|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 19, 2010 23:31:55 GMT -5
Being from New Hampshire, and seeing passing references to at least one man from New Hampshire -- a "Robert E. Cochran" -- being among the Alamo defenders, I was doing a general search earlier today, and stumbled on this interesting 1969 article from the (Nashua, N.H.) Telegraph about Dr. Amos Pollard. I grew up in Nashua, but in 1969 I was stationed in Germany and never saw this. Interestingly, I wrote a monthly local color column for the Telegraph for about five years until moving to Dallas a year ago. Here's the link: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19891217&id=PeMlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X_wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7011,4175547 I was aware of Pollard's Massachusetts roots, but found this read interesting, concerning his family's move to New Hampshire when he was around five. I'm not certain where the writer gleaned his information from, but it was interesting to see another New Hampshire connection. I guess then, as now, the money was in Boston and not New Hampshire, so I'm not surprised he found his way there at some point, before heading west. By the way, if you click on the arrows and go back to page 1 of this section, there are a couple of articles related to the Alamo here. Nothing new there, of course, but it's always interesting to see something published on the subject, and of course we've learned much more about the Alamo in the 40-plus years since this was published. Regarding Cochran -- He is not even named in the article, but considering it's from 1969, I'm not surprised. I'm not sure when it happened, but as some point it appears his birth state was changed from New Jersey to New Hampshire sometime in the recent past (certainly since this 1969 article appeared). There is a New Hampshire state flag in the Alamo shrine with a banner indicating there was one defender from my home state. Obviously, that's Cochran. Beyond this ... www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fco6.html... I have not been able to find out much about him. This single cite pops up in numerous other sites when I do a search. Perhaps someone has a little more information on him. Anyway, enjoy the read on Dr. Pollard. Paul
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Feb 19, 2010 23:57:56 GMT -5
Since the Texas Sesquicentennial, Cochran's birthplace has gone from New Jersey to Virginia and, most recently, New Hampshire.
Another defender who was probably born in New Hampshire: John Flanders. Ed Dubravsky offered a convincing case for the NH-connection in his Feb. 1995 article in The Alamo Journal.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 20, 2010 21:15:54 GMT -5
Amos Pollard traditionally, though incorrectly, is placed among the Gonzales 32. Pollard had established a medical practice in Columbia, Texas and served as assistant surgeon during the Battle of Bexar and became surgeon after the departure of Samuel Stivers, who returned to his family in Nacogdoches.
Alamo Forum members residing in the Greater New York area may be interested in knowing where Dr. Pollard hung his shingle: 246 Spring St (1828-1829); 137 Delancey St (1829-1831), 117 Madison St (1831-1833); 113 Madison St (1833-1834).
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2010 0:17:15 GMT -5
Wasn't Pollard an abolishonist?
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 21, 2010 0:41:57 GMT -5
Wasn't Pollard an abolishonist? Allen, I've heard that before but have never seen any real evidence myself. Garrison and Tappan founded the Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, and it was headquartered in New York City. It would be interesting to find out more about Pollard's activities in New York.
I do know that cholera struck NYC on 26 July 1832 when an Irishman named Fitzgerald became violently ill. He survived, but his wife and daughter succumbed. Cholera proceeded to kill 3500 people over the next two months. This was part of the Cholera Pandemic of 1831-1833, which started in northern India and eventually killed Bowie's wife and in-laws in Monclova.
Not trying to sound facetious, but one would think a physician in the midst of a public health emergency would have little time to deal with political causes such as the abolition movement.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2010 11:25:23 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that info Hiram; interesting stuff. Bill Groneman's "Alamo Defenders" says he left Manhattan for Texas during abolishonist riots and the cholera plague. Walter Lord says that, when his New York practice lagged, he pulled down his shingle and headed for Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 21, 2010 12:35:43 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that info Hiram; interesting stuff. Bill Groneman's "Alamo Defenders" says he left Manhattan for Texas during abolishonist riots and the cholera plague. Walter Lord says that, when his New York practice lagged, he pulled down his shingle and headed for Texas. He if was an abolishonist, I wonder what type of discussions he and Travis had!
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 21, 2010 13:38:59 GMT -5
Would love to have heard Pollard's response to the "I'm better than that rabble down there" rant that Travis, uh, I mean Laurence Harvey unleashed on Ken Curtis!
Pollard did have some correspondence with Henry Smith, who despised Mexicans and most of the General Council. The good doctor was concerned over the fact that the four men elected to represent the jurisdiction at W-O-B were all Mexicans. I think he basically said if that they chose not to vote for independence they needed to be extremely careful when returning.
I don't necessarily believe in guilt by association, but Smith was a good ol' fashioned rascist, and it seems odd that if Amos Pollard was a supporter of the Abolition Movement, they would be exchanging correspondence.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2010 13:47:34 GMT -5
I wish I could recall where I read that Pollard was an abolishionist. I know I read something in response to charges that the Texan revolution was fought, in part, for slavery, which Mexico had abolished. Someone responded to that by saying there were abolishionists who fought for Texas independence and Pollard was one of them. Can't recall where I saw it.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Feb 21, 2010 14:26:25 GMT -5
Allen -- this is most interesting.
Kind of on a parallel note, it was drilled in my head back in grade school (we're talking 1950s and early '60s) that the American Civil War was fought over slavery. I'm guessing we all heard that in our past. Then about 14 or 15 years ago, when I went back to school to finally wrap up work on my BA, I took a bunch of history courses, including several by a remarkable professor named Richard Nelson. He pointed out that in reality, the war was pretty much fought over a more broad issue -- state rights over federal rights -- of which slavery (granting statehood by trying to balance "free states" and "slave states") was just one piece of the problem.
In a way, wasn't the Texas Revolution fought in part over pretty much the same thing? I mean, as I understand it, in the beginning the Texans were upset over the scrapping of the Constitution of 1824. One flag of defiance has the Mexican tri-color with two stars on it representing the once-independent states of Coahuila and Texas. Santa Anna's policy pretty much did away with that and forced federal rule over the two states. Yes -- I'm making a broad generalization and comparison to our own Civil War, here, and I may be way out in left field, but aren't we talking about a war based on similar issues, of which (again) slave ownership would have been just a part of it? I mean, if the Texans somehow believed Texas was an independent state with the authority to set their own rules about things such as slavery, wouldn't that be pretty darn close to what seeded our own Civil War a quarter century later?
So, again, was the war a matter of (Mexican) state rights over federal (centralist government) rule, or was it fought strictly over slavery? I see it as the former. I think the slave issue was just one part of it, but not the be all and end all.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 21, 2010 14:52:17 GMT -5
As I am sure you know, the same "problem" arose at Goliad. None of the Tejano delegates went, and at least one ended up helping Urrea.
The more I read and the more I expand my understanding of 19th century America the more I come to feel that the issue of slavery was the under current of our politics. Yes, state's rights was the issue, but what was the major state's rights they were worrying about? Anyway, a discussion for another day.
I do not jump on the Texas Revolution being over slavery bandwagon, although there was certainly an undercurrent about it. That Mexico did pass an law outlawing slavery and that the Texans did react to it (and that they were eventually excused from it) is important to the split between the settlers and the Mexican Government. I think what is more important is that we do understand that the issue of slavery in Texas was "there" and is part of the story, although certainly not the whole cause.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2010 16:42:15 GMT -5
There are similarities with the US Civil War, but I think the two cases are different. The problems that led to civil war in the U.S. were there from the beginning, with slavery the predominant unsettled issue. We came very close to civil war during Jackson's presidency when South Carolina sought to nullify federal law, basing the claim on a belief in constitutional superiority of the states. John C. Calhoun was the architect of the policy. But the south raised state's rights primarily out of fear that increased federal authority and western expansion were direct threats to slavery. Slavery was always the 900 pound gorilla in the room that everyone tried to ignore until it was no longer possible.
I agree that slavery was something of a peripheral issue in the Texas revolution and that other issues were more important. I think slavery became more important after the revolution, when it was formally legalized in the Texas constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 21, 2010 17:08:15 GMT -5
I don't necessarily believe in guilt by association, but Smith was a good ol' fashioned rascist, and it seems odd that if Amos Pollard was a supporter of the Abolition Movement, they would be exchanging correspondence.Being an abolitionist does not require the absence of prejudice, in fact many of the promient abolitionists left evidence to the contrary to include the Great Emanicpator himself. I don't recall the evidence, but as Allen says, I recall a discussion on Pollard in fact being an abolitionist. IIRC, it was fairly convincing.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Feb 21, 2010 17:55:04 GMT -5
True, even David Wilmot's record was somewhat contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2010 19:04:16 GMT -5
OK - I found some info in the article titled "The Texas Residency of Amos Pollard" by Ronald H. Livingston (Alamo Journal #95, Feb. 1995). It quotes from the journal of Benjamin Lundy, entry of August 30, 1834, written at Bexar: "I met today Dr. Amos Pollard, lately of New York but now of Columbia, Texas. He is a decided friend of our cause." Livingston quotes from The Medical Story of Early Texas, 1528-1853 by Pat I. Nixon, who referred to Lundy as a "well known abolitionist" and the cause he spoke of in the journal as the abolition of slavery. Nixon wrote that Lundy had "come to Texas with a view to the establishment of colonies of ex-slaves in Texas and Mexico." Lundy appears to have warmed to Pollard and viewed him as a fellow abolishionist.
Yes, abolition and racism were definitely two different things in the era.
|
|