|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 27, 2007 14:01:45 GMT -5
Ah, those Brits and their dry humor... ;D Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 27, 2007 16:19:29 GMT -5
Ugh! Well, I wasn't fooled again because I didn't see the original posting of this fabrication. I was skeptical about this new found document, but I guess I was going to give the scholarly Scotsman the benefit of the doubt as the finder of the work and not its creator. I guess we've learned a very valuable lesson with this episode.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 28, 2007 12:59:34 GMT -5
I was fooled. But I'm pretty punchy after days of going through umpteen pages of 19th century congressional debates. If you think they're long-winded now, you should have seen some of this stuff.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 28, 2007 14:37:51 GMT -5
Getting back on track, in response to Rich's post I think Stuart is right in that the person who "greeted" the approaching party was thought to be an enemy posing as a friend. I'm out of town now, so if someone would check and cite a source on this incident that would be helpful. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 28, 2007 15:06:34 GMT -5
It's in Sutherland (in Hansen, p. 147). Sutherland suggests that the man's fluency in English may identify him as "Genl Wol, who was...Englishman in the Mexican service." Sutherland says that Smith spotted the imposter and said "Boys, it's time to be after shooting that fellow," at which point the "guide" took off before a shot could be fired.
AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 28, 2007 15:53:47 GMT -5
I assume that by "Genl Wol" Sutherland meant Adrian Woll, who was a Frenchman, not English. The problem is, Woll didn't reach Bexar until March 8, 1836, two days after the fall of the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 28, 2007 15:59:24 GMT -5
That was actually my typo; it's spelled "Woll" in the book and he only says "Genl Woll." Wasn't there a British observer with Santa Anna's army? Also, just as Travis might have sought out messengers who could speak Spanish (which is another reason I don't think he would have sent Crockett out), did Santa Anna have English-speaking troops (aside from Almonte)?
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 11:12:41 GMT -5
Thanks to Gregg, posting the translation of part of the missing portion (in Hansen) of the San Luis Potosi Journal, I went back and reread the version in Hansen and noticed something I passed over previously.
On page 442 is: "...and Crookr (sic) (s/b Crockett) having gotten in three nights before (the original manuscript text being 'Crookr habia lagrado meterse tres noches antes'); not any wounded or prisoners."
With the one Dickinson Account, it now appears we have two accounts of Crockett enterring the Alamo either the night of March 2 or 3.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 22, 2008 15:29:47 GMT -5
Somewhere, Tom Lindley is smiling.....
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 22, 2008 16:52:48 GMT -5
I'll bet he is. Well, there's sure something screwy here. In an interview on Sept. 23, 1876 (40 years after the fact), Susanna Dickinson mentioned that Crockett "was one of the 3 men who came into the Fort during the seige & before the assault. He was killed, she believes." (Hansen, p. 48). It's difficult to figure out what she was trying to say since this is a paraphrasing by whoever interviewed her. Crockett was clearly there from the beginning, so either she's mixed him up with someone else, been misinterpreted, or Crockett did leave "during the siege" and returned. The reference in the San Luis Potosi Journal is problematic too; nothing is said under the dates when Crockett would have come and gone, but he is mentioned after the fact in the battle report as "having gotten in three nights before" the assualt. That information had to have come from someone inside the fort after it was taken (Brigido Guerro? Or maybe Dickinson, Joe or one of the other survivors?).
When the Mexican report refers to "three nights before" the assualt, would that be a reference to the night of March 2, which was 3 nights before the assault, which the Mexicans could have thought of as the "night" of March 5, as well as the early morning of the 6th. The Gonzales 32 arrived around 3 a.m. on the morning of March 1, a day earlier and really nearly 2 days before Crockett would have rolled in on the "night of March 2." So if Crockett went out, what was his purpose? Was he part of a diversion outside the fort aimed at distracting the Mexicans from another messenger leaving the fort?
Tantalizing for sure. We now have the legendary Crockett dying ala Fess Parker, the captured Crockett being executed in some accounts, the wild "Lancer Account" that has him fighting outside with those who met up with Sesma's cavalry, and possibly leaving and re-entering the fort. But simply leaving and returning doesn't really tell us much about what he was doing.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 17:31:57 GMT -5
Somewhere, Tom Lindley is smiling..... I'm not too sure about that, the San Luis Potosi Journal according to Hansen, is part of the DLP papers. There's nothing Tom felt stronger about than DLP! That said, even if Crockett had gone out and returned, it still doesn't prove anything about the second reinforcement - as advanced by Tom. I personally think too many holes have been shot into it about the supposed participants. I agree with Allen, three nights before while possibly the 3rd seems more probable to be the 2d, and it is kind of tantalizing!
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 22, 2008 18:56:47 GMT -5
Just for your info, guys, Sanchez in his daily journal considered the final assault to begin on the night of the 5th, so Allen's thinking about that is correct. I'll look into his journal for earlier days and see if he mentions anything odd about March 1 or 2. I think Sanchez came into Bexar on March 2, himself.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 19:27:43 GMT -5
Was he part of a diversion outside the fort aimed at distracting the Mexicans from another messenger leaving the fort? AW According to Almonte, the action at the sugar mill took place the night of March 3rd. TRL's theory was that this was the attempt of the 2d reinforcement to reach the Alamo. JW Smith, was the messenger that left the night of March 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 22, 2008 23:36:43 GMT -5
According to Almonte, the action at the sugar mill took place the night of March 3rd. TRL's theory was that this was the attempt of the 2d reinforcement to reach the Alamo. JW Smith, was the messenger that left the night of March 3rd. Well, of course it's only a theory, and March 3 is not the night of March 2, but there is some room for dates being muddled and "night" being the point of reference, rather than actual days or dates. This could fit with Crockett & others going out on some sort of divergence on March 3 (2 or 3 days before the battle). We can't know how much distortion was added to Mrs. Dickinson's account by her interviewers in 1876, or how much she actually remembered. Maybe this event stood out to her, since little else seems to have occured during the siege and this would have been something fairly exciting near the end of it. It is possible that she was also the source for the San Luis Potosi account, which was clearly obtained after the battle, not on March 2 or 3. If that theory were correct, then Crockett could, indeed, have left the fort and returned, but that's a far cry from him attempting to lead in a group of reenforcements, while he was too sick to sign his name, but strong enough to return to the fort and participate in the battle only days later. AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 23, 2008 1:40:40 GMT -5
Short of finding Travis journal (the real one which he must have kept) I really don't see us getting a definitive answer to this one but I still reckon that in both cases, Dickinson and the San Luis journal, "Crockett" is really Bonham
|
|