|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2009 11:37:39 GMT -5
Correct Bob. I believe that Crockett's missives were intended to talk up his issue with the voters and remain upbeat and optimistic. Politicians have to do that. No one's going to win many votes with a gloom and doom message. However, Crockett's expressed optimism about getting a seat at the Convention was contained in a private letter to his family.
But a really clever politician (like Polk, his rival) would have seen the writing on the wall and found a way to spin defeat of the land bill so it didn't look like his fault (it actually was not his fault, IMO). To make that work, Crockett would have to have had a broader political agenda, which would have enabled him to point to other issues that he'd either made progress on or contributed to. While he was a supporter of internal improvements (again, in opposition to Jackson and Polk), routinely opposed the tariff, advocated easy credit, and supported the Second Bank of the U.S., he never really led on these things or involved himself very deeply in them. That would have given him more to campaign on and enabled him to play down defeat of the land bill, which everyone agreed he worked very hard for. As it was, to Crockett's credit, he still won three elections, two of them with the Jackson machine going all out to beat him, and only lost twice by narrow margins, despite the Jacksonians gerrymandering his district out from under him. He squeeked by in 1833 by a mere 173 votes, and that was the last time he won. He was never going to win easily in that district again and lost a close one in 1835.
That does not really negate your point and I've often thought that was Crockett's hook to getting a seat at the Convention. He had a career's worth of experience in government and knew how it worked; far more savvy than he's been given credit for. And his general popularity might have been enough to get him elected, if those were the only factors. But my guess is that each municipality had long-term residents and leaders who ran for Convention seats and were invested in the local community. They had the actual experience of having lived through the turmoil with Mexico, the debates over independence vs. separate statehood in a democratic federation, etc. Many had fought in the early battles and would have been seen as having a better understanding of what was at stake and more deserving of a seat at the Convetion. That would not have been a rejection of Crockett, but would have limited his opportunities to find a seat.
I also don't understand the mechanations of the election of Convention delegates. Granted, Texas was in a state of political chaos, but were there rules about being a resident or owning property, or having lived in Texas a minimum amount of time in order to qualify? Crockett's only way to get a Convention seat may have been through election by a military unit that he joined, and he missed the Bexar elections. Maybe there simply was no way for him to win a seat.
I believe Crockett was motivated more by the promise of rich land, either cheap or free, in Texas and a chance to become a land agent than by a political future there, although it may have been in his mind too. Volunteering for service qualified him for a large land bounty; serving in the Convention would have given him a possible start in Texas politics. Maybe he was looking at ways to pursue both goals and the Convention idea didn't pan out.
I know of no documentation that shows anyone was promoting Crockett for the Convention. In his last letter he mentions being greeted and applauded by crowds, a cannon being set off in his honor - in short, being treated like a celebrity. Some people may have mentioned the possibility of sending him to the Convention, but some of the barriers I've suggested may have gotten in the way of that.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 27, 2009 13:29:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure there were any "barriers" to Crockett becoming a delegate; the Alamo garrison earlier insisted on their right to elect delegates notwithstanding the fact many of them were as new to Texas as Crockett. Indeed James Grant got himself elected as a Goliad delegate before riding off to Bexar instead
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2009 14:43:53 GMT -5
That's why I think Crockett's only way to win a seat was through election by a military unit that he belonged to. Who else could he say he legitimately "represented" in Texas? He had no permanent residence there. However, the election of delegates from Bexar had already taken place by the time Crockett got there.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 28, 2009 13:19:23 GMT -5
Well, I can agree and disagree with you Herb. True, the palisade wasn’t attacked; on that we can all agree. But I differ with your comment that it wouldn’t have made sense for Crockett to have been found by the palisade or in front of the church.
Whether you believe Crockett died where Dickinson claimed to have seen him or somewhere else is irrelevant at this point. The question is: “What did the men manning the palisade do when the Alamo was attacked on the morning of the 6th?” My guess is that most of them would have rushed to where Morales was attacking – the closest threat. Once it was clear the Mexicans had captured the outer walls the defenders would have, as planned, fallen back to their secondary defensive positions. The cannon positioned at the opening of the so-called “low-wall” indicate an intent to contest the area in front of the church (the palisade). Obviously, everyone in the garrison wasn’t expected to withdraw into the long barracks for a last stand. So I think there would have been some defenders who would have fallen back to the cannon and taken cover/refuge behind the stone wall. Doubtless, some of the men who sought safety in this area concluded that the Alamo was lost and made a choice to take their chances outside the walls and exited through the palisade. Those who remained and were supposedly found dead in front of the church or by the palisade died either: fighting, falling back into the church, or they were killed trying to escape. So, in my opinion, it would’ve made sense to have found dead Texians in this area…including Crockett.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Feb 28, 2009 21:19:03 GMT -5
Hi Glenn,
Aside from Susannah Dickinson's questionable statement, a lot of your argument seems based on the assumption that Crockett was at the palisade when the attack began. Sutherland is the only source for David Crockett being assigned to the palisade and that is based on what he witnessed on the first day of the siege. Assuming that Travis never changed assignments during thirteen days of ever-changing situations during the siege seems pretty thin to me. I agree with you that it wouldn't have made much sense for the defenders of the palisade to have run all the way to the North wall -- especially when Morales' attack against the Southwest wall and/or the lunette was much closer. BUT - if (notice I said "if") Crockett was found along the west wall, it doesn't necessarily mean that he ran all the way from the palisade to get there. It simply means he was probably closer to that point when the attack began.
Even if his duty station was at the palisade, his quarters may have been along the West wall, which is where he would have been when aroused from sleep -- if his duty station was at the palisade, maybe he just didn't make it to the palisade before being killed by the Mexicans over-running the North and northern part of the West walls.
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Mar 1, 2009 0:05:48 GMT -5
I believe Crockett may have been there the first hour when confusion ruled and sutherland left, but I,m sure a lot changed in two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 1, 2009 1:23:03 GMT -5
Hi Bob, Granted...Sue Dickinson was not an ironclad witness, but as I have mentioned previously, she claimed to have seen Crockett's body on more than just one occasion. The first time may have been as early as a week after the battle. As Herb pointed out, the only time Sutherland could have interviewed both Dickinson and Joe was when they showed up in Gonzales. Jim located an 1840 New York newspaper article that also claimed Dickinson saw Crockett's body. Henderson Yoakum cited Dickinson as one of his sources for his 1855 narrative and he placed Crockett very close to where Dickinson said she saw him. And then we have the 1874 interview by James Morphis. Now, she may have said some questionable things (what witness hasn't?) but she has consistently claimed to have see Crockett's body in front of the church...a claim supported by Joe. So I base my belief on more than a single source. Possible...but I can make the same argument that Crockett's quarters could have been in the long barracks and he ran to the palisade or somewhere along the south wall to repel Morales. I agree a change in assignments is possible; I just think it unlikely. I mean really...what's the point? What would have necessitated moving Crockett and his pals around? Someone was going to have to man the palisade. And a small company like Harrison's is all you really needed. Remember, prior to the 6th, the Alamo was only seriously threatened/attacked by infantry once...and that was at the south wall where Crockett was "seen at all points." The only other time the Mexicans got within rifle range was when a brief and mostly insignificant skirmish erupted involving the defenders manning the northern courtyard of convento. Nothing seems to have occurred at the west wall that would have required Crockett's attention. And other than ducking cannon balls, there wasn't much going on at the north wall either. So I feel moving Crockett & Co. to the west wall (or anywhere else) without due cause (or convincing evidence) is possible but not probable. All of this fuss with Crockett and the west wall boils down to whether or not you believe Ruiz and accept his account as truthful. I cannot and do not (surprise!) for the numerous reasons I've mentioned in an earlier post. In my book, the man isn't believable because he made so many false and improbable claims. I place him in the same category as Madame Candlelaria...a person with a tale for sale. But that's my opinion...and I'm sticking to it. Instead of endlessly debating the location of Crockett's body, I suggest we try something new. How about we have an objective discussion on Ruiz's account and carefully examine the merit of his claims. We can make it easy and judge each of his statements one at a time. Any takers?? ;D Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 1, 2009 8:34:13 GMT -5
I think part of the problem here Glenn is that in your argument above you're treating Crockett and Harrison's company as synonymous. We have talked over a lot of evidence of Crockett moving about, whether "at all points" or not, but that don't mean he had a whole tail of Tenesseans trailing after him all the time - they really can't have been that curious
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 1, 2009 9:02:56 GMT -5
Stuart -- I second that emotion.
Glenn -- A problem I have with many of the accounts you attribute to Susannah Dickinson is that the author doesn't really quote Susannah. The normal course is to say they interviewed Susannah, Joe, etc. -- but don't say, specifically, what piece of the puzzle they got from which individual. Its making a huge assumption to say that the location of Crockett's body was from Susannah's account unless she's directly quoted as being the source.
I haven't seen the 1844 NY newspaper article located by Jim so I'll hold back an opinion on that. If you can point me to the article, you may win me over yet!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 1, 2009 9:04:01 GMT -5
I'm more curious about the idea that the palisade area was planned as a fall back position if the Mexicans got into the fort. With the kitchen building and low wall, as well as the palisade, connecting wall and church, this area did resemble something like a "small fort," although I don't think that's the place Ruiz was describing. I think he meant the cannon position, or "fortin," in the northwest corner or something near it.
Whether Crockett was there or not (which seems irrelevant to me anyway), was there a plan to fall back to the campo santo area and make a defense there?
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 1, 2009 10:16:46 GMT -5
Yes...it is a bit of an assumption in regards to the Sutherland narrative. She is listed as a source but we do not have a direct quote from her, however, we do have a reference from Joe. Sutherland wrote: "...they there fell as reported by Col Travis boy, in front of the chappel." Dickinson claimed to have seen Crockett "between the church and the two story barracks" Likewise, Yoakum places Crockett, "...in the corner near the church." Again, Dickinson is listed as a source but we do not have a direct quote. But since neither Sutherland or Yoakum witnessed the battle, and their description of Crockett's location match-up with Dickinson's claim, I believe it's safe assume the information they obtained (for Crockett's location) came from Susannah. If not her (or Joe), then who? Did someone else see Crockett in front of the church?
I have not seen the article, either. Jim, do you have a link you could provide?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 1, 2009 10:35:25 GMT -5
Allen,
I think the only clue we have that indicates the campo santo as a fall back position is the 4-pound cannon placed at the opening of the low-wall. I think it's conceivable because it helps form a single line of defense that runs south-north from the kitchen to the jacales. I don't believe the defenders would have left the church unprotected or undefended. Remember, the value of the church was that it housed the non-combatants, the power magazine, and the 3-gun battery (fortin de Cos). It was the strongest structure in the fort, so I think the Texians would naturally want to keep it out of the enemy's hands.
Just a reasonable guess on my part.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 1, 2009 13:22:37 GMT -5
I can't post a link, but I'll try to post a scan soon. And, by the way, I mention this article not because I think it corroborates other Dickinson testimony, but because it seems to me to be yet another version, which further weakens her over all testimony. jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 1, 2009 14:54:23 GMT -5
I haven't seen the article, but newspapers were notorious at the time for merely re-printing what had been published elsewhere. It is not uncommon to find the same story appearing in a dozen different newspapers. On the other hand, stories were sometimes picked up from other papers, or other sources, and then rephrased, paraphrased or summarized. So, you're beginning with a woman who has given mutiple, conflicting accounts, which are not really in her own words anyway, but reported, interpreted, summarized, etc. by others, and channeling it through the newspaper culture of the time. Who knows what she really said, if anything.
At this point, I think we can draw one solid conclusion: Crockett died somewhere in the Alamo on March 6, 1836.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 1, 2009 15:13:57 GMT -5
I haven't seen the article, but newspapers were notorious at the time for merely re-printing what had been published elsewhere. It is not uncommon to find the same story appearing in a dozen different newspapers. On the other hand, stories were sometimes picked up from other papers, or other sources, and then rephrased, paraphrased or summarized. AW A good example being my audit trail of how the Crockett execution story actually originated in New Orleans newspaper reports which twisted the original Comanche accounts, saying nothing of the sort
|
|