Subject: Looking for Resources
Date: 11/25/98
From: Wallace McKeehanI need advice on where I can find the Company Commanders (and more personnelif possible) of the following centralist units at Bexar, fall 1835. Alsoto which units the following were associated who were mentioned in theCos Capitulation: José Juan Sanchez, Adjutant-Inspector; Don RamonMusquiz, and Lieutenant Francisco Rada and Juan Cortina, J. Francisco deRada, and Francisco Herrera.
Agua Verde
Álamo de Parras
Second AlamoBavia: Capt. Jesus de la Garza
Béxar
Lampazos
Morelos: Capt Apolinario Morales
First Nuevo León
Second Nuevo León
Pueblo Río Grande
First Tamaulipas: Capt. Pedro Quintero
Second Tamaulipas
Wallace L. McKeehan
Guide to the microfilm edition of the BEXAR ARCHIVES, 1822-1836,by Chester V. Kielman. A University of Texas Archives Microfilm Publicationsponsored by the National Historical Publications Commission, Austin, Texas,1971. [I feel sure that Texas A&M University Library has the microfilmfor this. This is an 83 page publication complete with index.]
And See:
THE BEXAR ARCHIVES (1717-1836), A Name Guide, compiledand edited by Adan Benavides, Jr., Published by the University of TexasPress, Austin, for the University of Texas Institute of Texan Culturesat San Antonio, 1989.[This book weighs in at 1171 pages.] The indexes inboth of these are very complete and should take you to new material, assumingthat you may not have mined both of these already.
Dr. Malcolm D. McLean, Ph.D.
Subject: Crockett's Contributions
From: Christopher J. Sokol falconpa@clearnet.net
Date: 11/25/98
Has any body attempted to make an educated guess as to the number ofMexican soldiers Davy Crockett personally killed? A history professor atWVU said that some historians claim that the number could be as high asforty. Any comments?
Christopher J. Sokol
Clearfield, Pa.
There is no way anyone could know how many Soldados were killedby Crockett or anyone else in the Alamo for that matter. There are numerousstories of Crocketts marksmanship and many of the early day "Chroniclers"told of Crockett's body being found surrounded with 10, 20 or add yourown number here Mexican bodies, and thats what most of them are, just stories.While legend and myth make for good reading and exciting storytelling thereality is each man in the compound did his best and does it really matterhow many men Crockett killed.
John Bryant, Staff Writer
five star hotel in YorkAlamo de Parras
Subject: De La Peña Doubts
From: Ron D'Ambrosi
When I first heard of the De La Peña diary and the extensiveinformation it contained, I became a firm believer in its accuracy, withoutever reading it- if historians agreed with it, I reasoned, it's accurate.However when I bought With Santa Anna In Texas, I began to have doubts.Travis's description of being blond haired and death of stopping and turningaround to shoot is historically inaccurate. Why have historians believedCrockett's execution as fact if Travis's description and death are historicallyinaccurate? Why haven't historians questioned the authenticity of thisdocument because of this description? If De La Peña's descriptionof Travis is inaccurate, isn't there a possibility of De La Peña'sdescription of Crockett's execution inaccurate?
Ron D'Ambrosi
Brooklyn, New York
My personal belief is that "With Santa Anna in Texas" by Enriquede la Peña is authentic -- this is not the same as saying that itdoes not contain historical inaccuracies. Anyone who has done much researchusing first person accounts soon finds that virtually every one of themcontains errors. The errors can be caused by personal biases of the author,memory failings, or just plain mistakes. Another thing that has to be takeninto consideration is that most personal narratives are not exclusivelytellings of what the writer has personally seen or heard. They almost alwaysinclude things they've heard from others, that the writers use to expandupon and flesh out their own personal experiences. This does not invalidatetheir authenticity or their value.
I think that de la Peña probably saw or heard of the heroicdeath of the blond haired soldier, and was impressed enough to rememberand describe it in much detail. In an attempt to attach some meaning andsignificance to his death, de la Peña assumed that he was not justone of many other anonymous Texians,
but the commander of the garrison, LTC Travis himself. This typeof thing happens quite frequently. I know a veteran of the World War IINormandy invasion who has a vivid recollection of General Patton standingon the beach directing traffic, even though Patton was not present duringthe invasion. In fact, Patton was back in England, pretending to be preparinga landing on another part of the coast.
I tend to agree with you that de la Peña's erroneous identificationand description of the death of Travis invalidates his description of Crockett.There is not much doubt that several defenders surrendered or were capturedalive after the battle, only to be executed upon the direct order of SantaAnna. However, my personal opinion is that de la Peña's identificationof Crockett is not reliable because of his misidentification of Travis.If I was on a jury and had to give a verdict based only on de la Peña'saccount, I would not vote that Crockett was among those captured. Anotheridentification that I think is unreliable, for the same reason (he erroneouslyidentified Travis as being among those executed), is SGT Francisco Becerra's.
All of this is not to say that I dismiss the possibility of Crockett's surrender; my vote is not in yet. If you follow the Lindley-Crisp debates, I think you'll see other evidence presented by both sides, in addition to the de la Peña account. Let us know what you think.
Bob Durham, Contributing Editor
Alamo de Parras
READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject: Alamo Lake?
Date: 11/26/98
From: Larry W. Ricketts ricketts@mail.hsonline.net
In looking at several drawings and the Dioramas at the Imax theateras well as the Alamo gift shop, I notice that there was a rather largelake just north east of the chapel. This looks to be in about the samearea as where the restrooms are now currently located. However, no wherein the accounts of battle that I have read are movies that I have watchedhave I seen or read any mention of this rather large body of water. Itseems to me that if there was this rather large body of water at this locationthat it would have come in to play during the battle of the Alamo. Doesanyone have any comments on this?
Also, I would like to add that I throughly enjoy your web site and hopethat you keep up the good work.
Larry W. Ricketts
Edinburgh, Indiana
From Bob Durham, Contributing Editor, Alamo de Parras:
I have also been puzzled why no accounts of the Battle of the Alamo have made mention of the lake and the effect on the battle. Actually, I think there were two lakes, and the maps seem to show them directly east of the convent walls. The lakes are described as being shallow, but troops would never have been ordered to charge across them, especially during the predawn darkness when the assault took place. Gary Zaboly's drawing of the first phase of the assault takes the lakes into consideration, showing Romero's column attacking between the lakes, and against the east wall of the convent yards. This is a possibility, but it would have left the lakes at their backs, making retreat difficult if the attack failed. Look at what happened at San Jacinto (the Mexican Army had a body of water at their back there, and many were killed because they had nowhere to retreat).
I think that Romero's east assault column attacked either southof the lakes, which meant against the east wall of the chapel, or northof the lakes. An attack to the north would have been against the northeastcorner and north wall of the convent yard (the cattle corral, and the areawhere the Alamo
privies were located), and/or against the northern portion of theeast wall north of the Long Barracks.
Since the Romero's east assault column eventually joined with Duque'snorth column, I believe they probably attacked north of the lakes. Also,an attack north of the lakes would have avoided the artillery battery mountedon the east wall of the chapel.
From UTSA Archaeologist and Consultant to Alamo de Parras, I.Waynne Cox:
I'm afraid I have no first hand knowledge on any significent bodiesof water to the northeast of the Alamo, but we haven't done much work inthat area, especially any with any depth. I have often wondered what theymight have been. I suspect that they may not be as close as La Bastidamight have led us to believe. He has enlarged the Alamo out of proportionin order to show detail. (For example, look at the relationship of theGarita to the Alamo.)
The Green Jameson map is hard to believe, but he seems to place the lake beyond the branching of the Acequia Madre, which would place it somewhere near Austin Street and Ninth Avenue under Interstate 35. Gentilz's "Fall of the Alamo" [1885] gives no indication that he had ever heard of a body of water in that direction. I have always suspected that it might have been an overflowing of the Acequia Madre, since they frequently had trouble with that area, and the acequia would certainly not have been well maintained during that period.
From Historian / Illustrator, Gary Zaboly:
The La Bastida map clearly shows what are not really lakes but twoponds connected by a common stream or acequia, and with several other streamsflowing into them. Obviously they must sit in a depression of some depthin order to exist, but chances are they were not deep, and one could probablyhave waded across them with little problem.
The "Jameson" plan also indicates this "reservoir" of sorts-thoughhe stylizes it as one body of water-and suggests that the fort be suppliedfrom it by digging an auxiliary ditch from the main acequia that connectedto the "lake".
Chances are the ponds existed at the time of the beginning of deValero, but the monks might have directed their digging-or expansion-inorder to provide a sizable body of drinking water for livestock.
Part of one of these ponds can be seen in at least one post-battle sketch, a watercolor by Captain Arthur T. Lee done in 1848. This shows two youths fishing at its curved edge, while some distance beyond flows an extension of the main Alamo acequia. At the time of the siege, Mexican engineers, by blocking the ditch in the north, might have considerably lessened the depth of the ponds, and at the same time entirely cut off the water running into the ditches alongside the Alamo. Texian sallies might have been aimed at these ponds, which no doubt still held the precious water.
READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject: Re:De La Pena Doubts
Date: 11/28/98
From: Ed DubravskyToo many people judge the authenticity of the De La Peña manuscriptbased on whether or not they believe his account of the death of DavidCrockett. Bob Durham makes an excellent point when he states that it isentirely possible to believe that the manuscript is authentic and thatthe Crockett death story is simply something the author did not witness,but instead something he had heard and threw in for effect.
Ed Dubravsky
So. Berwick, Maine
Subject: Re: De la Peña doubts
Date: 11/30/98
From: James E. Crisp
Dear Mr. D'Ambrosi:
Almost five years of work with the de la Peña manuscripts haveleft me with no doubts as to their authenticity. That is, they are whatthey say they are: a clean copy, made in Matamoros in July of 1836, ofthe diary kept during the Texas campaign by de la Peña; and an almostcomplete memoir (based on the diary, on de la Peña's recollections,and on the reports of several other officers and soldiers with whom dela Peña consulted as he worked on his memoir between 1836 and 1840).
The recent authentication of the age and availability of the paper usedin the manuscript by the auction house of Butterfield and Butterfield hasconfirmed my own finding of paper bearing the same watermark, by the samemanufacturer, being used by the Mexican army in Matamoros for printed broadsidesin 1838, about the same time that de la Peña would have been securingthe paper for his handwritten memoir.
Obviously, none of this speaks to de la Peña's total accuracy,as opposed to the authenticity of the manuscripts. In fact, total accuracyin a war memoir of this kind would be highly unusual, to say the least.
Although many people who have evaluated de la Peña's descriptionsof both places and events have found him to be a competant and useful observer,whose descriptions, for instance, of the Mexican retreat have been confirmedby archeological evidence, let me speak directly to your question aboutthe death of Davy Crockett.
For a number of reasons, if all we knew of Crockett's death had comefrom de la Peña, historians would be hard pressed to make a persuasiveargument for Crockett's execution. After all, de la Peña's descriptionof the executions at the Alamo are found only in his rewritten memoir,and not in the much shorter "diary" itself. Moreover, de la Peñagives us no indication of who told him that Crockett was among the executedprisoners, or even how he knew what Crockett had told his captives. (Thereis no indication that de la Peña understood English.)
De la Peña says that he witnessed the executions, and there isno sufficient reason to disbelieve him, but as the misidentification ofTravis indicates, an eyewitness is not the same as an expert witness ina case like this one.
That is why the corroborating evidence is so important in the Crockettcase. If the argument for Crockett's execution rested on de la Peñaalone, it would be a very weak one. However, as I have noted in the pagesof The Alamo Journal, a strong case for Crockett's execution can be made,independent of the de la Peña diary.
The critical pieces of evidence are: 1) the newspaper report of Crockett'sexecution first published in the New York Courier and Enquirer in the summerof 1836, and reprinted in a number of papers subsequently; 2) the memoirof Ramon Martinez Caro, Santa Anna's personal secretary during the Texascampaign, published in Mexico City in 1837; and the "Dolson letter," writtenfrom the prisoner of war camp on Galveston Island by Texan Sergeant GeorgeM. Dolson to his brother in Michigan, and published in Sept., 1836, ina Detroit newspaper.
The New York newspaper account is a letter by an anonymous reporter,quoting an anonymous informant (also from the prisoner of war camp on GalvestonIsland), who gives the details of Crockett's execution. (Details that arevery similar to the ones recounted by de la Peña.) The Dolson letter,written a few weeks later, gives both these and a few more details, andidentifies Col. Juan Almonte as the Mexican officer who recognized Crockettand told the anonymous Mexican officer (for whom Dolson was translatingin a debriefing session) that one of the prisoners was Crockett.
It is, for me, very significant that many of the details of these twostories of Crockett's execution (which likely came from the same prisonerin the Galveston camp), were confirmed by the memoir of Martinez Caro,who was NOT kept at this camp at any time.
In other words, when back in Mexico and free of any need to please theTexans, and free of any reason to repeat stories which would contradictthe eyewitness recollections of other Mexican soldiers who were at theAlamo, Martinez Caro described the same scene (although he mentioned thenames of no prisoners) as did the Galveston prisoner(s). Almost all historiansincludingBill Groneman and Tom Lindleyaccept Caro's account as that of a legitimateeyewitness--and yet the details of his description largely match thosegiven a full year earlier by the two letters from Texas which identifiedCrockett as one of the captives.
In other words, these two letters were not just idle rumors. They weregiven by someone who had seen the same event as Caro, and who, in the caseof Dolson's informant, also had the advantage of Juan Almonte's identificationof Crockett.
Even in this long answer, I have omitted a host of details, especiallyconcerning the Dolson letter, that have been argued over at great lengthby me, Groneman, Lindley, and others. This web page is in the process ofrepublishing the six "back-and-forth" articles done by Tom Lindley andme over this very subject in 1995 and 1996 for The Alamo Journal. I standby every point that I made in those essays.
One new wrinkle in the story is William C. Davis's argument in The Journalof the Alamo Battlefield Association (Fall, 1997) that Caro was just repeatinga story that he read that had been copied from an American newspaper. Theproblems with this argument is that it lacks both evidence and logic. Davissimply assumes that Caro could have read the Galveston accounts, and thathe then would have repeated this story in his memoir, even though he washimself an eyewitness to Santa Anna's entry into the Alamo.
I prefer using the actual evidence we have. These documents show thatSanta Anna, without knowing the identity of the prisoners brought beforehim, ordered their immediate execution, and that that order was carriedout on the spot. There are NO credible eyewitnesses to Crockett's deathin combat; there are three (or four) eyewitnesses to the executions atthe Alamo, and two (or three, depending on whether you count the lettersfrom Galveston as coming from one person or two) of these identify Crockettas one of the captives who were executed.
There are all kinds of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" arguments that peoplecan make about Davy and how he died. I prefer to evaluate, as dispassionatelyas possible, the evidence that we have, and to draw a logical and probableconclusion. I believe that the evidence supports the argument that Crockettwas among the executed prisoners.
James E. Crisp, Department of History
North Carolina State University
READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject: Re: Re: De la Peñadoubts
Date: 12/10/98
From: Jake Ivey jake_ivey@nps.gov
Dr. Crisp:
Sorry, but I think you're on the wrong track. You're fighting over tacticswhen the problem is strategic: There can be no anti-surrender and pro-surrenderargument about Davy Crockett, because there is no anti-surrender. Thereis no evidence for Crockett's fighting to the death. None. Zip. To argueover whether his execution occurred before 6 a.m. or after and whetherthis proves that the stories about his surrender are wrong is silly, becausethose stories are the only stories. Nobody who was present at the Alamoduring its last
moments and lived to write about it has told any story of Davy goingdown swinging; only one or another version of how he surrendered and wasexecuted. The anti-surrender position is based on nothing but wishful thinking.
Jake Ivey
Santa Fe, NM
Hmm. No evidence of Crockett fighting to death. None. zip. Hmm.Whatabout all those dead Alamo defenders. How did they end up in thatterminal state? A mass surrender?
William R.Chemerka, Editor
Alamo Journal
Subject: Re: Re: De la Peñadoubts
Date: 12/16/98
From: Jake Ivey jake_ivey@nps.gov
Actually, though, you have a point. It's reasonable to suppose that, since the majority of the defenders died fighting, this would be the automatic assumption for Crockett, if it could be shown that he didn't do the surrender/execution thing. Although such an assumptionisn't certain (he could have gone over the wall with the others ofthe handful of surviving escapees, for example), it's reasonable. However, we have here a case where everyone who claimed to recognizeCrockett told the same general story about what happened, and nobodywho claimed to recognize him told a story of his fighting to thedeath. The pro-surrender scenario has documentary support, in theusual jumbled-impression, multiple-viewpoint form, while the anti-surrenderscenario has no documents to support it. Since we're at this point,I'd like to bring up a further consideration. If Crockett was anofficer, he had a responsibility to the men under his command; inessence, he surrendered them, in order to save their lives, as acommander in a hopeless situation should do -- he wasn't simply surrenderinghimself to save his, and they happened to be there.
Jake.
Subject: Other lost documents?
Date: 11/28/98
From: Roger Borroel
If Mr. de la Peña wrote such a complete account of the Texanwar; shouldn't there be others not uncovered yet, laying in the MexicanArchives in Mexico City? Shift your research to the intelligent officersof the Zapadores battalions, or any other officer of the other battalions.In those days diaries were common, esp. to a soldier. If de la Peñawrote in his military records about himself, it stands to reason that otherMexican officers did so too. The accounts of the Alamo Battle, and otherbattle actions are waiting quietly to be discovered by some unique man.
Roger Borroel
Previous Page | Next Page
This is an open forum. The opinionsexpressed do not necessarily reflect those of
THESECOND FLYINGCOMPANYOF ALAMO DEPARRAS
Go ahead, pick a fight...
