There are several problems with Williams’s Hutcherson and Hutchinson analysis. She claimed that bounty land grant certificate, Matagorda, 190, identified a “Robert L. Hutchinson.” There is no such bounty certificate. There are no land grants in the name of Robert L. Hutchinson or any variant of the name. Next, Williams claimed that “papers in I Milam, 1384,” contained the signature of a “Thomas J. Hutchinson.” First class headright Milam 1384 was issued to William Trampton in Austin County on March 29, 1838, and does not include any document with the said Hutchinson’s signature or any information about a Thomas J. Hutchinson.61
Williams, despite the name “T. P. Hutchinson” or a variant of it being on every Alamo list, eliminated Hutchinson from her Alamo roll because: “Every land certificate, issued in the name of Hutcherson, or any of its possible variants, has been carefully examined, and all other available documents relating to soldiers of the Texas revolution have been searched, but none of them show that any Hutcherson died at the Alamo.” She reinforced that by concluding that the name “Thomas J. Hutchinson” is what has confused the list makers of the Alamo men and has caused them to include his name among the victims of the massacre of March 6, 1836.” The problem with Williams’s alleged research and analysis is that the list makers never included the name of “Thomas J. Hutchinson” on their lists. Thus, Williams’s allegation of confusion make no sense.62
The name on “Captain Thomas H. Breece’s Co. Texas Volunteers,” the First Company of New Orleans Greys, was “T. P. Hutchinson.” The next quoted document shows the Breece listing of Hutchinson was correct.
Bexar Dec 27th 1835
We the undersigned being appointed by the 1st Company of Texas Volunteers from New Orleans to value the property of Francis William Jackson one of the members of the aforesaid Company. We appraised his horse at $90 Saddle $35 & Rifle $30.
Robt. Musselman
Thos P. Hutchinson
John J. Baugh
N. O. Greys63
The document does not claim that Hutchinson died at the Alamo, but it does prove his existence as a member of the First Company of New Orleans Greys. Musselman and Baugh died at the Alamo. And as previously stated, a muster roll identification of an Alamo defender was sufficient evidence to General Land Office officials. In the case of Hutchinson there are no land grants in his name because no heirs ever surfaced to claim them. Undoubtedly, Hutchinson died at the Alamo, and his case clearly demonstrates the unreliability of Williams’s methodology.64
Mr. Washington and a Little Irishman
Then there is James Morgan, who served under the alias of James Washington. The name “J. Washington” was on one of the General Land Office’s muster rolls. Still, Williams ignored the name and did not explain why she rejected the name. After the revolution Thomas G. Masterson of Palacious, Matagorda County, requested that the Harris County probate court appoint him as administrator of his cousin James Morgan’s estate. Masterson claimed that Morgan was killed at the Alamo under the name of “James Washington.” One of the first reconstructed Alamo muster rolls includes the name “J. Washington.” James, however, should not be confused with defender Joseph George Washington.65
The “Little Irishman” was identified by Major George Bernard Erath in his memoirs. Erath wrote:
I set out from Bastrop with the surveyor, Thomas A. Graves, about the last of September [1835]. There were seventeen of us in the party, including four land speculators. We reached our destination in three days and commenced work, each compass running out a league of land a day. We intended to go farther east after surveying ten leagues, but, on the last day of our stay the Indians attacked one of the parties and killed Lang, an Irishman, who ran the compass. Such occurrences were not uncommon, especially near the Colorado, and even occurred in the midst of a settlement. A party of Indians always lurked around, waiting to find a solitary man to scalp, and would then put off immediately. As they generally did put off immediately after the killing, it seemed to me there was little danger in our whole party remaining a few days longer. One man of the party attacked had escaped and brought us the news; three men to be accounted for were missing, two besides Lang. We thought the dead ought to be found and buried, and after deliberation in camp found that all the hands and one land locator, Fiske, were in favor of this course, or, at least, to remain long enough to ascertain the fate of the missing men. So after a little opposition from Graves and the other land locators, we started the next morning, not to the settlements, but to the place of attack, guided by the man who had escaped. We paused there and, after another deliberation, Graves cut the matter short by declaring he had fitted out the expedition, would have to pay the hands, and did not propose to be at unnecessary expense in public service. So we turned back. Had we gone but a few hundred yards farther we would have found Lang’s body. We kept a lookout for the other missing men, and one of them we found. He was quite wild from fright, mistook us for Indians, and ran from us for some time. He had grown up in some large city, a tailor by trade, and was altogether unused to the frontier. The other man, McLellen, a little Irishman, carried a pistol and a Jacob’s staff with him in flight, and escaped to the Colorado; he lived to be killed in the Alamo the following March.66
The “Little Irishman” appears to have been Ross McClelland. According to a Washington County first class headright document from July 1838: “Robert Merrett [and] Thomas S. Saul Proved that the deceased Ross McClelland was a resident citizen of Texas at the date of the Declaration of Independence, and that he was killed in the Alamo, a Single man.”67
In the case of McClelland, Williams was guilty of nothing more than sloppy research. George Bernard Erath’s memoirs were first published in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (volumes 26 and 27) in 1923. Williams’s failure to read the Erath narrative is an example of her failure to conduct a proper survey of all the biographical materials that contained information about the Texas Revolution that were available to her. Nor did Williams look to the many probate records that were available at the county level. A review of Williams’s footnotes shows that she did little research outside of Austin. She depended on source materials she could find in state archives and at the University of Texas. Otherwise, she used sources that were sent to her by other scholars and historians.
Incorrect Alamo Defenders
In addition to the Alamo defenders that Williams eliminated for no good reason, she put men on her Alamo roll that did not die at the Alamo, or at least her sources fail to prove their deaths. This analysis does not reflect a complete review of Williams’s list, but the number of names examined is sufficient to prove that Williams’s roll is unreliable.
There is Johnny Kellogg, who, according to Williams, was: “Age, 19; rank, private; resident of Gonzales. Sources: I Bastrop, 240; I Bexar, 553; Miles S. Bennett, The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, II: 240; Rather, Ibid., VIII, 159. This man was the son of John Kellogg, Sr., of Gonzales, and he was one of the thirty-two who went to the Alamo on March 1.”68
Remember, Williams said: “I set myself the task, however, to verify every name on this work [her work list of four hundred names], or to determine definitely that it should be discarded.” Also, in 1939, when Williams was questioned about the accuracy of her list, she claimed that she had “several official sources” for each man on her roll.69
The name Johnny Kellogg appears on none of the Alamo rolls. The only source that identifies Kellogg as an Alamo defender is a secondary one, an article by Miles S. Bennett, who came to Texas after the revolution and joined his father in the Gonzales area. Williams misrepresented her sources by claiming that Ethel Zivley Rather’s “De Witt’s Colony” article identified Kellogg as an Alamo defender. The Rather work is not a legitimate source because Rather’s source for Kellogg’s death at the Alamo was the Bennett article, which Williams had already cited as a source.70
The only evidence in the land grant documents cited by Williams that speaks to Kellogg’s death comes from H
arrisburg residents William P. Harris and John W. Moore: “Harris said he first knew him [Benjamin Kellogg, not Johnny] in Oct. 1835 on his return from the Army of Texas, has also known him to have been in the army since that time, as also that he was a married man. Moore stated that he [his] first acquaintance was at Gonzales previous to the Declaration of Independence, also knew him in the service, knows he is dead and also that he was a man of family.” Harris also knew Kellogg in Harrisburg when Kellogg worked on the steamboat Cayuga for eleven days between August 15 and September 8, 1836. Harris was the boat’s captain.71
According to the court case of A. S. Miller versus Mary S. Rogers: “Kellogg died at Harrisburg in 1836, and Mrs. Kellogg, in 1837 or 1838, moved with her child upon the Thomas R. Miller homestead place, and lived there until her death, in 1839, leaving one son [Johnny Kellogg], then two or three years old, by Kellogg.”72
Lastly, none of the evidence cited by Williams identifies a “John Kellogg, Sr., of Gonzales” as being Johnny Kellogg’s father. Actually, there is no evidence of a John Kellogg Sr. or a Johnny Kellogg at Gonzales during the time of the Alamo. The “Kellogg” in question was Benjamin Kellogg, who had a son named Johnny, who was born after the fall of the Alamo. Benjamin was a private in Captain Albert Martin’s Gonzales volunteer company during the siege of Bexar in October and November 1835. The company appears to have disbanded after Stephen F. Austin turned the Texian army over to Edward Burleson on November 24, 1836. Thus, it appears that Miles Bennett was not only wrong about Kellogg dying at the Alamo, he also got the man’s first name wrong, confusing Benjamin, the father, with Johnny, the son, who was born in 1836 and probably named for his uncle, John Gaston, who did die at the Alamo.73
To prove that Jose Maria Guerrero died at the Alamo, Williams cited: “I San Patricio, 320; I Bexar, 143, 237.” Nevertheless, Texas land historian Thomas Lloyd Miller examined the cited land grant documents and concluded: “Miss Williams erred in this case. She cited three General Land Office Headright files to prove his [Guerrero] death in the Alamo. The writer carefully examined each file. Perhaps due to a printing error, the files do not concern Guerrero at all; I San Patricio 320 is for Josefa Guerra; I Bexar 143 is for Juan de Dios Neito; I Bexar 237 is for Manuel Martinez y Marquis.”74
There was no printing error. In the 1870s Guerrero received a Texas pension for having taken part in the siege and storming of Bexar as a member of Philip Dimmitt’s company. Clearly, Guerrero did not die at the Alamo.75
Williams claimed that “Jerry” or Jeremiah Day, James Hannum, and Isaac Robinson died at the Alamo. Other documents identify the three men as members of Philip Dimmitt’s Goliad company. In reality, Robinson was killed by Indians near Bastrop in 1838. Williams used her father and son theory again for Day, stating that her sources indicated that Jeremiah Day was the father of Jerry Day. Williams’s sources, however, do not identify Jeremiah as the father of Jerry. Jeremiah and Jerry were the same man. Day died sometime after the revolution, but he was alive on October 26, 1836, when William Delany and he “valued a gray horse of Charles Thomas Jackson into the public service at fifty dollars for which the government is responsible.”76
In the case of James Hannum, the name “Hannum” or a variant is not found on any of the Alamo lists that Williams investigated. Just how Williams came up with this name remains a mystery. Nevertheless, she claimed that private James Hannum, aged twenty-one died at the Alamo. Her sources were “Milam, 1212; Refugio, 154; I Milam, 53, 202.”77
First class headright grant Milam 202 was issued to Lucian Hannum, a single man, rather than James Hannum. Lucian was identified as deceased, but the file does not identify him as an Alamo defender. Bounty grants Milam 1212 and Refugio 154 were indeed issued to the heirs of James Hannum. Milam 1212 reported that Hannum died while in the service of Texas and identified him as a private in Captain Philip Dimmitt’s company, a unit that was stationed in Goliad. Refugio bounty grant 154 and Milam headright 53 contain no data that identifies Hannum as an Alamo victim. Also, James Hannum’s age is not found in any of the grant documents. Lastly, Dimmitt’s morning report for December 14, 1835, reports: “REMARK - DIED - This Morning James Hannum, Private.”78
Likewise, Jesse B. Bowman, Jesse G. Thompson, George Brown, James Brown, and Charles H. Clark are alleged Alamo victims whose Alamo deaths are not supported by the sources cited by Williams.
An examination of Williams’s Jesse B. Bowman information further reveals her methodology. She wrote: “BOWMAN, JESSE B.: Rank, private. Sources: I Lamar, 109; I Bowie, 119; I Red River 670; Court of Claims Vouchers, No. 17, File (A-B).”79
Again there are a number of problems with Williams’s alleged Bowman sources. The three first class headright files involve one grant that was obtained under Red River County certificate number 538. The patent files identify the assignee as “Jesse B. Boman.” The Red River County clerk returns, however, show the name as Jesse T. Bowman, who arrived in Texas in March 1835. Nevertheless, the three files contain no mention of Boman or Bowman dying at the Alamo and contain no data that could be interpreted to mean he died at the Alamo.80
There is no Court of Claims file for Jesse B. Bowman or a variant of the name. Also, the name Jesse B. Bowman or a variant is not found on the government’s muster rolls. The only evidence Williams found of a Bowman dying at the Alamo is the name “J. B. Bowman,” which appears on a list that reports the names that were on the first Alamo monument, which was destroyed in 1881. She, however, cited no evidence that proved J. B. Bowman was Jesse B. Bowman, or other evidence to show that Jesse B. died at the Alamo. Yet, Williams said she had verified every name on her final list with other official evidence.81
Analysis of Williams’s source material for Jesse G. Thompson is similar to the Jesse B. Bowman situation. Williams claimed that her primary sources for Thompson’s death at the Alamo were: “Bexar, 519; Fort Bend, 51, 53; Colorado, 97; C. M. S. R. No. 7093; Court of Claims Vouchers, No. 954, File (S-Z); Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 28 ( ______ Thompson is given).”82
Bounty land grants Bexar 519, Fort Bend 51, and Fort Bend 53 were issued to “Jesse Thompson,” a different man, not Jesse G. Thompson, and contain no data that reports an Alamo death for Thompson. Bexar 519, however, does report that Thompson served in the Texian army from March 7, 1836, to June 7, 1836. Colorado 97 was issued to Jesse G. Thompson and contains no claim of his death at the Alamo. Bounty grant Milam 1512, however, was issued to Jesse G. Thompson for fighting in the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. The C. M. S. R. No. 7093 claim shows that Jesse G. Thompson received his last pay for military service on May 30, 1836. In sum, not one of the documents cited by Williams identifies Jesse G. or Jesse Thompson as an Alamo soldier. To the contrary, the records show that “Jesse” and “Jesse G.” were separate men, both of whom were living after the fall of the Alamo. The muster rolls identify a man named Thompson as having died at the Alamo, but his first name remains to be discovered.83
In regard to George Brown, Williams claimed he was a thirty-six-year-old private, born in England, who resided in Gonzales. Her sources for those claims were: “I Liberty, 317; Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 256. The muster rolls are not definite for this name. They give merely ‘_______ Brown.’ The records show four George Browns in the Texan army in 1836, but the headright files and C. M. S. R. No. 728, show that but one of them died at the Alamo.” An examination of the muster rolls shows that the name “Brown” does not appear on page two. The name “Browne,” however, is found on page three. There is no page 256. The last page of the Muster Rolls book is 255.84
The first class headright grant for Liberty 317 was issued to Mrs. George Brown and contains no data that reports the death of a “George Brown” at the Alamo. Also, the file does not give Mr. Brown’s age, rank, birthplace, or Texas residence. There are two C. M. S. R. claims identified as 728. The first originated on July 4, 1836, and was authorized by George W. Poe for D. B. Posey for military service and supplies. The second originated on July 30, 1836, and was a
uthorized by Captain A. G. W. Pierson for Albert G. Perry for military services. This investigator was unable to locate a military claim in the name of George Brown for service or death at the Alamo.85
The situation with James Brown is similar to that of George Brown. Williams claimed that James was a thirty-six-year-old private from Pennsylvania. Her sources were: “Bexar, 962; I Nacogdoches, 399, 681; I Washington, 193; Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 20, 256 (the muster rolls give only the last name); James E. Winston, ‘Pennsylvania and the Independence of Texas,’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVIII, 266; Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; the Register of Spanish Archives, General Land Office, shows that this man registered in De Leon’s Colony, April 17, 1835.”86
Bounty grant Bexar 962 was issued to James Bowie, not James Brown. First class headright Nacogdoches 399 was issued to Henry B. Rodney. First class Nacogdoches 681 was issued to Philip Mason. There is no first class headright Washington 193. The last first class grant for the Washington land district is 92. The James E. Winston article does not identify Brown as being from Pennsylvania. Winston only stated that reports of the fall of the Alamo appeared in the Philadelphia newspapers in April 1836. According to Winston one of those articles claimed that a man named “Browne” had died at the Alamo. The Telegraph and Texas Register of March 24, 1836, only listed a “Browne.” A man named James Brown did obtain a land grant in De Leon’s Colony in 1835, but none of Williams’s other sources identify this man as having died at the Alamo. Nor do any of the sources give the man’s age and rank. Also, despite the fact that Williams’s muster roll page numbers for the name Brown are not valid, it appears she used the same single listing of the name of Brown to refer to both James Brown and George Brown. If James was “Browne,” then George could not have been “Browne,” and vice versa.87
Alamo Traces Page 9
