|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 24, 2009 17:47:25 GMT -5
Crockett would have been well-liked by the men too, so Crockett's approval of Travis would have helped him. I get the impression that Travis's command situation wasn't the smoothest.
AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 24, 2009 17:57:10 GMT -5
when did the drunken escapades and release of prisoners occur? February 12th? Or over the coarse of a few days? The Barre incident had happened by February 13, because John J. Baugh and Travis both wrote about it on that date. At the expense of going off on tangents, it would be interesting to know what happened to that rogue, Barre, after his release. He wasn't on the lists of Alamo dead.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Feb 24, 2009 18:43:19 GMT -5
Crockett would have been well-liked by the men too, so Crockett's approval of Travis would have helped him. I get the impression that Travis's command situation wasn't the smoothest. I agree completely! And thanks for the clarification, trk. I, too, wonder what happened to Barre.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 25, 2009 12:19:32 GMT -5
I wonder how much of a "Houston man" Bowie really was.
Their ultimate goals seem very divergent, and while Bowie followed Houston in the aftermath of the December fighting, was that because he was a "Houston man" or because that's what Bowie felt was necessary?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 25, 2009 12:34:11 GMT -5
Good question Herb. Weren't they all kind of choosing sides in the wake of a totally disfuntional (and then non-existent) "government"? Given what we've learned from Stuart's research, I find them an odd couple. Bowie seemed invested in southwest Texas and was married into the Hispanic upper crust. I have the impression that Houston preferred an all-Anglo Texas, without Mexican/Tejano/Hispanic elements. That may be why Houston held so little interest in Bexar and the Alamo, recommended abandoning it, and placed heavy emphasis on the port areas, nearer the United States.
I'm not sure that Bowie figured anywhere specifically in the Jackson Anti-Jackson picture. I don't think he was motivated by that and had removed to Texas for good. Houston was clearly a Jackson man and Crockett equally anti-Jackson.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 25, 2009 12:45:41 GMT -5
I agree that when the heat is on and the shooting starts, camaraderie probably trumps personal feelings. Bowie, as we have seen, regarded Travis well enough to refer Juana to his protection. I don't see any personality conflict between Bowie and Crockett. They may not have been friends but they were probably cordial and respectful of each other. The fact that Bowie mentioned Crockett's name to Juna indicates to me he viewed him as an honorable gentleman and may have found him admirable as well as affable.
The relationship between Travis and Crockett is fairly unknown. However, I feel the two got along well enough. Jim may be right in pointing out that Travis didn't routinely listen to advice from others - he was headstrong. But no man is an island and I don't think Travis would have alienated everyone, least of all Crockett. I think Crockett's friendship and support, maybe even his council, would have added to Travis' status some degree of legitimacy and respectability. And by most accounts, Crockett was a very likable man...unless of course you happened to be a "Jackson-man. Speaking of Jackson-men, I doubt Crockett had much use for Houston since "old Sam" was clearly a Jackson supporter and operative. And I don't think Houston cared much for Crockett's personal attacks on his good friend and benefactor. Just a hunch.
I have know idea how Crockett felt about Travis. There was a big age difference between the two. Crockett had son's who were Travis' age and he may have had some reservations about Travis' youth and scant experience. Crockett also had some negative feelings toward military officers that went back to his scouting days during the Creek Indian War. I think he would have been polite, cordial, cooperative, and supportive to Travis but he also would have spoken his mind if he felt the need.
I've always wondered how Crockett voted (if he voted) when the garrison had to chose between Bowie and Travis.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 25, 2009 12:57:31 GMT -5
From what I've read, Bowie didn't think much of Stephen Austin's leadership during the outbreak of hostilities. I think he viewed Austin as rather weak and indecisive, too much a politician and not enough of a fighter. Houston, I gather, held opinions that were counter to Austin's and regarded him pretty much the same as Bowie. So there may have been some common ground between the two that had little or nothing to do with Jackson.
Glenn
|
|