility to toss into the mix. Glenn Glenn -- Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure I had read multiple -- well, a couple -- of other accounts placing DC in the area in front of the Church. Without the other cites at hand, I left it alone. One very interesting notion I picked up from "Eyewitness to the Alamo" (and one I hadn't considered before) is that many of the Alamo accounts that first appeared years or decades later -- after all but the church was pretty much gone and replaced -- appear to be built around all the action taking place in and around the only surviving building (at the time the accounts were given). Thus, for example, why there can be some lingering confusion as to what room and where was Bowie when he died. If the Low Barracks is gone, and only the church remains, are they talking about a room to the right or left of what was the main entrance (ie: in the low barracks) or are they referring to a room inside the church? Different accounts place Bowie in one or the other, and some of that might have to do with interpretation long after the outer buildings were gone. Same might be the case with Crockett, although I tend to believe Dickinson -- she knew the man by sight. Stunned or otherwise, I think she would have known him in death as well as in life. To a Mexican, many of the defenders may have looked like Crockett, or at least as they imagined him to look like. But, yes, others place Crockett's body in the area in front of the church. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 10, 2010 11:59:28 GMT -5
Potter did indeed revise his 1860 account based on Ruiz's testimony. Did he speak with Ruiz, or merely read his comments? Glenn thinks Potter read the remarks, but I tend to think he interviewed Ruiz. Why? Because Potter, in a couple of different letters to magazine editors in the 1880's, specifically states that Crockett's body was found in a west wall battery. He cites Ruiz as the source.
Potter was one of the first people who tried to get to the real story of the Alamo; to filter the truth from the ever-growing mythology. I don't think Potter just made this stuff up. I think he got the specifics from Ruiz himself at some point.
See above.
Glenn, I guess we'll continue this argument until you see the light! ;D
By the way, I'm working in Denver next week if you're feeling thirsty.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 10, 2010 15:58:21 GMT -5
Not exactly true. There were other accounts that placed Crockett in front of the church. There was Henderson Yoakum's 1855 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg. 693), and there was John Sutherland's 1860 narrative (Alamo Reader, pg 176). Glenn Actually, true, Glenn! These other accounts are not first hand accounts. In fact none of them truly even give a source for their information. In reality, not even the Ruiz account and the Morphis account are true first hand sources, but at least Dickinson and Ruiz are supposedly being quoted in them.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 10, 2010 17:23:20 GMT -5
Well, its been a while since we dragged this debate out of the closet, but that's fine, its good to air-out some of the old discussions from time to time.
Yes...I stand by my assertion that Potter and Ruiz never met. In fact, I've not seen any evidence the two ever personally communicated.
Potter wrote his revised narrative in 1878; two years after Ruiz died and eighteen years after the Texas Almanac published Ruiz's fictional account. Had the two actually met, Ruiz could have cleared up some of Potter's errors and guess-work.
For instance, the gun that Potter said was on a "high commanding position" and shooting over the center of the West Wall didn't exist. This non-existent battery is where Potter said Crockett was found. Potter even went on to "infer" (guess) that Crockett was either commanding the battery (unlikely) or was there as a sharpshooter (also unlikely). Ruiz, could have easily cleared up that little mystery.
I guess Potter should have consulted with Ruiz about the layout of the Alamo when he sketched his plan. Lot's of details Ruiz could have corrected Potter on when they had their alleged meeting.
Some believe that when Ruiz claimed Crockett was found "toward the west" he was saying west of where Travis's body was found. This belief helped to place Crockett (for some) on the West Wall. The problem with this theory is that in both of Potter's accounts Travis is placed at the northwest battery. So if Crockett was found to the west of Travis he would be outside the Alamo.
There are other little things Ruiz could have informed Potter about such as the church didn't have doors and the Alamo flag was not the 1824 flag. I could go on and on. The point is, if Potter actually had access to Ruiz then he should have asked him a lot more than "where did Davy die?"
As for Ruiz, most of you know I'm highly suspicious of the man and his mostly inaccurate story. I'm almost convinced he was not a witness to anything and his account was a fabrication.
And don't you find it a bit too coincidental that both Ruiz and Potter write an account of the Alamo in the year 1860? Could it be possible that Ruiz read Potter's narrative in the newspaper and then decided to write a tale of his own. Maybe Ruiz even lifted some information from Potter's account to make his story sound believable.
Just read (or re-read) Ruiz's story and ask yourself how a person who claimed to be an eye witness to the 13-day siege could leave out so much and get so many facts wrong. And there are questions that go beyond his brief account that have nothing to do with Tom Lindley and "Alamo Traces."
Always a fun topic to debate....as usual.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 10, 2010 17:35:15 GMT -5
Yep...you're correct Herb. Dickinson's was the only "first hand" account in regards to Crockett's location at the church. I was trying to point out that other accounts (using Dickinson and Joe as their source) existed prior to the 1874 Morphis interview. Sorry for the confusion my friend.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 10, 2010 18:24:38 GMT -5
I don't mind seeing the old discussions resurrected. There are a few of us here who weren't around this site the first time around.
I was just thinking (always a dangerous thing), how many people go the Little Bighorn battle site, see all the markers and assume that (1) those are the exact spots where those specific soldiers fell, and (2) all those soldiers are buried in those exact spots? Some maybe, but not all. What was left of many of them went into a mass grave. Fact is, when it comes to the Alamo, we have even less to rely on, especially since the bodies were all carted off and burned. Ah, to have had digital cameras and smart phones with built-in cameras back then, huh? I can see Santa Anna and his boys recording the death sites for posterity.
I still prefer Dickenson's comments, but it seems all accounts are flawed in some way. Or change over time. To me, her account makes sense, warts and all. But, what do I know know.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 10, 2010 18:37:00 GMT -5
And yet Ruiz seemingly got the locations of Travis and Bowie's bodies right. Why not Crockett's as well?
There was apparently at least an oral tradition in Bexar that put Crockett's body at that west wall location. Remember the 1851 account from Graham's Magazine that also cites the west wall as the place where Crockett met his end? This seemingly corroborates Ruiz, and Potter clarifies Ruiz, especially in his letters to editors.
Potter revised his views as he got new information, just like many of us. That shows me that he's not agenda driven, but is looking for the truth.
Admittedly, this isn't a closed case, but I'm inclined to believe that Crockett's body was indeed found at a battery along the west wall.
As for Mrs. D, her responses about Crockett vary from account to account, as you know.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 10, 2010 18:50:30 GMT -5
If you have information about Ruiz that would call his character into question (beyond Lindley's assertions which, to me, are easily refuted), I'd be interested in seeing it.
Sure, there are errors in his account, but the same goes for Dickinson and almost everyone else. I'm not advocating simply cherry picking evidence, but weighing individual comments. It's pretty evident, for example, that Mrs. D witnessed a defender named Walker or Warner being killed. She mentions it more than once, and it seems to have had an effect on her. This comment about Crockett and his hat really seems like something that was prompted by a reporter.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 10, 2010 19:05:48 GMT -5
|
|