Post by Hollowhorn on Nov 22, 2011 15:39:50 GMT -5
In his book ‘Exploring the Alamo Legends’ Wallace O. Chariton devotes a chapter to Phillip Dimitt entitled ‘The Alamo Mystery Letter'
The author relates the circumstances of Dimitt’s (supposed) presence at the Alamo, his poor performance in reconnoitring the enemy & his (alleged) flight from the scene when the Mexicans arrive. He then presents Dimitt’s letter to James Kerr, takes it apart piece by piece, asserts that the account does not square with the known facts & that:
Mr. Chariton gives us his views on the character of Phillip Dimitt:
Mr. Chariton concludes:
After twelve pages of refuting Dimitt’s story & letter, Mr. Chariton ends by showing his open mindedness on the subject:
Too little, too late perhaps.
To be fair to the author, he does make some very interesting observations on the Dimitt letter, using the facts that are known surrounding the events in general & John Sutherland’s account in particular. I just don’t feel that enough ‘undisputed’ facts are presented to blacken Phillip Dimitt’s memory by the insinuated use of the word ‘coward’
The author relates the circumstances of Dimitt’s (supposed) presence at the Alamo, his poor performance in reconnoitring the enemy & his (alleged) flight from the scene when the Mexicans arrive. He then presents Dimitt’s letter to James Kerr, takes it apart piece by piece, asserts that the account does not square with the known facts & that:
When examined under a historical microscope, the letter takes on a more sinister tone
Mr. Chariton gives us his views on the character of Phillip Dimitt:
The period of the Texas revolution produced many heroes and noteworthy people. One of the participants in the activities of those days, Phillip Dimitt achieved sufficient notoriety to have a Texas county named after him. But was Dimitt of the mettle to qualify for such an honor? Perhaps not. One letter Dimitt left behind suggests he deserted the Alamo in the very hour of need.
According to what we know, it is not hard to imagine that Dimitt’s letter was some sort of preconceived alibi. It appears he was in San Antonio when the Mexicans arrived. I seems he hightailed it out of town and went all the way home without going for help and without trying to warn his fellow countrymen.
Why didn’t Dimitt do something, anything, to go to aid of his wife?
Mr. Chariton concludes:
Whatever the true story is, the Dimitt letter surely signifies that something strange happened to cause a man perceived to be a patriot to change colors. Many Texans would have a word for a man who ran out on his wife, his friends and his country.
After twelve pages of refuting Dimitt’s story & letter, Mr. Chariton ends by showing his open mindedness on the subject:
Whether or not that word should aptly be applied to Phillip Dimitt is open for some conjecture.
Too little, too late perhaps.
To be fair to the author, he does make some very interesting observations on the Dimitt letter, using the facts that are known surrounding the events in general & John Sutherland’s account in particular. I just don’t feel that enough ‘undisputed’ facts are presented to blacken Phillip Dimitt’s memory by the insinuated use of the word ‘coward’
