|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 1, 2009 16:54:42 GMT -5
This is the same impression I have, Allen. It doesn't appear she was looking to draw attention to herself like Candelaria, Esparza, etc. And she didn't try to take advantage of her status as an Alamo survivor by trying to peddle her tale for profit. I think she had a very difficult time just talking about it. I mean who would want to reminisce about the brutal deaths of a spouse, friends, or neighbors?
Mark makes a good case about Dickinson's mental state...couldn't have stated it any better. But I would add to it the possibility of having a repressed memory...something not uncommon in someone who has been traumatized. There are plenty of documented cases where people were able to recall suppressed memories of terrible things they had witnessed or experienced in their past. Normally, this would take a skilled/professional interviewer (a Shrink) to ask probing questions in order to help the trauma victim recall emotionally painful events.
Dickinson had undergone several interviews during the course of her life, beginning (possibly) as early as a week after the battle. A few of the interviewers cite the palisade or front of the church as the location of Crockett's body. But the one interview that distinguishes itself from the others is the 1874 interview conducted by James Morphis. In this particular account, Dickinson provides some interesting details not mentioned in the previous interviews such as Crockett's body condition, a more specific location, and garment (cap) recognition. This is a more detailed description than the standard, "Oh we found Crockett here or I saw Crockett there." So why didn't this information come out before? Well, it could be that Dickinson decided to embellish her story; although I'm not sure why she waited 38 years to do it or if she hoped to gain anything. Another reason the details weren't previously revealed could be the fault of the individuals conducting the interviews. They may not have asked the right questions or they may have considered such information as inconsequential to the overall purpose. After all, the recorded interviews (6 listed in Hansen) that pre-date the Morphis account were all common depositions done at the request of surviving family members and were not meant to be a detailed account of the siege.
Morphis may have conducted the first thorough interview of Dickinson. As a result, he was successful in getting her to open-up and reveal more by asking a number of probing questions. She was anything but an "open book." But there are also signs of interviewer influence which detract from the credibility of the Dickinson testimony. Sue Dickinson was not an educated woman. She could not read or write, may have had an I.Q. comparable to Forrest Gump and needed help in communicating her thoughts. As the language in the interview is clearly that of James Morphis, he must have concluded this as well and decided to tell her story but in his words...even adding to it. This of course taints the account but doesn't negate it.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 1, 2009 18:04:39 GMT -5
Or it could be that Morphis made it up. The whole "peculiar cap" business is awfully suspect. I can't think of any accounts contemporary to Crockett that mention him wearing any trademark cap. In 1834, when Crockett convinced John Gadsby Chapman to paint a portrait of him in hunting garb, it was clearly to more closely link with the image of Nimrod Wildfire, but Crockett didn't include a cap as an identifier...he held a fairly nondescript felt hat. Obviously, he didn't think of it as anything that the public would identify with him specifically; and this was a picture intended to promote an iconic image.
It has been suggested that in the Dickinson context "peculiar" meant "specific to Crockett," and that may well be, but the account doesn't read that way...by that time there was a stronger identification with Crockett in coonskin. I think someone, either Dickinson or Morphis, tried to make that link and give the story a greater visual impact. Otherwise, the headwear would have been unimportant.
It's all a matter of personal opinion, and I doubt it can be proven either way, but, for me, the "peculiar cap" detail does not have the ring of truth.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 1, 2009 18:49:53 GMT -5
Here's the complete text of the article:
Caveat: I have not checked on Lombard to see whether or not he worked where he said he worked. Some of you with more experience in researching land claims might more readily check that out.
I assume the reference to Colonel "Lewis" must be an error and is referring to Travis.
This is the only account I've found wherein Mrs. D actually claims to have seen Crockett fall. The legitimacy of all this is open to debate, but the report very clearly states that she did see this. It's interesting that she could have just as easily reiterated her claim to have seen the body, which would have served the purpose of this interview just as well, since the question was whether or not Crockett was still alive.
Rumors were rampant that he had survived the battle and was being held as a laborer in the Mexican mines. At one point, Crockett's son John Wesley investigated the reports.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by rriddle3 on Mar 1, 2009 18:51:47 GMT -5
...Sue Dickinson...may have had an I.Q. comparable to Forrest Gump... Glenn Wow. I can certainly understand 'unsophisticated', 'uneducated', etc., but is there anything to point to her intelligence or IQ being sub-average?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 1, 2009 19:54:01 GMT -5
That's just Glenn engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 2, 2009 9:54:55 GMT -5
Yeah....that was a bit below-the-belt...and unnecessary. Thanks for pointing that out, rriddle3. My apologies to Mrs. D. Well...Hyperbole U. is my Alma mater, Jim. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rriddle3 on Mar 2, 2009 11:55:48 GMT -5
No, no, Glenn, I wasn't trying to be contentious. I seriously was wondering if there was some info somewhere about that. Being new to the forum (even though I've spent a lot of time reading the threads) I figured it might have been discussed before and I just missed it. Richard
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 2, 2009 17:06:00 GMT -5
Richard,
To the best of my knowledge, Sue Dickinson could neither read nor write, but I'm sure she wasn't the only person to have some educational deficiencies. My off-the-cuff "Forest Gump" remark was an attempt to inject some humor into the subject. I have no idea what her I.Q. was.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 1, 2010 9:44:41 GMT -5
While looking around the Internet, yesterday, I came across what appears to be a rebuttal to some critical remarks Potter made of the Ruiz account. The article doesn't say who wrote the piece, but I would guess it was someone from Texas Almanac.
It is somewhat lengthy and begins with Potter providing some supportive points for his account in the first two paragraphs. Starting in paragraph 3, he begins to express his take on the Ruiz account and challenges some of the facts.
The writer(s) seem to take exception to Potter's criticism and fire back with comments of their own. It's fairly interesting.
Has anyone seen this article before?
Glenn
The 1878 Account of Reuben Marmaduke Potter
1. I had for several years in Texas as a servant, one of the Mexican soldiers captured at San Jacinto, Sergeant Becero, of the Battalion of Matamoros. He was in the assault, and witnessed Dickenson's leap He also saw the body of Bowie on his bed, where he had been killed, and witnessed the execution of the few men who were found in concealment after the action was over. He did not know the names of Bowie or Dickenson, and related the circumstances, not in reply to inquiries, but in a natural way as recollections in narrating his experience. Many absurd stories about the admissions made by Mexicans touching the force of the assailants and the amount of their loss at the Alamo are based on sycophantic statements, drawn by leading questions from prisoners of the lower class.
2. In 1841 the husband of one of the Mexican women who were with the garrison during the siege and assaults pointed out to me the vaulted room referred to, and observed: "During the fight and massacre five or six women stood in that room all in a huddle." He was an intelligent man, but so given to embellishing whatever he related that I did not then rely much on his information; but I have since called it to mind in connection with what is above said. This man did not refer to Evans' attempt, nor did he say that the cell referred to was used for storing, powder, but, according to my recollection, it was the most fitting place for a magazine which I saw about the Alamo.
3. A brief account of the fall of the Alamo, related in legendary style by Francisco Ruiz, who lived at San Antonio when the event occurred, was published in the Texas Almanac of 1860. The narrator shows total ignorance of the details of the assault, which he blends with a cannonade between batteries that went before it, and, if the printer has not blundered for him, imagines that the storming of the fort began at 3 P.M. on the 6th. This is so contrary to the recollection of old residents, that it began at dawn, and was soon over, that I think "P.M." must have been printed in place of A.M. He asserts that after a long attack and repeated repulses, it ended with the scaling of the outer wall, which formed the final success. He has no knowledge of the speedy loss of the outward barriers, or of the main conflict inside. He rates the besieging forces at 4,000, which would be correct if the eight corps, including two of cavalry, numbered 500 each. He sets down Santa Ana's loss at 1,600, and in way to imply that this was the number of killed. Now, estimating the force at 4,000, and leaving out 1,000 cavalry for outside service, the storming masses would consist of 3,000 infantry. If 1,600 were killed, the wounded would cover the remainder, and the total of assailants as well as of defenders must have come down. If he means that the loss was 1,600 killed and wounded, it was heavy enough to render success impossible, and to cripple the army too much for the prompt and active campaigning on which it immediately entered. The battalion of Toloca he says numbered 800, of whom only 130 men were left alive. If 670 were killed, the small remainder must have been disabled. The whole corps went to the graveyard and hospital, yet eight weeks after a part of it was killed and taken at San Jacinto, and a small remnant retreated to Matamoros. So absurd a narrative would not be worth referring to had it not, been quoted in San Antonio newspaper of 1860 as testimony of an eye-witness conflicting with my former publication.
4. General Bradburn was a Virginian, who had been in the service of Mexico since the time of Mina's expedition, in which he held the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and took distinguished part. In 1836, when he was on the retired list of the Mexican army, he was ordered, much against his wishes, to join Santa Ana in his campaign against Texas. He reported to Santa Ana soon after the fall of the Alamo, and at his own request was assigned to an unimportant post (Copano landing) where he would not be likely to come into contact with the forces of Texas. Bradburn had a few years before commanded in Texas, and had come unpleasantly into contact with a revolutionary element which did not then culminate in revolution.
5. Colonel Seguin served gallantly as a Captain under General Houston at San Jacinto, and subsequently commanded a regiment. His zealous adherence to the cause of Texas throughout the campaign of 1836, and for some years after, is undoubted; and his subsequent defection from that cause may be palliated by the popular harshness, endangering life, to which he became subject, and which in a manner drove him to a step of which he evidently repented. I have no reason to doubt the candor and correctness of anything which he related in matters whereon I have cited his authority. He had no motive to misrepresent anything which was not personal to himself, nor did he seem to color unduly what was. A man may be a correct narrator in spite of political errors. ~Potter's Defense~ In Friday's Daily Herald, Captain Potter attempts to defend his account of "the fall of the Alamo" against the stubborn facts presented in the simple and straight-forward narrative given by Don Francisco Ruis. We thought to let this matter go until answered by an impartial compilation of the existing facts and knowledge relating to this event, which we shall place before the public as soon as possible, but as Mr. Potter has presented to the public an account which he attempts to defend as infallible against all others, we propose to take a brief review of the two accounts as they now stand. In the outset of his narrative, Mr. Potter says that so far as the final assault was concerned, the details have never been correctly given by any of the current Histories of Texas; that the official reports of the enemy cannot be relied on; and that a trust-worthy account can only be compiled by comparing the verbal accounts of assailants with military documents. Mr. Potter either was not aware of, or ignores the fact that an account had been given by an eye-witness Don F. Ruis; declares the accounts of the enemy to be unreliable, and then gives as his authority the narrative of assailants, and the second-hand statements of Mexican officers; to wit: Gen. Bradburn, who had been driven out of Anahuac by Travis, and whose evidence to Capt. Potter was only hearsay derived from Mexican officers. The reliability of such authority we must be allowed to doubt when it faces the statements of Mr. Ruis. Again, in his estimate of Santa Anna's army he attempts to establish on probability, the actual force. He says that there were thirteen battalions of foot, and two regiments of cavalry, which, if full, would amount to 22,500 men. Mr. Potter reduces this number down to 7,500 men. His reason: "The nominal compliment of a Regiment or Battalion is 1500 men; but I have never known one to be full, or to much exceed a third of that number." It is quite probable, for we have the Captain's word for it, that these battalions were not full when he saw them, but this does not controvert the probability that they were full or half full when they appeared before the Alamo. He makes a few minutes' work for the Mexicans to take the Alamo; and declares that the account given by Yoakum "is evidently one which popular tradition has based on conjecture." In his defence, in relation to Mr. Ruis' account, he says: "It is in substance, the very account I refer to as adopted by Yoakum and others." And Mr. Potter calls this account of Mr. Ruis' a tradition. The narrative of an eye-witness a tradition? In regard to the Mexican loss, Mr. Potter says: "The estimate made by intelligent men in the action, and whose candor I think could be relied on, rated their loss at from one hundred and fifty to two hundred killed, and from three to four hundred wounded." What is Mr. Ruis' testimony on this point? He says: "The dead Mexicans of Santa Anna were taken to the grave-yard, but not having sufficient room for them I ordered some of them to be thrown into the river, which was done the same day. "Santa Anna's loss was estimated at 1600 men. These were the flower of his army." He disposed of the dead; had them carted off, and knew how many a cart would contain, and how many cartloads there were. We therefore contend he is the best possible authority on this point; and it is absurd for any man to call this statement a "tradition based on conjecture," and to attempt to impeach Mr. Ruis' authority as Mr. Potter has in saying in his defence that "the credulity which can swallow this, cannot be relied on for historical data." Let us turn the table son the Captain: The credulity that can swallow the account of such men as Gen. Bradburn and other Mexican [illegible] cannot be relied on for historical data. We think [illegible] Now let us in conclusion [illegible] up the points of difference, briefly: The first is as to the time of day. Mr. Ruis says, "on the 6th of March, at 3 o'clock P.M." Mr. Potter says just at the peep of day. Mr. Ruis says the attacking forces amounted to 4000 men. Mr. Potter says 2500. Mr. Ruis says the Mexicans were twice repulsed. Mr. Potter says they walked right in. Mr. Ruis says the Mexican loss was 1600. Mr. Potter says only 500. Now let us review their capabilities as witnesses: Mr. Potter was, according to his own admission, several hundred miles away when the storming of the Alamo took place; therefore is of himself no authority, and surely cannot have the face to claim before the people of Texas the same credence for his sources of information as the direct testimony of Mr. Ruis deserves. Mr. Ruis is one of our most respected and intelligent Mexican citizens; was Alcalde or Mayor of the City at the time of the fall of the Alamo; was present and as close as a reporter could have been, during the action; disposed of the dead;; know, and was in company with the most prominent actors of that occasion; has been a resident here from that time to this, and would therefore be more likely than any other man to come in possession of all the existing traditions, narratives and incidents in relation to this event, and would hardly make a statement contrary to his knowledge and all the evidence of the case. We suppose he gave this account at the solicitation of the compilers of the Texas Almanac, in as condensed and simple a style as possible, without any idea of literary display, or as a correction of any former accounts. It is simply his straight-forward narrative. Mr. Potter was hundreds of miles away from the scene of battle; gathers his statements from indirect sources; and takes the probabilities in the case as truth; therefore we must set him down as probable, not positive authority, however much he may object to the contrary. If Mr. Potter is desirous of acquiring, or adding to this literary fame as a writer and historian, we have no objections; in fact we wish him success, provided he does not jump to conclusions upon assumed facts, or such as are not entitled to belief; and does not introduce so many probabilities to contradict existing authority
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 1, 2010 10:36:14 GMT -5
Just so.
But, as we have already debated, every source has problems and it is a matter of weighing and sifting the evidence. Potter, rightly points out the problems with Ruiz, but he also concluded that Ruiz was reliable on the dispositions of the bodies.
Potter says in his 1878 account "According to Mr. Ruiz ... the body of Crockett was found in the west battery ...." (Hansen, pp 702-703).
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 1, 2010 10:52:08 GMT -5
Glenn, that article you posted appears to be a mishmash somebody assembled for the Internet: specifically, footnote.com. The first part is culled from Potter's 1878 article. I recognize the part that starts with "Mr. Potter's Defense" as being snagged without attribution from the article "The Fall of the Alamo—Mr. Potter's Defence," published in the San Antonio Alamo Express September 1, 1860. Dontcha love the Internet?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 1, 2010 11:28:15 GMT -5
Glenn, that article you posted appears to be a mishmash somebody assembled for the Internet: specifically, footnote.com. The first part is culled from Potter's 1878 article. I recognize the part that starts with "Mr. Potter's Defense" as being snagged without attribution from the article "The Fall of the Alamo—Mr. Potter's Defence," published in the San Antonio Alamo Express September 1, 1860. Dontcha love the Internet? Background-Potter published his first draft in the San Antonio Herald in 1860. That was a pro-Southern, pro-Secession newspaper. Newcomb, over at the Alamo Express, was the local Unionist paper. So when Potter's acount was published by the rival paper, the Alamo Express fired back with publishing Ruiz's account (because, they said, Ruiz was actually there) and then Potter got a chance to state his case.
|
|