|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 10, 2010 19:12:51 GMT -5
Good catch there, Glenn, I'd forgotten Fulton. Of course, he forgot the kitchens! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 10, 2010 21:33:18 GMT -5
Well, you guys did it. I bacame so interested during the course of the afternoon with the above, I was motivated to go through the basement "library" to retrieve my copy of Hansen. I read the Ruiz statement about six times and I have come to the conclusion that it may just be possible that the Ruiz and Dickenson statements are not in conflict.
Ruiz made his statement in 1860. At that time the majority of the walls were down leaving what now remains and at least part of the low barracks. I think this is quite important. He is very specific about the location of Travis' body adding detail as to the body laying over the gun carriage, and the fact that he was shot only once in the forehead.
He is not nearly as detailed with Bowie and Crockett. Consider the following:
"Toward the west" - begs the question toward the west from where? What if his intention was to mean toward the west from the chapel? You will also note that he did not say west wall or facing west, rather the nondescript "toward the west"
He also states in a small fort opposite the city. Was he speaking of the city of 1836? If so, it is a long reach to say it but the south wall faces toward the "city" if you consider the few houses along the Alameda, and the shacks and shanties in the Plaza de Valero as being part of the city. In 1836 the only two walls that did not face populated areas were the north and east walls. If then you accept this reasoning he could have been refering to the pallisade wall covering the courtyard in front of the chapel, the entrenchment covering the main gate, the emplacement of the 18 pounder, or the small battery inside the main gate. It he was making reference to the "city" of 1860 then it fits all the more.
He is also non-specific about the Bowie room. He only states that it was one of the rooms along the south side. The low barracks was still standing in 1860. I believe it was used as a jail at one time, though perhaps that was not its 1860 use. Why then would he not state that Bowie was killed in such and such a room of the low barracks in the article, an at that time known reference point for his readers? As it is, by his statement standing alone, he feeds speculation - south side of the chapel, south side of the long barracks, south side meaning low barracks.
So what we have then is that it is possible,, and with a lot of emphasis on possible not probable or likely or lead pipe cinch, that Ruiz and Dickensen could have seen Crockett's body in the exact same place and just described its location differently. The same could be then said about the Bowie location as regards to feeding speculation.
My personal view is that Crockett was killed in the courtyard in front of the chapel perhaps trying to defend the low wall beteen that courtyard and the main plaza. A look at the 1836 plan of the Alamo makes that area look like a small fort within a fort to me.
I also think that the most likely location for Bowies death was in the low barracks, but a small part of me remains open to the possability that it was in the room at the sothwest corner of the chapel.
You may now proceed to show me the error of my rough and rowdy ways.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jul 10, 2010 22:03:35 GMT -5
Another thought. Is there any evidence to suggest that the small "fort" along the west wall was manned or intended to be manned. The painting in Nelson's "The Alamo-An Illustrated History" and Gary's work in Huffines suggest that a field piece was located directly behind or slightly offset to this earthwork. That would suggest to me that it was either never intended to be manned and was simply an effort to strengthen the gun position or block a possible entry point, or both. The effects of muzzle blast I believe preclude manning. Can't remember seeing this position in the pictures of Mark 's model.
So then, if I am correct, it would seem this to be an unlikely place to find Crockett's body
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 11, 2010 3:19:04 GMT -5
...Ruiz made his statement in 1860. At that time the majority of the walls were down leaving what now remains and at least part of the low barracks. I think this is quite important. He is very specific about the location of Travis' body adding detail as to the body laying over the gun carriage, and the fact that he was shot only once in the forehead. He is not nearly as detailed with Bowie and Crockett. Consider the following: "Toward the west" - begs the question toward the west from where? What if his intention was to mean toward the west from the chapel? You will also note that he did not say west wall or facing west, rather the nondescript "toward the west"... He is also non-specific about the Bowie room. He only states that it was one of the rooms along the south side... So what we have then is that it is possible,, and with a lot of emphasis on possible not probable or likely or lead pipe cinch, that Ruiz and Dickensen could have seen Crockett's body in the exact same place and just described its location differently. The same could be then said about the Bowie location as regards to feeding speculation... To my mind this tolerable vagueness actually supports the case for Ruiz account being an honest one. If he was making it all up he would have been a lot more specific. As I've pointed out before Ruiz never claimed to have toured the place by himself: "I with the Political Chief, Don Ramon Musquiz and other members of the Corporation, accompanied the Curate, Don Refugio de la Garza..." (Hansen:500) Than he was ordered to get the townspeople up with carts to clear the batlefield and eventually to locate the bodies of Travis, Bowie and Crockett. While he speaks in the first person when describing the search I really can't see he and Santa Anna wandering around the whole place hand in hand turning over each body until they found them. They were ordered to find the bodies. Ruiz found Travis lying across a gun - or was called over to find him. Somebody else found Crockett over to the west and somebody found or was directed to what was left of Bowie in one of the southern rooms. Ruiz may then have visited each in turn, or he may simply have been told that's where they were lying. Did Santa Anna then go round and view them as they lay, or were they dragged across and laid out at his feet in front of the church?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 11, 2010 6:59:18 GMT -5
Here's a thought: Has anyone ever considered that at the time this (or any of the accounts were recorded, that perhaps the person giving the account got their compass points mixed up? Lord knows I've done that so of thing -- said left when I meant right, east when I meant to say west. That sort if thing. We make some of this stuff as gospel, perhaps forgetting that even these people could have made an honest, human mistake.
Just a thought. I'm not saying that's the case with Ruiz or the guy who said he found Crockett over to the west. But it is possible.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 11, 2010 8:24:49 GMT -5
Yes, he was certainly vague about the location of Crockett's body, but he was very specific in many other statements, most of which turned out to be false. It reads more and more like an embellished tale of a man who wasn't there. I wrote a more detailed (and lengthy) post three years ago on this subject. Click on the link if you care to read it. It asks many hard questions. alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=41&page=9Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 11, 2010 10:18:57 GMT -5
In a recent conversation with Gary Foreman and Alan Huffines, the topic of the locations of specific bodies came up. I said at that time that the question is unanswerable. It is as if you, as, say, a police detective, are tasked with performing a crime scene examination, and then solving "who done it?" and not visiting the scene until 175 years later...Not only that, but once you DID visit the scene it had been forever obliterated by modern construction. And not only THAT, but having very few, if any, contemporaneous accounts, but had to rely on accounts of witnesses taken sometimes decades after the event. The bottom line is, there's just not enough information to draw a probable conclusion, only possible ones.... With that being the case, this question is and, barring any new accounts, always will be, a circular argument.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 11, 2010 10:40:45 GMT -5
Ruiz made his statement in 1860. At that time the majority of the walls were down leaving what now remains and at least part of the low barracks. I think this is quite important. He is very specific about the location of Travis' body adding detail as to the body laying over the gun carriage, and the fact that he was shot only once in the forehead. He is not nearly as detailed with Bowie and Crockett. Consider the following: "Toward the west" - begs the question toward the west from where? What if his intention was to mean toward the west from the chapel? You will also note that he did not say west wall or facing west, rather the nondescript "toward the west" Chuck, you touch on a problem with a number of accounts (most promiently, the Nunez account). However, I don't see that as a problem with the Ruiz account, he was a native of San Antonio, and while some will argue whether he was present or not during the battle, he very clearly knew the layout of the compound in 1836. The arguments that Ruiz really meant the courtyard west of the church, personally seem to me, to be really convoluted. To me the statement has only two possible meanings, "to the west" is either referring to Travis' body or to the Alamo compound as a whole. Again, to me this narrows, Ruiz' account to one of two specific locations either the cannon position at the NW corner, or the cannon position in the Sourthern Castenada House. I personally believe that Mark Lemon has pretty concluisivly shown in his Alamo Journal article that the Southern Castenada House cannon position was the Juana Alsbury account cannon. This is backed up by Sutherland's account of where Travis and Bowie were quartered when he left the Alamo. To me there is very strong circumstantial evidence that Crockett ended up quartered in this house also. That his probable quarters were so close to the two points that most closely fit Ruiz's description seem to be much more than coincidence. The true weaknesses in Morphis' Dickinson' story is one its date of publication - it is well after the legend of Crockett dying in front of the church had been established, and the fact that in Dickinson herslef gave different accounts of where Crockett fell. And in her one totally unembellised statement to the Texas Adjutant General she merely says Crockett was killed she believes! There is another great weakness in these accounts of Crockett dying in front of the church, that we know today, that was not known when these accounts were written. That the palisade/church area was the primary exit point for those defenders that attempted to escape to the east. Given Crockett's reported desire to march out and die in the open, its hard to see him in the courtyard and not exiting with the vast number of men that left through this point. The bottom line to me, is that the Ruiz and Dickinson accounts are totally contradictory, and there are severe problems with both of these accounts. It really comes down to who do you choose to believe. I personally, find the Ruiz/Potter story, of an a virtually anonomous death, early in the battle, near his probable quarters far more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 11, 2010 10:42:38 GMT -5
While the specific location of Crockett's body may seem vague in this particular account, I think too much is being made about where "west" was. From Ruiz's descriptions of the locations of the other bodies, it seems obvious to me that his directions are considering the layout of the fort, much like we do when we're talking about the battle. He places Travis "on the north battery of the fortress," Bowie "in one of the rooms on the south side" and Crockett "toward the west." North, south, west. The comment that seems cryptic is "small fort opposite the city," which people have guessed may have been a translation of "fortin." We have, however, two letters from Reuben Potter to editors in the 1880's clarifying this comment. Potter states unequivocally that this position was a battery on the west wall per Ruiz. Personally, given that Potter seemed as driven to understand the truth about this battle as many of us, I don't think he'd jump to that conclusion without having, at some point, spoken to Ruiz. Another explanation might be that Potter saw the original Spanish translation of this account and actually read "fortin." Either way, Potter was sure of Ruiz's description of the location of Crockett's body. And don't forget that Graham's Magazine article that, at the very least, illustrates an oral tradition that corroborates this location. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 11, 2010 10:49:25 GMT -5
Now there's an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 11, 2010 10:50:35 GMT -5
Here's a thought: Has anyone ever considered that at the time this (or any of the accounts were recorded, that perhaps the person giving the account got their compass points mixed up? Lord knows I've done that so of thing -- said left when I meant right, east when I meant to say west. That sort if thing. We make some of this stuff as gospel, perhaps forgetting that even these people could have made an honest, human mistake. Paul Paul, that's certainly a possiblity, but without some evidence of a mistake, I think we have to go with what we have. The thing I would emphasize with these accounts, is that most of these accounts that specify that Crockett was killed in front of the church, got the locations where Travis and Bowie were killed wrong. Ruiz is the only account that got the locations of Travis' and Bowie's body right, That doesn't necessarily mean that he got Crockett right, but it is evidence that he is more probably accurate than all the other ones that got the other two wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jul 11, 2010 11:08:16 GMT -5
While we will never know for sure, finding Crocketts' body anywhere near the front of the chapel is understandable after all, in that it was that area ( the pallisade) of the compound that he and the Tennessee boys were charged to defend. And even at the age of 63, Davy is still one of my heroes, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in believing that knowing women and children were in the chapel, he was going to stay there and defend and protect until his last breath. The line in the "Alamo" when Billy Bob says "That Davy feller, people are watching him", was and still is powerful. While in truth he may never have uttered those words, I believe for most of his adult life, he lived them.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 11, 2010 11:47:50 GMT -5
While we will never know for sure, finding Crocketts' body anywhere near the front of the chapel is understandable after all, in that it was that area ( the pallisade) of the compound that he and the Tennessee boys were charged to defend. And even at the age of 63, Davy is still one of my heroes, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in believing that knowing women and children were in the chapel, he was going to stay there and defend and protect until his last breath. The line in the "Alamo" when Billy Bob says "That Davy feller, people are watching him", was and still is powerful. While in truth he may never have uttered those words, I believe for most of his adult life, he lived them. The problem I have with this, Bill, is that it is unlikely the palisade was ever attacked. I have a hard time believing that Crockett would have parked himself at that position, even if it had been his original assigned post, when Mexicans were at the walls elsewhere and the defense was crumbling. I'll give you that if Crockett was one of the defenders who responded to the Morales attack on the south, he might have retreated toward the chapel area. Personally, though, I'm inclined to believe his body was found at the west wall location. I expect that he would have responded early, headed toward the action, and been among the first to fall. Just my .02. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 11, 2010 12:29:41 GMT -5
I tend to buy the notion that the only real defense thrown up in the courtyard came AFTER the walls were breached and were forcing their way towards the church. All evidence I have seen and read points to very few resources (like, maybe none) being thrown at the palisades. Certainly no wholesale assault like the masses up at the north end of the compound. Granted, Mark Lemon's new painting that was displayed at this year's HHD is an interpretation (the one showing masses of dead in front of the church, and exhausted soldiers getting their wind back after one hell of a fight) is quite believable. I'm guessing there was a last, valiant defense of this ground and it cost both sides dearly.
Interestingly, one of the dead defenders in the area cited by Mrs. Dickinson certainly looks like it could have been Crockett (but like any good artist, I'm sure Mark is leaving that one up to us individually to conclude).
But I digress ....
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 11, 2010 12:32:56 GMT -5
No argument from me on that, Paul.
|
|