|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 16, 2009 18:09:53 GMT -5
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. This is starting to sound like a new John Le Carre' historical spy thriller with less catchy code names for people we might already know. Let's see now, we have an unnamed deponent, unknown discoverer, mysterious revolutionary author and an ambiguous Alamo expert. I had little interest in this story upon the thread's creation and even less now. I guess I am just not into cloak and dagger history. It seems like such a non-story until it's actually revealed. Sorry B.B.
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 19, 2009 13:58:16 GMT -5
Folks, Here is the key sentence in the newspaper article from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat in 1879. "During the siege, when Travis demanded that all who were willing to die with him defending the place should rally under a flag by his side, every man but one promptly took the place, and Bowie, who was sick in bed, had his cot carried to the designated spot. When the Alamo fell, he was found in bed and killed by the Mexicans." The discoverer is Jim Lutzweiler. He is best known for his fascinating thesis, debunking the myths concerning the Yellow Rose of Texas. He will be writing her new entry in the Handbook of Texas. Wade, feel free to reprint this on your own website. Tim Niesen
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 19, 2009 14:53:38 GMT -5
The first two sentences mirror the Zuber account in the Texas Almanac six years earlier, except instead of a line in the sand, Travis uses a flag as a rallying point. Is there anything in this "new" account to indicate that it came from an eyewitness, or is it just a rehash of the Zuber account, except with some different details?
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 20, 2009 23:05:14 GMT -5
How is Old Jim Lutzweiler, Tim? I forgot his moniker on the old Alamo Film Site, but I seem to remember it was something funny and seemed to fit his personality. We had some fun on a certain yellow journalism type thread. Maybe I'll throw Ol' Lutz an email in the next couple days. I wonder what a certain professor thinks about this post-Zuber account? Now it's starting to get a little interesting with full disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 21, 2009 9:19:16 GMT -5
Folks, Query from old Jim:
"Tim,
Ask your troops if any of them can cite a single article or person who mentions Travis's call to come over to a flag.
Jim"
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 21, 2009 15:11:10 GMT -5
This "new" account raises a number of interesting questions.
Firstly its obviously a clear case of cross contamination with two versions of the same story differing in significant details and the old chicken and egg situation arising. Is Zuber's account the original, or was Zuber improving on a pre-existing story which survives here in a purer form.
This isn't an idle question because while Zuber's story is problematic in so many ways it has to be remembered all the way along that it is Zuber's story, not Rose's account in his own words. I would go so far as to say that we have a story about a man (not a messenger) who is said to have escaped from the Alamo. This story may or may not be true.
I'm happy to accept that it is possible; and indeed that Zuber truthfully described the man being given food and shelter at his house. The fact that Zuber added all manner of unlikely details doesn't of itself mean that the basic story was a fiction.
Now if we accept there are two versions of the same story out there; that Travis gave the garrison a choice to stay or escape, then we have to look at which one is correct because its actually quite important.
Something which has always struck me is how closely this business of the line in the sand mirrors the story of Ben Milam at the siege of Bexar. The traditional story immortalised in at least one painting has him drawing a line in the sand with his rifle and calling for volunteers to to storm the town to step across it. The trouble from my point of view is that having gone into the circumstances very carefully while uncovering James Grant's role in the incident, I can't find an eyewitness account of a line being drawn. So is this particular Texas legend a mirroring of the Zuber/Rose story, or is the Zuber/Rose story a mirroring of the Milam one?
I'm told drawing lines in the dirt was a traditional American pastime, but its not one I've found documented.
On the other hand inviting troops to rally to a flag is very tradional and well documented, in the European military tradition. When a regiment mutinied; something which normally entailed a polite refusal to obey orders rather than a violent uprising, it was customary once a settlement had been negotiated to invite the mutineers to step forward to their colours as a symbol of their returning to their duty.
If Travis, called the Alamo garrison to rally to the flag rather than cross the line, that could well point to their having told him enough was enough, and only being persuaded to return to duty after the assurances they wanted were given. This obviously dovetails with hints we have that the garrison may have wanted to surrender but were persuaded to hold out until a given date, and I find this scenario more convincing than the line in the sand version.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg, I don't know but the line in the sand certainly fits Texan mythology better than a mutinous garrison being persuaded to return to duty.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Sept 21, 2009 15:42:14 GMT -5
While not strongly of the opinion one way or the other when it comes to Travis and the line, there does seem to be something in American culture about crossing a line to show one's commitment. For example, in many very rural early American communities, as well as the African American slave community, it was customary for the two parties involved in a wedding to cross either a line in the dirt, or a broom laid on the ground in front of them. I have seen documented examples of this, and they can be found in the slave narratives compiled by the University of North Carolina. I have heard of other, military-related examples, but don't know how well-documented they are. I find it a strange coincidence, however, that some such oddly specific act as crossing a line in the dirt would be manufactured, and not have some basis in fact....and like I said, I do know of documented acts (regarding weddings) of crossing a line. Seems like I have also heard (but can't recall where) about the custom of two men, about to be engaged in a fight with one another, having one of them draw a line in the dirt, and dare the other to cross it. This being usually done, this act serves to start the fight.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 24, 2009 0:22:21 GMT -5
Thanks for that, but to some extent if "crossing the line" is indeed significant then it only serves to point up my underlying question about the chicken and the egg.
The traditional version as delivered by Zuber is a positive one, yet the St.Louis version suggests a return or recall to duty. On the current timeline the publication of the Zuber version predates the St. Louis version, so why does the latter present what is now a famous (albeit questioned) incident in a less positive light at a time when the heroism of the Alamo defenders one and all was an article of faith?
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 25, 2009 10:02:31 GMT -5
Folks, One of the negative facts about this account is that its voices are muddled. First the reporter quotes extensively from a California newspaper interview with an old man who had traveled extensively in the Mississippi and Louisiana. Both Jim Lutzweiler and another Alamo researcher are attempting to track down the California newspaper quoted in the St. Louis text to determine if the reporter is simply misrepresenting the Zuber account or quoting the other account. Tim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 25, 2009 10:22:53 GMT -5
More crisp info.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Sept 25, 2009 13:42:17 GMT -5
I have a problem with the Alamo defenders rallying around a flag. In most cases these were not men with a strong military tradition, but rather adventurers and militia. What flag could have inspired their loyalty? The American flag is the only viable option, unless we accept Santa Anna's view of them as pirates and therefore it must have been the "Jolly Roger".
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Sept 25, 2009 14:13:20 GMT -5
Kevin, No. Dr. Crisp is both renowned and the original sceptic of this account, but another Alamo researcher is the one in search of the California newspaper account. Good guess, however. Tim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 25, 2009 18:40:16 GMT -5
Thanks. I'm no good at guessing name games. That's why I tried to hide it in a wordplay that fell a bit flat. I am glad this conversation has opened up though. ~ Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 25, 2009 20:29:17 GMT -5
I tried to hide it in a wordplay that fell a bit flat. I got it
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Sept 28, 2009 11:44:30 GMT -5
I tried to hide it in a wordplay that fell a bit flat. I got it I did to.
|
|