|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 17, 2008 15:21:54 GMT -5
Even if Ruiz was reporting the information second hand and some un-named townsperson identified the bodies, there's no reason to assume that person confused Crockett and Bonham when making the identification. You and I will probably just have to agree to disagree on this Stuart, much like our differences on Morales, but, respectfully, I think this Bonham/Crockett misidentification requires some serious pretzel logic, especially if you admit that the identification in the Dickinson interview was a reporter's mistake. I think the simplest explanation is the most likely; that the Dickinson interview is in error (whether the fault lies with her or a reporter), that the San Luis logbook is more after the fact Crockett misinformation (which seems pervasive), and that Ruiz or his proxy likely knew Crockett from around Bexar and made the correct identification. Mrs. Dickinson's later recollection of seeing Crockett's body by the chapel referenced his cap, which by 1874 was something of a trademark, is tempered by earlier statements that she believed he was among the "masecurd" (1853 depostion, Hansen, p.43), and even later, in 1876, when we see that "he was killed, she believes"(Hansen, p.48). Obviously, she didn't remember seeing Crockett's body at all.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 17, 2008 17:46:49 GMT -5
Jim
The statement you quote(1853 deposition, Hansen, p.43), is merely a short deposition she gave on behalf of the family of James M. Rose. It wasn't meant to be a detailed account of the 13 day siege. Nor was it's intended purpose to state where Crockett did or did not fall. I think too much is being read into this.
The other statement you quote was: "he was killed, she believes"(Hansen, p.48). I strongly believe that Mrs. D. meant Bonham. So either Mrs. D. or the interviewer made the error. Either that or TRL may have been correct about Crockett leaving the Alamo and returning with reinforcements.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 17, 2008 20:27:32 GMT -5
I still contend that the easiest explanation is that she simply didn't remember details about Crockett's arrival clearly. Maybe she meant Bonham, maybe not. I think her recollections about the "peculiar cap" come too late in the game to be reliable either. I think TRL's reenforcement theory is farfetched and, as we've discussed before, Crockett would not neccessarily have been the best person available to go out for reinforcements. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that I consider it highly unlikely. I am however, more inclined to accept Dickinson confusing Bonham and Crockett than accepting that the Mexicans made the same error. Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 17, 2008 23:26:23 GMT -5
Victoria
Good post. Well thought out...interesting take.
I noticed the apparent bullet damage for the first time this year. I say "apparent" because I honestly don't know what caused the damage for sure. But if I had to guess I'd say the indentations were indeed made by a large caliber weapon.
At first glance, I came to the same conclusion as you. That it looked as though someone may have been executed at that spot. And while it is certainly possible, there are some questions to contemplate.
First, from what I can recall, the grouping was pretty tight. This could indicate a solitary victim. That would fit Joe's testimony of seeing only one man brought before Santa Anna. The man's name was Warner and Joe reported he was shot.
So it is possible that Warner (or someone) died at that spot. On the other hand, the bullet markings appear to be rather symmetrical. I'm not sure, but I don't think a soft lead projectile at low velocity would pass through a body. I recall reading somewhere (I think the "grass fight") that the black powder the Mexicans used was of poor quality. So poor in fact that some bullets actually bounced off their intended targets. And even if a soft lead bullet did pass through a body, it would be deformed. This is especially true if the bullet made contact with bone. And the bullet markings on the wall of the church appear to be quite uniform.
In regards to the group of defenders who were captured, it's difficult to pinpoint where they were discovered. I don't think they were found in the sacristy. Mrs. Dickinson, who was sheltered in the sacristy, didn't mention seeing anybody other then Jacob Walker and Galba Fuqua. Of the two, she witnessed Walker's death. When the Mexicans entered the church they were overcome with blood-lust and were prepared to kill everyone. Anthony Wolf's two young boys found no mercy, Jacob Walker was brutally killed and Mrs. Dickinson was reportedly wounded in the calf. So I don't see defenders in the church being given quarter.
I agree that the most likely place to have harbored survivors would have been the hospital. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn a Mexican officer, maybe Castrillon, tried to save some of the sick defenders and/or doctors quartered there.
As to the method of execution I look at DLP's account. De la Pena recalls swords being used...no mention of firearms.
The issue of Crockett being captured or surrendering and then executed on Santa Anna's order has been talked to death. I won't say anything more about it other then I don't believe he was. In the words of a historian: "The story reeks of iconoclasm manufactured after the fact." Crockett's appearance and status was unknown to the Mexican army...and Santa Anna.
As to where Crockett's body was found...well...we've debated that one, too. The majority of evidence would place Crockett in front of the church not far from his assigned post. Mrs. Dickinson's testimony is well known. Accepted by some...rejected by others. But there is additional testimony that places Crockett's body near the church.
The only other location comes from a Tejano who came out of nowhere and, 24 years after the battle, claims to have been a witness and a whole lot more. Of course I'm speaking of Antonio Ruiz. I addressed Ruiz's account in detail on the "Crockett - Ruiz - Potter" thread, page 10, post #121 and would refer you to that if you haven't already read it.
Your query about Ruiz's statement " Toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city" and it's implications have had many scratching their heads. Like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - frustrating. The vagueness and lack of specificity leaves this statement wide open to interpretation.
Was Ruiz saying that the "small fort" was the area in front of the church as suggested by Bill Groneman and Texas historian Wallace Chariton?? Possibly. Was Ruiz referring to La Villita when he said: "opposite the city?" Again, it's possible. If Ruiz is using the church as the center of his imaginary compass as I believe he was, then his statements become a little clearer.
This issue will be a source of debate and disagreement for the foreseeable future, Victoria. My best advice is to take all the facts, all the evidence, examine all of it very carefully and logically and draw your own conclusions. Go where you feel the preponderance of evidence leads you. Thats what the rest of us do.
By the way, it was nice meeting you during the HHD's.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 17, 2008 23:37:19 GMT -5
I'm with you on this one, Jim. We've discussed this before if you recall. I don't believe Crockett was sent out as speculated by TRL. Far-fetched is an appropriate description of that particular theory. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 18, 2008 1:53:24 GMT -5
I agree that the most likely place to have harbored survivors would have been the hospital. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn a Mexican officer, maybe Castrillon, tried to save some of the sick defenders and/or doctors quartered there. Its a theory that's been around for a while, originating it has to be said from those wanting to find an "excuse" for why some of the defenders were so mean spirited as to surrender instead of going down fighting. Its possible, but I think ruled out by the fact that so many of the Mexican accounts referring to it are hostile or at the very least disapproving. If they really had been spared because they were sick men in the hospital I feel this fact would have been emphasised as further proof of Santa Anna's perfidy. We know, obviously, that the sick were murdered, starting with Bowie, but something done in the heat of the battle and involving men who might have been capable of some resistance is a different matter from an execution. One other comment I'd make however; just how big a deal was it at the time? So many battlefield executions in more recent times seem to have been very casual affairs, which only assume any significance in retrospect and far removed from the time, place and circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Mar 18, 2008 8:16:03 GMT -5
This discussion often gets charged with a variety of reactions but I have to differ with some of your well-intended (and well-thought) opinions. TRL was probably on the right trail---Crockett had developed a pattern for "cutting out" whether it was with the army during the Creek War or heading out in dangerous conditions for hunting or bringing back gunpowder. The Crockett Narrative is full of examples of his independence and stubborn "go ahead" demeanor and this is entirely in line with his personality. As far as Joe counting dead Mexican bodies while walking through the carnage--- this is so far-fetched. His mind is racing, panicking, and trying to put all those pieces together....a poor time to practice math. Also, the best place to hold prisoners after the battle is in that enclave between the Church and Convent Wall, the current location of the Texas Flag Pole area. GLF
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 18, 2008 8:19:02 GMT -5
One of the Mexican execution accounts describes one "old" man being bent over and led by the arm. Some have suggested (with no basis) that this was Crockett. It might, however, suggest someone who was ill and being led out of the hospital.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 18, 2008 9:47:10 GMT -5
Very clearly, at least to me, the Ruiz statement is specifying a West Wall location for Crockett's body, as is Potter and the locals according to the Graham Magazine Account relating an 1848 incident.
Ruiz is the most vague, but his word choice leaves but three locations possible the NW corner, the cannon position in the Southern Castenada house or the lunette (if it existed) outside the walls of Travis' HQs.
Potter narrows this two locations by specifying it was near a cannon - so only the NW corner or the S. Castenada House remain possibilities.
The Graham Magazine specifies the northernmost house still standing in 1848 which seems to me to be the S. Castenada House.
Ruiz's small fort simply can't be the Campo Santo or La Villita or the Tambour or the SW corner.
Now Dickinson other than some legal dispositions she made on some specific individuals being at the Alamo prior to it's fall, only made three "official" statements that we know of: her discussions with Houston - in which he passes almost nothing down, her 1836 testimony to the Convention which is recorded in combination with Joe, and her statement of 1876 to the Texas Adjutant General - in which she says Crockett was killed " she believes".
This last statement bears particular relevance, because in her disposition on Rose - she specifies that Crockett and Rose were quartered in her house prior to the siege. Obviously, then she was more than familiar with Crockett, so if she saw his body why would she only say she believed he was killed?
The Morphis account of 1874 is the only account where Dickinson says she saw Crockett between the Church and the Long Barracks.
Now go back to the 1876 statement to the Adjutant General, she specifically says she saw Jim Bowie after his death, but when it comes to Travis and Crockett she simply says Joe was forced to point out their bodies, not a word about her seeing them, once again the key words - Crockett was killed she believes.
Let's also don't forget she gave yet another account where she told of Crockett being killed inside the Church.
Still there is the Morphis account so Crockett being killed in front of the church can't be totally discounted, and of course there is tradition as related by Sutherland and others - but it must be remembered that these accounts are at best tradition, and almost always these other accounts have the location of Travis and Bowie's' bodies wrong and that brings into question their reliability.
In my personal opinion, we have two distinct possibilities, that Crockett was found either in front of the church or near the cannon in S. Castenada House. If I was telling the story for a restored Alamo Plaza, barring future discoveries, that's the way I would leave it.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 18, 2008 10:17:08 GMT -5
Garry I agree with your assessment of Crockett's nature, he does come across as a "free spirit". But still, sending Crockett out to search for reinforcements makes no sense. Crockett was more then a leader, he was a motivational standard to rally around. And after ten days of siege the garrison was probably hanging on by their collective finger nails. He was far too vital for moral. The men in the Alamo needed Crockett's presense...not his absence. I think Travis and others would have recognized this, even if Crockett did not. Another reason not to send Crockett out into the dark and into harms way is because he did not know the lay of the land. He was in Bexar for only two weeks before Santa Anna arrived and little more than a stranger. And I don't think he would have been adequately familiarized with the local terrain. Groping around in the dark with enemy forces close by is hardly the time to search for roads or hidden paths. Much has been said about Crockett being a great scout but I'm not too sure about the true extent of his skill. It appears to me that he spent more time hunting for the army then actual scouting for Indians. By the time David found himself in the Alamo, it would have been almost thirty years since he was last called upon for scouting duty and may have been a little rusty. Crockett could not speak Spanish. This may not seem very important but it could prove useful if one was to get into a dangerous situation as Juan Seguin did. There would have been many other defenders who were better qualified for TRL's theorized mission. Men who did know the land and could speak Spanish. Sending or allowing Crockett to leave the Alamo to hunt for reinforcements would simply be too risky. Stonewall Jackson says "Ditto" Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 18, 2008 10:19:28 GMT -5
The NW corner is out, in my opinion, because Potter is very clear that this was the position of Travis' body. See our discussion of the Potter-Ruiz thread. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 18, 2008 10:27:36 GMT -5
The NW corner is out, in my opinion, because Potter is very clear that this was the position of Travis' body. See our discussion of the Potter-Ruiz thread. Jim Right you are - I forgot that.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 18, 2008 10:58:38 GMT -5
Beyond this, we're not considering that there may have been other reasons for Crockett to leave the fort. Maybe he was taking a turn at picket duty. Dr. Field's narrative credited Crockett with burning the jacales. There might be a number of other reasons he left and returned if we wanted to speculate. I'm still of the opinion that Mrs. D simply didn't remember the details. Jim
|
|