|
Post by stuart on May 15, 2007 16:39:08 GMT -5
It actually gets more interesting; there are in fact three men named Flores who received donation certificates for service at the siege of Bexar; Manuel Flores, Manuel Maria Flores, and Salvador Flores. (Men issued Donation Certificates for 640 acres of land for participation in Storming and Capture of Bexar Dec 5, 1835 - Dec 10, 1835 [T5; T1 p254-257])No rank or company is given, but it occurs to me that this might explain the apparent discrepancies in rank referred to above.
If Seguin’s brothers-in-law only made sergeant and lieutenant and then only after the revolution, the Cap(tain) Flowers/Floeders/Flodden on Neill’s roll may be the other Manuel Flores, whose donation certificate was held by Grant. It would also explain why he was listed as an artillery officer while the brothers, as you say, were cavalrymen.
This does open up an intriguing possibility. Did this Manuel Flores die commanding that company of 20 Bexarenos referred to by Filisola and otherwise largely forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 15, 2007 18:27:53 GMT -5
Flodden or Floeder sound German or Dutch to me, but ich spreche keine deutsch.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 13, 2007 7:47:01 GMT -5
I'm very tempted to link the Neill roll with the Jameson letter of January 18, 1836, when he wrote: "We now have 114 men counting officers, the sick and wounded which leaves us about 80 efficient men. 40 in the Alamo and 40 in Town..." What's striking about the Neill roll is that apart from the staff, the defenders are all assigned to just two companies. We know that all the guns were located in the Alamo prior to Grant's departure. Can we read the roll and Jameson's letter together to say that Carey's artillery company formed the Alamo garrison, while Blazeby's infantry company, and anybody else who drifted in later was in the town?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2007 10:02:28 GMT -5
I'll have to check on this, but I'm under the impression that there were still cannon in town when Bowie arrived with Houston's orders to consolidate them in the Alamo.
In the past, we've read into the 40 - 40 split by Jameson that it reflected how the men were quartered (that too) but it's more probable that until Bowies' arrival it had more to do with trying to defend both the town and the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 13, 2007 12:23:37 GMT -5
I was sure there was a reference to Grant and Johnson having taken down the defences in the town before they left but on a first skim through Hansen couldn't find it.
However, its an ill-wind as they say, for in the process I found our mysterious "Cap Flowers":
In Neill's letter of January 14 (Hansen p652) he mentions:
"Capt. Salvador Flores a Mexican, has volunteered to go with two others as Spies, all the way to Laredo, to learn the situation of the enemy..."
Changing the subject slightly I also came across another interesting reference in Neill's letter of January 28 anticipating the arrival of Travis and his men (Hansen p665):
"...the force of this garrison will consist of 130 Americans" (my emphasis)
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 13, 2007 12:33:54 GMT -5
From Capt. William Ridgeway Carey, Bexar, January 12, 1836. From Jenkins' Papers of the Texas Revolution, Vol. 3; p. 493.
"The forces here is commanded by Lieut. Colo J. C. Neill who has his quarters in the Town which is called the left wing of the forces and your brother William [the writer] has the command of the alamo which is called the right wing I am subject to the orders of Colo Neill but he thinks a great deal of my judgement and consults me about a number of the proceedings before he issues an order."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 13, 2007 12:38:59 GMT -5
Jenkins, Vol. 4; p. 60 -- from Jameson to Houston, Bexar, January 18, 1836:
"We have too few to garrison both places, and will bring all our forces to the Alamo tomorrow as well as the cannons."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 13, 2007 12:49:57 GMT -5
My guess is that the Texians moved the Cos Bexar cannons into the Alamo on January 19 but left the breastworks intact until Bowie arrived with Houston's order to demolish "the fortifications in the town of Bexar." (Houston's letter to Smith on the 17th.) Of course, he doesn't say that he just sent the order with Bowie. He might have sent it to Neill earlier, so Jameson may have been planning to tear down the street fortifications and use the materials to strengthen the Alamo. Or perhaps he wanted to do that (since it makes sense) but refrained from stating it until orders arrived.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 29, 2007 8:29:34 GMT -5
From Neill's muster roll, Chester S. Gorbet can be eliminated as a possible KIA at the Alamo. Stephen L. Moore, Savage FrontierVol. 1, , has him as a private in Capt. Ripley Wheelock's Ranger company from May 8 to August 8, 1836.
P. Conrad on Neill's roll may have been Peter Conrad, a private in Deaf Smith's 1837 Laredo expedition, but this would need further checking.
Concerning the Alamo voting list, "Jn. Ballard" was possibly John Ballard, a private in Capt. John J. Tumlinson's Rangers. He joined the company in March 1836 and transferred to Capt. Hayden Arnold's Company before April 21, 1836.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 30, 2007 5:42:29 GMT -5
I'm finding this interesting on two levels.
Firstly I've always been fascinated to pick out the names careers of individual soldiers rather than seeing history told in terms of faceless battalions
Secondly, although the value of the Neill roll for reconstructing the carrison during the siege is clearly diminishing, these findings do show very vividly just how much movement of individuals was going on and consequently how unreliable the later voting list also has to be in determining whether a particular individual was - or was not - there at the outset
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 1, 2007 14:35:53 GMT -5
Concerning "Fetch (Fitch), J. (Art Insr)" on Neill's muster roll, it appears this was probably Jabez Fitch, who seems to have been still alive in October 1836: Jan. 20, 1836, Jabez Fitch sold to Robert White (evidently the Lt. Robert White on the Neill muster roll) his claims for services in the Federal Volunteer Army of Texas: the document was endorsed "attest J.C. Neill". tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/153/15300063.pdfA document in the Republic Claims bears a notation that Jabez Fitch received four dollars from Lt. Col. Neill, "in part for services as [illeg.: within?] specified [on] Jany 18th 1836" tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/153/15300062.pdfThe Republic Claims also include a claim from Jabez Fitch for service "from 16th Decr. 1835 to 8 [?] Feby 1836" tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/153/15300060.pdfA March 10, 1836, list of officers in regular army appointed by General Council includes, under infantry, First Lt. Jabez Fitch tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1836/IMAGES/00000010.pdfOctober 12, 1836, J.C. Neill, acting as attorney for J. [Jabez?] Fitch, filed a claim with the government for $189.71; claim approved by the auditor the same date. tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/31/03100498.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 11:38:48 GMT -5
Again re-looking at the San Luis Potosi Journal has caused me to think again about the number of defenders.
Very clearly, Travis wasn't being exact in his letters about how many men he had (either he didn't know exactly or he was content to simply provide swags). Sutherland for one shows different numbers - though he goes through a convoluted process to reduce his numbers to Travis's last letter that mentions 150 men plus the Gonzales 32. Ruiz mentions 182 bodies burned, and 1 buried. The San Luis Battalion says 230 defenders, while other Mexican sources give various totals but generally close to 250.
The very wide disparity suggests two things, first off that Nobody ever actually physically counted the dead. Although Santa Anna apparently ordered a count, it looks like the burning of the dead had already begun before that order was carried out (otherwise the Mexican reports would be much more unified).
Filisola who probably had resource to all the original information from both sides, dismissed both the 250 figure and the 180 figure and said the defenders numbered around 200 (150 volunteers, 32 men from Gonzales, and around 20 townspeople).
The second point is that barring some lost paperwork being discovered, we're probably never going to be able to firmly answer the question on how many men died defending the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2008 19:33:24 GMT -5
Rereading Sutherland (in Hansen) he placed the number of defenders at the beginning of the siege at 172 (with 10 on the sick list) and 206 after the Gonzales 32 reinforced the garrison.
He reduced the garrison by 20 for the final assault due to Travis's letter about only 3 Tejanos remaining.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 1:44:55 GMT -5
It seems to me that the only way there could have been more than 200 is if unlisted volunteers arrived somehow -- men who never made it onto anybody's list, perhaps fresh from the states. Otherwise, why wouldn't SOMEBODY finally have discovered them missing and added them to the count. The Gonzales 32 are well documented -- all had families in Gonzales. But perhaps the other 28 had just arrived in Texas and joined them in Gonzales, but weren't enrolled? Pretty thin, I know, but I just cannot buy everybody on the Texas side saying under 200 if there were 250-some.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 23, 2008 10:50:29 GMT -5
This is a strong possibility. Santa Anna was well informed about the size of the Alamo garrison so an accurate count of the dead defenders may have been considered unnecessary.
I get a feeling that the Mexicans simply relied on captured documents and word of mouth that indicated the garrison numbered 182 and then added, instead of subtracting, the 50-60 Texans that were run down by Sesma.
The Mexicans did a poor job of counting...period. They couldn't even come to a consensus when counting the number of their own dead and wounded.
Glenn
|
|