|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 5, 2011 19:37:48 GMT -5
Oh, I think Bowie was a living legend of sorts, but was probably better known in the Louisiana-Texas area. He died at, what, age 39, about a month shy of his 40th birthday? I think I just read somewhere that the average lifespan for men in 1850 (14 years after the Alamo) was around 40.
I get a sense that he was committed to the Texas cause. Sure, he may have envisioned it as a way to get some land and make some money, but so did many others who found immortality at the Alamo. Had he survived the Alamo, he might have pursued something in the area of land speculation. Or maybe, he would have been content to live out the rest of his life quietly in Bexar, where he had some connections with the people and the town.
Guess we will never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 5, 2011 20:44:48 GMT -5
In many ways, guys like Bowie, Crockett and Travis were what would later be called "boomers" in the old west. The Earps, et al, were boomers -- people who gravitated to boom towns on the hope they'd make their fortune, or at least improve their financial lot. In the 1830s, land was the key to social and economic elevation and both Crockett & Bowie knew that. Bowie had spent years in various land schemes, or swindles, and Crockett had worked tirelessly to free up public lands for poor farmers; neither had any real success, but Texas provided a golden opportunity to get in on a huge land score. This was already true under Mexican rule when land grants were being issued to new immigrants (this was when Mexico was encouraging North Americans to come to Texas because Mexico wanted to populate the place). They were not afraid to take personal risk for the chance of such a payoff and had taken risks as big in the past with much less at stake.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 5, 2011 23:11:35 GMT -5
Oh, I think Bowie was a living legend of sorts, but was probably better known in the Louisiana-Texas area. He died at, what, age 39, about a month shy of his 40th birthday? I think I just read somewhere that the average lifespan for men in 1850 (14 years after the Alamo) was around 40. I get a sense that he was committed to the Texas cause. Sure, he may have envisioned it as a way to get some land and make some money, but so did many others who found immortality at the Alamo. Had he survived the Alamo, he might have pursued something in the area of land speculation. Or maybe, he would have been content to live out the rest of his life quietly in Bexar, where he had some connections with the people and the town. Guess we will never know. I guess Bowie's living legend status is relative to a lot of factors and mostly a matter of personal opinion. I don't know of any scientific way of gauging such a thing, whether one's legendary status is local, national or worldwide. I might be unintentionally weighing him against the big three Texas myth-makers (Crockett, Houston and B. F. Wallace), which really isn't fair. I didn't know much about Bowie until a couple weeks ago, but Im learning fast. I just wish there were more contemporary stories about Bowie before he came to Texas and a good description of that famed Sand Bar knife. Bowie seems really hard to pin down, which fits his character. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 6, 2011 0:11:35 GMT -5
In many ways, guys like Bowie, Crockett and Travis were what would later be called "boomers" in the old west. The Earps, et al, were boomers -- people who gravitated to boom towns on the hope they'd make their fortune, or at least improve their financial lot. The boomers of that day took advantage of land because it was the source of wealth. Not to condone what they did, but at least more was demanded of them than the world has demanded of the Milkens, Trumps, Icahns, Pickens, Madoffs, Lays, and Goldman-Sachs and Lehmann Bros. folks for the last few decades. The latter worms never had to risk their lives for their speculations the way Bowie did. I support legislation decreeing that before any Wall Street exec gets a bonus, he/she must have a knife fight on a sand bar on the Missippi River. |
|
|
|
Post by johnwsmith on Apr 6, 2011 8:33:13 GMT -5
Ranger Rod wrote:
Rod, I find your statement a bit curious. I would never rate Big Foot Wallace as a bigger myth-maker than Bowie. The biggest problem in researching Bowie is separating the historical figure from all the layers of myth and romantic legend in which he has become enshrouded.
As for a good description of the Sandbar Fight, check out my booklet, "Mr. Bowie With a Knife." They sell it at the Alamo. It is a compilation of all the eyewitness (and some secondary) accounts of that incident. Indeed the Sandbar Fight is the only episode in Bowie's life that seems to have been well documented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 6, 2011 9:12:05 GMT -5
You know, perhaps the next big project for the guys who gave us "David Crockett in Congress ... " might be a similar volume on the life and times of Bowie before the Alamo? It seems to be sorely missing, but there probably isn't the degre of public record available for Bowie as there was on Crockett. I mean, Jim never served in Congress, did he?
Admittedly, it would be quite an undertaking. I only wish I could hit the lottery so I could leave the day job and persue such endeavors myself.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 6, 2011 9:21:03 GMT -5
You know, perhaps the next big project for the guys who gave us "David Crockett in Congress ... " might be a similar volume on the life and times of Bowie before the Alamo? Now, let's not start THAT again! Admittedly, it would be quite an undertaking. I only wish I could hit the lottery so I could leave the day job and persue such endeavors myself. This is why I produced one book (albeit in 3 editions) in the 32 years I was working and 2 books since I retired. Allen |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 6, 2011 9:25:10 GMT -5
The biggest problem in researching Bowie is separating the historical figure from all the layers of myth and romantic legend in which he has become enshrouded. Now, that sounds mighty familiar! As for a good description of the Sandbar Fight, check out my booklet, "Mr. Bowie With a Knife." They sell it at the Alamo. It is a compilation of all the eyewitness (and some secondary) accounts of that incident. Indeed the Sandbar Fight is the only episode in Bowie's life that seems to have been well documented. This is an excellent publication and essential for anyone interested in Bowie. He did not leave anything like the paper trail Crockett did and solid info on him is elusive, but this is one clear look at a key moment in the guy's life, which tells us a lot about what sort of person he was in a tight spot and why people must have regarded him as someone in whom they could have confidence when push came to shove. Allen |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 6, 2011 9:48:24 GMT -5
One big difference between the lives of Crockett and Bowie is that Crockett was a public figure and worked very hard at keeping his name out in front of the people. He "got" celebrity, and tried to use it to his advantage.
Bowie, on the other hand, seemed to value his privacy. While he might not have been secretive, he wasn't seeking the spotlight. Crockett, however, loved being center stage.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 6, 2011 21:40:11 GMT -5
Ranger Rod wrote: Rod, I find your statement a bit curious. I would never rate Big Foot Wallace as a bigger myth-maker than Bowie. The biggest problem in researching Bowie is separating the historical figure from all the layers of myth and romantic legend in which he has become enshrouded. Why curious? I clearly stated that Bowie's living legend status was relative, a matter of opinion, hard to gauge and that I might be unfairly rating him against frontiersmen that I know more about. Not to be disrespectful, but it sounds ( I might be wrong ) like you know Bigfoot about as well as I know Bowie. It would seem that Bigfoot was at least Bowie's equal as a " living" legend, although Bowie may have surpassed the Texas ranger after his death during the Alamo siege. While Bigfoot was alive (1817-99), he ranks higher than most frontiersmen with four biographical works, hundreds of newspaper/ magazine/ book stories, three traveling plays and he was the original dime-novel hero from America to Australia. Bigfoot wasn't just famous or infamous during his lifetime in one or two states, but most of them. Whenever he traveled around Texas during his last few decades, he was usually recognized, sometimes paraded through town, often quoted in local newspapers, always given free drinks in saloons and remembered in memoirs. When Bigfoot died, newspaper obituaries weren't just published in Texas and his birth state of Virginia, they ran across America from Oregon to New York for weeks. There are many factual and not so factual stories about him, which keep everyone guessing. Bigfoot was no Davy Crockett in a cook skin cap, so far as myth- making, but he was no slouch hat either and I believe comparable to others. I was expecting an uproar over including Sam Houston. I have and you signed my copy at the Alamo. It has an honored place among my signed books. If only Bowie's other adventures were as well-documented as your little book on the Sand Bar Fight. Bowie's original knife seems particularly elusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 7, 2011 10:39:40 GMT -5
While it is only my personal opinion, I think Davis did Bowie a huge injustice in Three Roads. I feel Davis developed such a loathing for Bowie's slave and land deals that it totally prejudiced him against the man, and that Davis was unable to provide a balanced assessment of the man.
No matter wether you like the historical man or not, he was a key and respected figure in the old southwest long before the fall of the Alamo. It is an indisputable fact that he was one of the key military leaders in the early Revolution. He was THE trusted subordinate of both Houston and Austin when they were commanding the Texas Army(two political opponents). Both men repeatedly entrusted Bowie with crucial missions.
It is hard to see how Bowie could have the respect and trust of such diverse men and be the total scoundrel that Davis paints him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 7, 2011 11:06:48 GMT -5
Some people rise to the occasion, given a situation. It's my opinion that the Texas revolution was just such a situation, and that Bowie suited the roles he was entrusted to play within it. History unfortunately focuses much attention on the holy trinity, and we all know that each of those three men carried around a certain amount of baggage from their past. I'm guessing that if we knew as much about the other 180-some-odd defenders, we'd find plenty of skeletons in their respective closets as well. But you know what? When the smoke and dust cleared, they all were pretty much forgiven of their sins -- their moment of immortality at the Alamo secured them a different place in history and much of their past was forgotten or overlooked.
I'd have to say in Bowie's case, it just might have been his scrappiness and roughian ways that made such him an effective and trusted leader during the earliest days of the Revolution. I would argue if it hadn't been for Bowie and people like him, an independent Texas might never have happened.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 7, 2011 14:40:00 GMT -5
I think you're on the right track Paul. A lot of these guys may have been rough around the edges or had some shady dealings in their past. Given the limited opportunities for upward mobility at the time (Crockett, a case in point), it would have been tempting to step outside the law to make a buck. Performing well in combat or under pressure, or when your life is at risk, is a different thing and Bowie must have ranked very high on that scale. As some of my old boxing buddies used to say, "that guy ain't afraid to get his face messed up." I agree with Herb that Bowie was a man who was relied on in those situations. Davis mentions a couple of incidents where Bowie stood for election by soldiers, or petitioned for a commission, but never got any support in either case. That really puzzles me because, not only did men like Houston and Austin rely on him to lead, but he proved himself an excellent commander who earned the confidence of his men under fire and got them through scrapes like San Saba. Why, then, would he not be given a formal rank or command, other than for political reasons? Bowie is also said to have been a Jackson man and, thus, a Houston man, but I'm not really sure we have a good handle on his politics.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 7, 2011 15:44:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure whether conventional politics came into it; as I wrote in Secret War:
"...a dispatch rider named George Patrick, who was one of Bowie’s companions on that occasion, reckoned “he wanted to be in the Camps, yea and present when Genl Austin resigned command of the army.” However”, continued Patrick, “unfortunately for his prospects; he had access to strong drink from the city of San Antonio the night of our arrival. On the morning of the electing… Col.B. was drunk which secured the election of Genl. Burleson which doubtless was all for the best.”
Was he rejected because he was drunk or because he was known to be Houston's man, what with Old Sam being the most unpopular commander in chief the Texan army ever had.
As to not seeking the spotlight, as Jim put it, I doubt that valuing his privacy came into it. While there might be a quite understandable desire to avoid attracting the attention of law enforcement officers, bailiffs and the like the simple fact of the matter is that Crockett was a professional politician and effectively wrote for his life. Bowie didn't need to write professionally and seems to have had few people to write to socially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 7, 2011 15:55:49 GMT -5
Good point.
|
|
