|
Post by billchemerka on Feb 16, 2009 20:46:15 GMT -5
A point of clarification: The palisade itself was, intrinsically, the weakest position of the Alamo defenses. However, the palisade area was one of its strongest because, in part, of the partial trench that extended from the eastern side of the lunette and, most importantly, the abatis.
Gary Zaboly presents a persuasive argument along these lines in The Alamo Journal #139 (Dec. 2005).
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 16, 2009 22:23:32 GMT -5
Don't yall hate these conflicting sources? Guess it all comes down to who you trust the most. I just wish we had a freakin' primary March 6th account of the battle by a Texan. That's probably the only statement in this argument that we all probably agree on! jrboddie's comment about opinions being shaped by our own experiences is also probably right on the money. I think I have a prejudice that Crockett inconspicuously died fighting - it's just what happens to small unit leaders when things go bad. The DLP execution account is just too Hollywood, we all saw how great theater it made in the Hancock version of the story. While I believe, DLP is authentic, I just think the Comanche (?) New Orleans connection somehow got integrated into his account. To me with what we understand today about the battle the Ruiz account just makes more sense. Dickinson's account placing him between the Church and the Long Barracks and a scene of probably limited fighting seems to me to imply an execution (and btw at a spot where there seems to be physical evidence in the Church walls of an execution). If Crockett, was still manning the palisade on March 6th - a place where there is no historical record of a Mexican attack from the outside, but there are several accounts of Texians fleeing from this spot - it would seem to me that Crockett would have been killed outside the walls (by a Lancer, Jim ;D only east of the Alamo). The facts are we only know with reasonable certainty where and how a very few men died: Travis as witnessed by Joe, shot at the North Wall, one of the two Mitchells in the S. Castenada House as witnessed by Alsbury, Walker and two other gunners, shot in the Sacristy as witnessed by Dickinson, and Walker then tossed on bayonets.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 16, 2009 22:36:37 GMT -5
Jim,
There really isn't anything I would call convoluted. Its fairly straight forward. "Toward the west and in the small fort opposite the city," that is what Ruiz wrote. He didn't say: West of Travis' body, in a battery along the west wall and just opposite the city, we found Col. Crockett," unless of course we read into it.
The statement Ruiz made was somewhat vague and what I see are attempts to fill in the gaps to compensate for his lack of accuracy. Conclusions are being drawn based on incomplete or supplemented information. Read what he Ruiz wrote...what he said, not what you think he implied.
Potter's account is of no help on this issue. He simply read Ruiz's tale in the Texas Almanac and then revised this 1860 version. He didn't personally meet or speak to Ruiz (I think Ruiz was dead by that time) and based his new conclusions on what he read, believing Ruiz's statements without question.
I'd sure like to know how Potter came by that bit of information. IMO, Potter was just making an assumption or wild guess. I seriously doubt his conclusion was based on factual information.
Personally, I don't believe Ruiz was in San Antonio during the siege for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with TRL's claims or evidence. You can read (or re-read) those reasons in my post at the Ruiz - Potter - Crockett thread.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 16, 2009 23:33:49 GMT -5
Yes, that is true but I think its rather obvious they got their information about Crockett from Dickinson.
Not exactly, Herb. Go to page 176 (Hansen) and read the last sentence of the second paragraph.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 17, 2009 0:31:02 GMT -5
Dickinson's account placing him between the Church and the Long Barracks and a scene of probably limited fighting seems to me to imply an execution (and btw at a spot where there seems to be physical evidence in the Church walls of an execution). I agree that it is a good place for an execution...just not the one described by DLP. If Crockett had been executed ala DLP, Dickinson would not have seen him lying dead because she and the rest of the non combatants were long gone before it took place. This is the same situation as you have with the Ruiz-DLP conflict. One or the other has to be wrong. George
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 17, 2009 0:41:18 GMT -5
Glenn, I think it's a much bigger assumption to claim that Ruiz was only referring to the parts of the compound that were still standing in order to get Crockett's body into the Campo Santo. To me, it makes more sense to simply dismiss the Ruiz account than to reinterpret it in this way. Ruiz could have more easily said "in front of the church" if that's what he meant, and everyone would have known where that was. I don't find the "west of Travis" explanation necessary. If one is standing in the fort, we know what's to the west. To get around that, one has to adopt the idea that Ruiz was only referring to the remaining standing structures, and since he placed Travis' body on the north wall, he clearly was envisioning the entire compound. Ruiz was alive until 1876. I'll have to pull my various accounts to be sure, but in at least one of them Potter cited Ruiz as one of his sources. I'm not sure how you reached your conclusion that Potter only read Ruiz and didn't speak with him. He interviewed a lot of people before writing his account. A source wasn't given in the magazine article, it was only a couple of paragraphs, but Potter wrote in to challenge an earlier story that presented Crockett being captured "...with a gun barrel in one hand, and a huge knife in the other, and a semicircle of dead Mexicans about him." For all of Potter's errors, I don't see any agenda in his work or anything that smacks of being conclusion driven. I think he was trying to get at the truth. I'll revisit the other discussion and review your thoughts on Ruiz not being in San Antonio. I'll get back to you! Jim PS: At least we can thank George for setting the stage for some interesting discussions at Ernie's.
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Feb 17, 2009 0:57:32 GMT -5
If you haven't already viewed it, I'd encourage you to jump over to the " Potter, Ruiz, and Crockett" thread (page 3) and read my post. Thanks for the tip. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It eases my mind a little to know that Ruiz gave his account on more than one occasion and that he always placed Crockett "in" something. Ruiz's written account may have translation errors but one of them won't be that preposition. I also noticed that Potter's 1860 account places Crockett inside a room and his 1878 version places him in a battery. The key here is that Crockett is alway found "in" something. Not a likely spot for the execution described by DLP. George
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 17, 2009 2:15:12 GMT -5
I'll stick by what I've said above and elsewhere about Crockett's body lying somewhere to the west of Travis', and also hold by what I also said earlier about that Potter ref to a high platform pointing to the NW gun rather than the gunnade position at ground level, but its something we can argue about it all day without getting anywhere.
However, while we only have Joe ( )'s primary account of March 6 from the Texian side, I would remind all, that we do have that February 23 despatch by Travis in which he mentions "The Hon David Crockett was seen at all points, animating the men to do their duty" which hardly squares with him being confined to the palisade area as originally assigned.
Bear in mind also that while some of the Tennessee volunteers attached themselves to the famous bear hunter on the road to Bexar he was neither the commander nor even an officer of the "unit". Even if they remained assigned to that area, Congressman Crockett obviously didn't feel obligated to to stay there with them, any more than he felt obligated to stick in any one place right through his life.
To my mind it still comes back not to DLP, but to those New Orleans newspaper reports which quite blatantly manipulated the news carried by the Comanche passengers that Crockett was among the dead, to read as if he was one of those executed; thus starting off a century long tradition which only became reversed by Walt Disney. The DLP account as Herb says, is unreliable not because it is a forgery but because the Mexicans originally probably had no idea who they had executed, but if the Americans said they had offed Crockett then they weren't going to argue.
Not having been there I have no idea whether Crockett was in fact executed or not, but if you remove the presumption of murder you do avoid tying all sorts of knots.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 17, 2009 10:44:42 GMT -5
Perhaps, but that is a huge assumption, and in light of what you found in the Sutherland notes below convincingly false in Sutherland's case. Nice find, Glenn, my first inclination was to blow it off, for by removing that last sentence from the paragraph it's a part of gives it an exaggerated importance and separates it from all the other obviously erroneous information in the paragraph. But, then I realized the greater significance of this paragraph - and I'll post more on this a little later when I have more time.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 17, 2009 13:22:41 GMT -5
Here's a little more on Glenn's find in the Sutherland notes.
Throughout this discussion, I've understood Glenn, to be saying that Sutherland interviewed Dickinson while putting his 1860 account together. Glenn also mentioned Joe, but from what we know of Joe he fled Texas on April 21, 1837 - probably returning to Alabama where it is reported he died and is buried (Hansen, page 84)
Sutherland originally wrote his account as a rebuttal to Potter's 1860 account (Hansen, 166). It's important to note, that when Sutherland wrote his account Newell, Yoakum, Ruiz and Potter had all been published, and Sutherland does mention Ruiz and Potter (at least in his notes).
On pages 175 -176 of Hansen as Glenn found, Sutherland notes give an account as related by Joe - of the deaths of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett. So when did Sutherland interview Joe?
We know of only one time, that Sutherland was ever with Joe and Mrs Dickinson after the Alamo fell. On Friday, March 11, 1836, JW Smith, Sutherland and a party of men were returning to Gonzales from a failed attempt to reinforce the Alamo(they had departed Gonzales, Sunday, March 6th). Along the way they ran into Joe and Mrs. Dickinson as they were also headed to Gonzales, and later the Scouts Deaf Smith and Karnes, that Houston had sent out from Gonzales to confirm that the Alamo had fallen. One of the scouts returned immediately to Gonzales, while the remainder of the combined parties continued along accompanying Dickinson and Joe.
It, was during these next couple of hours that Sutherland had the opportunity to interview Joe (I emphasize Joe, for no doubt common courtesy and deference prevented too many questions being asked of Dickinson, plus given her widowed status of only a few days and the traumatic nature of that event, there is no telling what her mental state was).
As this small band traveled along, it would be foolish to assume that Sutherland had Joe to himself, instead the whole body would have been jostling each other for position and asking questions. By the time the party reached Gonzales, the army was already in the process of beginning the retreat and burning the town. Dickinson was interviewed by Houston, then taken by a few ladies of the town. There is no further mention of Joe, until his testimony with Dickinson at the Convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos.
So we have an "interview" conducted under some pretty poor conditions, 24 years before the author gets upset after reading Potter's account and decides to write his version of events. Looking at the two paragraphs in question on pages 175-176, You can almost hear what Joe actually said and see the way Sutherland interpreted the remarks (or remembered them 24 years later). Joe: "When the Mexicans attacked, Mister Travis rushed to the wall and was killed" Sutherland somehow gets the East Wall of the Horse Corral out of this. Joe: "Mister Bowie was killed in his bed in his room." Sutherland - when I left, Bowie was sharing a room with Travis and Mrs. Dickinson (obvious confusion with Mrs. Alsbury - though I'm tempted to make a remark about Stuart and CPT Blake). Then we come to the last sentence Crockett "died in front of the chappell". Was that what Joe really said or was that another of his interpretations colored by his own memories of February 23rd? Or did Joe perhaps say something else "Crockett died at his assigned positioned." and Sutherland simply didn't know that things have changed between the 23rd and the 6th? While Joe's final statement seems to stand alone, the facts are that Sutherland misinterpreted or "mis-remembered" everything else Joe said.
Throughout, these paragraphs Sutherland, refers to Joe as Travis' boy. While I'm not trying to make too much out of this, this pejorative in itself implies that a white male needs to clarify these remarks.
Now, I'm not trying to be overly harsh about Sutherland. In fact, I think his account provides us a lot of valuable information. But, like every single account, questions have to be asked, did he see this? could he have known this at the time? etc. Those events not personally witnessed, or possibly known by the witness, need to be balanced far more carefully.
One last point and this about Ruiz. Ruiz was the son of one of the most prominent men - if not the most prominent man in Bexar in 1836. His presence or absence during the siege was surely known, there was never a challenge that the Ruiz account was false, because Ruiz wasn't in Bexar until recently. Sutherland used Ruiz and would have surely known whether or not Ruiz was in town. Likewise, Potter, who had many contacts especially in the Tejano community. When we look at Ruiz we must ask the same questions, did he see this? could he have known this?
Ruiz bears another burden. In 1836, he was a man of prominence in most important town in Texas. In 1860, he was just another dirty "mesikan" in an Anglo dominated town. There were some things that even if knew were wrong (1500 dead ?) he simply could not tell the truth about.
The bottom line in all this, is that Crockett may have died in front of the Church, he may have died along the West Wall, he may have died outside the walls fleeing the Alamo, he may have been executed. We just don't know, it's up to all of us to study, reason, discuss and reach our own conclusions.
For me, looking at the flow of the battle, I cannot see Crockett standing by idle at an unattacked palisade while his fellow defenders(which he couldn't see from there - but could certainly hear) were fighting desperately to the North and West of him.
When you throw in the very high probability, imo, that he was living in the S. Castenada House or nearby. Ruiz just makes so much more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 18, 2009 6:56:59 GMT -5
Yeah, when I first read the passage in question I was tempted to write “you read it here first!” but I reckon you’re right in Sutherland confusing Dickinson with Alsbury.
I also think your interpretation is both imaginative and correct. The accounts directly attributed to Joe ( ) read as though he was being interviewed in a formal inquest, which I’m sure was the case.
Sutherland’s version on the other hand, particularly given that reference to “Travis’ boy”, is indeed something much less formal and structured and your picture of Joe being interrogated by a bunch of “good old Southern boys” is both vivid and convincingly explains the differences. These men needed to hear that Crockett and the others had died well - at his post and surrounded by the bodies of his foes.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Feb 18, 2009 10:16:45 GMT -5
I must comment on how much I've loved reading this entire discussion. I spent a good hour or two last evening reading every post on each page. I've been made a believer in the fact that Crockett may have very well died on the west wall. While it seperates the two icons, Crockett and the Alamo church, I believe that it doesn't really matter. He died at the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 18, 2009 11:56:11 GMT -5
Thats very much the point Wade. It doesn't matter whether Crockett died where Ruiz put him or anywhere else; any more than it matters where say Blazeby died. Travis I'll except insofar as its important to know that the Alamo commander was killed at the outset of the assault, but otherwise the discussiion is pointless, unless taken as justification for deciding whether or not Davy died game or in front of a firing squad. That in itself doesn't matter, except as a curiousity - the lengths that some will go to deny the possibility of execution.
So far as understanding the battle goes. The loss of Travis is significant, but there's nothing else of recorded significance that we can attach or seek to attach any indivudual to - unless, ironically, you want to argue for the Comanche story of half a dozen men holding out until daylight.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 18, 2009 14:27:06 GMT -5
Herb,
First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to dig through the material (Hansen), being objective, and making some thoughtful conclusions. While I still have plenty more comments and information to post (I've have some HHD business to attend to before I can sit down and discuss this issue), I just wanted to express my appreciation for your effort and contribution. Having said that I do want to make a few comments before I go out for the day.
I strongly disagree with the notion Crockett would leave his post (the palisade) for the north wall. Yes, I believe Crockett's post was at the palisade and I believe that for a couple of good reasons.
First, we do have Sutherland's account of the first day which places Crockett at the palisade. This seems like a logical decision for Travis to make. Although we all feel the palisade was the strongest section of wall at the Alamo, the actual participants on both sides didn't quite see it that way. Because the palisade looked weak and was in a vulnerable location, I believe Travis wanted leadership he could have faith in to oversee the defense of the area. With Bowie in failing health, Crockett becomes the logical choice.
The defense of palisade was of vital importance. It covered the entrance to the church; and as we know, the church provided access to fortin de Cos, sheltered a few non-combatants, and protected some of the forts munitions. Loss of the palisade would also allow the Alamo compound to be taken almost from the rear; cutting-off the defenders from the church and long barracks. Then we have the main gate to consider. This structure was also of vital importance and needed to be protected. The Texians addressed this concern by strengthening the lunette and by erecting a two-gun battery just inside the the entrance. In other words, the palisade wasn't just a "bunch of sticks." So I can understand why Travis would have felt comfortable with entrusting Crockett and his "boys" with this key location.
When the Mexicans attacked the southern defenses on the 25th, Crockett was there fighting and encouraging the men. As Travis wrote: "The Hon. David Crockett was seen at all points, animating the men to do their duty." The comment about Crockett being "seen at all points" clearly means "at all points" along the southern fortifications where the Mexicans were attacking. I seriously doubt Crockett would leave a threated position to encourage defenders at other - non-threatened - locations throughout the Alamo, i.e. the west wall or north west corner as some have suggested. This is yet another indication that Crockett was posted at or near the palisade
Now, about Crockett leaving the palisade to fight at the north wall. I believe this to be unlikely due to the very real threat from Morales' column assaulting the main gate and southwest corner. Given the Texians concerns about an attack at this location, it makes little sense that Crockett or anyone else would abandon the south wall at a time when it was being assaulted. After all, Morales was not just standing around, now was he?
I think we can all agree the palisade was not directly attacked on the 6th, but that doesn't mean Crockett or anyone else at the palisade would ignore the very real threat posed by Morales' attack. Abandoning the south wall and running to the north wall doesn't make sense. In fact, you can't even see the north wall from the location of the palisade. Come to think of it, you can't see much of the west wall, either. If Crockett left the palisade to defend another location it would have been somewhere along the south wall - not the north. The fact that Bowie was in a room next to the main gate would have been another incentive to stay and contest Morales' assault.
At some point, I believe Crockett and whoever else was left, was forced to fall back behind the so-called low stone wall where they were eventually overwhelmed.
So while Crockett probably did hear the attack from the north (the east too, I imagine), he undoubtly heard and saw Morales' column attacking the south gate.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 18, 2009 15:17:14 GMT -5
Maybe if we were sleeping at the palisade as depicted in the 2004 film, but I think there's evidence that Crockett was billeted on the west wall, toward the north. If the fort was assaulted from north and south simultaneously, I think Crockett would have likely run toward the nearest action...the north or the northwest. As you point out, he also likely couldn't see the palisade from where he might have been quartered, but he'd have seen the assault on the north. He probably wouldn't have run away from the north wall action to check on the palisade. If he was quartered along the west, he also might have concluded that the palisade had already fallen since Morales' troops had to take cover from friendly fire once inside the compound. Keep in mind, this action happened fast. The perimeter was breached pretty quickly. Jim
|
|