|
Post by johnwsmith on Mar 31, 2011 15:20:46 GMT -5
Is it not ironic that two men Jackson despised would--through the sacrifice of their lives--help bring about Jackson's dream of wrenching Texas away from Mexico?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 31, 2011 15:30:00 GMT -5
Jackson seems to have regarded [Bowie] as little more than a con man and land swindler. Allen Of course it was okay for Jackson to "swindle" (or "steal", if you prefer) land from the Native Americans. And Crockett of course fought hard on behalf on the Indians and for the right for people to hold on to their own land in Tennessee, against the big pocket interests who tried to find "legal" ways to steal it from them. Interesting, indeed. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 31, 2011 15:46:36 GMT -5
Very ironic, indeed, Jack.
Paul - that was the gist of land policy in Tennessee and Jackson was part of that. Tennessee politicians had no use for poor farmers and squatters, who made up most of Crockett's constituency, and certainly no interest in giving away public lands to them or selling it to them at reasonable prices. They made their fortunes in land and slaves and wanted to keep the prices of land up, not down. They also wanted to serve their wealthier constituencies, including land speculators, who bought up much land occupied by squatters (or "occupant farmers"), kicked them off or gouged their last dime out of them in rent, or sold it at prices out of their reach. Jackson's disastrous bank policy killed credit and eliminated the chance for these farmers to get loans. And, yes, the irony is that Jackson, et al, wanted Texas to expand land opportunities for the same speculators, as well as to expand the U.S. geographically. Who did the fighting, bleeding, and dying for that? Mostly those same poor folks who drifted to Texas for a new opportunity when things had gone "bust" back home; many of the same poor farmers who had been deprived a leg up through land ownership. As a friend in my history book club often says, "it sucks to be weak."
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 31, 2011 18:44:00 GMT -5
Yes, indeed. Your book did a lot to show how and why Crockett fell out of favor with Jackson and his gang. It was your book that made that very clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Mar 31, 2011 19:29:00 GMT -5
The only problem with Enrique Esaparza's account is that he was no where near Bowie at the time of Bowie's death. He says Mrs. Alsbury was near Bowie when he was killed, so he might have heard it from her, but then her accounts are inconsistent: in 1876, she said she last saw Bowie three or four days before the battle, and then in 1898 she said she saw him carried on bayonets into the plaza.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 31, 2011 19:52:41 GMT -5
Ah, how the stories evolve with the passage of time and the attention one is paid by reporters.
Thanks Paul; that was our aim -- to find the real guy under all that myth. I'm happy if we succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 1, 2011 0:02:07 GMT -5
I think it's Davis who points out that it isn't surprising Bowie would be incapacitated by most any ailment at that point in his life, given all the suffering his body had endured, both at his own hand and at the hands of others. So it seems certain he died in bed. But, given his combative nature and the fact that the battle noise would've awakened him, I think he had a brace of pistols ready and went down guns blazing when the soldados came in the door.
Though he may possibly be the gutsiest man who ever lived, everyone knows Bowie was a swindler. Disney's Crockett TV show had three episodes: Frontier, Congress, and Texas. What three episodes could Disney have done about Bowie: Land Swindles, Slave Swindles, and Texas? What episodes about Travis: Debt & Abandonment of Family, Adultery, and Texas? That's not very attractive TV fare for 1950's America. So, if Crockett hadn't ended up at the Alamo, would the Disney TV show have ever been produced? If not, it seems Baby Boomers across the nation and world would've never known about the Alamo. Is it fair to say that, absent Crockett, the Alamo would be just a regional phenomenon instead of a worldwide one?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 1, 2011 5:45:02 GMT -5
Certainly, death at the Alamo wiped away many sins for many members of the garrison...
|
|
|
Post by steves on Apr 1, 2011 6:00:41 GMT -5
Though he may possibly be the gutsiest man who ever lived, everyone knows Bowie was a swindler. Disney's Crockett TV show had three episodes: Frontier, Congress, and Texas. What three episodes could Disney have done about Bowie: Land Swindles, Slave Swindles, and Texas? What episodes about Travis: Debt & Abandonment of Family, Adultery, and Texas? That's not very attractive TV fare for 1950's America. So, if Crockett hadn't ended up at the Alamo, would the Disney TV show have ever been produced? If not, it seems Baby Boomers across the nation and world would've never known about the Alamo. Is it fair to say that, absent Crockett, the Alamo would be just a regional phenomenon instead of a worldwide one? That's a very interesting thought............
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 2, 2011 15:40:21 GMT -5
I've opened a new thread, "If Crockett Or Others Had Survived" to continue this discussion and moved the relevant posts there.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 2, 2011 18:32:40 GMT -5
Cool beans.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 4, 2011 9:58:43 GMT -5
Back to this topic, within four months of their deaths at the Alamo, Crockett and Bowie were sharing newspaper space in regards to their conduct at the Alamo. The Gettysburg PA Star ran an article on page 2 of its 4 July 1836 edition under the title "Colonels Crockett and Bowie."
The following facts, characterstic of these brave and lamented men, which are well authenticated, are extracted from a letter recently received from a friend residing in Nachatoches [sic], Louisiana.
The account goes on to detail how Crockett shot down five Mexican soldiers who attempted to fire a cannon and how the gun was forced to be abandoned. It then goes into some detail on the death of Bowie:
When the fort was carried he was sick in bed. He had also one of the murderous butcher knives which bears his name. Lying in bed he discharged his pistols and guns, and with each discharge brought down an enemy. so intimidated were the Mexicans by this act of fesperate and cool bravery, that they dared not approach him, but shot him from the door--and as the cowards approached his bed over the dead bodies of their companions, the dying Bowie, nerving himself for a last blow, plunged his knife into the heart of his nearest foe at the same instant that he expired.
This was apparently taken from an article published in the Xenia Ohio Gazette
A second article, published ten years later in the Peoples Advocate of Montrose, PA, for 30 Jul 1846 titled, "The Bowie Knife and its Inventor" noted that Bowie:
...was lying sick in bed at the Fortress of the Alamo, when on the 6th of March 1836, it was stormed by Santa Anna and taken. Bowie was murdered there upon his pillow. The hand that formed the dreadful knife could no longer wield it.
While the accuracy of these two articles may be in doubt it does represent an interest in Bowie and his final moments...
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 4, 2011 23:53:44 GMT -5
It also brings out how the legendary knife also rose for the Alamo with Bowie.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 5, 2011 7:23:37 GMT -5
Those stories ring very familiar and obviously found their way into much early Alamo literature. I don't know what Bowie's reputation was prior to the Alamo, or how extensive, but the Alamo certainly elevated his standing, as well as that of the knife.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 5, 2011 18:28:10 GMT -5
I believe the San Bar Duel was a pretty big deal and word of mouth along with newspaper accounts helped the legend grow. I might be off base, but it appears to me that the only reasons the Sand Bar encounter is unique in American history is because it began as a civilized and organized duel among two gentlemen with pistols, then devolved into a wild, disorganized brawl among their retainers with pistols, sword canes and Bowie's big knife. Some participants became famous, some became dead and others just survived to tell the tale. The Bowie knife became a legend (some would say a curse) in Bowie's lifetime, while the knife fighter had to wait until after his death to attain this lofty status. I usually think of so-called living legends in the 19th century as being instantly recognizable by name and deeds. Such giants usually had a lot of newspaper/ magazine press and were the subjects of biographies and theater plays that spread their fame to the common man worldwide. Bowie was certainly on the road to becoming a living legend, but in my opinion he got sidetracked by a premature death. I do recognize that my criteria might be too strict for some people.
|
|