|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 23, 2012 7:15:41 GMT -5
I finished Jim Donovan's book last night and have to say he covered the subject extremely well. It's difficult creating a movie or writing in depth about a subject where everybody knows the ending. Of course, for most of us, our sustained interest in the Alamo is not just about the ending.
For me, and probably a majority of y'all here, "A Time To Stand" has been the "gold standard" since it was first published. It has and still does hold up well, decades later. Donovan has raised that bar slightly with his great telling of the story. For one thing, I never gave much thought to Rose until now. I've always found it hard to believe that someone -- at least one soul -- didn't make it out alive before the carnage was over. Donovan presents a compelling and well-argued case for Rose being that man. We'll never know with absolute certainty, I suppose, but that is true with much of the Alamo's story. If this was a legal case, I would say Donovan has proven his case by a preponderance of the evidence he presents. He also makes a strong case for Crockett fighting to the end. The jury is still out for me on the line in the sand, but clearly Travis gathered the defenders and in some way offered them the option of staying or taking their chances outside. And that brings us back to Rose. In summary, this is a good, solidly researched book and Donovan did a good job setting the stage for the siege and covering the siege and final assault without belaboring it. I especially like the way he followed the story through the events that followed the fall of the Alamo. "Blood of Heroes" is an excellent refresh of "A Time to Stand", and Donovan succeeded in incorporating much of what has been learned in the decades since Lord wrote his book. The breakouts are a good example of that.
---- Paul
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Jun 23, 2012 23:21:51 GMT -5
I ditto that. Well said and I fully agree. A great book.
|
|
boba
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by boba on Jul 25, 2012 21:00:18 GMT -5
I liked his take on Crockett's demise.I could see Crockett leaving the palisade to check on the commotion ongoing at the North Wall.He gets trapped between the soldiers coming in from the north and Morales men from the s/w corner and takes refuge in the west wall "fortin"artillary position where he meets his fate.I think this theory is quite believable because his body was positively ID'd by Mr.Ruiz,one of the few witness's who wasn't traumatized by the events to the extent that Mrs.Dickinson and others had suffered.As far as delaPena goes,I believe anyone that survived the battle could have claimed that they were Crockett ,hoping for a play to ward off immediate death,and become a political hostage.Who in Santa Anna's army even knew what Crockett looked like?I think that there is a good chance that Crockett lived up to his legend but these answers we will probably never know.Really enjoyed the book and would definitely recommend it,easy reading and totally absorbing!!..... Just my opinion...bob
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 3, 2012 8:36:00 GMT -5
I had often wondered if Rose actually stayed in the Alamo and somehow survived and got away, maybe as part of one of the breakout groups. If so, I don't know why he wouldn't have said so instead of creating the story of Travis's line. I thought Donovan made the best case so far in favor the long-standing story of Rose choosing to leave when Travis gave the garrison that option. I suspect that Susannah Dickinson may have been right when she said "but one stepped out," meaning that Travis didn't ask the garrison to cross a line, but asked those who wanted to leave to step out of ranks.
Regarding other possible survivors, there is the fleeting report of two men, one badly wounded, showing up in Nacagdoches with news of the Alamo's fall and saying they didn't know of "any others" who survived the battle.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 3, 2012 8:45:52 GMT -5
Jim Donovan will be doing a book signing for The Blood of Heroes at the Alamo gift shop tomorrow, Saturday, August 4, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. If you're in or near San Antonio, drop by!
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Aug 4, 2012 22:16:35 GMT -5
I have reached the end of “The Blood of Heroes” and, although I enjoyed reading most of it, I still have doubts about its usefulness as a reference book, partly because of the lack of footnotes (which I accept was the publisher’s decision rather than James Donovan’s), but also for its tendency to present as established facts things we are not sure about. Admittedly, Donovan discusses these issues in the notes, but I would have preferred to see them discussed in the text, as I already have plenty of historical novels describing the battle, and was expecting this to be a scholarly history book. Even the notes are not always adequate for checking his statements: for example, on page 450, he attributes a quote to Dan Kilgore but, although he may have said it, I can’t find it in “How Did Davy Die?” It appears on page 53 of Bill Groneman’s “Defense of a Legend”, but not as a quote from Kilgore. For me, the best chapter was the one on Louis Rose and the line in the sand, where the sources of his information were noted in the text. While I’m happy to go along with him on these issues, I haven’t studied them with the same diligence/obsession as I have David Crockett’s death, but his section on that gives me grave doubts about his competence as a historian: although he lists a good selection of writings by historians whose opinions I value and respect (especially James Crisp and Bill Groneman), the only one he seems to have read thoroughly is the interesting but seriously flawed article by Michael Lind. However, it seems he is unfamiliar with the critical responses to it. One error he gets from Lind is his statement that the de la Peňa account that did not name Crockett comes from “Una Victima del Despotismo” when it does not, as both James Crisp and Bill Groneman pointed out in their responses. Also, the fact that de la Peňa did not name Crockett in this account suggests merely that either he did not consider it relevant in the context of his article, or that he found out later (from Almonte or Dolson’s informant?) that Crockett was one of the men executed. The fact that we do not know how de la Peňa came to identify Crockett does not mean we can assume he just heard a rumour and presented it as fact. Similarly, just because we do not know when Almonte had seen Crockett previously, we cannot assume he had not. After all, he had spent a considerable amount of time in the United States, and could have seen or even met him. Of more consequence is Donovan’s assumption that Santa Anna would have known he was having Crockett executed and would therefore not have needed to have him identified later. (He places that before the executions in the main text, but if that could be proved there would be no debate!) Neither the Spanish version of “With Santa Anna in Texas” (as James Crisp observed in “Sleuthing the Alamo” – p. 106) nor the Dolson letter suggests that Santa Anna was aware one of the survivors was Crockett before he ordered their execution. According to the Dolson letter, Almonte told only a fellow officer but was, as James Crisp pointed out in “Documenting Davy’s Death”, too cautious to risk incurring Santa Anna’s wrath by interrupting him when he was angry. Donovan suggests that Santa Anna’s officers would have had good reason to name Crockett as one of the men executed (p. 448), assuming they knew, but although Dolson’s informant did just that, Donovan discounts it because Dolson did not name his source. If only Almonte and Dolson’s informant were aware of Crockett’s identity, it is hardly surprising that he was not named in all of the officers’ accounts, including de la Peňa’s first one. Also, I’m not sure that admitting to the brutal murder of a prominent American hero would have been wise while Santa Anna and his officers were being held captive (as Dolson’s informant’s wish to remain anonymous if possible testifies). Santa Anna did not need to state that he had had Crockett executed after the battle in order to claim “that many of the rebels were American citizens” (p. 448). Donovan makes the unscholarly conclusion “let history show that he died fighting with his comrades” (p. 453), but makes little comment on the evidence for that other than merely stating that it is unreliable (p. 451). Although to his credit he gives more attention to where Crockett died (to my mind, the main difficulty with the execution theory) than some previous writers, if he wanted to argue that Crockett died in combat, he should have discussed the evidence for that and presented a case instead of just rehashing Michael Lind’s inept rebuttal of the execution theory in a manner that leaves me wondering how far we can rely on the rest of the book. My doubts are compounded by his comments on my great great great great grandfather, King George 111: while I know he had his faults, and understand why the revolution took place, I don’t see him as a “despot” comparable to Santa Anna, and he certainly wasn’t a “tyrannical dictator” (p. 251)!
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Aug 11, 2012 16:46:54 GMT -5
Some things that struck me while reading this excellent book:
1. P.58: Either I had never read or never noticed before that when Colonel Ugartechea sent “One hundred dragoons” to secure the Gonzales cannon, they were led by none other than Francisco de Castaneda, he of the Castaneda house on the Alamo grounds. Not only that, but the dragoons actually began their journey from the gates of the Alamo itself!! If Mark Lemon or Gary Zaboly are looking in, what a wonderful drawing this would make, seen either looking onto the front gate as the troopers emerge or viewed from the north wall as the rear of the column exits the gate with perhaps the wives & children waving good-bye. It is a scene enacted in many westerns & usually a rather poignant one. I wonder how the troopers felt, were they dust covered, weary & apprehensive or were they all spit & polish & looking forward to a few days adventure away from home?
2. P87: ‘A newly confident Cos raised a black flag over the fort, the sign that no quarter would be given to the enemy’ & then on P.201: ‘A blood red banner was hoisted atop the bell tower of the church of San Fernando. Everyone knew it’s meaning,: deguello—no quarter’ Did the Mexicans use both colours to signify the same thing or was there a subtle difference between them?
3. P.204: ‘Gregorio Esparza shepherded his wife & children past the abatis of felled trees and around to the rear of the church ‘ And ‘There, on the east wall of the sacristy, a small window seven feet above the ground was opened’ (to let them in) So, why did they not use the gate / opening at the juncture between the palisade & the church if such a gate / opening existed? 4. Given the numerous references in this & other books with regard to the lack of scouting ordered by Travis in the days leading up to arrival of the Mexican army (Tejano scouts notwithstanding) we have this on P.192: ‘As a precaution he (Travis) borrowed a mount from Sutherland, who had two with him, and sent a man to drive the main horse herd, grazing a few miles east of town on the Salado River, back to town' Now, two thoughts occur, it must have been a fairly small herd for one man to drive, but even so, why were these horses not utilised for scouting purposes? Did I read on this forum somewhere that it was more a question of the lack of provisions for the horses rather than an actual lack of horses?
5. P.192: ‘Several men scrambled up the scaffold (on the bell tower the San Fernando church) and looked to the west’ Two Questions, Who built the scaffolding, Cos or the Texans? (My guess would be Cos) And why would such a scaffolding be necessary, was there not an internal stair already in place?
Well, enough questions from the first half of this superb book, more to follow no doubt as I read the second half.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2012 19:32:10 GMT -5
4) There were probably at least 50 horses in the Bexar command on Feb 23. The complaint about lack of horses was from over a month earlier when all that was there were the men who did not go in the Matamoros Expedition. Since that time Bowie's party, Travis' command, Harrison's company (Crockett), all mounted, had arrived. Check out Neil's letter of Jan 28th, when he specifically talks about wanting Travis' cavalry to operate beyond Bexar.
Where the shortage of horses still applied on the 23rd was an insufficient number for the garrison in total to move, either to retreat, or to conduct mobile operations.
Although, total speculation, the horse herd, had to have somebody watching it as it grazed. The rider sent was to notify these wranglers. Probably not to move the herd itself. Besides, on the cattle drives half a century later, a single wrangler would often manage a remuda of 40 plus horses.
There is no evidence of the lack of reconnaissance from when Neil/ Deaf Smith departed Bexar, being rooted in logistics. It seems to me to simply be a command failure.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 11, 2012 23:47:20 GMT -5
2. P87: ‘A newly confident Cos raised a black flag over the fort, the sign that no quarter would be given to the enemy’ & then on P.201: ‘A blood red banner was hoisted atop the bell tower of the church of San Fernando. Everyone knew it’s meaning,: deguello—no quarter’ Did the Mexicans use both colours to signify the same thing or was there a subtle difference between them? I don't remember which one, but one of the primary accounts (Ehrenberg?) actually described the scene when Cos raised a "black flag" over the Alamo. And, of course, Travis himself described the red flag. Yes, both were understood to mean "no quarter" at that time. 3. P.204: ‘Gregorio Esparza shepherded his wife & children past the abatis of felled trees and around to the rear of the church ‘ And ‘There, on the east wall of the sacristy, a small window seven feet above the ground was opened’ (to let them in) So, why did they not use the gate / opening at the juncture between the palisade & the church if such a gate / opening existed? This is a good question and one that has nagged me throughout. Not so much in regard to the palisade gate which (IMO) may or may not have been there, but in regard to a window or two available in the low barrack next to the tambour and the low arched doorway probably only partly bricked up in the south transept of the church. I still favor the latter and conjecture that there was a small gun at that point which Enrique commented on crawling over to get in. This could well have been his father's position. I think Gary Zaboly's drawing (admitedly conjectural) in Blood of Noble Men showing Enrique being lifted into the sacristy window has supersaturated our imagery and turned into fact, but "it ain't necessarily so." 4. Given the numerous references in this & other books with regard to the lack of scouting ordered by Travis in the days leading up to arrival of the Mexican army (Tejano scouts notwithstanding) we have this on P.192: ‘As a precaution he (Travis) borrowed a mount from Sutherland, who had two with him, and sent a man to drive the main horse herd, grazing a few miles east of town on the Salado River, back to town' Now, two thoughts occur, it must have been a fairly small herd for one man to drive, but even so, why were these horses not utilised for scouting purposes? Did I read on this forum somewhere that it was more a question of the lack of provisions for the horses rather than an actual lack of horses? Perhaps this all comes from Sutherland's account saying that the horses were being grazed on the Salado, five miles west of Bexar. I have never heard a number of horses or a reason for their being out there, but I would expect the immediate mile or so around Bexar and the Alamo would have been used up in the previous several months, thus going after good pasturage along Salado Creek in the valley behind the Powder House would be a necessity. 5. P.192: ‘Several men scrambled up the scaffold (on the bell tower the San Fernando church) and looked to the west’ Two Questions, Who built the scaffolding, Cos or the Texans? (My guess would be Cos) And why would such a scaffolding be necessary, was there not an internal stair already in place? My visually oriented mind rebels against a scaffolding or superstructure on San Fernando Church, and yet evidence exists that there was one at the time. I think Sutherland's notes in Hansen mention one. I also believe Jack Jackson got his idea for depicting it in his graphic novel from research in Mexico City archives. Yes, surely, the steps inside the church would have been access, but the Battle of Bexar played havok with San Fernando, the Veramendi house, the de la Garza house and the priest's house. Texians firing a cannon from the Veramendi house reported knocking a hole in "the dome." McLintock's 1846 account said the church showed severe battle damage. It is very possible that basic repairs were needed. Also, during the Siege of Bexar, General Cos had two cannon mounted on the roof, although these could have been hoisted into position piecemeal.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Aug 30, 2012 19:05:20 GMT -5
Just finished Donovan's book and enjoyed it greatly. Once of his attributes is to creat a continuity of the events that lead to March 6th and beyond. For example, I never saw an Alamo booktie all the actions of Bowie, Travis, Crockett, Fannin etc. over the weeks and months leading up to the siege. I often wondered what Bowie was doing after the Mission Conception fight. Now I know. Donovan did the same in his Custer book by keeping the threads of action running simultaneously, so you knew where people were as events took place. As far has his opinions that Crocket probably died fighting and Travis did draw the line, it was good to see some fresh research that added truth to the legend. Great Books, I wonder what he's working on now?
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Sept 5, 2012 17:46:35 GMT -5
Further to my earlier comments: I have really enjoyed this book, it is one I will return to every so often. I do realise that this is a ‘Narrative’ history, but even so, there are a few things that niggle at me, here are a couple of examples:
Take the following: P.272: “That night, Crockett asked for those of his clothes that the women had recently washed – he expected to be killed the next day, he said, and wished to die in clean clothes in order that he be given a decent funeral”
Turning to the notes on P.441, the above quote was related in Dr. J. H. Barnard’s June 9, 1836. letter from Velasco, published in the August 26, 1036, Missouri Argus in which he stated “ that there were several friends who escaped & who informed him 'of the above quote' among other things”
(Kevin Young provided the copy of the newspaper clipping) Who were the friends who escaped? Did Barnard give his sources? (Donovan did not) Is this clipping in ‘An Altar for Their Sons? Could someone provide more details?
P.269: “Bowie was however, in bad shape, and no longer had himself carried out to visit with his men” & “But most of his hours were spent in delirium”
Then on P.270: “Bowie, on a cot, asked some of the men to carry him across” (Travis’ line in the earth)
He was either lucid or he was not.
And then on p.253, the school boy howler:
“Most of the men in the fort were Scots-Irish whose Scottish ancestors had fought for their freedom from the British at Stirling Bridge & Bannockburn”
Wikipedia notwithstanding, I do believe the term applied should be “English’ not 'British' Perhaps Mr. Donovan confused the American War of Independence with the Scottish Wars of Independence?
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Sept 9, 2012 12:01:18 GMT -5
"He was either lucid or he was not." I think an earlier Forum months ago suggested that while Bowie was gravely ill, we're not precisely sure of the nature of his illness. Was it TB, pneumonia, typhoid fever or "another disease of a peculier nature?" While there is speculation, it is not uncommon for some lung diseases follow a predictable course and with sufficent rest, recovery is possible. Some believe his illness arose from a drinking binge that weakened his immune system. If that was the case, bed rest and hot fluids was the only practical treatment. I'm no MD, but Bowie may have been on the mend after 10 days of bed rest and possibly lucid during the assault. Still weak and bedridden, he may have been able to give a good account of himself (a la Kenneth Toby.) Then again, he may have been virtually comatose the entire time. We just don't know.
As far as confusing Scotish, English and British, I think his oversight is typical of us who don't appreciate the lands that formed the "British Isles." Thanks for mentioning it.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 9, 2012 13:29:05 GMT -5
It's frustrating that there is so little mention of Bowie or any role he played in the defense, either by the survivors or by Travis, who (IIRC) didn't mention him in any of the messages after the siege was underway. After the first day, the firing of the cannon, the parlays with Mexicans at the bridge, which were botched in some way by Bowie and/or Travis, there is no mention of Bowie other than the fact he was ill and in his sickbed and later reports that he was killed in his sickbed. Some Mexicans mistook his condition as cowardice and accused him of hiding in bed. So, it seems Bowie remained ill to some extent and bed-ridden to the end. Here's a link to an earlier discussion of this issue: alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=912&page=1Also see the following article: Reid, Stuart. "What Ails You Jim, Exactly?" The Alamo Journal (December 2006). Discussion of what Bowie's illness at the Alamo may have been.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 10, 2012 1:54:02 GMT -5
It's frustrating that there is so little mention of Bowie or any role he played in the defense, either by the survivors or by Travis, who (IIRC) didn't mention him in any of the messages after the siege was underway. After the first day, the firing of the cannon, the parlays with Mexicans at the bridge, which were botched in some way by Bowie and/or Travis, there is no mention of Bowie other than the fact he was ill and in his sickbed and later reports that he was killed in his sickbed. See Bowie's signature on the letter he had carried out to Col. Batres on the Commerce Street bridge on 2/23: beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/photoneg/oneITEM.asp?pid=39002037286342&iid=3728634&srchtype=CNOThe letter's handwriting is purportedly Seguin's, but Bowie obviously dictated the contents, including striking "God and the Mexican Federation" in favor of "God and Texas" at the close in a decisive shift from simply defending the 1824 constitution to declaring for real independence. From this and Bowie's weak scrawl at the bottom of the page, I think Bowie's spirit was still strong, but not so much his flesh. Bottom line: There's little wonder he wasn't mentioned much after 2/23. He was indeed incapacitated from then until he died. The only thing patently true is that he was so sick on 2/23 that he had to dictate the letter to Seguin and had barely the energy even to ink his name to it. But, on 2/23, I doubt there was any man on earth who'd ever been stabbed, shot, drunk, sick, cussed and punched by men, and kicked by mules more than Bowie. Swindler that he was, you gotta rank him one of the toughest SOBs who ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 29, 2013 9:35:49 GMT -5
2. P87: ‘A newly confident Cos raised a black flag over the fort, the sign that no quarter would be given to the enemy’ & then on P.201: ‘A blood red banner was hoisted atop the bell tower of the church of San Fernando. Everyone knew it’s meaning,: deguello—no quarter’ Did the Mexicans use both colours to signify the same thing or was there a subtle difference between them? I don't remember which one, but one of the primary accounts (Ehrenberg?) actually described the scene when Cos raised a "black flag" over the Alamo. And, of course, Travis himself described the red flag. Yes, both were understood to mean "no quarter" at that time. I've only just laid my hands on a copy and if I'm spared will post my own comments later, but this business of the coloured flags is odd. Things may have changed by 1836 but originally the two had a quite different significance. A black flag was (and occasionally still is, in slang at least) a signal that no prisoners are to be taken. A red one, on the other hand, was a signal that the garrison of a fort or castle intended to fight to the death.
|
|