Cecil writes about the Alamo: What was the Mexicans’ version of the Alamo attack? - The Straight Dope
and quotes the diary of Mexican general de la Pena.
I don’t have a cite, but I had always heard that this diary was widely believed to be a forgery. Anyone else hear this?
History channel did an excellent program on the de la Pena document. Appears there were two drafts that have caused confusion in the veracity, as well as the ‘discovery’ credibility. The melee Cecil depicts is pretty much what happens in such a fight. Often men will not kill exhausted enemy who are fought out, hence it is very likely seven were captured and summarily executed. The de la Pena document also mentions a group of 25 who broke free from the mission grounds and attempted escape only to be cut down by cavalry.
My two cents, the guy who asked this question raises similar interest in the Indians’ history of Custer’s defeat, the Brits history of our revolution and subsequent war of 1812, the Japanese history of WWII, etc.
Can you be more specific than “had always heard” and “was widely believed”? Yes, the de la Pena diary is controversial. Here’s my cite–good ole Wikipedia!
Most of those who dismiss the diary are working from their boyhood memory of “Davy” Crockett, going down at the Alamo while swinging Ol’ Betsy. Hey, Walt Disney wouldn’t lie! Yes, further study is warranted. But kneejerk hero worship is behind most of the doubters.
If you accept the diary, David Crockett did nothing dishonorable. And the account says he died bravely–even if a bit later than in other versions.
Texian Illiad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution is Stephen Hardin’s fine summary of the war. He accepts de la Pena’s account.
The Second Flying Company of Alamo de Parras is an excellent site for more Alamo history.
Much of which occurred before That Siege & Battle. I was a kid when Disney showed his version of Crockett’s story. But my first thought on seeing the Alamo was amazement at its age & foreign-ness–right in the middle of a Texas city. Next door to Joske’s & the Menger Hotel. Joske’s is gone but The Menger is still in business.
And the site has information from both sides.
Cecil, Cecil…shame on you. You very obviously did not research what happened at the Alamo worth a damn.
Col. William Fairfax Gray was in Washington-on-the-Brazos during the entire Constitutional proceedings. He documented it extensively, including an interview held with Travis’ slave Joe on March 20, 1836. That interview disproves the story of Crockett surrendering.
http://smu.edu/swcenter/FairfaxGray/wg_128.htm
In addition, Mrs. Dickenson’s testimony confirms Joe’s testimony about Crockett’s death in action:
Cecil, has broken my heart. Why did he have to succumb to political correctness on this of all topics?
He says that “Indeed, one of the reasons the Texans were so determined to win independence from Mexico in the first place was that the Mexican constitution outlawed slavery, which the Texans favored.”
Even if some, most or all of the Alamo defenders favored independence from Mexico (and its dictator) rather than favoring the restoration of the 1824 Mexican constitution, it does not mean that they were motivated by a desire to establish slavery in Texas.
To the extent a person’s birthplace may shed some light on the economic forces that shaped the person’s views on slavery, readers should visit http://www.trishbennett.net/defenders.html for a list of the birthplaces of the defenders. Besides, is the bravery and sacrifice of the Continental revolutionary soldiers from any less because they fought and died in order to establsh a nation founded on slavery?
That’s a line of thought that leads to respecting anyone who fights for any cause, no matter how misguided.
Please note that this discussion comes up each time the column gets reposted. A simple Google search let’s one read previous threads and hopefully avoid some repetition.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3890637
etc.
From the Texas Revolution, to Bloody Kansas, to Harper’s Ferry to the Civil War, slavery was the issue that drove nearly all violent conflicts within the US. A lot of people try to put on blinders about this, but you just have to read the documents of the time. As far as Texas, keep in mind that the Texan thinking was: overthrow Santa Ana, restore immigration, bring in more pro-slavery Americans, win. People, then and now, had multi-step plans. Thinking that step 1 was all that was going on is naive.
There was another factor. The Americans invited in to Texas had promised to convert to Roman Catholicism. Promising was one thing; actually doing it – well, that was something else. It had only been two years, after all, since a Protestant mob had burned down a convent in Massachusetts.
The oath to convert to Catholicism was not heavily enforced. Father Michael Muldoon, born in Ireland & educated in Spain, arrived in Mexico with Juan O’Donoju, the last Spanish viceroy. Mexico broke with Spain but Muldoon remained. The article I cited mentions “Muldoon Catholics”–pretty much in name only. (There’s a tradition that, on occasion, Padre Muldoon was known to take a drink.)
A few of the empresarios (agents allowed to bring settlers to Mexican Texas) were Irish Catholics, who brought in (mostly) Catholic settlers. That’s how San Patricio county got its name. There were also many illegal Anglo settlers, crossing the border without any oaths or skills or money.
Some of the legal settlers were allowed to bring slaves to Texas by calling them indentured servants. But, according to Mexican law, there could be no legal slave trade; James Fannin, killed in the Goliad Massacre (after the Alamo fell) was a slaver.
The Texian desire to own slaves was not the only motive behind the rebellion, but it was more important than the religion thing. Six Tejanos died at the Alamo. Others helped win independence & survived–but were *not *honored by the Anglo majority.
more a comment on the quote -
crap like that issue about the mismatched papers gets under my skin … we are talking not about a book bought in a major brick and mortar modern store, but back in a time when products would be made by entrepeneurs … and people made a living by buying up odd lots of paper and making stuff out of it, and reselling it. People made a living buying old rags, rendering them into fibres and respinning the fibres. This insistance on every piece of paper must come from exactly the same source if it is bound together or it is obviously fake is absurd nonsense. Not everybody could afford to buy their notebooks from Brentano’s in Manhattan, and I really doubt that a soldier would care that his notebook was a ragtag compilation of papers that were available. he just wanted something to write upon.
*yes I know one method of forgery consists of gently removing paper that is blank from actual age appropriate books and rebinding them … but not everything that is a mishmatch of papers is goign to be a forgery.
Some posters in the previous threads listed by ftg dispute claims that the Texas revolution was motivated in part or in large part by a desire to maintain or promote slavery. However, none of the previous threads addresses Cecil’s erroneous statement that one of the reasons “the Texans” (i.e., the Alamo defenders, in the context of Cecil’s reply) favored slavery and for that reason “were determined” to win independence from Mexico.
As an illustration, in a previous post, Bridget Burke states that 6 Tejanos died at the Alamo. (There were probably more.) Can Cecil be believed when he claims that these Tejanos (as well as all of the other Alamo defenders) were fighting for slavery?
This point of Occupied North Texas’ previous post remains valid.
On another point. Bridget Burke’s post claims that “other” Tejanos who helped win independence from Mexico have not been honored by the Anglo majority. Of course, the vast majority of persons who helped win independence have not been “honored,” by an Anglo majority or otherwise. However, that poster and others should acquaint themselves with city of Seguin in Texas - named in honor of Juan Seguin, a Tejano Alamo defender who was ordered to leave the Alamo in search of reinforcements before the Alamo fell. And maybe Bridget Burke is also ignorant of Zavala County, Texas, named in honor of Lorenzo de Zavala, a Mexican signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. There are others, but the point is made. (Navarro County, Texas was named in honor of J. Antonio Navarro, a Texas patriot who was born in San Antonio - but his father was Corsican and this poster don’t know if he qualifies as a “Tejano” - for those who care about such things, you may find some guidance in the German Nuremburg Laws of 1935.)
And, Bryan Elkers, simple minds can be led almost anywhere - including to a misquided inference that Occupied North Texas’ post was about respecting anyone. The post mentioned bravery and sacrifice - things that one can respect in a person regardless of respecting other characteristics of the person or the cause for which the person may fight.
Not heroic indeed. The defenders bought enough time for Houston to strengthen his army, eventually defeating Santa Anna. Which led to independence and ultimately to statehood.
Heroes all.
Remember Goliad, remember the Alamo!