Reflections of Me: Heroes, Myth, and History
I am pretty much like that old (?) song ; I don't know much biology, about science books, about the French I took ( I never took it, so, who knows? I was fair-to-middlin in Spanish ). Algebra and geometry defeated me. Okay, perhaps that wasn't quite true ; I simply chose not to compete.
One subject I was fairly good at, and it has remained a interest of my life since, was history. American history especially. I claim no particular expertise on any period of it, I simply have had certain events, and people, that have held my attention and caused me to continue to learn what I could about them. I have no explanation for this. Perhaps it was due to the period I began my life, when television was becoming a part of most Americans' lives and much of the programming catered to children.
One such program made a early and profound impression on me ; the Disney series featuring the life of David Crockett ( it was far from accurate, of course, but as a 4 to 5 year old child, I had no way of knowing that ). As I grew older, my fascination with this man and his story grew. He became, I daresay, my first Hero. His life, I continue to learn, was indeed fascinating, even more so when one ponders how it ended. In fact, it was that that lead me to another period of our history and hours and hours of study on that alone ; the story, as much of it as could be gathered together, of the 13 day siege of the Alamo in Texas's war for Independence from Mexico.
Of that portion of the Davy Crockett story, not a lot is known. Two books I would recommend, among the hundreds written, regarding the siege itself would be 'A Time To Stand' by Walter Lord, and 'Blood of Heroes' by James Donovan. I continue to be fascinated by this story today, perhaps because so little is known of the final hours of the men who died there, but perhaps even more so because it fascinates me that there had to be very few inside that old converted mission that did not know that they were not going to survive. Crockett among them. Yet, they stayed. They -- well, persisted. Approximately 180 men, among them two well known American figures : Crockett, and James Bowie.
History records why it happened, certainly. Even how it happened. William Barrett Travis, the appointed commander of the garrison, actually disobeyed the orders of Sam Houston to abandon the mission and move his tiny volunteer force ( consisting mostly of Mexican-born volunteers who referred to themselves proudly as Texicans, not Mexicans ) to Goliad and combine there with James Fannin's volunteers. It is known, from Travis's own letters and dispatches, however, that he sought glory for himself. He refused to abandon the position, choosing to make a stand against the army of Mexico there. The question arises, in my mind anyway, how did he convince the body of volunteers to do the same?
One cannot presume that the entire garrison was uneducated rabble, possessing no intelligence. Both Crockett and Bowie were extremely intelligent, despite differing education levels. Bowie, it is known and accepted, did have a profound influence over the majority of the volunteer force. As a person he, too, is a fascinating study, though not one I have ever taken a large interest in learning about. It is known he was at a period in his life where the thought of death held no fear for him. In fact, it may have been that he welcomed the thought. Perhaps this was a deciding factor, despite the fact it is also known he did not care for Travis as a man nor as a military leader.
But Crockett? He, too, was known well, and respected. Born in East Tennessee in 1786, when much of even that area was still wilderness, he was no stranger to hard work. He was also not a big fan of schooling, and ran away from home sometime around 1799 to avoid punishment for skipping the halls of learning. He married in 1806, and had 2 sons. He did tend to move around a lot, having the restless spirit of a typical frontiersman, but always made sure he made a home for his family in whatever new place he settled. However, he always had a yearning to explore further, preferring that to homesteading. Still, he was as much a family man as there could be in those times. He always made sure he provided.
From 1813 until 1821, he chose a military and political life, serving in various capacities during various Indian wars, including Andrew Jackson's campaign into Florida. His wife died in 1815, after their third child, but he did remarry. He, too, nearly died from contracting malaria and was even reported to have died, but he did recover. His reputation as a sharpshooter and hunter began to grow, and he was encouraged to enter politics. In 1821 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature, and again in 1823, and began to take a active interest in the West.
In 1827, and again in 1829, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. His reputation as a speaker grew, with his embellished tall tales and jocular manner. The tall tales would live long after him, could be quite colorful, and almost always humorous. Usually too they would have a moral, or a message. He often made himself the butt of his own humor. He lost in a re-election bid in 1831, largely because he took a virulent stand in opposition to President Andrew Jackson's policies on land reform and Native American relocation ( which lead eventually to the Trail of Tears ).
Despite being a noted frontiersman and indian 'fighter', he understood that they were just trying--like he and everyone else--to protect their homes and families. I think, years later, it was learning this that made me consider him a hero. He was willing to put his mouth, and his reputation, where his beliefs lay. He was a hard man -- those times required it -- but he was humane, and leaned toward fairness.
He returned to Congress in 1833, and began to be touted by the Whig party as a potential opposing candidate to Jackson for the 1836 Presidential election. However, he was narrowly defeated ( by 252 votes ) in a 1835 re-election bid by a peg-legged lawyer supported by Jackson. At this point, his enchantment with politics ended, and his wanderlust returned. As he said during a farewell party in Memphis : "Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.".
And he did.
His timing, one might say, was not good, though he had no way of knowing this. There was no internet then, you know. News, the most recent, might be from a week to several months' old. It was known that Mexico, in 1824, in a effort to settle Texas and reduce their own expense in maintaining it, was offering free land and pretty much a free hand to anyone who would move there and sign allegiance to the Mexican government. That, however, had recently changed, with Mexican President and General Santa Anna reversing the policy of 1824 and instituting more strict allegiance and adherence to the Mexican government. It was complicated, but, it rankled the settlers, many of them former U.S. citizens who came for the land but still considered themselves Americans ( just without the silly duties and laws ).
His policies also, however, rubbed the Mexican citizens of Texas wrong. He was a dictator, and he demanded loyalty, or he would take your land, family, and your life. He insisted upon tributes, usually financial. Talk of rebellion was already brewing. This was the Texas Davy Crockett decided to explore.
He did, though, quickly learn of it, and signed a Oath of Allegiance to the "Provisional Government of Texas or any future republican Government that may be hereafter declared.". He had insisted the word 'republican' be included, as he did not want to be associated with any future government that might be controlled by a despot. Like Jackson. Or Santa Anna. Again, a sign of the character of the man.
In one of his last known letters extant, he wrote: " I must say as to what I have seen of Texas it is the garden spot of the world. The best land and the best prospects for health I ever saw, and I do believe it is a fortune to any man to come here. There is a world of country here to settle. . . . I have taken the oath of government and have enrolled my name as a volunteer and will set out for the Rio Grand in a few days with the volunteers from the United States. But all volunteers is entitled to vote for a member of the convention or to be voted for, and I have but little doubt of being elected a member to form a constitution for this province. I am rejoiced at my fate. I had rather be in my present situation than to be elected to a seat in Congress for life. I am in hopes of making a fortune yet for myself and family, bad as my prospect has been."
So, he again had made a choice. The following is taken from a bio of Crockett : " In early February Crockett arrived at San Antonio de Béxar; Antonio López de Santa Anna arrived on February 20. On the one hand Crockett was still fighting Jackson. The Americans in Texas were split into two political factions that divided roughly into those supporting a conservative Whig philosophy and those supporting the administration. Crockett chose to join Col. William B. Travis, who had deliberately disregarded Sam Houston's orders to withdraw from the Alamo, rather than support Houston, a Jackson sympathizer. What was more, he saw the future of an independent Texas as his future, and he loved a good fight. ". The source of that is the following link: http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org//adp/history/bios/crockett/crockett.html .
What followed is both lost in, and known as, history. On March 6, 1836, all the defenders of the Alamo fell. Once the assault began, it did not take long. The bodies were not left as they fell ; Santa Anna ordered all the dead be stacked and burned. That each and every one of the persons inside that fort were heroes can never be denied. Certainly, there has been speculation as to where and how they fell, but there was no documentation. Crockett's end has been glamorized and imagined in almost every way possible. There was only one person who might have known, and for decades she refused -- rightly so -- to talk of it. The few women who had chosen to remain in the fort, with their men, were not killed, and were escorted out of the compound at Santa Anna's orders after the last defender fell.
These women were heroes as much as the men whose sides they refused to leave. It is hard to imagine their terror, their horror, as they left the old church and were walked past the bodies of the men they supported and cared about. Susanna Dickinson, the wife of Almaron Dickinson, who served as Travis's Lieutenant, was one of these. She may have known the final fates of some of these men, but, she refused to answer any questions. I am not sure that any of them were in any condition to observe much ; the shock, the terror, the fear for their own future may have prevented them from registering what they were passing. I did find the following information, at the link I mentioned earlier, and perhaps it is as close as we will ever come to knowing for certain :
' Crockett died in battle of the Alamo on March 6, 1836. The manner of his death was uncertain, however, until the publication in 1975 of the diary of Lt. José Enrique de la Peña. Susanna Dickinson, wife of Almaron Dickinson, an officer at the Alamo, said Crockett died on the outside, one of the earliest to fall. Joe, Travis's slave and the only male Texan to survive the battle, reported seeing Crockett lying dead with slain Mexicans around him and stated that only one man, named Warner, surrendered to the Mexicans (Warner was taken to Santa Anna and promptly shot). When Peña's eyewitness account was placed together with other corroborating documents, Crockett's central part in the defense became clear. Travis had previously written that during the first bombardment Crockett was everywhere in the Alamo "animating the men to do their duty." Other reports told of the deadly fire of his rifle that killed five Mexican gunners in succession, as they each attempted to fire a cannon bearing on the fort, and that he may have just missed Santa Anna, who thought himself out of range of all the defenders' rifles. Crockett and five or six others were captured when the Mexican troops took the Alamo at about six o'clock that morning, even though Santa Anna had ordered that no prisoners be taken. The general, infuriated when some of his officers brought the Americans before him to try to intercede for their lives, ordered them executed immediately. They were bayoneted and then shot. Crockett's reputation and that of the other survivors was not, as some have suggested, sullied by their capture. Their dignity and bravery was, in fact, further underscored by Peña's recounting that "these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers."'.
Myths, legends, and history. They are entwined, often inextricably. When factual details are not known, myth and legend step up to fill in the gaps. The story of the Alamo, and it's defenders, is one such period. One that fascinates me. The fascination stems from the mystery. Certainly there were survivors ; the few women and children, and Travis's slave Joe, but hundreds of others as well. The Mexican army soldiers. Decades later, some were indeed asked, and nearly all praised the courage of the defenders in that last stand. However, one should also take many of these accounts with a grain of salt. Perhaps many grains.
For one thing, in spite of the fact that Santa Anna had long faded from power, feelings still ran strong about what happened. Many of these former soldiers were illiterate, most could not reasonably have known one defender from another ( even Bowie ), and they had reason to fear for their own personal safety if they did not say what their questioners wanted them to say. Others, such as the above-mentioned Lt. de la Pena, kept diaries, as they were among the more educated officer ranks. But were they truly involved in the final assault, or were they among the last to enter? The women and children could reasonably be expected to have been in such a state of shock and fear that they could not clearly recall even being escorted out. By all accounts, Mrs. Dickinson seemed the most composed, and soldiers whom saw her exit recalled her as being dignified and courageous. So, one might take her account with the most confidence. Yet, she refused for years to even speak of it publicly. One certainly cannot blame her.
What will always keep this fresh in my mind is still : why? There was, there had to be, a point before the final assault when all persons inside the fort knew, without doubt, that they would not survive. Legend has it that Travis even confronted them with this fact, and offered those who wished to do so the chance to leave without blame. And that one or more did so. But, still, about 180 defenders remained. My mind tries to get inside all their minds, to understand what they were thinking, what motivated them. Even as late as March 4th/March 5th, some could have fled, despite the number of troops surrounding them ( those numbers too have become part of the myth and legend, but, even after the full army arrived, likely was not more than 2,000 to 3,000, of which likely only about 1500 were battle ready ).
So I have that question in my mind. We do know that Houston needed time to finish recruiting and training his army, and that Travis felt that taking a stand here would buy that time. But, joining up with Fannin at Goliad could have accomplished the same purpose, so we have proof here that Travis was jealous of command and did not want to share it with anyone, not even Bowie. Bowie, we know, had recently suffered the loss of his family to illness and was devastated to the point of not caring if he lived or died, plus, he suffered either a severe illness or injury that had him bedridden before the final assault. But, what of the rest? That haunts me. Many had families. Plans for their own future.
By his own letter, Crockett had hopes to make his fortune, provide for his family, and be a guiding force in the future of a Independent Texas. Yet, he too stayed. Why? Did he share with others a unspoken belief that Santa Anna would indeed spare any who surrendered? From Lt. de la Pena's account, some of the soldiers believed it possible, accepting the surrender of 6 men, only to have Santa Anna order their execution anyway. Perhaps.
And, what of Santa Anna himself? Why did he tarry so long with laying siege to this small garrison? Once he had his full army in position ( and, indeed, a great number of them were battle veterans already, though not nearly all ), why did he not take the bulk of his force and move on to seek out the main rebel body and destroy it before it had a chance to fully recruit, train, and arm itself? He could have left a small force at the Alamo, perhaps 250 to 300, to continue the siege and harass the defenders with cannon and cutting off food and other supplies. Upon his return, if the fort had not yet surrendered, he could have taken it just as easily. Instead, he tarried for 2 weeks with the siege. We know he was extremely egotistical, confident to point of stupidity, and uncaring of anyone other than himself. We know that, after the Alamo, he moved on and massacred the defenders and town of Goliad. We know he did not consider the citizens and rebels in Texas a worthy opponent, and was unconcerned about any resistance his army might meet.
Perhaps that is why. The mistake proved fatal, of course, as Houston's small force was able to rout Santa Anna at the San Jacinto, and capture Santa Anna, forcing him to recognize Texas as a Independent State. That Santa Anna misjudged his opponents is beyond question ; that he misjudged his own army is beyond belief. By the time they had reached Houston's force, he was as hated by his own troops as he was by the rebels.
This is the kind of history that has always fascinated me, and has always provided me with the impetus to study it as much as I can. It was the discovery of the life of Davy Crockett that placed him high on my heroes list. It is the questions raised by how he died that make me question his intelligence. But not his--or the others'--bravery. Historians and scholars have pored over what information still exists, examined terrain, discussed tactics, but the thoughts that went through these peoples' minds that final night? Will never be known.
Heroes, myths, and history. Fascinating. This is not the only event that has captured my interest over the years, but is perhaps one to which I have devoted the most hours of study. Like a carousel, it revolves through my life, popping up any time I see or hear something that triggers it. Apparently, it always will.
One subject I was fairly good at, and it has remained a interest of my life since, was history. American history especially. I claim no particular expertise on any period of it, I simply have had certain events, and people, that have held my attention and caused me to continue to learn what I could about them. I have no explanation for this. Perhaps it was due to the period I began my life, when television was becoming a part of most Americans' lives and much of the programming catered to children.
One such program made a early and profound impression on me ; the Disney series featuring the life of David Crockett ( it was far from accurate, of course, but as a 4 to 5 year old child, I had no way of knowing that ). As I grew older, my fascination with this man and his story grew. He became, I daresay, my first Hero. His life, I continue to learn, was indeed fascinating, even more so when one ponders how it ended. In fact, it was that that lead me to another period of our history and hours and hours of study on that alone ; the story, as much of it as could be gathered together, of the 13 day siege of the Alamo in Texas's war for Independence from Mexico.
Of that portion of the Davy Crockett story, not a lot is known. Two books I would recommend, among the hundreds written, regarding the siege itself would be 'A Time To Stand' by Walter Lord, and 'Blood of Heroes' by James Donovan. I continue to be fascinated by this story today, perhaps because so little is known of the final hours of the men who died there, but perhaps even more so because it fascinates me that there had to be very few inside that old converted mission that did not know that they were not going to survive. Crockett among them. Yet, they stayed. They -- well, persisted. Approximately 180 men, among them two well known American figures : Crockett, and James Bowie.
History records why it happened, certainly. Even how it happened. William Barrett Travis, the appointed commander of the garrison, actually disobeyed the orders of Sam Houston to abandon the mission and move his tiny volunteer force ( consisting mostly of Mexican-born volunteers who referred to themselves proudly as Texicans, not Mexicans ) to Goliad and combine there with James Fannin's volunteers. It is known, from Travis's own letters and dispatches, however, that he sought glory for himself. He refused to abandon the position, choosing to make a stand against the army of Mexico there. The question arises, in my mind anyway, how did he convince the body of volunteers to do the same?
One cannot presume that the entire garrison was uneducated rabble, possessing no intelligence. Both Crockett and Bowie were extremely intelligent, despite differing education levels. Bowie, it is known and accepted, did have a profound influence over the majority of the volunteer force. As a person he, too, is a fascinating study, though not one I have ever taken a large interest in learning about. It is known he was at a period in his life where the thought of death held no fear for him. In fact, it may have been that he welcomed the thought. Perhaps this was a deciding factor, despite the fact it is also known he did not care for Travis as a man nor as a military leader.
But Crockett? He, too, was known well, and respected. Born in East Tennessee in 1786, when much of even that area was still wilderness, he was no stranger to hard work. He was also not a big fan of schooling, and ran away from home sometime around 1799 to avoid punishment for skipping the halls of learning. He married in 1806, and had 2 sons. He did tend to move around a lot, having the restless spirit of a typical frontiersman, but always made sure he made a home for his family in whatever new place he settled. However, he always had a yearning to explore further, preferring that to homesteading. Still, he was as much a family man as there could be in those times. He always made sure he provided.
From 1813 until 1821, he chose a military and political life, serving in various capacities during various Indian wars, including Andrew Jackson's campaign into Florida. His wife died in 1815, after their third child, but he did remarry. He, too, nearly died from contracting malaria and was even reported to have died, but he did recover. His reputation as a sharpshooter and hunter began to grow, and he was encouraged to enter politics. In 1821 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature, and again in 1823, and began to take a active interest in the West.
In 1827, and again in 1829, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. His reputation as a speaker grew, with his embellished tall tales and jocular manner. The tall tales would live long after him, could be quite colorful, and almost always humorous. Usually too they would have a moral, or a message. He often made himself the butt of his own humor. He lost in a re-election bid in 1831, largely because he took a virulent stand in opposition to President Andrew Jackson's policies on land reform and Native American relocation ( which lead eventually to the Trail of Tears ).
Despite being a noted frontiersman and indian 'fighter', he understood that they were just trying--like he and everyone else--to protect their homes and families. I think, years later, it was learning this that made me consider him a hero. He was willing to put his mouth, and his reputation, where his beliefs lay. He was a hard man -- those times required it -- but he was humane, and leaned toward fairness.
He returned to Congress in 1833, and began to be touted by the Whig party as a potential opposing candidate to Jackson for the 1836 Presidential election. However, he was narrowly defeated ( by 252 votes ) in a 1835 re-election bid by a peg-legged lawyer supported by Jackson. At this point, his enchantment with politics ended, and his wanderlust returned. As he said during a farewell party in Memphis : "Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.".
And he did.
His timing, one might say, was not good, though he had no way of knowing this. There was no internet then, you know. News, the most recent, might be from a week to several months' old. It was known that Mexico, in 1824, in a effort to settle Texas and reduce their own expense in maintaining it, was offering free land and pretty much a free hand to anyone who would move there and sign allegiance to the Mexican government. That, however, had recently changed, with Mexican President and General Santa Anna reversing the policy of 1824 and instituting more strict allegiance and adherence to the Mexican government. It was complicated, but, it rankled the settlers, many of them former U.S. citizens who came for the land but still considered themselves Americans ( just without the silly duties and laws ).
His policies also, however, rubbed the Mexican citizens of Texas wrong. He was a dictator, and he demanded loyalty, or he would take your land, family, and your life. He insisted upon tributes, usually financial. Talk of rebellion was already brewing. This was the Texas Davy Crockett decided to explore.
He did, though, quickly learn of it, and signed a Oath of Allegiance to the "Provisional Government of Texas or any future republican Government that may be hereafter declared.". He had insisted the word 'republican' be included, as he did not want to be associated with any future government that might be controlled by a despot. Like Jackson. Or Santa Anna. Again, a sign of the character of the man.
In one of his last known letters extant, he wrote: " I must say as to what I have seen of Texas it is the garden spot of the world. The best land and the best prospects for health I ever saw, and I do believe it is a fortune to any man to come here. There is a world of country here to settle. . . . I have taken the oath of government and have enrolled my name as a volunteer and will set out for the Rio Grand in a few days with the volunteers from the United States. But all volunteers is entitled to vote for a member of the convention or to be voted for, and I have but little doubt of being elected a member to form a constitution for this province. I am rejoiced at my fate. I had rather be in my present situation than to be elected to a seat in Congress for life. I am in hopes of making a fortune yet for myself and family, bad as my prospect has been."
So, he again had made a choice. The following is taken from a bio of Crockett : " In early February Crockett arrived at San Antonio de Béxar; Antonio López de Santa Anna arrived on February 20. On the one hand Crockett was still fighting Jackson. The Americans in Texas were split into two political factions that divided roughly into those supporting a conservative Whig philosophy and those supporting the administration. Crockett chose to join Col. William B. Travis, who had deliberately disregarded Sam Houston's orders to withdraw from the Alamo, rather than support Houston, a Jackson sympathizer. What was more, he saw the future of an independent Texas as his future, and he loved a good fight. ". The source of that is the following link: http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org//adp/history/bios/crockett/crockett.html .
What followed is both lost in, and known as, history. On March 6, 1836, all the defenders of the Alamo fell. Once the assault began, it did not take long. The bodies were not left as they fell ; Santa Anna ordered all the dead be stacked and burned. That each and every one of the persons inside that fort were heroes can never be denied. Certainly, there has been speculation as to where and how they fell, but there was no documentation. Crockett's end has been glamorized and imagined in almost every way possible. There was only one person who might have known, and for decades she refused -- rightly so -- to talk of it. The few women who had chosen to remain in the fort, with their men, were not killed, and were escorted out of the compound at Santa Anna's orders after the last defender fell.
These women were heroes as much as the men whose sides they refused to leave. It is hard to imagine their terror, their horror, as they left the old church and were walked past the bodies of the men they supported and cared about. Susanna Dickinson, the wife of Almaron Dickinson, who served as Travis's Lieutenant, was one of these. She may have known the final fates of some of these men, but, she refused to answer any questions. I am not sure that any of them were in any condition to observe much ; the shock, the terror, the fear for their own future may have prevented them from registering what they were passing. I did find the following information, at the link I mentioned earlier, and perhaps it is as close as we will ever come to knowing for certain :
' Crockett died in battle of the Alamo on March 6, 1836. The manner of his death was uncertain, however, until the publication in 1975 of the diary of Lt. José Enrique de la Peña. Susanna Dickinson, wife of Almaron Dickinson, an officer at the Alamo, said Crockett died on the outside, one of the earliest to fall. Joe, Travis's slave and the only male Texan to survive the battle, reported seeing Crockett lying dead with slain Mexicans around him and stated that only one man, named Warner, surrendered to the Mexicans (Warner was taken to Santa Anna and promptly shot). When Peña's eyewitness account was placed together with other corroborating documents, Crockett's central part in the defense became clear. Travis had previously written that during the first bombardment Crockett was everywhere in the Alamo "animating the men to do their duty." Other reports told of the deadly fire of his rifle that killed five Mexican gunners in succession, as they each attempted to fire a cannon bearing on the fort, and that he may have just missed Santa Anna, who thought himself out of range of all the defenders' rifles. Crockett and five or six others were captured when the Mexican troops took the Alamo at about six o'clock that morning, even though Santa Anna had ordered that no prisoners be taken. The general, infuriated when some of his officers brought the Americans before him to try to intercede for their lives, ordered them executed immediately. They were bayoneted and then shot. Crockett's reputation and that of the other survivors was not, as some have suggested, sullied by their capture. Their dignity and bravery was, in fact, further underscored by Peña's recounting that "these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers."'.
Myths, legends, and history. They are entwined, often inextricably. When factual details are not known, myth and legend step up to fill in the gaps. The story of the Alamo, and it's defenders, is one such period. One that fascinates me. The fascination stems from the mystery. Certainly there were survivors ; the few women and children, and Travis's slave Joe, but hundreds of others as well. The Mexican army soldiers. Decades later, some were indeed asked, and nearly all praised the courage of the defenders in that last stand. However, one should also take many of these accounts with a grain of salt. Perhaps many grains.
For one thing, in spite of the fact that Santa Anna had long faded from power, feelings still ran strong about what happened. Many of these former soldiers were illiterate, most could not reasonably have known one defender from another ( even Bowie ), and they had reason to fear for their own personal safety if they did not say what their questioners wanted them to say. Others, such as the above-mentioned Lt. de la Pena, kept diaries, as they were among the more educated officer ranks. But were they truly involved in the final assault, or were they among the last to enter? The women and children could reasonably be expected to have been in such a state of shock and fear that they could not clearly recall even being escorted out. By all accounts, Mrs. Dickinson seemed the most composed, and soldiers whom saw her exit recalled her as being dignified and courageous. So, one might take her account with the most confidence. Yet, she refused for years to even speak of it publicly. One certainly cannot blame her.
What will always keep this fresh in my mind is still : why? There was, there had to be, a point before the final assault when all persons inside the fort knew, without doubt, that they would not survive. Legend has it that Travis even confronted them with this fact, and offered those who wished to do so the chance to leave without blame. And that one or more did so. But, still, about 180 defenders remained. My mind tries to get inside all their minds, to understand what they were thinking, what motivated them. Even as late as March 4th/March 5th, some could have fled, despite the number of troops surrounding them ( those numbers too have become part of the myth and legend, but, even after the full army arrived, likely was not more than 2,000 to 3,000, of which likely only about 1500 were battle ready ).
So I have that question in my mind. We do know that Houston needed time to finish recruiting and training his army, and that Travis felt that taking a stand here would buy that time. But, joining up with Fannin at Goliad could have accomplished the same purpose, so we have proof here that Travis was jealous of command and did not want to share it with anyone, not even Bowie. Bowie, we know, had recently suffered the loss of his family to illness and was devastated to the point of not caring if he lived or died, plus, he suffered either a severe illness or injury that had him bedridden before the final assault. But, what of the rest? That haunts me. Many had families. Plans for their own future.
By his own letter, Crockett had hopes to make his fortune, provide for his family, and be a guiding force in the future of a Independent Texas. Yet, he too stayed. Why? Did he share with others a unspoken belief that Santa Anna would indeed spare any who surrendered? From Lt. de la Pena's account, some of the soldiers believed it possible, accepting the surrender of 6 men, only to have Santa Anna order their execution anyway. Perhaps.
And, what of Santa Anna himself? Why did he tarry so long with laying siege to this small garrison? Once he had his full army in position ( and, indeed, a great number of them were battle veterans already, though not nearly all ), why did he not take the bulk of his force and move on to seek out the main rebel body and destroy it before it had a chance to fully recruit, train, and arm itself? He could have left a small force at the Alamo, perhaps 250 to 300, to continue the siege and harass the defenders with cannon and cutting off food and other supplies. Upon his return, if the fort had not yet surrendered, he could have taken it just as easily. Instead, he tarried for 2 weeks with the siege. We know he was extremely egotistical, confident to point of stupidity, and uncaring of anyone other than himself. We know that, after the Alamo, he moved on and massacred the defenders and town of Goliad. We know he did not consider the citizens and rebels in Texas a worthy opponent, and was unconcerned about any resistance his army might meet.
Perhaps that is why. The mistake proved fatal, of course, as Houston's small force was able to rout Santa Anna at the San Jacinto, and capture Santa Anna, forcing him to recognize Texas as a Independent State. That Santa Anna misjudged his opponents is beyond question ; that he misjudged his own army is beyond belief. By the time they had reached Houston's force, he was as hated by his own troops as he was by the rebels.
This is the kind of history that has always fascinated me, and has always provided me with the impetus to study it as much as I can. It was the discovery of the life of Davy Crockett that placed him high on my heroes list. It is the questions raised by how he died that make me question his intelligence. But not his--or the others'--bravery. Historians and scholars have pored over what information still exists, examined terrain, discussed tactics, but the thoughts that went through these peoples' minds that final night? Will never be known.
Heroes, myths, and history. Fascinating. This is not the only event that has captured my interest over the years, but is perhaps one to which I have devoted the most hours of study. Like a carousel, it revolves through my life, popping up any time I see or hear something that triggers it. Apparently, it always will.
Comments