Date: 05/27/97
From: Chuck ChappellChu1001780@aol.com
Would be most interested in any info you've got on Texans of Mexican heritage who served and died in the Alamo during the siege of 1836. I hope, if the historical record bears it out, that you can post their names in the Alamo if they're not there already.
I've long thought that the Alamo need not be viewed as a divisive symbol between Texans of Anglo and Mexican heritage and have been profoundly disturbed by efforts in the past to paint it as such. To be sure there's only a few Spanish surnames that I can decipher in your role of defenders of the Alamo — but there "are" some! I think you make a good point, too, that there could have well been other combatants and I think that they very well might not have been listed due to oversight of the Anglo chroniclers of that day.
I salute your efforts to get to the bottom of the historical record. I would say, however, don't be in too much of a hurry get rid of all the legend. Legends can bind us together and make us unique. Also be careful that the things you sometimes report as "fact" don't require records from those who would have had plenty of incentive to report fiction in their day. And, if the facts can't be ascertained, I say let the legend stand!
Remember the Alamo and God bless the State of Texas!
Adios Amigo.
Chuck Chappell
Who belongs on the list of Alamo defenders depends largely on whom you ask. Historians can't even agree on the total number of defenders. As for the Tejano defenders, I believe the ones that can be identified have been. Gregorio Esparsa, Antonio Fuentes, JoséToribio Losoya, Juan Abamillo, Juan A. Badillo, Carlos Espalier and Andres Nava have been identified among the martyrs. There were probably others. The problem is not getting them on the list, it's keeping them there.
Historians, like Walter Lord, author of A Time to Stand, attempted to remove Losoya and others from the list. He had confused José Toribio Losoya with his uncle, Domingo Losoya, who also fought in the revolution but survived. I 've proved otherwise and my findings are published in the New Handbook of Texas. You can read Losoya's biography on this website.
There are numerous hispanic historians who are uncovering new and exciting information all the time. I promise that I'll post it whenever it becomes available.
Randell Tarín
See Also:
José Toribio Losoya, Domingo Losoya, Enrique Esparza
Related Articles:
Casualties at the Siege of the Alamo, José Francisco Ruiz's account of the Fall of the Alamo
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997
From: Kevin R. Young
Interesting comments—a couple of notes: first of all, most of the new Alamo research, including that on participants and the Mexican Army is being done by what can be termed as Anglo historians. Race does not necessarily make a better researcher or historian. I personally take affront to those who suggest that I can not write about or researchTejanos or the Mexican side because I am not Hispanic.
Secondly, in regards to the comments of "fixed documentation", the historical formula works as such: historical documents provide a basis for historical interpretation. What historical documentation we have provides the interpretation. It does not mean that in the absences of strong documentation that the "legend" should then be regarded as fact. If you want to believe the Alamo myth, then that is one's right, but please do not take to task those of us who respect the participants of this remarkable historical event and deal in historical fact and interpretation. Remember, faith is part of religion, not historical research.
Kevin R. Young
NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:No Need to Take Offense!
Date: 05/29/97
From: Chuck Chappell
I don't think anybody is implying that, as an Anglo, one can't investigate the Mexican Army of 1836. I would think, however, that a passion for one's heritage would give one a high energy level in such things and, properly channeled, that energy can lead to beneficial things. Note: I'm not distinguishing what heritage I'm talking about here as I think this condition is valid for any member of the species.
And you missed my whole point about the legend but oh well maybe others will get it.
Adios.
Chuck Chappell
NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:Enjoy Your Alamo Webpage! Part 2
Date: 05/29/97
From: Chuck Chappell
Jeapers! Forgot to introduce myself.
My name is Chappell, Chuck Chappell. A Texan born and raised but transplanted to the frozen Northeast. One who's heritage is from the Anglo side of the house but who loves the state of Texas and all the influences within her. And anybody who tries to separate Texas from her Spanish/Mexican past is taking a tortuous route indeed!
Texas is a wonderful place with a fabulously rich heritage and it is my fervent hope that the historical record will ultimately bear out research that points, compellingly and convincingly for all to see, to a generous number men of both Anglo and Mexican heritage fighting valiantly to defend her. Maybe armed with information like that, we can finally take the hyphens out of descriptions of ourselves and just call ourselves Americans! Or, better yet, Texans!
I wish you all the luck in identifying "all" defenders of the Alamo. Honoring the memory of every last one of them is of paramount importance not just to the historical ledger but to the image we hold of ourselves and beyond. That brave men would willingly choose such a fate is potent testament to all that is noble in us.
Walk with God my friend,
Chuck Chappell
Subject:Re: No Need to Take Offense!
Date: 05/31/97
From: Kevin R. Young
First of all, there should never be anything personal in historical studies. The people we are studying died many years ago. Because I've been involved in historical studies and research for many years, I would like to address several key phrases from your comments.
When you imply that only Hispanic researchers are doing the good work, you fail to consider the work being doing by non-Hispanics such as Steve Hardin, Tom Lindley, Alan Huffines and William C. Davis.
Hispanic historians like Carolina Castillo Crimm, Jesus Frank de la Teja, Andres Tijereno are doing excellent work in the field, but like good historians, they are working hand in hand with their non-Hispanic comrades to help create a better interpretive picture.
I have been one of the great supporters of the Palo Alto Bi-National Historical Conference over the past four years. There, both Mexican National Historians and US Historians meet annually to discuss and exchange information. So, you will forgive me if I sounded off.
You may not be aware of what is going on in the field on a regional and bi-national level. Many of us are working together to get the big picture, and to work on the more focused interpretation.
By the way, the first historian to write in detail about the Tejano role in the Alamo and the Texas Revolution was Ruben Potter in 1878. Potter is considered the first real Alamo historian, and knew many of the Tejanos and Mexican officers involved and was José Antonio Navarro's translator.
I would be interested to understand your warning about historical documents: that in the absence of anything else, legend should dominate. You suggest that I could not grasp your point, and I feel that I did.
It seems that you suggest following the Alamo Conservative approach, which now questions the historical authenticity of any period documents that deviate from the "traditional" Alamo story. This method of interpretation has been championed by Bill Groneman in his book, In Defense of a Legend, which I felt that James Crisp dealt with fairly and firmly in his article in the TSHA Southwestern Historical Quarterly and the new addition of With Santa Anna in Texas , published by Texas A & M. [See Also: In Defense of Groneman]
Perhaps I was mistaken that you do follow the Alamo Conservatives Approach, but I'm still confused why you would then state that when all else fails let the legend remain.
Regarding the Alamo, I think we tend to confuse legend with spirit. I'm among the first to say that when all else fails, the spirit of the Alamo remains. The spirit of the Alamo is not Travis drawing the line, or Davy going down swinging or thousands of soldados being gunned down before the walls. The spirit of the Alamo remains constant. That is the sacrifice and basic theme that these people stood in the face of overwhelming odds. . . regardless of the historical interpretation.
The same can't be said of the legend. In supporting the myth, we cause the event and people to perform the way we (this includes past and future generations) want too. While the legend seems to reinforce the spirit, it actually works against it. It often puts the real men and women of the Alamo on the same scale as mythical beings.
I think you might want to read Ed Linenthal's book, Sacred Ground-Americans and their Battlefields or the book, The Masada Myth.
The legend is getting worn down. The documentation is getting clearer. We know that Travis received a communication carried by Bonham and that help was on the way ?? not the doom and gloom message that "legend" has always used to support the drawing of the line.
We know how many Mexican troops were at the siege, in the battle, and how many were killed and wounded. We know that at least thirty defenders went over the wall at the end and were killed by the Dolores Cavalry. When William C. Davis' book comes out, the record will be straight on why Travis came to Texas-and the legend of a duel and his wife's affair will pass.
The beauty of the Alamo story is that it's the story of real men and women and not mythical ones. It's a dramatic story of a real time and place and despite all, its spirit remains. The more I learn about the Alamo's real history, the more it becomes such a special place.
There is a power to the site. There is power in the name. Bless the Compañía de Alamo de Parras for renaming the place! Somehow, Remember the Valero just doesn't ring the same!
Kevin R. Young
NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:Alamo Legends & Sudry Other Things
Date: 06/02/97
From: Chuck Chappell
Thanks for all the information on supplemental reading on the Alamo. I'm not a professional historian, however, just an interested citizen who's got to make a living. But, if I can work it in, I'd love to give some of your suggested reading a peruse.
My point about legends is something like this. Historians, like all of academe, put an enormous amount of weight behind things that are "documented" often at the expense of those that have been passed down orally ? i.e.legend. I sometimes wonder if that approach always arrives at the truth though. After all, can't documents be forged or otherwise made inaccurate?
And, in the case of the Alamo, shouldn't we be especially skeptical of the Generalissimo's reports from the field as well as other "accounts" from the Mexican Army of 1836? After all, we know from several documented sources, and probably a good bit of legend as well, that Santa Anna was a notorious "politician" in his day and, as such, who would have had every incentive to under-represent his casualties and disparage the valor of the Alamo garrison.
Another broader point is the seeming crusade against legend that goes on in many quarters — and this page is not immune. My questions here is what's so bad about legends? Legends are simply the inevitable result of stories being passed on orally by people over time. The end result is probably embellished no doubt but, equally undoubtedly, in my humble opinion, is the fact that there are some basic underlying truths to the legend. To point out some basic human flaw in a legendary figure and say "Ah-HAH, see, he wasn't a legend, he was a __________(fill in your human failing here)" is just as superfluous as believing every jot and tittle of the legend.
Instead of tilting every effort to "dispel the legend," why can't we start with the basic premise that the legend suggests and see if it's supported by the facts? And when the facts do support the legend, lets make that happy occurrence as well known when they don't. And, yes, in the absence of anything else, let the legend stand. Instead, what I fear what we get is the same thing we get everywhere nowadays ? we get only the sensational spin. — i.e., Did Davy Crockett arrive at the Alamo a disheartened man?! Was he just looking for a place to go out with a bang after his defeat in Congress?!? Details at 10:00! — The end result is often a disheartend reader/listener and, worse yet, a dissolusioned public who is unsure about the extraordinariness of their past. And it's all so unnecessary if we'd only approach these things with a little more respect for "the legend."
As for the spirit, I think that is a rather lame substitute for legend. After all, legend connotes one's heritage, one's tradition. Spirit, except in the religious sense, connotes Friday night high school football games and ghost stories.
And lastly, I think perhaps you're getting my comments mixed up with someone else's. I haven't implied that any one group ? Hispanic, Anglo, or Ethiopian — is "doing the good work." My comment had to do with the role one's heritage can play in motivating one to a high energy level. I assure you I would be as offended as you had I said anything of the sort ? maybe more.
So I wish you the best in your efforts in establishing an accurate historical record ? regardless of what heritage you may be. ;-)
Chuck Chappell
NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:My final thoughts for our "Print the Legend" fan.
Date: 06/03/97
From: Kevin R. Young
First, I would like to know what are some of the Alamo oral traditions? Everything that has been labeled as legend has, in fact, a document of some sort behind it (usually written fifty years after-the-fact and as a secondary source such as pulp dime novel.)
Why should we only be skeptical of "the Generalissimo" reports? I assume that by using this title you are referring to the Commander of the Army of Operations, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. The only time I have seen him referred to as Generalissimo is in the screenplay written by James Edward Grant for the John Wayne movie on the Alamo. The title you refer to is not one used in the Mexican Army, nor are there any documents from the 1828-1849 period that use that title in regard to Santa Anna. Granted, Santa Anna's report of the battle does have some problems, but have you seen Sam Houston's report of San Jacinto? It has lots of problems as well. Why the general lack of respect for any Mexican Army accounts? As far as fake documents go, other than this attempt by Bill Groneman to throw out the de la Pena memoirs (which I think Jim Crisp responded to nicely) the only proven fake Alamo document I know of is from a Texian source (the fake Isaac Milsap's letter). Come to think of it, another documented Alamo fake is Crockett's Exploits and Adventures in Texas.
Have you read Crockett's letters? Yes, he was a defeated man. He lost his Congressional seat. He was broken politically in the United States, but Crockett had a spirit that always pushed him to look on. Texas was the land of promise to him, and his letters reflect that. If you read his letters, or for that matter, any of those written by the Alamo defenders, no one went to the Alamo to die. They stood at the Alamo to free Texas and make a future for themselves and their families. The Alamo was not a death wish for 189-250 men. Even Travis, when writing "I shall never surrender or retreat" is also clearly saying "send help now!"
One of the great misservices of perpetuating the Alamo legend is that we have created this myth that these men entered those walls to die. They clearly did not. They thought help was coming. When it didn't, they suddenly realized in the pre-dawn hours of March 6th it was the end, so they fought. Even if some elected to take a stand outside the wall against the Mexican cavalry or if some, worn down to exhaustion were taken prisoner and executed, they did not leave the Alamo! Their sacrifice is still there. Texas history does not change.
Since you apparently have not done any research in Mexican archives, let me tell you that if there was some grand attempt to disparage the valor of the Alamo garrison or change the facts, then they did a real 20th century job of doing it. The original documents I have seen come from battalion, brigade and division officers have been very consistent. Actually, it's the Texians who appear to have jack up the numbers and did so at first because of the lack of detailed information and then later, because of the nationalistic and racial tone the event took during the United States expansion of the period. It's much like the stories of "one Johnny Reb can kill at least ten Billy Yankees" claims.
I have never read a Mexican Army account that ever calls into question the overall valor of the Alamo garrison. Sure they call them pirates and adventurers, and traitors, and there is some Bowie smashing because they found him in a room on a cot (not realizing he was sick). Col. de la Pena praised the courage of the six Texian prisoners executed by Santa Anna's order. I am ashamed to say the Mexican soldados do not fair so well in Anglo accounts.
Regarding your preference of the legend...I also like legendary heroes. Thor, King Arthur, Beowulf are great stories. They're the fabric of ancient culture's mythology. I also like the men and women of the Alamo, not because they were legendary heroes or of the stuff mythology is made of, but because they were human beings, with faults, flaws, passions, dreams, goals, honor and pride who were swept up in a dramatic moment. Despite their pasts, they stood firm and did something remarkable. The manner of death isn't important, but that they choose to stand regardless is. The same applies to the Mexican soldado who, despite his being a conscript, bravely went against the walls of the Alamo for the honor of his nation.
Brave men's blood spilled on both sides that bloody Sunday morning in 1836. But men-not demigods or legendary heroes. Men (and women).
We do try to see if historical documentation will support the legend-but in most cases it does not. We can't help how history is reported-as a researcher and historian I am at odds with the press how they not only turn history into a headline, but screw it up. For the press, historical figures are great-they can't sue!
I don't think historical truth disheartens the public. I find that most people are fascinated by the continuing process of historical interpretation and documentation. What is disheartening is those who use it as political fuel, either liberal or conservative. Or those who try and judge 19th century people by our standards. What kills history are things like the current Disney ad where the kids are upset when the parents announce that the summer vacation will be spent visiting Civil War battlefields. The kids are delighted when they find out its a joke and they are going to Disneyland! Now, that's what cheapens the sacrifice of the men and women of the past.
I 'm sorry that you have such a lame view of what spirit is. Spirit is what makes the soul live and what makes people struggle on. It's far more relevant than legend which destroys the true accomplishments of mankind in favor of a clean, mythology. Spirit is what makes the Alamo lasting and internal.
I 've loved the Alamo story since childhood, and have come to appreciate all of its wonderful history and the people who made it. I can live without the legend — especially when the legend denies the truth — a great example: Legend states that the Alamo got its name from a row of cottonwood trees which grew around the mission site. Fact is that it got its name from the Segunda Company de San Carlos de Alamo de Parras. I recently had the great pleasure of visiting that town in Coahuila and to meet its wonderful people(talk about spirit — they had it). Now, which is better, to stand by the legend and deny the record? If you do that, you tell these people that their heritage and contribution to history is nothing. No legend is worth that.
Continue then to enjoy your Alamo. The rest of us will continue to enjoy the Alamo we have come to respect and love.
Here endeth the lesson.
Kevin R. Young
NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:I'll jump in
Date: 06/03/97
From: Michael Trzecinski
Looks like I missed some great dialogue while I was away! One hundred and sixty year old controversy is fantastic!
As other members of this dialogue, I am not a professional historian. My interest lies in a deep-rooted fascination with the Alamo and the War for Texas Independence. Kevin stated that, "historical documents provide a basis for historical interpretation." Thank God for documentation! Without it, the controversies and discussions that arise over an event would never have the same impact as legend or oral tradition. Is that what he or she REALLY said? At least with documentation we have the written word. What the writer meant, or the circumstances under which it was written will always be a part of the controversy. That's the great part.
The comment, "in the event of anything else, legend should dominate" could be a dangerous road to follow. As example, look at society today. If it isn't written, it isn't true. The days of oral contracts, commitments and lore, unfortunately, are over.
I would surmise that they have been over for some time. Did Henry Warnell survive the attack? The state of Texas said so. The documentation is there. The DTR have it mentioned in their museum. Do we believe it to be true? It's debatable. Did another four or six defenders survive according to legend? Who knows. We don't have anything of substance to base a discussion on other than someone's word.
Forty years after the Battle of the Alamo, the United States grew up and suffered a Civil War that brought technology into the nineteenth century. Look at the communication system that came into place, the technological advances that brought the common man closer to the battlefield [Matthew Brady and his photographs]. Even with all this documentation, eleven years later an entire company of cavalry was wiped out in Montana. To this day, Custer's decision is one of the most written about events in American history yet theories abound even from eye witnesses! The University of Oklahoma is attempted to determine what exactly happened that day with twentieth century technology. Again, it's documentation.
Anyway, I'm getting on a rant again, Randell & Kevin. It is sad that we put a higher value and weight on documentation at the expense of oral tradition. Unfortunately, that is the role of a historian. Sometimes you have to wonder who's worse, the person who destroys the myths that we hold sacred to us or lawyers and politicians.
Mike Trzecinski
Oral traditon does have its place in historical studies. But that's not the same as using legend and myth as a basis for historical interpretation.
An interesting case in point. A friend is doing a book on Alamo descendants who remember and pass on stories about their ancestors. Many of the so-called oral traditions were, in fact, taken by the families from published sources!
The thing about the Alamo is that where facts and legends fail, the spirit of the Alamo survives.
Kevin R. Young
FINAL COMMENT IN THREAD
Subject:Nuff Said!
Date: 06/05/97
From: Chuck Chappell
O.K., Kevin and Mike, Randell has asked me(ever so tactfully) to cut this thing off so I will, of course, oblige and will not try to convince either of you further.
I would only ask that you read what I posted again, think about the roles legends play in a society (Do either of you seriously think that America and Texas shouldn't have legends? What functioning society is completely devoid of its legends?) and think about the inherent shortcomings of the documented word. Try to re-examine what you've been taught a little bit — it's a beneficial exercise.
Oh and, by the way, read "exactly" what I posted. Try to be more precise in your thinking. Both of you are way off on your own tangents in relation to anything I've said and have seriously misquoted me, grossly over-simplified my case and (not surprisingly since you're not reading what I write) misconstrued my message.
And yes, Kevin, I will continue to enjoy "our" Alamo and hope all Texans will continue to appreciate the legend that was born there — without tying it to some silly racial stereotype — whether that stereotype be hostile or patronizing.
I remain unapologetically a believer in the value of legends and of the underlying truths of the legendary heroism of the Alamo garrison.
God bless the Alamo and God bless men of such noble character! They deserve the very best of our efforts to preserve not only what they did on those consecrated grounds but the magnitude of the task they were confronted with as well. It is in preserving the latter where legend can play a valuable role.
Chuck Chappell
I would add, God bless the men, Texian, Tejano and Soldados, the WOMEN, the CHILDREN of the story. For that matter, God bless the Payaya Indians, the Fransican priests, the Spanish soldados de cuerra and the soldados of the Compañía de Alamo de Parras.
To steal a little from a priest several years ago, "the Alamo is a tribute to those who built it, who lived and worshiped in it, who fought in it, who died in it, who preserved it and to those who remember it."
Kevin R. Young
Subject: Great Site on the
Web
Date: 06/05/97
From: Jean Farnworth
This is a really great site on the Web. I stumbled across it helping my 10 year old granddaughter research the Alamo and the Battle for Texas Independence for a school project. This site is really good!
Thanks so much for making it available.
Jean Farnworth
Subject: Alamo
Date: 06/05/97
From: John Civitello, San Antonio, TX
I have been enthralled about the alamo legend since I was a child growing up in CT. Now, fortune has seen that I live in San Antonio and I continue to visit and enjoy the legend even more. I would have loved to have been "a fly on the wall" and viewed the actual battle.
John Civitello
You'll have your chance on February 27-March 1, 1998 at Alamo Village, Brackettville,Texas when the 7th US Infantry Living History Association(The Cottonbalers) in conjunction with the Alamo Village Vacationland, will host a unique living history event recreating elements of the siege of the Alamo. This is a chance for you to not only observe the battle, but participate!!
Subject: Historian Points Out Alamo Heroes' Flaws
Date: 06/06/97
From: David Folds
Okay, what's the point of the statement, "Davy Crockett killed lots of animals?" People killed animals for meat, clothing and all sorts of bi-products. Crockett did kill a large number of animals when he moved to West Tennessee, back when hunting was a necessity of life. Nowadays, instead of you or me going out "killing lots of animals" for meat, we have farmers who do it for us. It just seems like a stretch, an unnecessary attack on Crockett.
David Folds
Ref: 
Historian Points Out Alamo Heroes' Flaws
Actually, the article you are quoting is from the San Antonio Express-News, who took all of the positive stuff out of William C. Davis' comments and instead, went for the negative. Jack actually noted that Crockett, when defeated or experiencing a personal tragedy, went hunting(which he did). To be certain, Crockett did kill a lot of bears, most of which were not used for meat or what ever(he makes sure to mention his record breaking bear kills in his Narrative.
If you had been able to hear Jack Davis' full presentation at the ABA meeting last March in San Antonio, I think you would have enjoyed what he had to say, and realize what the newspaper left out.
Getting misquoted is a problem for historians, especially to those who don't understand historical interpretation. I made a comment on a local television show that one of the problems with Alamo studies is that everyone is missing the big picture(the personalities and complex events that created the moment) in favor of worrying how many stitches per inch period clothing has or what color uniform the New Orleans Greys wore. In less than two hours, some guy who is doing research on the New Orleans Greys was apparently offended, thinking I had insulted him on television!
One thing about the Alamo is certain-people take their "moe" seriously!
Having read Jack's work to date, I think it is going to be a hell of good book. Alamo Conservatives are not going to like it, but in a nut shell, Crockett remains the same as he always does-Travis is redeemed from his previous biographies and becomes a much stronger person. Bowie will perhaps suffer the most, basically because of his land speculation dealings, which apparently were much larger that expected.
Back to Crockett for a second-remember, Crockett was a politician-not a good one mind you(although his stand against the Indian Removal Bill is to be greatly admired). He understood his image, and understood that it was ok to fail and ok to move a little bit further west to try again. Crockett is easily one of the best and most likeable personalities in the Alamo, but he certainly was not John Wayne or Fess Parker.
But wait till Jack's books comes out and then decide.
Kevin R. Young
Subject:California/Texas Spanish Mission Comparison
Date: 06/07/97
From: Glenn Deering
Help!
I'm a 4th grade teacher trying to put together a 10 day unit on a comparison between the Texas missions and the mission system of California. Anyone with existing lesson plans on the Spanish missions of Texas or with information about web sites, books, source documents, please e-mail me: GRDEER@aol.com
Thanks
Glenn Deering
