|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 11, 2010 13:08:32 GMT -5
I've just dealved through all the posts of the last few days, hoping to not find the word "fortin" so I could espouse my pet theory about the translation to "small fort" if I didn't find it. Well, I did find it. Anyway, my position is that I feel relatively confident with the Ruiz account -- where the location of the Trinity is concerned. This is, of course, assuming that there were no alterations in the order of details by Quintero. Recall that Hansen also has a sworn statement of Ruiz less than a year later stating that "...Gen. San Anna sent for affiant [Ruiz], Don Ramon Musquiz and others to identify the bodies of Travis, Bowie and Crockett which was done." Also, in his 1860 Almanac account he does say that "He [Santa Anna] directed me to call on some of the neighbors to come up with carts to carry the dead to the Cemetery, and also to accompany him, as he was desirous to have Col. Travis, Bowie, and Crockett shown to him." Italics mine. I take this to mean that he and his companions actually did go "hand-in-hand" (as Stuart colorfully puts it) around the plaza with Santa Anna, and thus we are reading a literal order of events at this point in the account. That said -- and without attempting to disassemble his comments for ulterior meaning and error -- I hear the man saying that they came upon Travis first "on the north battery of the fortress" (not to be confused with the northwest battery). Then the searchers walked "to the west" and found Crockett's body (and I suggest the following Spanish original) " en el fortin en frente de la ciudad." This would be the northwest battery. "Opposite the city" could be as opposed to "opposite Powder House Hill." Thus, I disagree with the point about vagueness of these two locations. A possible explanation for the true vagueness of his Bowie location could be that, in this case, he did not actually go there and find Bowie himself, but rather got the information from somebody else while they were still on the north end of the fort. Thus his reference to "one of the rooms of the south side." With the battle raging on the north half of the fort and only a smattering of shooting at the south end, why on earth would Crockett still be at the palisade or even in the cemetery court? He would probably be at the north end "animating the men to do there duty." Guarding the women in the church doesn't hold water. Some of the women and children were in the southern Castaneda house at the north end and perhaps elsewhere. I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for Susanna's Morphi-embellished, early Davy Crockett Craze, 1874 comment.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Jul 11, 2010 13:48:39 GMT -5
I did not mean to imply that Davy stayed at his assigned post and waited for the fight to come to him. It is written that he was seen at various times and stations encouraging his fellow combatants and giving the mexicans what fer.The flow of the battle was headed towards the church area near the end, and If he were still physically able, I think he would have fallen back to that area. Do I remember correctly that Susanna Dickenson reported Davy entering the chapel at some point in the final moments to pray and get right with God. Since he didn't do this at what would have been more convenient and at least" less" stressful times in the previous 12 days of the battle, and especially when the outcome was very predictable, I think this too may be a factor in what area he spent his last moments. Again, and as always, that is assuming Susannas' story is true.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 11, 2010 17:12:55 GMT -5
All certainly plausible, but my suspicion (although probably momentary ) is that his *post* by the predawn hours of March 6 was at the northwest corner and thus he could have been killed in an early stage of the fighting like Travis before the necessity of falling back took over. Anyway, it's worthy of consideration.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jul 11, 2010 20:54:50 GMT -5
I'm wondering what others make of Maria Jesus Pena's account of having seen some men executed from a jacal facing the chapel courtyard. Having a lack of knowledge of the geography of the Alamo beyond its basic outline, I'm not sure exactly where this jacal was. From her account it sounds like it was within the walls of the Alamo. Is this plausible? She said she saw Santa Anna enter the plaza and then saw the executions. If she was outside of the Alamo, was there perhaps a breach in the walls through which she could see, or does her account make no sense at all? The only other possibility seems that the person who recorded her account got the chronology wrong and that she said she saw the executions outside the wall before Santa Anna entered the plaza. MJB
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 11, 2010 23:22:49 GMT -5
Only addressing the probable location of her jacal, it seems a far reach that she could have seen anything within the fort. The note in the Gentilz papers (Jensen, p. 520) suggests that the jacal was along the west side of Plaza de Valero. These huts would have been in a line to the south from the southwest corner of the fort -- like an extension of the west wall. This would place the jacal "on the west side in front of the church."
Problem is these huts were most likely all torched by the defenders after the attack of February 25. The only building that might still have been out there in that area was the two-room stone structure that was one of the mission indian quarters originally and not enclosed by the wall, but the account clearly refers to it as a jacal and not a stone building. Even if there was a hut still out there, the viewing angle would have been such that she couldn't have even seen in through the gate. All she would have seen, if relatively close to the fort, would have been the high south wall and the even higher south side of the church. Even the palisade courtyard would have been totally cut off from her view due to the 45 degree angle of the palisade stockade unless her hut was so far to the south in that line of buildings that it could not then be said to be "in front of the church."
On the other hand, we are dealing with how people then thought of their surroundings and what the coloquialisms were. "In front of the church" may be a very general description meaning anywhere south of the mission -- on either side of Plaza de Valero. I have seen other references from local Bexarenos that call the south wall the front of the Alamo, since that was what they came directly to when approaching from Bexar along Alamo Street. I have also heard of the whole mission referred to as "the church." Now, IF this were so and IF her house were on the east side of the plaza instead of the west and IF the palisade were as low as we used to think it was before we came to the conclusion that it was built correctly according to the book, then she could probably have seen over it into the courtyard -- and had the exact angle of view depicted in Gentilz' painting "Death of Dickinson" which was most likely influenced by this note. I'm just saying IF IF IF. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 11, 2010 23:30:52 GMT -5
Further regarding this coloquial way of referring to things, in Brackettville, local Hispanics refer to "going to the Alamo" rather than "going to Alamo Village." I truly think that if somebody asked them what the Alamo is (referring to the real shrine), they would say, "That tourist place on Rte. 674." lol.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 12, 2010 7:51:32 GMT -5
The Antonio Cruz/María Jesusa Peña Cruz y Arocha account, published in Timothy M. Matovina, The Alamo Remembered: Tejano Accounts and Perspectives, and reprinted in Todd Hansen, The Alamo Reader, says three things about specific locations:
(1) On the night Juan Sequin departed on his courier mission, Antonio Cruz waited for him with a horse from "the jacal [on the] west side in front of the church."
(2) "Cruz lived in one of the jacales in the vicinity of the place of San [Antonio de] Valero."
(3) "His wife Doña María Jesusa Peña, could see by a small window all or a good part of what happened."
We don't know that the "jacal" mentioned in (1) was the same as the Cruz domicile in (2), or, for that matter, that Doña María was actually situated in her own domicile when she claimed to have witnessed the executions through the "small window." Assuming Gentilz correctly transcribed his original interview and that the translation from the French was accurate, it seems more likely that the "jacal" in (1) was a structure within the Alamo perimeter used for stabling. Pending positive evidence for the location of the Cruz domicile described in (2), it could have been on the south side of the Plaza de Valero, or in La Villita, or across the river toward town, or . . . ? Finally, the implication in the account seems to be that Doña María witnessed the battle and executions from the domicile mentioned in (2), but perhaps that is a wrong assumption. It's possible she witnessed these actions from some other residence. Some Bexareños residing near (and not so near) the Alamo moved or were forcibly removed during the siege. (The Delgados were an example: see Hansen, 533.)
|
|
|
Post by jesswald on Jul 12, 2010 10:10:46 GMT -5
I have a question which may relate to the development of the Alamo mythology touched upon (but not adequately explicated) by Tucker in Exodus from the Alamo. Where did Richard Penn Smith get the idea that Castrillon brought Crockett and others as prisoners to Santa Anna, who then ordered them executed? Doesn't this sound awfully similar to De la Pena's account? Did Smith have access to that? The idea that Crockett surrendered seems to be a shibboleth in some quarters nowadays. Look at all the ink that has been spilled arguing about it. But Smith was celebrating Crockett's heroic character, among other reasons in order to sell his book. Hence his presumably fictitious description of Crockett's fearless defiance of Santa Anna. So back in 1836 or 1837 or so, when Smith was crafting his book, Crockett's heroisim did not necessitate his having gone down fighting at his post. It was okay if he surrendered when resistance was futile, as long as he didn't grovel. When and why did this notion change? Jesse Waldinger
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 12, 2010 15:18:06 GMT -5
Question I've asked myself in the past and if you look at the literature there seems to have been a pretty general acceptance that Crockett was executed in the aftermath of the battle (not that that necessarily makes it so), but it seems to have only been after Walt Disney's version that an almost mystical belief intruded that he couldn't possibly have taken prisoner and that any suggestion he surrendered ranks as heresy.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 12, 2010 16:06:48 GMT -5
Question I've asked myself in the past and if you look at the literature there seems to have been a pretty general acceptance that Crockett was executed in the aftermath of the battle (not that that necessarily makes it so), but it seems to have only been after Walt Disney's version that an almost mystical belief intruded that he couldn't possibly have taken prisoner and that any suggestion he surrendered ranks as heresy. I think it may go further back than that-at least in film. None of the Alamo films, with the possible exception of Heroes of the Alamo, show Crockett being executed. He is always fighting. Davy Crockett at the Fall of the Alamo even has a drawn out fist fight ending-and more importanly the little child on grandfather's knee who asks, "And they did not surrender?" to which Grandfather looks into the camera and says "No-because they were Americans!" (of course in title cards). Heroes finds a crawling wounded Crockett being noticed by Santa Ana who orders "Kill that!" and a sing soldado does the job. So-fighting Davy is pretty much in the movie goers mind before Walt takes his shot. Still, I would strongly agree, that the Disney swinging Davy was such a strong image that it cancelled out all of the years of executed Davy...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 12, 2010 19:38:40 GMT -5
I've never actually thought about it, but I wonder if Penn Smith actually was the start of that image. His book was rushed into publication to capitalize on Crockett's death.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jul 13, 2010 8:52:42 GMT -5
While I don’t always hold with the truth of such documents I was struck with this one for a few of reasons. 1) How quickly it was published after the event. 2) That this is an English publication. 3) How closely it parallels the la Pena Document.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 13, 2010 9:35:43 GMT -5
My guess is that Smith embellished some early news reports about executions at the Alamo. News stories typically mentioned that Crockett died there, and the two things sometimes became confused so that Crockett became one of the executed. DLP did not surface until the 1950s and it's highly unlikely that Smith (or anyone else) heard of it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jul 13, 2010 15:42:40 GMT -5
True, but what about the other way around? DLP read Smith?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Jul 13, 2010 15:51:43 GMT -5
I have a question which may relate to the development of the Alamo mythology touched upon (but not adequately explicated) by Tucker in Exodus from the Alamo. Where did Richard Penn Smith get the idea that Castrillon brought Crockett and others as prisoners to Santa Anna, who then ordered them executed? Doesn't this sound awfully similar to De la Pena's account? Did Smith have access to that? The idea that Crockett surrendered seems to be a shibboleth in some quarters nowadays. Look at all the ink that has been spilled arguing about it. But Smith was celebrating Crockett's heroic character, among other reasons in order to sell his book. Hence his presumably fictitious description of Crockett's fearless defiance of Santa Anna. So back in 1836 or 1837 or so, when Smith was crafting his book, Crockett's heroisim did not necessitate his having gone down fighting at his post. It was okay if he surrendered when resistance was futile, as long as he didn't grovel. When and why did this notion change? Jesse Waldinger In a nutshell, the Castrillon/Crockett execution account first appeared in a summer 1836 newspaper account, readily available to Penn Smith, as were so many other accounts of the Texas Revolution that he incorporated into his bogus Crockett "Journal." Other newspaper accounts ran the gamut of Crockett deaths: suicide, surrender and execution, and fighting to the death after leaving around him a pile of 12 to 20 dead Mexicans. Take your pick!
|
|