Details of the New Orleans production of The Fall of San Antonio can be found in Huson, Dr. J. H. Barnard’s Journal, p. 3; PTR 3, p. 382; Helm, Scraps of Early Texas History, p. 53; the New York Evening Post, February 1, 1836; Miller, New Orleans and the Texas Revolution, p. 141; and the New Orleans Bee, January 1, 1836. A listing for the New York production of The Triumph of Texas is in Joseph N. Ireland, Records of the New York Stage, from 1750 to 1860 (New York: T. H. Morrell, 1866), vol. 2, p. 155. The New York newspaper quote is from the New York Courier and Inquirer (undated, probably early January 1836), in Gaddy, Texas in Revolt, p. 138.
SEVEN: “A MERE CORRAL AND NOTHING MORE”
The chapter title quote is by Ramón Caro, Santa Anna’s secretary during the Texas campaign, quoted in Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 101. The epigraph can be found in a letter from James Neill to Sam Houston dated January 14, 1836, and reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 144.
The quoted description of Neill appears in Stiff, A New History of Texas, p. 277. The information regarding William Carey is from a letter from Carey to his brother and sister dated January 12, 1836, and reprinted in PTR 3, pp. 490–95.
Dances and celebrations occurred virtually every night in Béxar. For example: “You will excuse this scrawl as I have danced all night & am indeed exceedingly dull this morning” (Horatio Alsbury to Sam Houston, December 30, 1835, quoted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 78).
Information on Green Jameson’s activities as a sales agent is from the Brazoria Texas Republican, November 1, 1834, and February 14, 1835. The quote involving his plans is from his plat of the Alamo and accompanying key, reprinted in Hansen, pp. 575–76. Information on the artillery is from Lemon, The Illustrated Alamo, pp. 142, 144–45.
Neill’s letter to the governor and General Council dated January 6, 1836, is reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 105. His January 8, 1836, letter to the same parties is reprinted on p. 114 of 100 Days in Texas.
Smith’s letter to the General Council is reprinted in PTR 3, pp. 458–60. See also Chariton, Exploring the Alamo Legends, pp. 107–15, for a well-reasoned and insightful explanation of this episode.
Proof of Angel Navarro’s loyalty to Santa Anna and the centralist cause can be found in a letter from Cós to Navarro dated October 17, 1835, in which Cós acknowledges a patriotic address given by Navarro to the people of Béxar, reprinted in PTR 2, p. 145, and in a letter from Navarro to the commandant of Béxar transmitting evidence in the case of a man leaving Béxar without a passport and returning with one from the leaders of the revolt; see PTR 2, p. 218.
Details of the vandalism in Gonzales can be found in two letters written by Lancelot Smither to Stephen Austin on November 4, 1835, reprinted in PTR 2, pp. 318–19. A list of household possessions Susanna Dickinson left behind in her Gonzales house can be found in her 1849 petition for relief (folder 7, OS box 8, Memorials and Petitions File, TSLA).
Neill’s January 14, 1836, letter to the governor labeling his men as “easy prey to the enemy” is reprinted in PTR 4, p. 15. His letter of the same day to Houston is reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, pp. 144–45.
The Telegraph and Texas Register quote appeared in its issue of February 27, 1836.
The machinations that resulted in the army having four commanders are related in Brown, Life and Times of Henry Smith, p. 206. Further evidence that governor Henry Smith did not order the Alamo to be abandoned, and that Sam Houston knew it, is Houston’s January 30, 1836, letter to Smith, in which he writes: “Should Bexar remain a military post, Goliad must be maintained, or the former will be cut off from all supplies arriving by sea at the port of Copano” (Life and Times of Henry Smith, p. 181). Houston’s January 30, 1836, letter to Smith is reprinted in PTR 4, p. 194.
Johnson’s advice to Fannin is contained in a February 9, 1836, letter from Johnson to Fannin, reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, pp. 221–22.
Houston’s description of his friend Bowie and his orders to him are from his January 17, 1836, letter to Smith, reprinted in 100 Days in Texas, p. 152.
The date of Bowie’s arrival at the Alamo has been a matter of minor dispute. A receipt datelined “January 18, 1836, Bexar,” with Bowie’s name on it as “Commandant at the post of Bejar,” was sold at auction and is now in private hands. While it is possible that Bowie left Goliad sometime on the seventeenth and arrived at Béxar the next day—riding hard and perhaps changing mounts somewhere along the way—it seems more likely, at least to me, that the receipt was either (a) signed by Bowie and predated or (b) dated in error. The distance from Goliad to Béxar was about ninety-five miles of rudimentary road, with more than a dozen creeks feeding into the San Antonio River to be crossed—normally two full days of hard riding, and very likely more, if Bowie was traveling with a group of thirty or more men, since a group of horsemen is only as fast as its slowest rider and mount. If Bowie and his men did arrive on January 18, it was at a late hour.
As stated, there is no hard evidence that Bonham (pronounced BEAU-num) and Travis knew each other in Edgefield, South Carolina, though they lived within a few miles of each other until Travis’s family left the area when he was nine. But they were acquainted in San Felipe, sometime in December or January, before Travis left for the Alamo in late January, if the memory of one woman, Clarinda Pevehouse Kegans, can be trusted. She was a young girl in 1836, and many years later remembered: “There had been a barbecue at Grandpa’s [at San Felipe] the fall before the war began. I remember it so well because it was the best ever held…. Mr. Travis everybody called him Buck except us children and his friend was with him. It was Mr. James Bonham and he was so nice and handsome he caused all the girls to swoon!” (“Memoirs,” unpublished manuscript, Haley Memorial Library and History Center, Midland, Texas).
Bonham’s letter of December 1, 1835, to Houston is reprinted in Lindley, “James Butler Bonham,” p. 3. His announcement of the opening of his law office appeared in the January 2, 1836, Texas Telegraph and Register. Evidence that Bonham accompanied Grant to Goliad is in the account of another member of Grant’s expedition: “Major Bonham of South Carolina, proceeded with us to Goliad, but returned to the Alamo, as he had received some appointment from Travis” (R. R. Brown, “Expedition under Johnson and Grant,” in Texas Almanac, 1859, quoted in Mixon, “William Barret Travis,” p. 199).
Houston’s January 11, 1836, letter to James Robinson commenting on Bonham’s influence is reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 126.
On February 2, 1836, Bowie wrote: “Capt Patton with 5 or 6 has come in” (Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 204), but many years later, sometime after 1860, Sutherland wrote that Patton’s company numbered twelve: “I proceeded, in company with Capt. Wm. Patten, and ten others to San Antonio” (Hansen, p. 138), and that number is supported somewhat by Sutherland’s audited claim, submitted later in 1836. He also claimed in his account that Patton’s company reached Béxar “about the eighteenth of January, 1836” (Hansen, p. 138), but that date is contradicted by his audited claim, in which he states that he was in Gonzales until at least January 27 (Hansen, p. 162), and by the fact that his first entry mentioning Béxar is February 1.
John Sutherland described the garrison’s sick and injured in his narrative, written sometime after 1860 and reprinted in Hansen, p. 141. Though Sutherland has been derided as a quack by some historians (most specifically by the late Thomas Ricks Lindley), the fact is that the practice of medicine at the time was primitive, and the Thomsonian system—based on the writings and practice of Samuel Thomson—was quite popular, particularly in the southern and western states. Some of that popularity was due to the fact that the system had achieved a certain degree of success. It was not that far removed from mainstream medicine of the time; there were no internists, and the only surgery was amputation or trephination—cutting a hole in the skull to relieve pressure. The understanding that bacteria and germs were the primary conveyances of disease and illness would
not come until some years in the future. Doctors of the time could gain a diploma after two sixteen-week courses that featured no doctoring whatsoever, only solid lecturing and textbook study. Little was known of what caused sickness or health. It was believed (as it had been for centuries) that all disease was caused by an imbalance of the four bodily humors: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. Illness was thought to be the result of too much of one of these humors, and recovery depended on righting the imbalance through a variety of practices, such as bleeding, emetics, purging, etc.—a course not too dissimilar from the remedies prescribed by the Thomsonian system, which relied more heavily on the infusion of plant-based medicines. If John Sutherland was a quack, he was no more of one than most other doctors of the day.
The Napoleon statement about artillery is quoted in Stevens, Artillery Through the Ages, p. 47.
Neill’s estimate that four of five bexareños would flock to the Texian banner is contained in his January 28, 1836, letter to the provisional government of Texas, reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 176. Bowie’s February 2, 1836, letter to Henry Smith is reprinted in the same volume, p. 204.
John H. Moore’s 1835 Indian expedition is discussed in Stephen Moore’s superbly researched Savage Frontier, pp. 21–29. Further evidence of the ranging service of James Neill’s sons can be found in the ROT (Republic of Texas) claims made by Samuel Clinton Neill (reel 77, frame 353) and George Clinton Neill (reel 77, frame 272), TSLA.
Bowie’s admiration of the Béxar garrison is from his February 2, 1836, letter to Henry Smith, reprinted in Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, p. 203. Jameson’s similar sentiments are from his January 18, 1836, letter to Houston, in 100 Days in Texas, p. 155.
The quote beginning “If we succeed, the Country is ours” is by Daniel Cloud, from his December 26, 1835, letter to his brother, I. B. Cloud, reprinted in 100 Days in Texas, p. 73.
EIGHT: THE NAPOLEON OF THE WEST
The epigraph is quoted in Haley, Sam Houston, p. 100.
Several primary sources reported Santa Anna’s height at 5 feet 10 inches, including an eyewitness description reprinted in PTR 6, p. 148. Santa Anna’s glowing reviews of Texas are quoted in Fowler, Santa Anna, pp. 28–29; Fowler’s book is also the source of much of this description of the campaign culminating in the Battle of the Medina. The exact size of each of the armies involved, and the casualties incurred, is impossible to verify; I have used the most reasonable numbers, as discussed in Schwarz, Forgotten Battlefield, pp. 63–64. See also Hatcher, “Joaquín de Arredondo’s Report,” pp. 226, 234. The beheadings are mentioned by Navarro in Defending Mexican Valor, p. 87, and also in his “Apuntes Históricos Interesantes.”
Santa Anna’s “end of hatreds” platform is quoted in Hatch, Encyclopedia of the Alamo, p. 161. The Texian resolution admiring Santa Anna is quoted in Rives, The United States and Mexico, p. 210. Santa Anna’s opinion regarding Mexico’s readiness for democracy is quoted in Callcott, Santa Anna, p. 109, and Wharton, El Presidente, p. 64. The government circular discussing the Texian colonists is quoted in Rives, The United States and Mexico, pp. 318–19.
The letter from consul Anthony Butler to Andrew Jackson of December 19, 1835, is reprinted in PTR 3, p. 252. Santa Anna’s preference for the hazards of war is quoted in Fowler, Santa Anna, p. 163. The authorization for the 500,000-peso loan is noted in Filisola, Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 126.
This discussion of the 1836 Mexican Army of Operations owes much to the following sources: Hardin, The Alamo 1836 and Texian Iliad; Santos, Santa Anna’s Campaign; Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution; Shelby, “Notes”; DePalo, The Mexican National Army; Filisola, Memoirs; Chartrand, Santa Anna’s Mexican Army; Young, “Finding a Face”; and Haythornthwaite, The Alamo and the War of Texas Independence.
De la Peña, in With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 81, notes the shifting allegiances of Santa Anna’s top officers: “Nearly all the commanders and officers who were then serving under the orders of our commander had fought against him when they had been in the ranks of the people; hatreds were not completely extinguished, and there were many reasons why they were aroused again.” He also notes the fact that Castrillón was one of the few officers who dared to disagree with Santa Anna (With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 93).
While English-language narratives (dating back to at least the July 1836 issue of North American Review, p. 247) of the battle of the Alamo and the Mexican army’s operations in Texas during 1835 and 1836 have often described General Martín Perfecto de Cós as Santa Anna’s brother-in-law, no evidence has been found to support that assertion. However, three of Santa Anna’s officers on the expedition—all highly familiar with His Excellency—identify Dromundo as his brother-in-law: see the account of Ramón Caro, Santa Anna’s secretary, in Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 100; de la Peña, With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 39; and Filisola, Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 145. Filisola writes, concerning the stockpiling of supplies for the Army of Operations: “But in the order and manner of handling that [which] was being brought in as well as the manner of receiving it one noted the greatest sluggishness, slowness and lack of organization since the quartermaster named had neither the ability nor the energy necessary for carrying out his duties as he should” (Memoirs, p. 139). See also de la Peña, With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 59, for that officer’s assertion that Santa Anna and Dromundo were plotting to “exploit the sufferings of the soldiers,” and Caro in Castañeda, p. 100, for his suspicions of embezzlement by Dromundo.
The biographical information on Ramírez y Sesma is from Valadés, México, Santa Anna, p. 160.
Of the conscripts in the Mexican Army of Operations, Santa Anna later wrote: “At least half were raw recruits from San Luis, Querétaro, and other departments, hastily enlisted to fill out the ragged companies” (quoted in Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 11). See also Filisola, Memoirs, vol. 2, pp. 127, 140: “The days that the army spent in Leona Vicario were put to use in the training of the recruits who made up the larger part of the forces”; and Caro in Castañeda, p. 100: “The wretched recruits who in the main were conscripts.”
After his capitulation in Béxar and during his march back to Mexico, General Cós described his bedraggled conscript troops as “desnudas, sin instrucción ni amor al Servicio”—naked, without understanding or love for the service (Cós to Santa Anna, December 29, 1835, reprinted in PTR 3, p. 358). Several officers later wrote of the low morale of the troops involved; see, for instance, Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 100.
Santa Anna’s directive to Ramírez y Sesma is quoted in Santos, Santa Anna’s Campaign, p. 9. His “no quarter” orders are reprinted in the same volume, p. 11. The description of the orders and steps involved in the loading and firing of the Mexican army musket is also in that volume, p. 36.
There were several variations to the basic uniform; see Chartrand, Santa Anna’s Mexican Army, pp. 28–30, and Kevin Young’s excellent “Finding a Face.”
The information about the Mexican medical corps, or the lack thereof, is found in Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, pp. 100–101, as is the information concerning the rations.
The Indian confederations and their impact on their raiding is noted in Shelby, “Notes,” p. 13.
Santa Anna’s orders about “whatever you find available there” is reprinted in Filizola, “Correspondence of Santa Anna,” p. 21. His letter to Tornel commenting on the splendid appearance of the army is quoted in Shelby, “Notes,” p. 52. The lack of proper footwear is noted in Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 100. The discussions about the proper route to Texas are from Filisola, Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 119.
José Enrique de la Peña’s With Santa Anna in Texas is a well-written, sharply observed memoir of the author’s participation in the Texas campaign. His notion to ask his soldiers to shoot him so that he “might be buried in this vast garden,” p. 102, is typical of his romantic inclinations. For o
ther rapturous descriptions of nature, see pp. 34–35 and 112–13.
Besides de la Peña’s reconstructed memoir, I have relied on the diligent research into de la Peña’s life and writings conducted by Roger Borroel, who has published his findings in several volumes, chief among them The J. Sánchez Garza Introduction to the Rebellion of Texas: The Diary of Lt. Col. José Enrique de la Peña.
De la Peña’s opinion of the Santa Anna–Napoleon comparison is in With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 12. For a good discussion and analysis of Napoleon’s strategy, tactics, and overall career, see Ross, From Flintlock to Rifle, chapter 3, “Napoleonic Warfare.”
Filisola discusses the ill effects of the conscripts’ journey to Béxar in his Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 73.
The possibilities of a civil war within Mexico are noted in Shelby, “Notes,” p. 48, and Castañeda, The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution, p. 8. The accusations of dishonor regarding Cós and his officers are mentioned in Filisola, Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 120.
Ramírez y Sesma’s humiliating comment, and the discussion between Sánchez and Castrillón, are related in Sánchez-Navarro, La Guerra de Tejas, pp. 68, 77 (my translation).
Santa Anna’s order to his aide to strike him with a pistol is mentioned in de la Peña, With Santa Anna in Texas, p. 83.
The Blood of Heroes: The 13-Day Struggle for the Alamo--and the Sacrifice That Forged a Nation Page 37
