|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 23, 2008 8:48:54 GMT -5
It may seem hard to believe, but either Dickinson or her interviewer may, indeed, have gotten Alamo defenders mixed up. She mentions Crockett playing the fiddle, but there is no evidence that he ever did, nor did he ever mention it. However, Micijah Autry reportedly did play the fiddle. By the same token, the Mexicans could have gotten names mixed up after the battle in interviewing the survivors. After all, they had little idea who most of these people were, apart from Bowie and Travis, and may have mentioned Crockett only because the survivors did and spoke of him as if he were an important person among the garrison.
Also, I thought that at least one diary or journal of Travis's had been discovered, apparently written in Spanish. I don't know if this covers the Alamo siege.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jan 23, 2008 11:24:15 GMT -5
Good food for thought indeed. We tend to accept everything as is (except for Tom Lindley, who went the other direction entirely, and is now checking the biggest file of all). Hypothesize, theorize, research, but don't presume -- until it's clearly on the table. The Travis diary that exists -- has been published in 1966 by Texian Press and well annotated by Robert E. Davis -- began on August 30, 1833. Travis' last entry was June 26, 1834. The diary is in English, but Travis (who was writing only for himself) had a passion for noting romantic escapades in poor Spanish. I would suppose this was part of his romanticist streak. And these escapades were many -- 56 in his life by his count in one entry and 58 a few days later! So far, no information on any diary kept at the Alamo has surfaced from any source, but, with you, I agree that he would surely have kept one. My guess is that -- if one still exists -- it ended up in Mexico City with everything else captured at the Alamo on March 6. Unless, as in Dances With Wolves, it was used by some illiterate for other purposes!!! Everybody please keep looking!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 25, 2008 12:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 18, 2008 10:21:00 GMT -5
Rereading the Dickinson statements this morning I "rediscovered" What she said in her disposition on David Cummings (Hansen, page 42) who was out surveying on the Cibolo when the Mexicans arrived in SA. She said that Travis sent an express to specifically recall these men and they returned to the Alamo.
Almonte mentions being informed by a spy of reinforcements entering the Alamo on the 24 (often assumed to be a mistake on his part and referring to the Gonzales men).
I bring this up, for I am convinced that Tom Lindley correctly identified a number of defenders that were previously unknown, however, I am equally convinced that the Williamson letter led him astray into the numbers and how they got there. The link posted in the previous reply above, pretty conclusively shows, imo, that the Williamson letter referred to the Gonzales 32 - not a fictional 70 man reinforcement the night of March 3rd.
Another intriguing point is that Dickinson and the San Luis Potosi Journal both mention that Crockett and two other men entered the Alamo the night of March 3rd (Important Note: two men - not 70). JW Smith led the 32 into the Alamo the night of March 1st. According to the Sutherland draft account, Sutherland and 10 men who were part of the 60 men that started out from Gonzales had separated at the Cibolo to try to find Juan Seguin, who was supposedly raising men in the vicinity. Could JW Smith had informed Travis that there were another 30 odd men suppose to be out at the Cibolo waiting for a guide - and Travis sent Crockett and two others out to lead them in?
To finish the tale, according to Sutherland Seguin wasn't where they thought he'd be. He was further south waiting for Fannin, by the time they found him - they had missed the possible rendezvous and all returned to Gonzales.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 18, 2008 11:30:33 GMT -5
Great observation, Herb. I never made the connection of David Cummings and "Others" entering the Alamo a day or so after the beginning of the siege and being regarded as reinforcements.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 18, 2008 12:28:16 GMT -5
Cummings is normally counted as part of the 32, but if he and a small party from the garrison were on "leave" surveying on the Cibolo on the 23rd when Santa Anna arrived - and Travis sent an express to recall them, their return on the night of the 24th instead of March 1st with the 32 makes a lot more sense.
I'm just throwing stuff out trying to figure out if something "sticks".
I am convinced that Tom Lindley did identify some previously unknown defenders, and that he correctly identified some of the what for me is very confusing moving parts that were taking place outside of the Alamo ans seem to principally involve forces commanded/or guided by LTC Neill, JW Smith, Sutherland, Seguin and Collingsworth.
We also clearly have two different accounts of Crockett and two men entering the Alamo on March 3rd. While misidentification of Crockett is certainly a possibility - the second account leads me to believe that something involving him was indeed going on. The question is what was it?
I'm equally convinced that there was no major reinforcement of the Alamo on March 3rd, and that Tom included men on his revised roster of defenders that were no where near the Alamo eg Tumilinson's Rangers (who Tom also came to agree were not there).
So what sticks?
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 18, 2008 13:46:06 GMT -5
I've heard of the San Luis Potosi Journal discussed before but I'm admittedly uninformed as to who or what it's significance is. Can someone enlighten me??
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 18, 2008 14:44:43 GMT -5
Glenn, it's the daybook of the Batallón Activo de San Luis Potosí, original in the de la Peña papers, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin. See Hansen, Alamo Reader, 442.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 18, 2008 15:40:36 GMT -5
Got it! Thanks, Tom.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 18, 2008 17:44:33 GMT -5
There are just a couple of points I'd make here.
Firstly on the matter of Cummings and his friends, although the vast majority of TRL's projected reinforcement were as I've demonstrated elsewhere nowhere near the Alamo, we've discussed before how the "standard" figure of 187 men only refers to the American/white defenders, not to the Tejanos or any other non-whites. Therefore if all of those are removed from the official list there are a number of vacancies to be filled by Mr Cummings and his ilk without looking for that mythical second reinforcement.
The second point concerns the Crockett/Bonham business. I remain convinced there was only one colonel riding into the Alamo on March 3 and that was Bonham not Crockett. Travis refers to him getting in but interestingly doesn't explicitly say he came in alone. Its always been inferred that he did, but taking both Mrs D's two references and the San Luis log together it seems pretty clear that Bonham came in from Gonzales with two other men either from there or from Goliad, who ought to be added to the "list".
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 18, 2008 20:06:05 GMT -5
While I don't agree with you about the case of mistaken identity, we do agree that Bonham was the only Colonel coming in on the third. I'm wondering however, if he rode in or crept in on foot after dismounting elsewhere. Previously we discussed the possibility that the Alamo couriers may have left the compound on foot and mounted up at another location. Perhaps Bonham dismounted before making his final approach to the fort. Travis mentions that Bonham got in at eleven AM "without molestation". Seems to me that Sesma would have to have been asleep at the wheel to let a rider get through at that late date. This really has no bearing on this particular discussion, I only mention it as an additional point of interest. Travis doesn't explicitly state that Bonham was alone, but the inference is there, as in the same sentence he mentions the arrival of the Gonzales 32. Since he's discussing numbers, it seems to me he would have mentioned any additional men with Bonham. Of course, it could be that if there were 2 other men with Bonham they might have been Tejanos, and we've suspected that they might not have been included in the counts. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 19, 2008 1:49:52 GMT -5
I still rest on my argument that Bonham was seen by the Mexicans getting in (it was broad daylight after all) but there's no way they could have known who he was and so jumped to the conclusion that such a bold hero must have been the famous scout Crockett.
Good point about the possibility of the two men with him being Tejanos though. We know from Bennet McNelly's narrative that Seguin's men were spread out in an extended picket line and a couple of them might well have agreed to run Bonham in.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 19, 2008 3:29:28 GMT -5
I'm equally convinced that there was no major reinforcement of the Alamo on March 3rd, and that Tom included men on his revised roster of defenders that were no where near the Alamo eg Tumilinson's Rangers (who Tom also came to agree were not there). Sorry, this doesn't sound correct to me. I believe Lindley begrudgingly stated to others that J.J. Tumlinson made no attempt to help the fort once I displayed a receipt for a Tumlinson cow. I think Lindley held on to his theory to the bitter end that "some" Tumlinson men attempted to assist the Alamo. This ranger unit actually rode east under a new commander as shown in the republic claims and Smithwick memoirs.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 19, 2008 8:02:59 GMT -5
Just to be sure, any Mexican suggestion that Crockett rode in on the 3rd was after the fact (some time after the battle), not recorded at the time (on the 3rd)? I agree that there's no way they could have identified the individual(s) who rode in. This had to be another "late" identification of Crockett.
However, I do think the suggestion that Crockett may have left the fort for some other purpose, perhaps not going too far from it, is an interesting one. I've always wondered about the role that Crockett played during the siege and Travis' sole mention of him as having been something of a leader among the men ("Crockett was seen at all points....").
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 19, 2008 10:23:33 GMT -5
A unit journal is just like a ship's log - daily entries of the important events of the day. In fact in todays' Army it is called the "log".
The San Luis comment on Crockett was entered on March 6th - as part of the battle commentary - so there is the possibility that Dickinson is the common source. But, if she did give this information to the Mexicans - I'm less inclined to believe it an error on her part - due to the proximity of the event, (remember Crockett and her family did share quarters in Bexar before the siege).
I really don't know what to make of this information on Crockett entering on March 3rd - it could be a mistake, but I'm starting to not think so. Remember Bonham entered during the day, supposedly alone - while Crockett and his two companions according to these two accounts entered the night of March 3rd.
Also according to Bonham's brother, in 1838 he met Dickinson and she told him that she and her husband had shared tea with Bonham on the evening of the 5th (Hanson, 704). It starting to look like she was familiar with both men and unlikely to confuse them.
Bonham traditionally (I don't know what basis) is placed at the church battery during the final battle. This last comment seems to corroborate that tradition.
|
|