|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 23, 2007 17:22:58 GMT -5
This is in regards to TRL's 2nd reinforcement theory. I, for one, remain very skeptical that it actually occurred. The lack of anyone, either Texan or Mexican, witnessing 60 men enter the Alamo has long been a problem for me. Shortly after I read "Alamo Traces", I read Stuart Reid's excellent article in the "Alamo Journal"(#137 - June 2005). Reid's well researched challenge not only validated my own skepticism but increased my doubts that the 2nd reinforcement took place. The one thing I cannot seem to reconcile are the numbers. Documentation shows the Alamo had 182-189 men inside the walls, whereas the Mexican count suggests 250-260 defenders. So, here's my question. Since I don't believe 60+ men made it into the Alamo on March 4th....is it conceivable that in the early morning hours of March 6th, an assemblage of volunteers that grouped together while at the Cibolo, attempted to enter the Alamo during the attack only to be discovered by Sesma's lancers and run down along with men fleeing from the fort? And if that is not plausible, does that mean the Mexicans intentionally exaggerated the body count or simply miscounted?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 23, 2007 17:52:08 GMT -5
This is one we've all batted around a lot, but never tire of discussing. I've never bought into Tom's theory for many of the reasons you mention. Also, I don't think the numbers are that out of whack. When you take hospitalized defenders into consideration (who probably weren't included in the counts of "able bodied" men) and Tejanos, who were also likely not included in the counts, the Mexican reports of defender counts aren't that off. There are also a fair number of reason's to doubt that David Crockett guided these men in from the Cibolo as was also suggested in "Traces". The evidence that puts Crockett there is flimsy, and based primarily on the recollection of one man who was a child at the time. The deed this fellow claims to have witnessed Crockett signing hasn't been found, we only have his deposition that he saw it once. There also isn't much logic in his story that Crockett was so ill at the Cibolo he had to sign the deed with an "X" rather than his signature. One must also ask why Crockett would have been the best man for this job since he was a relative newcomer to the area. I think Tom also cites Susannah Dickinson as being somewhat corroborative of Crockett's coming back into the Alamo at a time that fits this scenario, but a more simple explanation is that she was mistaken. There are way too many holes in the second reinforcement theory, and I'll let someone else dive in with some more of them! Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 23, 2007 18:37:59 GMT -5
I agree with you, Jim. The idea of Crockett leaving the Alamo for the purpose of guiding men into the fort is really "out there". TRL states he was the best choice but I couldn't disagree more. He didn't know the language or the area which makes him quite unsuited for the alleged task. And frankly, I don't believe Travis would have sanctioned it. The risk of losing Crockett, a leader who I believe was so critical to morale, was too great. And as you mentioned, the issue of Crockett's malaria. The way I hear it, Crockett's bouts with malaria were quiet severe and incapacitating. The idea that he became ill, could ride a horse and navigate in the dark but couldn't write his name and then recover enough to participate in the fight is another TRL theory that's hard to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 23, 2007 21:33:45 GMT -5
Besides, Stuart's article, I have a number of problems with Tom's theory.
1. Tom mentions a number of "famous" men/company commanders that participated in the attempt,IIRC included Ben McCullough, Juan Seguin, and others. Except for Crockett none of these men made it into the Alamo with their men, and none of them ever left an account of it. It's just too much a coincidence that several companies could participate in the break in attempt and not one company commander make it.
2. Almonte very clearly identifies the action that night as a sortie by Travis not a break in attempt. While Night Actions are very confusing, a charge through your lines from the rear, is still very different from a sortie on them from the front.
3. Other reinforcements, we have accounts by Sutherland of another reinforcement attempt led by JW Smith that camped on the Cibolo, while a scout went forward to determine if the defenders still held - they didn't. Sutherland doesn't mention any other force camped at the Cibolo where the remnants from March 3rd should have been. LTC Neill also led a body of 48 men from Gonzales on March 7 (that included Juan Seguin) that were turned back by Mexican patrols on March 10. No mention of other groups are attempts by these men.
4. Numbers, I'm not certain, absent the findings of captured defender muster rolls in the Mexican Archives, we're ever going to have a firm grasp on the exact number of defenders. I'm fairly convinced that Filisolas' 200, 150 volunteers, 32 from Gonzales and 20 townsmen are as close as we're going to come. As the Army second in command he probably had access to the real records, and his absence from the battle makes him less likely to inflate or deflate the numbers either one. It doesn't look like either the Tejanos, or the wounded from December were ever consistently counted on any of the reports from Bexar by the various Texian commanders and I think that is where we have the discrepancy. I'm very inclined to believe that the Mexican 250 is nothing more than typical body count inflation.
5. The Crockett angle: Crockett would have almost been the worse choice to guide any force under these conditions. There were men there familiar with the terrain, why would any sane commander use somebody that wasn't. The whole deed thing smells to me of fraud, and again doesn't make sense that a literate man would just "make his mark" no matter how sick. Besides the obvious, why would anybody ask a man so sick and feeble to witness an important document?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 3:12:29 GMT -5
Just for the record Glenn, since writing that article for the AJ I've done more digging on that reinforcement list proposed by Tom Lindley and amongst other things found that five of the seven men he claims as Mina (Bastrop) Rangers (p144) are nothing of the sort and actually appear on the Neill roll
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 25, 2007 9:35:01 GMT -5
There are a couple of other things that add to my doubts about the 2nd reinforcement. First, is Bonham and his return trip to the Alamo. After leaving Gonzales with Williamson's letter, I can't help but wonder how Bonham could have missed all these men gathering on the Cibolo. It seems to me that Bonham would have joined up with anyone headed for the Alamo. The idea of safety in numbers I think would have been more appealing as opposed to going it alone. The other thing that sticks in my mind is Herman Ehrenberg of the New Orleans Greys. TRL states that part of the 2nd reinforcement was a group from Goliad, which included a dozen or so men from the New Orleans Greys. And from my readings, Ehrenberg was anxious to go to the relief of the Alamo and rescue his fellow "Greys". So what I find troubling is that Ehrenberg's name is not on TRL list of "Greys" who allegedly left Goliad for the Alamo. Also, the question must be asked why Ehrenberg, who wrote of his experiences in the Texas Revolution, said nothing about a detachment of volunteers leaving Goliad for the Alamo and/or why he remained behind.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 25, 2007 14:11:46 GMT -5
Ah well, the "Goliad group" is definitely chimearical.
If you check Tom's rather patchy sources you'll find that the evidence for it amounts to a letter from a few days before stating that some men are planning to go up to Bexar. There's no subsequent mention of this group actually setting off but instead Tom rather naughtily tries to pretend that the McNelly statement refers to this putative group. McNelly certainly set off from La Badee/Goliad at the right time, but as I pointed out in my article the full text of his statement of service - as opposed to the few selective words presented by Tom - quite unambiguously first relates that he was only a courier and secondly is equally positive that when he met Seguin the captain only had a couple of men with him. As it happens we know from other sources that Seguin did have rather more, but the fact that McNelly found him with just two or three is consistent with them scouting along a picket line rather than concentrating for a fight.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 25, 2007 17:04:47 GMT -5
I'm puzzled. With so many obvious holes in his "theory", why does TRL cling to it? I have a fair amount of respect for Tom's research, his hard work, and his ability to uncover facts....but it's what he does with them at times that leaves me scratching my balding head. Many of his theory's seem to be formed from what Phi Guarnieri called "Adductive Reasoning". I feel when a researcher/writer omits, distorts, deviates, or ignores facts in order to press his case or prove his point, then that person looses credibility...at least with me. By the way, Stuart...I have a lot of respect for the work you do as well. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 25, 2007 17:14:41 GMT -5
There are a couple of things I think Tom is trying to do with this theory. I think he's trying to make sense of the Williamson letter's reference to more men, and he's attempting to make the math jibe on body counts. Personally, I think he complicates things with this theory, especially stretching credibility with the Crockett involvement angle. Tom and I respectfully disagree on this reinforcement scenario. I'll take this opportunity too, to wish him well. He's been struggling with severe health issues, and I know he's in our thoughts and prayers. Tom's a true curmudgeon, but he has a heart of gold. I really missed him in San Antonio this past March. Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 25, 2007 17:17:16 GMT -5
Another question, guys, in regards to Alamo reinforcement. Williamson stated in his letter to Travis that 60 men had left Gonzales for Bexar. We know 32 showed up. What happened to the other 28 men? Were there two separate groups that left Gonzales and one got lost or ran into trouble along the way? Or was it one group that departed Gonzales and then split-up down the road? Or, did Williamson simply get the numbers wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 25, 2007 17:42:43 GMT -5
That is a good question - with a lot of possibilities.
Some time ago, this came up in debate, and somebody found a statement about Albert Martin (with the 32) leading 60 men to the Alamo.
According to Dr. Sutherland JW Smith led a second group of 25 men out of Gonzales on March 5th. I wonder if somehow these men were part of Williamson's 60 and were somehow delayed in leaving Gonzales and waited til Smith returned to guide them. Smith's party was followed by a still larger force led by LTC Neill that split into two smaller parties both numbering in the 20s.
BTW, according to Sutherland the arrival of the Gonzales 32, brought the Alamo garrison up to 206 men minus Travis's couriers.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 26, 2007 11:47:03 GMT -5
Was Sutherland including the wounded from the battle for Bexar in that count?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 26, 2007 17:37:14 GMT -5
Was Sutherland including the wounded from the battle for Bexar in that count? In an earlier count he is, so I assume Sutherland is giving the total number of men in the Alamo - while Travis' letters may only be the able bodied.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 24, 2007 15:12:46 GMT -5
With the discussion about what happened to the dead soldatos on another thread, I wanted to resurface this discussion.
The foundation of Tom's theory seems to me to rest on two key pieces of "evidence". The 250 plus bodies claimed by many Mexican accounts, and the Williamson letter.
While certainly not proved, the plausible explanation of the dead soldatos being burned along with the defenders, offers a viable alternative, to how to reconcile the Mexican accounts of 250 + bodies being burned. Looking at it by name as Stuart and others have done, it's awful hard to get beyond Filisola's 200 defenders.
Resolving Williamson's letter is more difficult, while far more than 60 men left Gonzales for the Alamo (Martin's 32, JW Smith's 2d attempt with 20 +, LTC Neil's attempt with over 40) nothing exactly matches Williamson's letter - at least as it was printed in a Mexican newspaper.
The real problem with Tom's theory is when you look at the by name roster of participants he compiled, too many of them are conclusively documented as being someplace else.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 24, 2007 15:38:41 GMT -5
I'd submit that the Williamson letter isn't the Rosetta Stone that some would like to imagine. Williamson lived until 1859. If this "second reinforcement" occured, why didn't Williamson himself set the record straight? I find the "Williamson letter" problematic. The original is not extant. The version that survives was allegedly translated from English to Spanish, published in a newspaper, then translated back to English. Another "lynchpin" piece of evidence in the TRL theory is the Taylor deed, which was allegedly signed by Crockett at the Cibolo during this reinforcement attempt. I've done a bit of research on this myself, and found that the Taylor deed with Crockett's "mark" ( he allegedly signed with an "X" due to illness) also is not extant. The evidence is based on the deposition of someone who claims to have witnessed the deed being signed by Crockett. What you have here is 2 key pieces of evidence that really don't exist other than as hearsay. Jim
|
|