|
Post by billchemerka on Feb 16, 2009 8:40:35 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 Indeed. Jackson's review of The Alamo Reader.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 16, 2009 9:37:32 GMT -5
Exactly right! Dickinson was not referring to Crockett when she made that statement but Bonham. We all know it was Bonham that arrived that day and he may very well have entered the Alamo with a couple of companions. We also know he carried Williamson's letter which promised aid and encouraged the defenders to hold on.
Dickinson knew Crockett perished in the battle as indicated in three separate interviews (Yoakum, Sutherland, Morphis) The reference to Crockett was an obvious error made by the interviewer.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Feb 16, 2009 9:59:49 GMT -5
Well, I feel its probably a little bit of both. We have the names of five or six Tejanos who died in the Alamo but that is still far short of twenty. Are you suggesting Travis intentionally kept the other alleged Tejano defenders off the muster roll? Who were these Tejanos? Why have they remained unidentified? Were they Seguin's men? Did their families apply for land grants after Texas won its independence?
The idea of 28 or so men being prevented from entering the Alamo and may have been part of Williamson's 60 sounds pretty reasonable. I know we've discussed this before but we could never make a clear determination as to what became of the other half of the group of 60. It does add up; 32 made it in and 28 were forced to retreat.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Feb 16, 2009 10:22:42 GMT -5
We don’t know for certain what their real status was. Both Sutherland and Filisola simply refer to them as locals, but at least some of them were certainly Seguin’s men.
Remember however that he himself started off as a Federalista and had earlier refused a commission in Travis’ Cavalry Corps. Ultimately he tried to accommodate himself within an independent Texas but he didn’t start off that way and nor, presumably, did his men. I’ve also a recollection that Menchaca (I need to check) wasn’t one of Seguin’s men, but belonged to Benavides’ company – and they were certainly anti-independence Federalistas
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 16, 2009 11:30:05 GMT -5
Well, I feel its probably a little bit of both. We have the names of five or six Tejanos who died in the Alamo but that is still far short of twenty. Are you suggesting Travis intentionally kept the other alleged Tejano defenders off the muster roll? Who were these Tejanos? Why have they remained unidentified? Were they Seguin's men? Did their families apply for land grants after Texas won its independence? Glenn Glenn, the point here is that Travis is being consistent. On February 23rd Sutherland says there were 152 volunteers and 20 men from the town or 172 men. Yet Travis' first letters from the Alamo refer to only 146 or 150 men. It last message reports 150 volunteers, says only 3 are Tejanos, 32 men from Bexar and nothing else. Yet Filisola lists the strength of the garrison as 150 volunteers, 32 men from Gonzales, and 20 men from town. Sutherland at the beginning and Filisola at the end match, but yet Travis never mentions more than 3 Tejanos. Very clearly there are more than 3 Tejanos recognized today as being in the garrison. Why doesn't Travis' letters correctly identify the number of Tejano defenders? There are two possible answers. Before we get to that, though, elsewhere on this board, Stuart (irc)identified that only 3 Tejanos were on the voting muster roll that sent delegates to the convention. Coincidence, possibly, but I think not. Remember the garrison was all for independence and were concerned that the local Bexar delegates Navarro, and Ruiz the elder, would not represent their interests. Three Tejanos part of the garrison voted in support of these delegates for independence. The two possible reasons, for not including the 20 towns men, are as Stuart says either politics, or militia. Or more than likely both. These townsmen were probably Federalists opposed to Santa Anna but not in favor of independence like the volunteers of the garrison. They probably also viewed themselves as militia, ie they were turning out to protect their homes and fully intended on returning to them when the crisis was over. They had no intention of joining the Texas Regular Army, Volunteers, or the Volunteer Auxiliary Corps and campaigning. Because they did not support Travis' views on independence and refused to formally enlist in the armies of Texas, Travis, the lawyer, never considered them, legally as part of the garrison. The three others were a different story. As to why we don't know more Tejano names look up one of the recent Tejano additions - Ximenes, Damacio, in the Texas Handbook online. It explains why his family never got a land grant and how his presence in the garrison was almost accidentally discovered.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 5, 2009 21:41:12 GMT -5
I apologize for kicking the dust off this thread as folks charge down to San Antonio for the annual Alamo festivities, but I have a question that is perplexing me. I realize there has been a good deal of speculation over the years about a second Alamo reinforcement attempt by J. J. Tumlinson's rangers and other small groups of volunteers, which havn't been proved. My question concerns the claims of veteran Robert Hancock Hunter from his 1860 memoir. Hunter stated that upon joining Capt. John Bird's company at San Felipe de Austin, the unit flew down to San Antonio to assist Travis, but were stopped at Peach Creek by news that the Alamo had fallen. Is there evidence for the movement of Bird's unit toward the Alamo or has anyone questioned the veracity of this portion of Hunter's badly written narrative?
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 7, 2009 7:38:36 GMT -5
Perhaps not. I'm starting to think that Hunter fibbed a bit. It appears to me that Bird's company of volunteers were an infantry unit, although some of the men might have had horses. Bird was definitely recruiting his unit throughout early March (March 1 - 7) and not in a good position to assist the Alamo. Even if the company had formed earlier it would have been a slow moving force with a large distance to cross.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 7, 2009 11:36:15 GMT -5
I haven't really had time to look this up, but if you haven't already done so, check out Moore's Eighteen Minutes. He usually gives pretty good details on the raising and movements of the different individual companies.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 8, 2009 20:42:04 GMT -5
Moore follows Hunter and doesn't address the fact that the narrative has Capt. Bird's company charging off to the Alamo on horseback. Moore does state Bird was mustering his company on March 6th and received a bunch of non-equestrian supplies on this date. Some of Bird's men were better equipped than previously for walking to San Antonio as the supply invoice lists eight pairs of kip brogans or calfskin sneakers. Republic claim with Capt Bird's infantry designation tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/8/00800354.pdf
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Mar 8, 2009 21:39:02 GMT -5
Regarding Travis not naming the Tejanos in the Alamo, could he have been trying to protect them and their families by not "fingering" them to Santa Anna? I personally don't think this is probable. I think he would have at least mentioned them to try to recruit more Tejanos to the independence cause.
I keep thinking that a likely reason was because many Texians, especially the most recent arrivals who came for the war, held the Tejanos in low regard and did not trust them. I'll grant that Travis was not a recent arrival looking for the adventure and glory of war, but he WAS a slave-holder and I think we can safely say that he thought pretty highly of himself and did not embrace the culture of the country he had sworn allegiance to.
- Paul Meske
|
|
|
Post by dustinl on Apr 10, 2010 23:14:56 GMT -5
Thank you Allen for linking this thread for me!
This thread is very helpful and has helped reinforce my skepticism. TRL says that only one third of the rienforcements made it to the Alamo but very few of those who did not make it in actually ever mentioned it. I suppose I can understand having survivor's guilt, but in my opinion this would not have been a situation where so many people didn't talk because of guilt. If the relief indeed happened, those men would have made a heck of an effort to reach the garrison. Hardly cowardly.
But....
What about Almonte's journal entry regarding the Sugar Mill sally? Possibly the 28 of the 60 from Gonzales?
DL
Oops! I missed wolfpacks post regarding Sam Houston's letter regarding the 28 men repulsed with 18 miles of Bexar.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 10, 2010 23:58:38 GMT -5
This theory has always been problematic. Thanks for the pointer back to this thread, Allen. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 13, 2010 10:34:16 GMT -5
What about Almonte's journal entry regarding the Sugar Mill sally? Possibly the 28 of the 60 from Gonzales? DL Welcome to the board! Without, some convincing contradictory evidence, I think we have to take Almonte at his word that it was a sally by Travis from the Alamo. Night actions can be immensily confusing, but generally you can tell where the contact was initiated - everything after that can become anybody's guess. While there is no real evidence to support it, given the Mexican reinforcements that arrived that day (March 3rd) and the Mexican work on their North Battery that day, I believe Travis sent out a patrol to confirm or deny if a route along the river might still be open. Obviously, the repulse of this patrol confirmed for Travis that he was now effectivily surrounded. While much of this topic argues against Tom Lindley's second reinforcement theory, I think Tom deserves quite a bit of credit for uncovering all the movements and attempts to relieve the Alamo that were going on. While I don't believe any major reinforcement occurred after the 32 arrived, my own feeble research has turned up a probable five groups (including the 32) that made some sort of attempt to reinforce the Alamo. Except for the 32, however, no group apparently ever made it beyond the Cibolo Crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 13, 2010 10:47:33 GMT -5
I have always associated this discussion more with the deplorable state of the Texas revolution leadership at that point and the confusion among military units as to who was in charge, who was in command, what (if any!) strategy existed, etc. Given that state of affairs, it is difficult to see how any significant sized force could be assembled, outfitted and directed to some common, planned purpose.
|
|
|
Post by dustinl on Apr 13, 2010 10:50:55 GMT -5
What was the approximate distance from the north wall to the Sugar Mill? 300-500 yards? I wonder why Travis would expose a part of the garrison and risk getting them cut off from the fort. In other words, would obtaining the knowledge of the river being open be worth the risk of losing part of an already weak garrison?
Thanks so much for this thread! This is so fascinating to me!
Wolfpack, thank you for the welcome!
DL
|
|