|
Post by Greg C. on Dec 23, 2007 21:38:28 GMT -5
Line in the sand
A legend exists that on March 3, March 4, or March 5, Lieutenant Colonel Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword, and invited all those who were willing to stay (and, presumably, almost certainly to die) to cross over the line. According to one variant of the story, all but one Alamo defender crossed the line. Moses Rose (aka Louis or Lewis Rose), said to be a French soldier who had fought under Napoleon in Russia before arriving in Texas, allegedly slipped out of the Alamo. After evading the Mexican forces by moving at night, Rose is said to have taken shelter with the family of William P. Zuber to whom he told the tale of his escape. In 1873, Zuber's son published a version of the story, which has not been historically documented. This account is carried in numerous Texas histories, including Steven Kellerman's The Yellow Rose of Texas, the Journal of American Folklore, and numerous other histories of the time. A moving account of this "line in the dust" story and Bowie's being carried over in a cot can be found online in a city guide to San Antonio and the Alamo shrine.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Dec 23, 2007 21:39:33 GMT -5
Davy Crockett's Death
Before the siege ended, Santa Anna ordered that a red flag be raised from San Fernando cathedral in San Antonio indicating to the defenders that no quarter would be given. According to the controversial José Enrique de la Peña diary, several of those not killed in the final assault were captured by Colonel Manuel Fernández Castrillón and presented to Santa Anna, who personally ordered their executions. It is speculated that Davy Crockett was one of the six prisoners. De la Peña also states that Crockett attempted to negotiate a surrender with Santa Anna but was turned down on the grounds of 'no guarantees for traitors'. However, there is little evidence to support this.
Still, some people believe that Davy Crockett was killed by Santa Anna's men after the 12 day struggle. A contemporary history summarizes the battle thus: "They fought all one bloody night, until he [Travis] fell with all the garrison but seven;--and they were slain, while crying for quarter!" This history, while not providing proof that Crockett was among those who survived the assault, does corroborate de la Peña's diary entry. However, two eyewitness survivors attested that Crockett did die in the battle. Susanna Dickinson, the wife of an officer, said that Crockett was killed in the assault and that she saw his body between the long barracks and the chapel, and Travis' slave Joe said that he also saw Crockett lying dead with the bodies of slain Mexican soldiers around him.
Col. William Fairfax Gray was present during the Convention of 1836 at Washington-on-the-Brazos and kept a detailed diary of events. His entry for March 20, 1836 reads in part:
Sunday, March 20, 1836 This morning Messrs. Zavalla, Ruis and Navarro arrived. The cabinet are now all here, except Hardiman. The servant of the late lamented Travis, Joe, a black boy of about twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, is now here. He was in the Alamo when the fatal attack was made. He is the only male, of all who were in the fort, who escaped death, and he, according to his own account, escaped narrowly. I heard him interrogated in presence of the cabinet and others. He related the affair with much modesty, apparent candor, and remarkably distinctly for one of his class. The following is, as near as I can recollect, the substance of it:
The garrison was much exhausted by incessant watching and hard labor. They had all worked until a late hour on Saturday night, and when the attack was made, sentinels and all were asleep, except one man, Capt. -----, who gave the alarm. There were three picket guards without the fort, but they, too, it is supposed, were asleep, and were run upon and bayonetted, for they gave no alarm. Joe was sleeping in the room with his master when the alarm was given. Travis sprang up, seized his rifle and sword, and called to Joe to follow him. Joe took his gun and followed. Travis ran across the Alamo and mounted the wall,and called out to his men, "Come on, boys, the Mexicans are upon us, and we'll give them Hell." He discharged his gun; so did Joe. In an instant Travis was shot down. He fell within the wall, on the sloping ground, and sat up. The enemy twice applied their scaling ladders to the walls, and were twice beaten back. But this Joe did not well understand, for when his master fell he ran and ensconced himself in a house, from which he says he fired on them several times, after they got in. On the third attempt they succeeded in mounting the walls, and then poured over like sheep. The battle then became a melee. Every man fought for his own hand, as he best might, with butts of guns, pistols, knives, etc. As Travis sat wounded on the ground General Mora, who was passing him, made a blow at him with his sword, which Travis struck up, and ran his assailant through the body, and both died on the same spot. This was poor Travis' last effort. The handful of Americans retreated to such covers as they had, and continued the battle until only one man was left alive, a little, weakly man named Warner, who asked for quarter. He was spared by the soldiery, but on being conducted to Santa Anna, he ordered him to be shot, and it was done. Bowie is said to have fired through the door of his room, from his sick bed. He was found dead and mutilated where he lay. Crockett and a few of his friends were found together, with twenty-four of the enemy dead around them.
The Handbook of Texas online reports several noncombatants being killed: an unknown black woman (in the battle); two sons of gunner Anthony Wolf and an unnamed boy of 8 or 9 and gunners Anthony Wolf and Jacob Walker were bayoneted in front of Mrs. Dickinson by Mexican soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Dec 23, 2007 21:39:59 GMT -5
Mexican casualties
After the battle, Santa Anna reported that he had suffered 70 dead and 300 wounded, while many Texian accounts claim that as many as 1,500 Mexican lives were lost. While many quickly dismiss Santa Anna's account as being unrealistic, the Texian account of 1,500 dead is claimed to be unrealistic, even when the numbers of defenders are uncertain. Most Alamo historians agree that the Mexican attack force consisted of between 1,400 and 1,600 men, so a count of 1,500 sounds improbable, although 1,500 killed during the entire time of the siege could well have been achieved. The accounts most commonly accepted by historians are the ones that place the number of Mexican dead around 200 and the number of initial Mexican wounded around 400. These losses (at about 43% casualties) would have been considered catastrophic by the Mexican Army, while still being realistic to today's historians.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Dec 23, 2007 21:40:19 GMT -5
Flags
The Texans rode into battle with a white flag displaying one blue star. The Mexicans waved their national flag in the Alamo conquest. Preceding each day of the battle, a soldier rode onto the battle field waving a white flag, symbolizing the start of the battle.
After the battle, Mexican soldiers discovered the company flag of the New Orleans Greys and sent it to Mexico City as proof of U.S. involvement. It is now the property of the National Historical Museum in Mexico City. No one knows which flag flew over the Alamo during the battle. One flag of note was the Mexican tri-color flag with the numbers "1824" set in the middle denoting the Constitution of 1824. Another flag might have been the Mexican tri-color with two stars in the middle denoting Coahuila y Tejas. The image of a tricolor with "1824" on it flying over the mission has been a myth handed down through the years. The flag with the two stars was probably a company banner of those of Mexican ancestry fighting against Santa Anna—perhaps just less than ten answering to Juan Seguín.
The New Orleans Greys banner might not have flown at all over the mission but was simply discovered in a room after the battle. It was in a pristine state with no tears or bullet holes, and the earliest photographs of it show it had no way to be attached to a pole. The de facto flag of the Texas Revolution was a banner patterned after the American Flag with 13 stripes of red and white and a blue field. A large single star was present in the blue field with the letters T-E-X-A-S appearing between the points. This identification of the Alamo battle flag has been confirmed in the recent book Texas Flags by Robert Maberry. It is also the earliest representation of an Alamo battle flag being first declared as such a few months after the battle.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Dec 25, 2007 1:33:52 GMT -5
It is from Walter Lord's A TIME TO STAND that we get the 200 dead and 400 wounded Mexican casualty figure. Lord claims to echo the figure given by Captain Reuben Marmaduke Potter USA in his 1860 pamphlet on the fall of the Alamo, yet Potter only states 500 total Mexican casualties, without distinguishing between the number killed outright and those merely wounded.
In ALAMO TRACES, Thomas Ricks Lindley devotes an entire chapter carefully examining the amount of Mexican casualties sustained during the entire siege and he comes up with 518. As the Mexican army took less than 20 casualties prior to the final assault on March 6, 1836, at least Potter and Lindley are in agreement on this.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Dec 25, 2007 1:40:47 GMT -5
Also, the Mexican assault force was closer to 2000 men. Over 1100 initial shock troops, some 400 cavalry and roughly 400 reserves. Santa Anna even eventually threw his entire staff into the frey, but they only added to the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Dec 26, 2007 20:24:33 GMT -5
The staff added to the confusion - I like that. That´s funny!
2000 soldiers? I seem to remember having read that Santa Anna´s invasion force was 4000 soldiers strong. If that´s true then some of them must have been somewhere else. Maybe on the way to San Antonio?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Dec 26, 2007 22:02:06 GMT -5
While Santa Anna's invasion force consisted of 6059 men, these included Urrea's 1500 men, as well as Gaona's 1500. (And Gaona did not even arrive at the Alamo until March 7, 1836.) At the time of the battle therefore, there could not have been much more than 3000 troops in San Antonio. Santa Anna committed the cream of his fighting force to the assault, leaving the 1000, or so recruits out of the fight.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Dec 28, 2007 19:06:48 GMT -5
While Santa Anna's invasion force consisted of 6059 men, these included Urrea's 1500 men, as well as Gaona's 1500. (And Gaona did not even arrive at the Alamo until March 7, 1836.) At the time of the battle therefore, there could not have been much more than 3000 troops in San Antonio. Santa Anna committed the cream of his fighting force to the assault, leaving the 1000, or so recruits out of the fight. Thanks, Nef! So Santa Anna left 1000 out of the fight. That´s consistent with Lon Tinkle´s estimate in his book, "The Valiant Few" . He writes that Cos attacked with 700, Duque with 700, Romero with 300 and Morales with 100. 1800 all in all. Then of course, Santa Anna´s reserves was send in to the fight later on and Sesma´s 400 was nearby. Is that about correct?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Dec 28, 2007 23:19:03 GMT -5
Tinkle's Mexican assault force of 2500, or so is slightly high, by today's reasoning. According to Santa anna's attack orders, little more than 1000 men assaulted the north wall, including the reserves. Romero's 300 attacked the cattle pen and horse quartel behind the Long Barrack, while Morales' 100, or so aimed at the south wall. Sesma's 400 cavalry screened themselves behind the Alameda, to the SW. That's 1800 total, which agrees with Walter Lord's numbers, but there could've been a little more, depending on the strength of each batallion involved at that time. (Santa Anna unfortunately did not go into specifics.) Anyhow, the assault force was probably no more than 2000 men, but no less than 1800.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Dec 29, 2007 20:08:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Nef! So, 1400 in the attack and Sesma with 400 behind the Alameda. 1800 in total - maybe up till 2000 max. That settles that!
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Dec 29, 2007 23:28:13 GMT -5
Well, nothing is written in stone. Especially when it relates to the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Dec 29, 2007 23:31:33 GMT -5
Well, nothing is written in stone. Especially when it relates to the Alamo. Very true!
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Jan 17, 2008 16:43:19 GMT -5
Well, nothing is written in stone. Especially when it relates to the Alamo. Speaking of writing in stone, do you think a defender had the number of days tallied into the stone on the wall?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jan 17, 2008 19:45:35 GMT -5
Well, nothing is written in stone. Especially when it relates to the Alamo. Speaking of writing in stone, do you think a defender had the number of days tallied into the stone on the wall? Probably only in the movies. And anyhow, the walls in question were all torn down when the Mexican army withdrew from San Antonio in May, 1836. So, we'll probably never know. Still, there's that purported Crockett grafitti in the lower south niche on the Alamo church's facade. Wade Dillon matched it up with some of Crockett's actual handwriting and at least the "D" and the "C" seem to match. Here is a link to Wade's article on the 'Crockett' grafiitti from thealamofilm site: www.thealamofilm.com/crockett-carving-niche.shtml
|
|
duke
New member
Posts: 5
|
Post by duke on Apr 19, 2008 16:42:19 GMT -5
neferetus: I read about Crockett's signatureand my question is this, who are the other signatures that appear to be above and below Crockett's? This would make it more interesting if they could be confirmed as Alamo defenders and then do a comparison of those, as Wade has done. ? Duke
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Apr 19, 2008 18:14:07 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum Duke!
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Apr 19, 2008 18:44:28 GMT -5
neferetus: I read about Crockett's signatureand my question is this, who are the other signatures that appear to be above and below Crockett's? This would make it more interesting if they could be confirmed as Alamo defenders and then do a comparison of those, as Wade has done. ? Duke Duke, here's site member HenryWarnell's photo of the Crocket signature. The alleged Crockett carving in the bottom right hand niche. Duke, I guess this would have to be looked into by a person with greater resources available to them than I've got. Just by eyeballing the photo, the other signatures appear to be of newer vintage than the Crockett one. Note how the lettering in the Crockett sig. has weathered over the years, while the others seem fresher. Also, some of the other signatures seem to overlap each other, making it all the more difficult to read. Others are mere initials. Still, I guess it could be done. One thing though, you'd probably have to get the permission of the DRT to peruse the niche more closely. Even the best of photographs do not tell the story and you couldn't just stand there examining the signatures without arousing the notice of the Alamo Park Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Apr 19, 2008 23:11:53 GMT -5
It´does´nt have to be Crockett´s signature just because it might be old. I think the real Crockett would have spelled his name correctly! The fact that the name is misspelled suggests a forgery/joke - at least to me...
|
|
|
Post by Bromhead24 on Apr 20, 2008 11:12:32 GMT -5
It´does´nt have to be Crockett´s signature just because it might be old. I think the real Crockett would have spelled his name correctly! The fact that the name is misspelled suggests a forgery/joke - at least to me... I agree, just look at all the years the Alamo stood abandoned after the battle and then when the US Army annexed it, who knows, maybe some bored soldier and his mates did the carving..
|
|