Hey guys,

Texas History teacher here, and this week I'm wrapping up the Texas Revolution unit. I'm showing them The Alamo (2004 release), and of course the students are asking me about Crockett's death.

In the movie it is portrayed that Crockett was executed in front of the chapel a few hours after the actual battle was fought. I tried explaining to them that this piece of history is up for debate because the women survivors of the Alamo said Crockett died fighting, whereas the de la Pena diary says Crockett and a few others were executed.

Can anyone fill me in on some more information about the diary itself? I know there are some who think it is fake b/c it wasn't published till 1955. How do most historians/professors view the diary?

Thanks for your help. One thing I love about the movie is the little hidden historical moments. If you watch closely in the scene where Santa Anna is about to execute Crockett you see a Mexican General writing in a small book. Obvious reference to de la Pena.

Another tidbit: General Castrillion really did protest a lot of Santa Anna's moves. He wanted to wait to attack the Alamo, he didn't want to execute the prisoners there or at Goliad. But like the movie shows, he dies arms crossed as the Texas army plows into him.

The authenticity debate was argued out at length and the consensus among the pros was that it was authentic but not necessarily very helpful. As was pointed out by its detractors, most of what is in there was previously known. What is new is not of a lot of consequence.

The paper and ink investigation was done by a couple I met in another capacity. They told me that the ink was iron gall, which is what was being used in 1836 and a good time before and after. The paper watermarks were consistent with the time and were consecutive pages---i.e., they were not a few pages from here and a few from there but rather from sequential sources.

My favorite part was the march up from the south to Bexar. Those poor soldiers went through hell to get here, were not taken care of and had no hospital. And it didn't get any better after they got here, as we all know.

ONe of the more interesting things----one bunch was from Yucatan and were not used to the cold. They ran into a rare snow storm on the way up and a fair number died.

[This message has been edited by huisache (edited 1/7/2009 9:15p).]

quote:

---

Those poor soldiers went through hell to get here, were not taken care of and had no hospital

---

I'm reading "Lone Star Nation" right now. It's fascinating to examine the actions of and motives behind Santa Anna's harsh treatment of the Army of Operations ("Napoleon of the West", crush the insurgency so he could get back home and protect his political power, quick advance to surprise the Texians, etc.) It's been wildly entertaining to read about Santa Anna's life and rise to power, as well as his mindset, that of other Mexican power players, and the general political culture in Mexico.

As for the thread topic, Brands mentions three separate accounts in the book:

1) De la Pena's account: seven men survived and were presented by Castrillon to Santa Anna. De la Pena identifies one as Crockett, on whose behalf Castrillon intervenes, only to see Santa Anna order Crockett's execution, which was carried out by several officers trying to flatter El Presidente. "Though tortured before they were killed, these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers."

2) Urizza's account, as told to Nicholas Labadie after San Jacinto: Urizza claimed he saw Castrillon leading an old man (whom Urizza identified as "they called him Coket" to Labadie) and tried to spare his life, only to hear Santa Anna reiterate he wanted no prisoners, and order a group of soldiers to shoot the man.

3) Francisco Ruiz, alcalde of San Antonio: he was was summoned by Santa Anna to identify the bodies of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett. Ruiz says he found Travis dead on the north battery where he had been shot in the head, Bowie dead in his bead, and Crockett "toward the west, and in the small fort opposite the city."

Brands observes the following:

• de la Pena's diary has the advantage of being recorded so close to the event
• of the three, Ruiz had probably met, or at least seen, Crockett prior to the battle, while the others had not
• Ruiz didn't record his version until many years later, and might have been influenced by the "heroic myth"
• Labadie's account of Urizza's story also didn't come until later, but "if the myth was acting by then, Labadie didn't succumb"
• another eyewitness (Santa Anna's secretary, Caro) agreed with de la Pena that some rebels were captured alive and executed, but he pegs a different number than de la Pena and didn't identify any by name, which is odd, considering Crockett's fame and the claim by Ruiz that Santa Anna wanted Crockett identified.

What's the truth? I have no idea, but I like Brands's conclusion. Whatever actually happened at the end, the same point was proven: Crockett and his compatriots put Santa Anna on notice that Texas wouldn't be taken easily.


[This message has been edited by WestTxAg06 (edited 1/7/2009 10:22p).]

I would tend to agree with West Texas on this. This could go either way and there is no definitive word. De la Pena identified Crockett, but he had never seen him, and doesn't say, as far as I'm aware, how he identified him. He may have made an assumption based on his clothing or something. Another prisoner might have impersonated Crockett in order to perhaps gain safety. Or he could have been right.

It's likely that this won't be solved either way. I'd show the class clips of both the Wayne Alamo and the new one. And then I'd say the truth is probably in there somewhere, but all that nonsens about not being a screamer is ludicrous Hollywood invention.

Lindley bolsters the forgery case in his chapter on Mexican casualties in "Alamo Traces."

the Screamer bit was adapted from a line in the play about Crockett which is referred to in the movie--The Lion of the West.

I agree that there is no evidence for it.

I thought the line Crockett said about "being a screamer" was pretty funny & fit with his character. He pretty much grew up in backwoods taverns & was a world class b.s.'er and story teller. Ludicrous to me was the "Balancing feather on the nose bar fight" scene in Wayne's Alamo. That was just plum silly.

I do show them both versions of the movie. I only take a day to show them the Wayne (1960) version, just so they can get an idea of what movies made 50 years ago look like. It is so historically inaccurate it's almost funny. Even the kids noticed when they mentioned Fannin's troops weren't coming b/c they were slaughtered, that Goliad was 3 weeks after the Alamo! I like the balancing the feathers bit though and so do most my students.

The '04 version I pretty show the whole thing over the course of 2 1/2 days. I think they do a really good job with it, especially the attack. The amount of money that most have been spent to film at night with all the extras. The students like how they show San Jacinto as well. It shows why the men stayed in the Alamo and how it inspired the Texans a month and a half later.

at least get a copy of the diary at Borders or B&N to show the class.