Subject: Henry Warnell
Date: February 5, 1998
From: John Bryant
I have been aware of the Henry Warnell story for some time and until recently it seemed that most historians believed it to be false. Now recently its seems it is being accepted as true. Could you elaborate on his story and what has caused the change in its belief. I also am interested in what makes some Mexican sources (De La Peña)accepted as the truth and why others (Nuñez) are not accepted.
John Bryant
I will leave Henry Warnell to others. As for Nuñez, I would invite Mr. Bryant and other interested parties to consult my article on his alleged account. "Notes and Documents--The Felix Nuñez Account and the Siege of theAlamo: A Critical Appraisal." Edited by Stephen L. Hardin. SOUTHWESTERN HISTORICAL QUARTERLY 94(July 1990: 65-84. The Nuñez account--while it purports to be primary--is severely flawed and historians should approach it with caution. Its errors are far too numerous to list here, but I do so in considerable detail in the QUARTERLY piece.[Editor's Note: We will attempt to publish that article in the near future.]
Stephen L. Hardin
The Warnell issue all hangs on the fact of a Susanna Dickinson statement when his heirs tried to get their 640 acres plus of land. Tom Lindley, who has been digging into the issue of who was really in the Alamo, seems to have more of a problem with the documentation than I. He feels that it was part of a land fraud deal, but you will have to wait until after his proposed book comes out (if it does-and I hope it does).
I tend to judge all sources on fair ground. While the current trend among Alamo Conservatives is top dismiss all Mexican accounts as "fakes", I feel that de la Peña sits on stronger ground than most of the accounts attributed to Sue Dickinson. Part of the problem is that the 19th century newspaper accounts, rather those done way after the fact, have been altered to meet the needs of the reporter. Just look at what Charles Barnes did to Enrique Esparza's accounts. There are certain elements of the Nuñez account which reflect a "current" Alamo rather than an 1836 one, and it doesn't help that the two authors can not be backtracked. Steve Hardin comes out the strongest against Nuñez-but on going research does at least confirm some of his facts, in particular his reference to a Mrs. Melson being in the Alamo. She is in fact Juana Losoya who was married to Alamo QM Melson. Nuñez gets to be the counter for those who have to have Davy go down swinging.
A good example of all of this comes from the Soldano account, which comes out of a Corpus Christi Newspaper. He mentions that one soldado in the cavalry outside the wall is killed when about 60 Texians come over the wall toward the end of the battle. Sesma and the cavalry take them out. Most people dismiss this as fantasy or at best, "Mexican lies" but when you run it against Andrade's return for dead and wounded, you will note that one trooper is killed in the battle. Also, Sesma's report of the battle and the log book of the San Luis Battalion confirm the fact that at least 30-60 Texians did come over the wall at the end of the battle and died at the hands of the Mexican cavalry.
I do not want to jump into the so-called De La Peña controversy. I think Jim Crisp has handled the issue well. I feel that the overall negative feelings toward the document (with the exception of Tom Lindley) are based either on race or "save Davy." De La Peña is not a diary-it is a reconstructed memoir, written very much like most memoirs of this period. It certainly has a stronger claim to reality than Nuñez.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Response to Henry Warnell Query
Date: Saturday, March 7, 1998 at 11:40:49
From: Mike Trzecinski
The debate over the fate of Warnell will probably never be solved, however let's not forget another fact that exists today. That fact is that at the Alamo Shrine museum, a statement is present that states that he was a survivor which adds credence to the survival of Warnell.
I hardly believe that the DRT and the Texas Historical Society would acknowledge this without thorough research and documentation.
Again, I doubt if this question will ever be answered, however, as the saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire," may be true in this case.
Mike Trzecinski
The Warnell issue is an interesting one. It is based on a statement attributed to Sue Dickinson giving testimony in a land grant case. Tom Lindley has theorized that the grant itself may be part of a fraudulent case, but until determined, I would have to say that Warnell, either as a courier or as one of those 40-68 men who went over the wall and took on the Mexican cavalry, survived and died of his wounds at Port Lavaca.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: William Barret Travis' shotgun
Date: February 13, 1998
From: Jeffery Guillermo
What can you tell me about William Barret Travis' shotgun?
Jeffery Guillermo
The short answer: "not much." On March 20, 1836, when Joe arrived in Washington-on-the Brazos, he told his sad tale to the Convention gathered there. Joe, of course, was illiterate but both William Fairfax Gray andGeorge C. Childress recorded his statement and later published their versions of what Joe reported. Gray recorded only that Travis "seized his rifle." In an article printed in the Columbia, Tennessee, OBSERVER, April14, 1836, however, Childress made reference to a "double-barrelled gun," presumably a shot gun. Childress also reported that at the instant Travis took the round to the head, he dropped the shotgun over the north wall andit fell among the advancing Mexicans.
Was the shotgun a flintlock or percussion? We don't know.
What became of Travis's shotgun? We don't know.
Was it really a shotgun, or was Gray correct when he said the weapon was a rifle? We don't know.
Mr. Guillermo and other interested readers may wish to consult a piece I did several years ago (more than I care to recall!) in THE ALAMO JOURNAL: "'A Volley From the Darkness': Sources Regarding the Death ofWilliam Barret Travis."
Stephen L. Hardin
Subject: James Allen
Date: 15 Feb 1998
From: John Bryant
It is now believed that James Allen was the last messenger out of the Alamo. Yet he was never interviewed, although I have read he did speak of his time there to friends and neighbors. Has anyone gathered his comments, where can I find what tidbits he did leave. Someone who was there for as many days as he was would have been a treasure trove of information. Why was he not interviewed? C'mon guys elaborate.
John Bryant
information that appeared in some county history books, his Alamo service is very vague.
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Alamo Privies
Date: 15 Feb 1998
From: Robert Durham
Re: Kevin Young's article about the Alamo privies - a great article! "The Alamo: an Illustrated History" by George Nelson gives a pretty idea of what the privy/outhouse probably looked like. The book also contains copies of the two maps by José Sánchez-Navarro which Kevin references in his article; from the maps, it looks like the privy was a five holer!
Is there any archaeological evidence as to how far to the north the convent yards/horse & cattle corrals extended? As Kevin noted in his article, the Sánchez-Navarro maps show it extending all the way to the north wall. The map drawn by Dr. John Sutherland shows the same. However, the maps by Col. Ygnacio de LaBastida, François Giraud, Edward Everett and Reuben M. Potter all show it extending only as far north as the north end of the Long Barracks.
Another question I have is whether there is any archeological evidence as to whether the cattle pen was surrounded by a stone wall or a picket fence. Some artists show it one way, and some the other. The early maps I listed above seem to show both corrals as being surrounded by stone walls, but the maps by Giraud, Everett and Potter were all made after the walls were torn down.
Thanks,
Bob Durham
The position of the north wall of the corral is shown correctly on the La Bastida, Hardin and Nelson maps, the present wall along Houston Street is based on the best known position at the time of the battle. However, thelimited archaeological investigations in the area leave many questions open to debate as to the nature of its construction. Anne Fox directed excavations along the north wall of that area, in 1978, that revealed the trench for the gun emplacement shown by the La Bastida map as well as the crenelated trench on the interior. The exact nature of the the wall was never clearly defined due to the complex nature of the various sequences of building that occurred throughout its history. Anne stated that she felt the wall was probably of stone during the seige period because of the amount of stone rubble that filled the trenches after they were filled by the withdrawal by Mexican troops.
The area where the privies were located was excavated partially by Alton Briggs when he did the archaeology for the new basement under the gift shop. His report gives no indication that he saw anything of that nature. However, it is my opinion that any traces of such structures would have been destroyed during the construction of the building in 1936. It would take a trained eye and careful excavation to find evidence of that nature, especially if you weren't expecting it.
Waynne Cox, Archaeologist UTSA
Subject: Alamo Defender
Numbers
Date: February 22, 1998
From: John Bryant
It seems to be a generally accepted fact among historians that there were more than 189 men in the Alamo, maybe as many as 257. If so, do we have any documentation of any sort of who these men were or where they came from. Were they just soldiers of fortune? It would seem to me they would have had to have come into the compound late on the 5th as Travis never mentions a number near this high. I know that several Mexican sources give numbers in this category. What is the most likely scenario?
John Bryant
Subject: Troutman Flag
Date: 28 February 98
From: W.L. McKeehan
There are many theories and credits related to the origin of and the first Lone Star, symbol of the Republic and subsequent State of Texas. Equally numerous are references to inventors or the first to display the Lone Star, all patriotic gestures reflecting pride in the unequaled unfolding of the principles of freedom and self determination which the Lone Star of today represents. To refer to Johanna Troutman as the "Betsy Ross" of Texas is akin to crediting Mary Long with being the "Mother of Texas" because she gave birth to a child in 1819 under the flag of her husband's independence filibustering expedition often known as the "second Republic of Texas."
From what I can determine, the first banner that flew the Lone Star was the red and white ensign of Col Dr. James Long in 1819 while Texas (actually the New Phillipines) was a part of New Spain, the Kingdom of Spain . In essence the evolution of the Lone Star banner was a story in itself exhibiting the evolution of the diverse contributions and patriotic feelings which came together to result in the combination of coalitions, racial, regional and cultural backgrounds, philosophies and feelings, all with common goal of freedom and self-determination, which represent what Texas is today.
After Col. Dr. James Long's banner appeared the dual stars on the Mexican tri-color of the free state of Coahuila y Tejas under the liberal Federalist Constitution of 1824 guaranteeing states rights and regional self-determination.
Although I cannot find recorded proof, this writer feels that the Lone Star may have been one of the single stars of the two, a symbol of the first goal of Texians under the Republic of Mexico which was independent statehood separate from Coahuila within the Mexican Republic. The Lone Star appeared on multiple local banners flown by individual units which formed to fight for independence of Texas in late 1835, all independent of and earlier or concurrent with the Troutman banner. As a biased Son of DeWitt Colony, the words of our own Creed Taylor in his memoirs raises strains of regional pride and claim to the first most meaningful Lone Star that led to the series of resistance to dictatorship and despotism resulting in the independence of Texas "
"....bear witness to the fact that the 'cannon flag' designed and hoisted [by the first Texian army] at Gonzales on October 10, 1835, was the first Lone Star that was ever caressed by a Texas breeze unless the honor should be given to the Dawson [Dodson] Company standard..."For more information of the evolution of Texas flags in general and the Lone Star in particular, See:Sons of De Witt Colony , DeWitt Colony Flags and Flags of Texas Independence .
W.L. McKeehan, Editor
Sons of DeWitt Colony
Subject: Images of Travis
Date: March 1, 1998
From: W.L. McKeehan
I have observed the purported following photos or drawings of Col. William B. Travis, Commandante of the Alamo Mar 1836. Which is the origin of each, which is thought to be the most authentic representation, are any fakes and what is the evidence?
- Travis DRT Portrait: probably most common in paintings, posters, etc. See:Lone Star Junction
- Painting by Charles B. Norman? on the cover of Martha Anne Turner's William Barret Travis, His Sword and Pen.
- Photo/Portrait in Barr, Texans in Revolt from Texas State Library Archives. See Sons of DeWitt Colony, Gonzales Alamo Relief Force.
- Wiley Martin's purported drawing widely used by Alamo authors, but often said to be a fake.
W.L. McKeehan, Editor
Sons of DeWitt Colony
All the portraits of Travis except one are "idealized impressions" done after his death. Fake is too strong a word, since the artists inquestion never claimed to have drawn their portraits from life.
The Wiley Martin sketch is dated December, 1835. Its provenance, however, is questionable. It appears on the flyleaf of a gazetteer, but that was not unusual. Paper was hard to acquire in 1830's Texas. As Walter Lord observed: "[The Martin sketch] is the only contemporary picture of Travis said to exist. Even so, the likeness is questionable; Martin may well have been a better friend than an artist."
Since historians have no knowledge of Martin's abilities as an artist and since the provenance is doubtful, one would hesitate to describe his sketch as photographic in its realism. Even so, it probably is in the ball park.
William C. Davis may shed more light on this question when his wonderful tri--biography of Travis, Crockett, and Bowie appears later this year.
Stephen L.Hardin
conspiracy" band wagon(I think one of these theroies is tries to lay it on John Laflin, but he would have had to "fake it" when he was 12 years old). Anyway, we have a couple of physical descriptions of the Alamo commander, but nothing that can be pinned down as a authentic image. By the way, there is a good chance that the so-called Jim Bowie painting(where he is holding the eagle head sword or knife) may actually be his brother, Rezin. Which means, the only one of the Alamo "trinity" we have images of is Crockett.
Kevin R. Young
