|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 19, 2008 12:18:33 GMT -5
This is all news to me Wolf. Thanks for posting it. It does cast a new light on this (at least, as much light as we typically get about the events at the Alamo). These recollections of Dickenson sound more coherent than most of the other quotes I've read, many of which I believe may have been tainted by those who were interviewing her.
For example, her testimony on behalf of other defenders carries the phrase "he was killed in the Alamo she believes," or words to that effect. If the inquiring panel simply wanted to verify the deaths of individuals in the Alamo, to justify pensions or whatever, all they needed was an eye witness confirming that the person died in the Alamo. That could be written down quite simply as Dickinson confirming, or believing, the individual was killed. She may not have seen every corpse (or even many of them), but she knew who was in the fort and assumed all were killed. That isn't the same as saying "I think Crockett was killed there," as if she was unsure of his fate, but simply that she was affirming that he was killed there. The "she believes" could have been the way the official recorder wrote it down.
Pure speculation: After Bonham got in on March 3, he could have reported that there were more reenforcements in the area; he also had the Williamson letter. It's possible that Crockett could have been one of a small group sent out after dark to try to find them and maybe guide them into the fort. Crockett could have been familiar enough with the local area to do that or at least be part of it. Against this speculation, I wonder if Travis would have taken the chance of sending Crockett out if he were important to him in the fort and/or as a morale booster.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 19, 2008 12:53:18 GMT -5
Travis apparently did not see Crockett's celebrity status as much of a factor in recruiting reenforcements since he only mentions him once in his appeals for help. Maybe his celebrity wasn't much of an issue once the men realized they were in such a tight spot. Interesting point though Allen, about Crockett possibly being sent out to locate the missing reenforcements. While TRL proposed the same thing, it seems to me that the mention of only 2 additional men entering with Crockett on the third would indicate that he failed to locate the men. (I remain unconvinced about his whereabouts on the third though.) Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 19, 2008 13:53:09 GMT -5
This scenario is certainly more plausible than TRL's version.
Mrs Dickinson's statement, which she made twice, is of course nonsensical in that she claims the three men who came in were the only reinforcement that the garrison received - while we on the other hand "know" there were the 32 from Gonzales.
However... Allen's theory could resolve this, if what she actually meant was that Bonham had come in with Williamson's letter promising a substatial reinforcement but when Crockett went out to the rendezvous (at the Cibolo) he only found two (or three). The bitterness of that disappointment might well have lingered in Dickinson's memory long after she'd forgotten the actual Gonzales reinforcement.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 19, 2008 19:32:25 GMT -5
In the past, I and a few others here have ventured that the documentation that places Crockett on the Cibolo on the night of March 3--various Taylor affidavits in the public records of the counties of Montgomery and Somervell--seem to have some of the attributes of a late-19th-century attempt at a land fraud. In 1890, affidavits purportedly drafted on March 3, 1836, were filed concerning a property deed, and David Crockett (conveniently?) signed his name on it with an X because he was too ill to sign his full name. Lindley cites these documents in Alamo Traces, pp. 155 n. 13 and 164 n. 78.
I haven't seen the actual documents, and it would be somewhat cavalier to dismiss them sight unseen. I wonder, has anybody here had occasion to examine the actual Taylor affidavits Lindley cited?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 19, 2008 20:25:33 GMT -5
The actual document upon which Crockett allegedlly affixed his "X" is mentioned in the 1890 Taylor affadavit, but the document itself has not been found, nor does it seem to have been extant at the time of the Taylor deposition. J.C. Taylor was six years old at the time he claims to have witnessed the execution of the deed. Highly unlikely, in my opinion.
To add a little more fuel to this fire, in an 1897 Ben Highsmith interview, he claims Crockett came in with a number of men from Gonzales (Hansen, p.230). Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 20, 2008 1:37:54 GMT -5
However... Allen's theory could resolve this, if what she actually meant was that Bonham had come in with Williamson's letter promising a substantial reinforcement but when Crockett went out to the rendezvous (at the Cibolo) he only found two (or three). The bitterness of that disappointment might well have lingered in Dickinson's memory long after she'd forgotten the actual Gonzales reinforcement. Having thought some more on this one overnight. In her 1876 interview (Hansen 47) Dickinson referred to the men as "3 of our spies" which would suggest that all three of them, including Crockett actually belonged to the garrison. Still following Allen's theory that could suggest that the three went out looking for the reinforcements promised by Bonham (and Williamson) and far from fighting their way back in with TRL's 50-odd reinforcements came back empty handed, hence Mrs D's memory of bitter disappointment
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 20, 2008 8:48:01 GMT -5
This is a pretty interesting theory and there may be something to it. In an 1874 interview, Dickinson says: "A few days before the final assult three Texans entered the fort during the night and inspired us with sanguine hopes of speedy relief, and thus animated the men to contend to the last."
If we apply Allen's theory to the above statement we can see a problem. We know Bonham arrived at the Alamo "a few days (3 March) before the final assult. He had Williamson's letter and may have "inspired us (Texans) with sanguine hopes of speedy relief." Bonham, as we know, arrived in the morning..not in the night. Bonham may or may not have entered the Alamo alone. But Bonham is the only person I can see inspiring the defenders with hope of relief. There is no mention of Crockett as one of the three.
We also need to consider that John Smith left the Alamo on the night of the third. If there were reinforcements hanging out at the Cibolo, wouldn't Travis just have Smith hurry them on??
Another theory could be that three unknown Texans did enter into the Alamo at night. Maybe they were men who were part of the sixty that Williamson wrote about. Actually they could have been anybody. The point being, this may have been a separate incident that had nothing to do with Bonham or Crockett.
There still may be something to Allen's theory. But right now the puzzle pieces we're playing with don't seem to fit very well.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 20, 2008 8:53:52 GMT -5
A thought occurred to me, that seems more simple.
From Almonte, we know that Travis sent a "force" out toward the mill. In the past it's been said that this force was a diversion to aid JW Smith's departure. A vary few men, at night can create great confusion and seem like a much larger force. What if Crockett and his two companions were the force that "attempted a sally in the night at the sugar mill" ?
The shooting would have awakened Dickinson, the other noncombatants and any members of the garrison that were sleeping making Crockett and his two companions returning to the fort a memorable occasion.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 20, 2008 8:55:30 GMT -5
No, I'm still with Allen's charming theory on this one. As I said in my last Dickinson did refer to them as being "our spies" which indicates they were part of the garrison rather than outsiders - which of course Crockett was.
As to the question of why Crockett? Well at first sight he probably does look an unlikely candidate. I'd be surprised if he could find his way over unfamiliar country to the Cibolo in daylight let alone in the dark. Local men, Tejanos from Seguin's company, who knew the ground would have been the best choice, but it would have been prudent to take Crockett along too just to prove that they were indeed the good guys.
Anyways, the point still remains that whether it was Crockett or not; they didn't lead in 50-odd men as TRL tried to prove, but returned empty handed
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 20, 2008 9:07:38 GMT -5
I can't imagine Travis sending just Crockett and and two others to create a diversion. Besides, Mrs. D. said upon entering the fort the three Texans inspired them with hopes of relief. That doesn't sound like a diversion party. So I don't believe the two incidents are connected.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 20, 2008 9:15:50 GMT -5
True. The term "spies" was applied to the three Texans in the 1876 interview. I was referring to the 1874 interview. Which one is correct is anybodies guess.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 20, 2008 10:36:03 GMT -5
I'm thinking that when Dickinson mentioned 3 Texans entering the fort by night a few days before the assault, and inspiring them with the possibility of additional reenforcments, she is talking about Bonham and the Williamson letter. That fits, except for the mention of 3 Texans, rather than just one. It is, however, possible that 2 other entered the fort with Bonham.
It is still possible that Crockett was among a separate party sent out on some other mission, although the evidence for it is flimsy. I agree with Jim that the letter marked with an "X" instead of Crockett's signature is baloney. Even sick Crockett was able to sign his name (even the sick Bowie signed his to that early communique with the Mexicans); the "X" is just too incredible.
The confusion stems, not from the Cibollo Crockett "X", but from Dickinson mentioning that Crockett came into the fort a few days before the attack. Yesterday's discussion showed that Dickinson was quite familiar with both Crockett and Bonham and would have easily identified them. So, did she get them confused, or did her interviewer get some mention of Crockett by her confused with her account of 3 Texans coming into the fort? If she saw who came into the fort, why not just say it was Bonham?
The fact that we are reading her words through 3rd parties leaves room for quite a bit of speculation on this point. I also don't understand why Travis would choose Crockett for a mission outside the fort, but Travis did a lot of questionable things. The simple speculation may be the most plausible; that Bonham's "promising news" stirred Travis to send some men out to spot the reenforcements and guide them in; Crockett's presense may have persuaded them that they were who they said they were. On the other hand, with Smith on his way out, why not have him link up with the reenforcements? In fact, was that Smith's assignment? Was he to find the reenforcements metnioned by Williamson, or was he to go elsewhere in the search for still more help?
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 20, 2008 11:47:09 GMT -5
I reread the Ford/Sutherland account this morning and came upon a couple of details that might be pertinent to this discussion. Earlier in the thread I questioned how Bonham's entry into the fort could have been "unmolested" had he been on horseback. Sutherland provides an explanation in Hansen, p. 148. He contends that the Mexicans continued to allow access to the Alamo so that "the slaughter might be greater". By their reasoning, they could take the fort when they wanted, so why not have all their enemies in one place? Sutherland writes:
Their conduct towards Mr. Bonham indicates this idea. Whilst going into the fort as before mentioned, he passed their sentinel without being halted or molested. They paid no attention to him.
Sutherland's source for this was presumably Mrs. Dickinson. Regarding Allen's remarks about John W. Smith and the 2nd reenforcement, Sutherland states that Smith left the fort on the third, and on the sixth attempted to return with another reenforcement from Gonzales. Upon arriving at the Cibolo, he did not hear the signal fire from the Alamo cannon and assumed the fort had fallen (Hansen, p. 157). So, it seems Smith might have been tasked with bringing this group into the fort. Trouble is, they weren't waiting on the Cibolo, they were still in Gonzales. Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 20, 2008 16:59:16 GMT -5
I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that Smith's assignment was anything more then to deliver Travis' letters. All dated 3 March. But that doesn't mean Travis would not have instructed Smith to hurry-on any and all men he came in contact with.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 20, 2008 17:01:45 GMT -5
Jim - this again points out the difficulty in figuring out what Crockett's alleged mission outside the fort may have been. Where the heck is that Travis logbook???
AW
|
|