|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 7, 2007 12:59:32 GMT -5
Here's a link to a PDF of page one of the letter in question. alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/09/090507letter_original.pdfI can attest that this is definitely not David Crockett's handwriting. The latest I've seen on the controversy is that the auction house has released the State Historical Commission from the requirement to hold the purchase funds in escrow. Authentication must be completed before December 27. This deal is a no-go in my opinion. Jim
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Oct 9, 2007 15:18:37 GMT -5
I totally agree. Within the last few days I have had contact with the THC and Crockett's descendants on this issue. Over a week ago we sent the THC jpegs of Crockett's Oct. 31, 1835 letter (from David Zucker's collection) and it is so clear that there is no question that it is not from David's hand...possibly Margaret or even John Wesley...but not David.
|
|
|
Post by highplainsman on Oct 10, 2007 15:24:13 GMT -5
I'm glad to see you guys are keeping up with this. I guess it would still have some historical significance even if it was a copy by one or other of Davids children.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 10, 2007 17:30:59 GMT -5
I think that would be a key point in the letter's favor. If it can be determined that it is a copy written by John Wesley, let's say, it would tend to confirm that such a letter actually did exist in Crockett's hand. The problem to date has been that no one seems to ever have seen the original and no ownership of it has ever been established. There is no record of its ever having been sold at auction, although other Crockett letters have been.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 13, 2007 18:10:38 GMT -5
It's taken me a while to follow up on this. I have copies of 2 letters written by John Wesley Crockett, one dated March 6, 1827, the other July 9, 1836. The handwriting in these letters does not appear to me to be a match for the handwriting seen in the letter under consideration by the THC. In the 1836 JWC letter, his handwriting is much smaller and "tighter" than the penmanship in the alleged Crockett letter. Also, there are many differences when one compares individual letters of the alphabet. If anyone is interested, I can attempt to scan some examples of the differences. In my opinion though, the THC letter isn't in John Wesley Crockett's hand either. Jim
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Nov 8, 2007 18:50:00 GMT -5
Texas Monthly recently examined the Nov. issue of The Crockett Chronicle which included a story on the Jan. 9, 1836 Crockett letter controversy. Gregory Curtis of Texas Monthly plans to so a story on the letter. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 1, 2008 21:56:10 GMT -5
Hey Bill. Texas Monthly came out with that Crockett letter piece in case you havn't picked it up yet. It's a pretty good treatment of the controversy. I don't know why so many experts fell for this deminished Alamo relic, but I'm certainly glad Ol' Texas didn't get suckered into buying it for that ridiculous price. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 2, 2008 0:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 5, 2008 2:57:14 GMT -5
The forensic report supposedly states that Simpson's Crockett letter is a modern creation (ca 1980) written on paper from the 1850s. I thought the whole sale smelled fishy.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 5, 2008 11:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 5, 2008 12:49:42 GMT -5
Thanx for the Philobiblos link trk, but I wonder if the official Federal Forensics Associates report has been printed some where. The analysis seems very sparse on the philo link and I think there is probably more to the report.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 5, 2008 13:04:20 GMT -5
There are two known versions of this alleged Crockett letter. This one, the “Texas” letter, is clearly a forgery, as per the forensic report. It was no doubt copied from the older known version of the letter, the “Tennessee” letter, which Jim mentioned being published in the 1913 Dallas News and in Williams, who merely copied that. No original of the ”Tennessee” letter has ever been found. James A. Shackford, author of David Crockett: The Man and the Legend (1956), never saw a holograph of the letter, only a typescript (from Williams, I believe). There are photocopies of a hand-written version of the “Tennessee” letter, which differs from the “Texas” forgery, but which also is not in Crockett's handwriting. Again there is no record of any such letter prior to the 1913 Dallas News article.
Considering the large number of known, authentic Crockett letters, many of which have been auctioned for high prices (some more than once), it would be surprising if such a letter did exist, but was never seen or even mentioned prior to 1913, and never once offered for sale at auction. It's possible, but seems unlikely. The letter could have been destroyed, but why would there be no mention of it anywhere prior to 1913?
There is one other possibility. In an 1882 interview, Crockett's daughter, Mrs. Matilda Fields, referred to a letter from Texas that her mother, Elizabeth Patton Crockett, had received from David. Mrs. Fields is quoted as saying “We did not know that he [Crockett] intended to go into the army until he wrote mother a letter after he got to Texas.” The problem here is that this letter has never surfaced either, and it was written to Elizabeth. The “Tennessee” letter (and, of course, the “Texas” forgery) is addressed to Crockett's daughter, Margaret, and her husband, Wily Flowers.
The same misgivings apply -- Where is the letter Mrs. Fields referred to? Why would this, the last word Crockett's family ever received from him, and thus doubtlessly dear to them, be so easily lost, never mentioned elsewhere, never sold at auction and never seen, when so many other letters of his, many of them mundane, survive to this day?
No doubt there are possible answers to these questions, but the Flowers letter already has a number of nails in its coffin.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jan 5, 2008 13:18:04 GMT -5
Indeed. I think the odds are that Crockett never wrote this often quoted document. It is conspicuous among the other letters for its poetic language and lengthy descriptive passages. I'm not completely willing to write it off at this point, but I'm highly suspicious of its authenticity. Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 5, 2008 16:33:22 GMT -5
One of you fellows needs to take a gander at the official forensics report whenever it becomes available. I believe it will prove even more revealing than the Philobiblos link and show how this apparent fraud was perpetrated on Texas, the governor and the Historical Commision.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jan 5, 2008 17:04:47 GMT -5
I'm hoping to see it. Thus far, I haven't been able to locate anything online. Jim
|
|