Subject: kudos
Date: 08/28/99
From: Michael Lynch

Just discovered this wonderful site. I have been researching the Alamo since my Davy Crockett days in the 50's. Getting the true facts has always been limited until I discovered this site. I am now a playwright and have been wanting to write a play about Susanna Dickinson for a long time. I have also wanted to write about the controversial deaths of the holy trinity: Travis (did he commit suicide minutes into the battle); Bowie (was he burnt alive strapped to his cot); Crockett (did he hide under some mattresses and try to talk he way out of being killed?) You NEVER see these in the films or plays! Brilliant research and information and kudos to your staff.

Michael Lynch
Modesto, California

While some early reports did claim that Travis had committed suicide, the only witness to his death was his slave Joe. Joe reported that Travis was hit in the forehead by a musket ball in the very early minutes of the battle and his body rolled down the ramp coming to rest in a sitting position either dying or already dead. The Bowie story is just one of many about his death. Bowie was in the last stages of Typhoid and may have even been dead already. Navarro states "Bowie, the braggart son-in-law of Veramendi died like a coward" another unidentified source claims the "perverse and haughty James Bowie died like a woman, in bed, almost hidden by the covers". Madame Candelaria who Alan Huffines in his book "Blood of Noble Men" puts new credence in her claims, says Bowie died in her arms a few minutes before the entrance into the Alamo by the (Mexican) soldiers. Whatever the truth Bowie most likely didn't put up much resistance due to advanced state of his illness. As for Crockett he was most likely captured and executed and according to José Enrique de la Peña, General Castrillon tried to intervene in behalf of the captured, but with a gesture of indignation Santa Anna ordered their executions. "Though tortured before they were killed, these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers". This doesn't sound like someone who tried to talk his way out of execution.

John Bryant, Staff writer for Alamo de Parras

 

Subject:Texians vs. Texans
Date: 08/31/99
From: W.L. McKeehan

[To quote] flamboyant John H. Dancy, Fayette County editor of the Texas Monument, 1850. "Some Texas journals show a disposition to surrender at the discretion of those Goths and Vandals who have endeavored to abolish the name 'Texian' which we have borne since 1836 and substitute therefore the wretched barbarism 'Texans.' When a man says 'Texan', always look to see if he has a jaw affliction or a mouth full of ice. There is no use for a man to say such a word as 'Texan' in a mild climate; he may be excused if he lives so far north that he has to bite his words to keep his tongue from freezing." San Jacinto vet. J.H. Kuykendall who succeeded Dancy as editor once pointed out that contemporary "Texians" in reference to themselves pronounced the word "Tex-yans."

W.L. McKeehan
Bellaire, TX

READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD

"You say toh-may-toe. I say toh-mah-toe..." I think a lot of this must stem from regional preferences. Another often used phrase is "Texican", an abomination of 20th century coinage. I'm not sure who came up with this corruption, but I wish people would stop using it. "Texian" refers to the Anglo settlers of Tejas y Coahuila and It's what they called themselves! This piece was originally in the New Orleans Bee then reprinted in TELEGRAPH AND TEXAS REGISTER on November 7, 1835:

"The proper name for the people of Texas seems to be a matter of doubt or contrariety: some calling the Texians, while others speak or write Texans, Texonians, Texasians, Texicans. We believe that, both by the Mexican and American residents of the country, the name commonly used is Texians; the Mexicans giving it the guttural sound of the Spanish language, as indicated sometimes by x and sometimes by j, Teghians. The sound is not used in the present mode of speaking the English language, although the Irish use it in the word lough, and the Scotch in loch, a lake. The nearest approximation is in such words as Christ. Texians is, therefore, the correct name of the people of Texas; and besides being short, it is perfectly analogous to the usual mode of forming the proper name of nations by the termination in n; as Greece, Grecian Persia, Persian. It may also be considered the euphonious abbreviation of Texasian. But Texonian and Texasite are absurd epithets."

The name "Tejano" makes the distinction of an indigenous citizen of Hispanic origin.

--The Editor

Subject:Tejanos & Texians
Date: 09/02/99
From: Mick Martínez

In reading some of the posted entries, I noticed that Mr. McKeehan usually uses a variety of words. [He] juxtaposes them freely(as opposed to consistently), to identify and describe, by culture, some of the people in Texas during the early part of the 19th century.

Anglos
Anglo settlers
Anglo-Tejanos
Anglo-Texians
Hispanic-Tejanos
Mexicans
Mexican-Tejanos

The one variation that I do not see is:

Mexican-Texian

If there were Anglo-Tejanos, then there must have been Mexican-Texians?

Mick Martínez Irving, TX

Yeah, but try to say Mexican-Texians ten times real fast!

This is somewhat problematic in that the term Texian is usually given to a person of Anglo heritage who has become a Mexican citizen. If anything, Mexican-Texian is redundant. It's like saying American-New Yorker. In this world of politically correct epithets, Mexican-Texian is no more valid than Anglo-Tejanos. Neither of these terms were used by the people in question.

We're trying to name that which had no particular designation in the first place. Back then, you were usually just lumped into a category. You were either in one group or another.

However, neither you nor McKeehan is guiltier than the Mexicans themselves were in their approach to identifying racial mixtures. They had literally dozens of designations for their citizens and much of it had nothing to do with their racial "purity." It actually was more of an identifier of their social standing. In effect, these designations were meaningless in determining a person's racial origins. Why were they necessary if they were meaningless? One word: TAXES.

The more property you had, the more taxes you paid. So, while in one sense it was a good thing to be elevated socially, you had to quite literally pay a price for it.

[CORRECTION: My list deleted. After gently correcting me concerning my flawed memory concerning this subject, Robert Tarín provided a correct list of these racial classifications. Thanks Robert.]

The list continues to include even smaller fractional mixtures of racial content. However, research has shown that these designations were meaningless in identifying a person's heritage and were usually ascribed to their level of wealth and social standing.

If memory serves, one such instance was an Indian convert who through his life rose in social standing. He first appears in the records at a mass baptismal of Indian converts in 1759. His Indian name is unknown, but he was baptized Diego Menchaca with the designation Indio. In later records, he is listed as Diego Menchaca, Mestizo. Finally, at death, he is listed as Don Diego Menchaca, Español.

Unless the early doctors of Béjar knew how to alter the genetic structure of an individual to change his racial mixture, we must assume that something else transpired. It was merely that he had accumulated wealth and property over the course of a lifetime and with it a level of respect.

We see another good example in the descriptions of the Canary Islander colonists. While they are all described as "Spaniards" and given the titles of Hidalgo (lit. Son of the King) they were in actuality a racial mixture of Spanish, Gauchupin, Moor and who knows what else.

So, if you want precision may I suggest:

Español-Tejano
Meztizo-Tejano
Español/Mestizo-Tejano
Español/Mestizo/Negro-Tejano
Español/Mestizo/Negro/Mulato-Tejano etc.

What about Anglos?

Irish-Anglo
English-Anglo
Irish/English-Anglo
Irish/English/German/Polish-Anglo etc.

This of course is ridiculous. Mexican Texas was as much of a melting pot as the United States ever claimed to be. It's fruitless to attempt to create new titles for racial mixtures. So, rather than be picayunish, shouldn't we just stay in proper historical context and just call them what they called themselves.

The Editor

READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD

Subject: Crisp/Lindley Debate
Date:09/02/99
From:Mick Martínez

I would like to present some alternatives to Part IV of the Crisp/Lindley debates concerning the death of Crockett.

Part I of the Crockett debate begins with a Dr. Crisp quote:

"...the last sentence of his observation might apply to him as he, himself tries to figure out what word or what phrase was used by the Mexican officer when he details 'Santa Anna's tent' to Sargent Dolson. To me, 'pabellon' is a stretch. This might be giving too much credit to the sargent."

I would like to offer the following variables for consideration:

atender - atendido

tender - tendido

adentro - atento

Atento sounds like 'tent' and also rhymes with 'adentro'. After the battle, Santa Anna would have been an 'interested observer'(atento), of the battle scenes, which would have included different locations inside the Alamo.

As Dr. Crisp's argument moves on. I think the disussion on "tiendas' is also off the mark. To me, 'Tender - tendidos' fits better here. I do not translate 'tiendas' to mean tents, although I think 'tiendas' might mean the frame or structural support of a tent.

To paraphrase, I hear the following:

"...the enemies' pallets(bedding) and personal effects..."(more at 'camas tendidas'). Factored out to the end of the phrase, "...la tienda del Presidente..."(bed), then could have been inside the premises.

Please provide some direction and suggestions.

Thanks,

Mick Martínez Irving, Texas

With regard to the first issue, Sgt. Dolson is not going to translate a Spanish word as "tent" because it SOUNDS like the English word "tent," but rather because it sounds like a SPANISH word that translates to "tent" in English!

The term "pabellon," which can mean either "tent" or "flag" depending on the context, fits the grammatical structure of the sentence far better than any of these other suggestions.

But please, let's don't be quite so condescending to Sgt. Dolson -- it is not a "stretch" to think that he would have translated a word using the wrong (but plausible) alternate definition. It IS a stretch to assume that he would instead come up with a simplistic "sounds like" word in English.

With regard to the "tienda" translation: the relevant Spanish phrase from de la Peña is "con los efectos de las tiendas que los enemigos abandonaron."

Mick makes the same mistake as Carmen Perry when he translates "de" as "and" instead of "of," as he translates this as "the enemies' pallets (bedding) and personal effects." "Tienda" doesn't mean bed or bedding -- it means tent or store. If Mick wants to translate "la tienda del Presidente" as "the bed of the President," more power to him, but this is how the passage would then read (first in Spanish, then in English):

Spanish:

" . . .se puso una al ejército que se denominó la tienda del Presidente, por hallarse situada en la misma casa que habitaba su excelencia. En ella se vendieron dichos efectos a cuádruplo precio del que tenían en la plaza, después que se habian entresacado los mejores para el uso personal de su excelencia y el de sus favoritos."

English:

" . . .one was set up for the army that was called the president's BED, because it was found situated in the same house in which his Excellency was staying. In it were sold said goods at quadruple the price that they were worth in the plaza, after the better items had been culled for the personal use of his Excellency and that of his favorites."

Now, I'll admit that Santa Anna may have done some weird things in his bed, but I doubt that he ran a retail outlet from out of it. Quite frankly, I don't see either the point or the purpose of Mick's suggestions. Moreover, they don't make sense in either language.