|
Post by TRK on Aug 24, 2007 17:56:52 GMT -5
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. And that deposition was filed many, many years after 1836, if I recall correctly. The whole thing smells like a latter-day attempt at a land fraud.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Aug 25, 2007 0:26:46 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that Crockett or anyone else would take the time, in the middle of guiding reinforcements to the Alamo, to sign a deposition. Seems there would have been more important things to worry about. And if Crockett was too sick to even sign his name, what was he doing rendezvousing outside the Alamo with the reinforcement? If he got sick after he left the Alamo, and was too sick to sign his name, why would he have been wasting energy signing anything at all, let alone with an X? This whole scenario just seems like too much of a stretch of credulity to even consider. I think your assessment of the deposition as an attempt at a land fraud is probably spot on.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Aug 25, 2007 14:19:03 GMT -5
Like you, I really took my time with this issue, albeit the convincing work that TRL has done. However, I think the Alamo story is shaping up more and more like Little Big Horn, where we finally start listening to the other side of the story. After ten days of siege, I don't believe the Alamo was a happy campground, and Crockett would have been especially irritated that he got himself side-saddled with this ornery bunch of disorderly volunteers. Remember, he asked for permission to break ranks several times during the Creek War to address either the gathering of intelligence or the bringing down of game for his starving comrads. I can't speak for the recurrance of his illness but it would be in his character to ride out and make something happen...and I don't think Travis would agrue with him too long about having his mind made up. So, if Crockett and 60-some men had to circumvent patrols to the east, it makes sense that they would swing around further to the north and come out near the old mill along the river. Almonte should know better, Texians save the sorties for the movies.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 25, 2007 15:07:28 GMT -5
While I think it's something Crockett could have done, I don't believe he'd have been the best man for the job, and I still hold that there's really no compelling evidence that a.) the 2nd reinforcement occurred or b.) that Crockett had anything to do with it.
I think if Crockett had a burning desire to get out of the fort and shake things up he could have been sent out as a courier, but there's no evidence of that. For my money, the 2nd reinforcement theory is extremely problematic and very implausible. Crockett's alleged involvement is an even greater stretch, especially since it's based on such flimsy evidence...a deposition from years later and what appears to have been a mistaken ID by Mrs. Dickinson, not known for the accuracy of her accounts.
One question I don't think has been addressed is why would Travis have felt it necessary to send out an escort?
Jim
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Aug 25, 2007 17:02:52 GMT -5
that was my question, would they need an escort in, i would think a few of them knew the area. possibly someone was sent out to speed them up along with another courier. i think if crockett did go it probably was because he wanted to and had the pull to do so and he probably could have gotten some doubters in the reinforcements to go the rest of the way. they would have taken someone who knew the territory too i think if crockett went. i think the reinforcements are debateable. crockette leading them less likley and crockett not being able to sign his name but ride a horse 40? miles out of the question. the mexican body count of 250 makes the relief possible. mrs d. even tho quite unreliable mentions it and i doubt she would miss id crockett. possible reporter embellishing. one other possibility, almontes sortie could have been a diversion to open a way in, not out. no strong stance on any of it just thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 25, 2007 17:13:57 GMT -5
no strong stance on any of it just thoughts. A pretty fair summary though of the majority opinion on this board. As to the numbers there are a couple of threads where we've discussed this before and pretty well accounted for the apparent discrepancy without having to introduce 50-60 more men totally unknown to history.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 26, 2007 8:51:17 GMT -5
"One question I don't think has been addressed is why would Travis have felt it necessary to send out an escort?"
I don't buy into the second reinforcement theory, but playing devil's advocate, if Travis knew or thought reinforcements were coming in, he might have wanted to send out a guide or two who had up-to-date knowledge of the location of the Mexican pickets and positions, and thus could usher reinforcements--who wouldn't have had that knowledge--through the enemy lines.
Granted, Crockett had an uncommon knowledge of woodcraft and scouting, but why would Travis have sent out somebody, i.e. Crockett, who had never been in the area until a few weeks earlier? Wouldn't it have made more sense to send men with an intimate knowledge of not only the road from the Cibolo to Bexar, but also alternate approaches to the Alamo?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 26, 2007 9:06:30 GMT -5
Or someone who spoke Spanish?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 26, 2007 19:45:46 GMT -5
One question I don't think has been addressed is why would Travis have felt it necessary to send out an escort? Jim Don't know. But what about that guy that Sutherland talked about in his account who did meet the Gonzales 32 on the road at night and asked, "Do you wish to go into the fort, gentlemen?" Could he have actually been somebody from the Alamo?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 27, 2007 3:12:00 GMT -5
The way Sutherland (per JohnSmith?) told it, he was supposed to be working for the Mexicans and perhaps the same mysterious Colonel Black who got mentioned in one of Susannah Dickinson's accounts.
Some of you may remember my "discovery" of his papers:
“This one was going to wait until I’d finished preparing the transcriptions, but today (APRIL 1) seems a good time to warn you what to expect very shortly.
Most material relating to clandestine British activity in Texas is actually found in files relating to Mexico – which is logical enough when you think about it – and in an obscure set of reports compiled on the Mexican Army in the 1830s something quite extraordinary has just turned up.
The reports came from a Captain William Blake of the Royal Glasgow Regiment. Blake was an official observer with Santa Anna’s army during the Texas campaign and it is clear from internal evidence that he is the “Colonel Black” who rescued Susannah Dickinson, and probably the man who tried to lead the Gonzales reinforcement astray.
His previously unpublished account of the storming of the Alamo is extremely detailed as might be expected from a military observer, particularly since he went in with the Zapadores and witnessed the final stages of the fighting at first hand. Of itself this is a major discovery, describing the last stand of the New Orleans Greys, which would promise to revolutionise our understanding of what happened - if it was not accompanied by something even more exciting.
Blake was primarily an intelligence officer and so “while the soldiers were busily engaged in butchering the wounded and anyone else who came alive into their hands”, he rifled Travis’ papers and sent to London a muster roll for the garrison, corrected up to March 5, and Travis’ daily journal of the siege!!!
A full transcript will follow very shortly, but the journal details all the comings and goings (some of them quite surprising) and contains a few shocks. The ‘Line in the Sand’ incident actually happened, but it was on the first day and centred around a dispute between Travis and Bowie whether to fight or negotiate. It was Bowie, not Travis, who drew the line, or at least tried to, but “the drunken Hottentot” fell over. This was apparently so discouraging that next day seven of the defenders, including a man named Lindley, deserted to the enemy. For the most part of course the siege appears to have been more monotonous than exciting, but there are odd pithy comments like “Crockett missed – again” and complaints about his fiddle playing. There was also general agreement that the only tune he knew wasn’t Yankee Doodle. By far the most interesting revelation however is that fact that Travis was secretly conducting a passionate affair with Susannah Dickinson, and perhaps appropriately the very last line in the journal is a bitter: “Poxed again!! Becky will kill me.”
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Aug 27, 2007 7:31:42 GMT -5
Is this for real? !?!?!? I don't know how I missed your April posting about the discovery of these papers. How close are you to having the transcription completed? What are your plans for publication or have I missed that too???
I have a million questions but will hold off on those until I see the completed transcription.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 27, 2007 8:34:38 GMT -5
Original Entry dtd April 1st, He had me, too, until the final paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by highplainsman on Aug 27, 2007 11:58:51 GMT -5
I can't believe he got me-------twice!!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 27, 2007 12:23:34 GMT -5
Well I just posted it again for old times sake, I even posted the original date by way of being open about it. I didn't expect to "get" people again... Well I'm amused
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 27, 2007 12:58:07 GMT -5
And we thought de la Pena caused a controversy!
AW
|
|