|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 20, 2008 17:44:06 GMT -5
I agree with you Glenn, there isn't any real evidence for any of this...just speculation. I do think however, it makes more sense to task Smith with the mission (if Travis tasked anyone with it), since he was already leaving the fort, than to give the job to Crockett. I'd again question why any escort needed to be sent out. Surely any reinforcements knew where the Alamo was. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 20, 2008 19:26:01 GMT -5
I think your missing the time element.
JW Smith entered the Alamo with the Gonzales 32 the night of March 1st.
According to the Sutherland draft account - JW Smith would have known that Sutherland w/10 men were supposed to link up with Seguin and the company he was raising and join the 32 on the Cibolo. JW Smith and Albert Martin had decided not to wait, but to go straight for the Alamo.
Presumably, upon entering in the middle of the night on March 1st, Smith and Martin would have told Travis that additional men should be waiting on the Cibolo awaiting a guide. Given the time and what he had just gone through - no reasonable commander would send JW Smith back out the same night.
The assumption is that Travis would probably get a couple of Seguin's men in the Alamo and Crockett to leave that night so as to reach the Cibolo on the 2d and guide the forces back in on the night of the 3rd.
The problem is, again according to Sutherland, when the combined party he was with, reached the Cibolo and realized that the 32 had already departed for the Alamo - his party returned to Gonzales.
IF all the above is true, it is very possible, that the sally on the sugar mill on March 3rd was planned by Travis to divert attention not just from his messenger but the planned return of his "spies" and the hoped for reinforcements.
Now, I'm not saying that this was what happened, but you have to figure the time/distance factors in, and when you do it does become plausible.
The information that Bonham brought in at 11:30 AM on March 3rd, to include the Williamson letter could not have played any significant part in what may have been going on. IF Travis sent spies out to do this and they returned the night of March 3rd, they had to leave long before Bonham ever showed up.
The only information that we know that Travis could have had to make this decision, was what information the Gonzales 32 brought in on March 1st.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 21, 2008 1:50:43 GMT -5
Hi Wolfpack,
I've never given much credence to the tale that Crockett went out after reinforcements. I must say though, that given your scenario, its starting to sound more plausible. They knew that Sutherland was out there with his 10-man reinforcement, Smith would have been too exhausted to send back out again . . . It seems that Crockett, with Seguin's two men who knew the area, might have been a logical choice to go out and bring them in.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 21, 2008 9:02:58 GMT -5
This all sounds interesting..but far from convincing.
I wonder why in 1860, when Sutherland conducted his interview, Mrs. Dickinson did not mention the story of Crockett leaving and returning. It seems to me that if Crockett and others had truly left the Alamo on some important mission, Sutherland would have heard of it from Dickinson or J.W. Smith...even Joe. Sutherland did interview all three.
Just thought I'd through that out there.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 21, 2008 9:40:58 GMT -5
This all sounds interesting..but far from convincing. I wonder why in 1860, when Sutherland conducted his interview, Mrs. Dickinson did not mention the story of Crockett leaving and returning. It seems to me that if Crockett and others had truly left the Alamo on some important mission, Sutherland would have heard of it from Dickinson or J.W. Smith...even Joe. Sutherland did interview all three. Just thought I'd through that out there. Glenn Good Point. But, if you were Sutherland, and knew that Travis sent Crockett out looking for you, but you had given up and returned to Gonzales, would you publish it? While I don't credit the anti-Sutherland bias of some, I think Stuart has convincingly shown that Sutherland was in San Antonio on the 23rd, it is hard to get around that his memoirs are very self-promoting (as are most memoirs ;D ). I'm not ready to buy this latest theory, yet. But, I do find it plausible, and it does seem to tie in the various accounts. I didn't credit the Crockett being outside the Alamo accounts either, until finding that it first appeared in the San Luis Journal written on March 6th. All told we have three separate accounts (two by Dickinson) that mention three men entering the Alamo on March 3rd, and two (one by Dickinson and the San Luis Journal) that mention Crockett as being one of the three men. I do not think we can reasonably dismiss this incident any more. Now obviously there are possibilities eg. relieving the pickets (a routine at least daily matter, and unlikely to raise comment), the sally against the sugar mill (unlikely given the comments about reinforcements). Of the possibilities raised so far, this is the only one that seems even remotely plausible.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 21, 2008 13:08:31 GMT -5
Wolf, I think you may have something here. Short of any further evidence showing up to support or refute it, I feel that this scenario is perfectly logical and reasonable. It makes sense, and conforms to Jake Ivey's famous (or infamous) "informed speculation" criteria. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 15, 2009 15:04:41 GMT -5
I've come across two bits of unrelated information that deal with defenders's numbers, that I wasn't able to locate during some of the above discussion.
First is from the Sutherland Account (Hansen, page 140-141). Sutherland specifies that the garrison number 152 men (elsewhere he says 156) on the day he left and that they were joined by some 20 men (Tejanos) from the town or a total of 172 men on the 23rd. When you add in the Gonzales 32 and Bonham the garrison numbered 205 minus the departing couriers plus any couriers from outside that may have enterred. Note once more Filisola said the garrison consisted of 150 volunteers, 32 men from Gonzales, and 20 townsmen from Bexar.
The second is a Sam Houston letter (Hansen, page 515-516) refers to 28 men being repulsed from reinforcing the Alamo.
Once again, note the the Williamson letter referred to 60 men departing Gonzales for the Alamo, and A. Martin's obituary referred to him leading 60 men from Gonzales but that they were reduced by desertion to 32. 60 - 32 = 28. Now, we have a letter from Houston that coincidentally mentions 28 men returning to Gonzales from a failed attempt to reinforce the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 15, 2009 15:50:45 GMT -5
Herb,
Now you're on to something new and very, very interesting. I'll have to check this information out and chew on it for a spell. Good work!
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Feb 15, 2009 19:16:34 GMT -5
Before engaging in discussions about Sutherland utilizing only The Alamo Reader, read the late Jack Jackson's review of the book in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (April 2004).
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 15, 2009 23:44:31 GMT -5
This seems rather tantalizing, Herb. The one problem I thought of (there may be others) is that we know a large majority of the Tejano defenders left the Alamo during the siege. Travis, in his letter dated 3 March, stated there were only three Tejanos left within the fort. Now, we know there was more than three Tejano defenders inside the Alamo at that particular time but certainly less then twenty. However, it remains an interesting theory.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 15, 2009 23:59:13 GMT -5
Before engaging in discussions about Sutherland utilizing only The Alamo Reader, read the late Jack Jackson's review of the book in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (April 2004). Just to clarify, that's a review of Hansen, not Sutherland, right? AW
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 16, 2009 0:24:27 GMT -5
Susanna Dickinson made 2 references to a few men entering the fort within days of the battle.
In the Morphis account (1874) she is quoted as saying "A few days before the final assault 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."
During her 1876 interview with the Adjutant General she is quoted as saying "Col. Crockett was one of the 3 men who came into the Fort during he seige & before the assault. He was killed, she believes."
(from Hansen, pp. 45-48)
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 16, 2009 2:23:26 GMT -5
Yes, but if you remember this is the statement that caused a lot of the trouble...
"Col. Crockett was one of the 3 men who came into the Fort during he siege & before the assault. He was killed, she believes."
The "she believes" bit obviously contradicts her other positive statement about seeing his body. I've contended before and still maintain that that she didn't actually refer to Crocket at all, but to "the Colonel" and that her interviewer assumed she meant Crockett when she was really talking about Bonham, whose documented return does co-incide with the arrival of the three scouts bringing hopes of speedy relief.
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Feb 16, 2009 6:53:41 GMT -5
This could be e reach here. But what she may have said is. She believes, "Col. Crockett was one of 3 men who came into the fort during the siege and before the assault" -" He was killed". After 40 years either she or the interviewer could have slipped up the wording order.
The problem with Bonham is he was suppose to have came in 11am and alone.
I have doubts on Crockett being sent out. With Bowie down, Seguin and Bonham gone, moral might be getting low,Travis might wanna keep him around. But if he did request it, it would be hard to tell him no.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 16, 2009 7:13:43 GMT -5
This seems rather tantalizing, Herb. The one problem I thought of (there may be others) is that we know a large majority of the Tejano defenders left the Alamo during the siege. Travis, in his letter dated 3 March, stated there were only three Tejanos left within the fort. Now, we know there was more than three Tejano defenders inside the Alamo at that particular time but certainly less then twenty. However, it remains an interesting theory. Glenn The problem Glenn isn't artithmetic but politics. As Herb has just demonstrated the various figures by Sutherland, Williamson, Houston and Filisola are all so consistent as to look as though they provide a true picture - as well as explaining the difference between Williamson's original figure and the Gonzales 32 which gave rise to TRL's second reinforcement theory. Both Sutherland and Filisola are consistent in their reference to 20 Tejanos in addition to the 187 "white men" per Houston and Filisola. Travis - famously - speaks of only 3 - but my contention is that he wasn't speaking literally. Certainly a number did leave, but there's no reason to suppose we're not talking about non-combatants rather than the 20 Tejano defenders. The three he referred to, in my view - since we know for certain there were more than them - were the only Tejanos signing up for independence while the others were Mexican Federalistas, who were in the Alamo fighting Santa Anna but opposed to the independence which Travis wanted.
|
|