|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 1, 2008 19:20:21 GMT -5
Esparza's story seems to be two stories in one. What he witnessed and what he assembled in later years from others to tell the complete story. I tend to believe him more when he is describing seeing his father after he was killed and his first sight of Santa Anna than I do when he talks about how the Mexicans attacked. Seeing Juana Melton drawing circles in the dirt with her umbrella is a keeper for me. Jim Bowie's death is not.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 2, 2008 15:21:31 GMT -5
Esparza's story seems to be two stories in one. What he witnessed and what he assembled in later years from others to tell the complete story. I tend to believe him more when he is describing seeing his father after he was killed and his first sight of Santa Anna than I do when he talks about how the Mexicans attacked. Seeing Juana Melton drawing circles in the dirt with her umbrella is a keeper for me. Jim Bowie's death is not. I concur with Rich regarding the probability of Enrique Esparza combining his 1836 recollections with his post-1836 conversations when he described the Siege and Battle of the Alamo. Still, there is something majestic about his reply when he was asked if he remembered the Alamo: You ask me if I remember it. I tell you yes. It is burned into my brain and indelibly seared there. Neither age nor infirmity could make me forget.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 2, 2008 18:01:14 GMT -5
There's no question that living through something like the Alamo would be burned into one's brain for life. I can remember far, far less traumatic incidents from my childhood, which I can still "see" as if they happened yesterday. So I, too, agree with Rich. And I think the same can be said of Dickinson's varying accounts. They all saw or heard some things that they clearly remembered for the rest of their lives. But they also heard things from others in the aftermath that became incorporated in their own accounts. And, as several people have pointed out a numbe of times, these accounts are largely not direct, verbatim testimony, but written by others who interviewed the survivors and may even have influenced what they said, or simply altered it in print.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 2, 2008 23:49:01 GMT -5
So, I believe Esparza when he is saying something that sounds like it came from the "indelibly seared" part of his brain. Hope I'm right.
Another factor, however, enters into the mixture. How that "indelibly seared" memory might change over the years. I believe it was while talking to Farkis recently that I pointed out how some of his findings about Happy Shahan and Alamo Village differ from what Happy told me. This didn't surprise me, because Happy knew how to make a story better in the retelling. What did surprise me was that, once in a while, John would uncover something that I myself had said twenty years ago, and I would realize how differently I tell the same detail today. Am I lying? Was it accurate then? Hey, I retell the Alamo Village/Happy Shahan/John Wayne story daily on Front Street, and I too am a colorizer -- unless I'm trying very hard to be accurate -- or unless Farkis has his d**n pocket recorder turned on!
So I would expect that old Enrique's story did get more colorful by 1901-1911 -- even the personally witnessed details. The facts may be not exactly as he lays them down, but the truth is still there.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 3, 2008 8:53:58 GMT -5
There are two of other women mentioned as being in the Alamo for a period of time. Either one could have been our mysterious bexarena.
Speaking of Enrique Esparza; he says this: "Only one person went out during the armistice, a woman named Trinidad Saucedo."
In Bill Groneman's book, Alamo Defenders (pp. 97), he states Saucedo was a servant in the Bowie household and may have accompanied Juana Alsbury and Gertrudis Navarro into the Alamo.
The other woman is Andrea Castanon de Villanueva (Madam Candelaria). Of course, she claims to have been in the Alamo right to the bitter end. No mention of leaving.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 3, 2008 9:09:16 GMT -5
I'm wondering if Madame Candelaria ws the "spy" or was thought to be. She may have been in the fort for a time but left at some point, perhaps when the Tejano amnesty was offered. I think more people would have mentioned any other role she played, such as a member of a negotiating team. Her outrageous "accounts" of the battle seem totally bogus and I don't believe she was in the fort at that time.
Most of these people came to realize that they enjoyed some degree of celebrity as Alamo survivors and couldn't resist "playing to the crowd" or the press, and embellished their stories, at least somewhat, or filled them out with things they'd heard, in addition to anything they may have actually witnessed.
AW
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 3, 2008 22:53:01 GMT -5
As stated before, we don't really know the complete story of people like Madame Candelaria, especially since she was illiterate. She may have been in the Alamo briefly, seen little, but was compelled to adapt the tales of others. I'm am curious about her second husband Candelario Villanueva. Is this the same fellow that was a private in Juan Seguin's company? He said that at some point after the battle, he supposedly recognized remains of Travis, Bowie, Crockett and a few Mexican compadres. How is this possible if there was no adult male Tejano survivor and the bodies were quickly cremated? Was Candelario a mere non-combatant in the town at this crucial time?
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 4, 2008 8:23:22 GMT -5
If you have a copy of Bill Groneman's "Eyewitness to the Alamo" (Revised Edition), look on page 77 and read Candelario Villanueva's deposition.
According to Villanueva, he was one of Seguin's men and was cut-off from the Alamo after Santa Anna arrived in San Antonio. He claims to have remained in town during the siege and final assault. After the fall of the Alamo, he states he went to the fort and recognized many of the dead. So it would appear he was indeed a "non-combatant" during the battle.
He further states that he remained in Bexar and rejoined Seguin's company after San Jacinto.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 4, 2008 18:10:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the assistance. I don't have that particular Groneman book. Upon getting home home from work last night, I did find additional information on Candelario Villanueva in Blood of Noble Men. This Seguin trooper seems to have fallen through the cracks of Texas history as he is rarely mentioned. Villanueva does not even appear on the on the Texas Muster Roll, but he does have a few republic claims. I still wonder if he was Madame Candelaria's hubby.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 5, 2008 4:36:33 GMT -5
While I was over for the HHD last year I was privileged to be invited to the Alamo Descendents memorial service in the church. This, as you may know, includes a formal reading of the roll and as each name is called his or her descendants stand. Witnessing this I was struck by the very heavy preponderance of Tejano descendants – Esparzas for the most part. Now ok San Antonio is their home city and a lot of the Anglo defenders were unmarried so that’s understandable enough, but it set me to wondering about the survivors’ status within the Tejano community; whether they formed an elite (within their own minds at least) like the Lowells and Cabots of Boston and if so – as usually happens - was there a pecking order within that elite. It strikes me that if Sa Candelaria was indeed the wife of a man who didn’t die in the Alamo she may not have enjoyed the same status as the Esparzas and may therefore have talked up her own part by way of saying in effect, “hey what about me, I was there too you know…”
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 6, 2008 10:11:58 GMT -5
While I was over for the HHD last year I was privileged to be invited to the Alamo Descendents memorial service in the church. This, as you may know, includes a formal reading of the roll and as each name is called his or her descendants stand. Witnessing this I was struck by the very heavy preponderance of Tejano descendants – Esparzas for the most part. Now ok San Antonio is their home city and a lot of the Anglo defenders were unmarried so that’s understandable enough, but it set me to wondering about the survivors’ status within the Tejano community; whether they formed an elite (within their own minds at least) like the Lowells and Cabots of Boston and if so – as usually happens - was there a pecking order within that elite. It strikes me that if Sa Candelaria was indeed the wife of a man who didn’t die in the Alamo she may not have enjoyed the same status as the Esparzas and may therefore have talked up her own part by way of saying in effect, “hey what about me, I was there too you know…” That's an interesting way of looking at the motivation for her wild stories. I also think Madam Candelaria's supposed marriage to one of Juan Sequin's men gives her more of a reason for being within Alamo at some point during the seige. I'm not sure anyone has explored her relationship with Private Villanueva. It seems pretty sketchy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 8, 2008 19:41:43 GMT -5
Let me just chime in by saying I am finding this discussion extremely enlightening, especially after returning to the Alamo this past weekend for the first time in several years. I, too, had read somewhere that the Alamo was on the verge of surrender, but that Santa Anna's desire for a victory through a real battle (to make a statement, send a message, etc.) resulted in the march 6 attack.
I hadn't heard about the possibility that a woman might have been involved in any such negotiations, however. If there was written communication between Travis or others in the Alamo, and Santa Anna, it is too bad not one of these messages was preserved.
As to failing memories -- yeah, been there and done that, even on things I know something about. I don't think you can chalk up some of the exagerrations to some intentional motive, as much as these folks probably "remembered" what they thought took place, rather than what actually happened.
Somewhere in all the stories lies the truth.
|
|