37 B. M. Clark to Jesse Burnam, January 2, 1836, AMC-TSL; Sam Houston to P. S. Wyatt, December 28, 1835, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 351; Webb, Carroll, and Branda, eds., Handbook, II: 940; John Chenoweth muster roll, February 1836. The Burnam document reads: “B. M. Clark a volunteer attached to Col. Wyatts command owes Jesse Burnam three dollars to be taken out of his monthly pay.”
38 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; Groneman, Alamo Defenders, 94.
39 Number 259, “Rough Minutes”; Number 427, “Proceedings of the Land Commissioners”; Probate Minutes, Nacogdoches, Vol. B, 61-62. The probate record shows that George Pollett was appointed administrator of the estates of David Wilson and Charles Haskell and obtained an order to sell their real estate. Thomas J. Rusk, Isaac Lee, and Charles S. Taylor testified that Haskell had been a citizen of Nacogdoches previous to March 2, 1836. Adolphus Sterne claimed that Wilson owed him $15.00. Pollett said Wilson or his estate owed him $30.00.
40 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; Green B. Jameson to Sam Houston, January 18, 1836, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 59.
41 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; Yoakum, History, II: 87.
42 Number 427, “Proceedings of the Land Commissioners”; Number 259, “Rough Minutes”; Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 156 and 163.
43 Horce Eggleston affidavit, January 3, 1841; J. C. Neill discharge affidavits, February 14, 1836, Bexar, Robert White file, John T. Ballard file, AMC-TSL; “Byrd Lockhart’s Muster Roll – February 23, 1836.”
44 Arkansas Gazette, March 29, 1836, Little Rock.
Chapter Seven
A Rose Is a Rose:
Moses, Louis, and James M.
Of course, she did say “Ross,” not “Rose.” But letters and spelling meant nothing to Mrs. Dickinson, who couldn’t read or write. At this distance, her statement looks good enough – especially since there was no “Ross” in the Alamo.
Walter Lord1
Writer Walter Lord discovered the third piece of evidence that seems to verify William P. Zuber’s tale of Moses Rose. Lord, because of the Louis Rose land grant statements, had already concluded that Louis Rose was Moses Rose and that he had been a member of the Alamo garrison. Never mind that there was no solid evidence that proved Louis was Moses or that specifically identified Louis as a member of the Alamo command. Lord, like R. B. Blake, assumed that Louis Rose had to have been Moses Rose. Lord wrote: “But did he [Moses] leave under the dramatic circumstances described by Zuber? Freshly uncovered information suggests that he did. This consists of a formal statement, never published, given by Mrs. Dickinson to the State Adjutant General, who was trying to develop a more definitive list of Alamo defenders.”2
The alleged formal statement, however, is compromised by a major problem that Lord failed to report to his readers. There is no original holographic document that reports this Dickinson data. The piece Lord found is a typed statement, of which there are two different typed versions. The statement has a number of details that compromise its credibility. Also, Lord was wrong about the source of the alleged Dickinson statement. The statement is not part of the holographic record of the September 23, 1876 Dickinson interview document prepared for the Texas Adjutant General’s office.3
Susanna (Dickinson) Hannig, ca. 1880
Photo courtesy of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library
The typewritten versions are part of a small collection in the Archives Division of the Texas State Library labeled “Alamo Strays.” The assemblage contains typed transcripts of letters to the adjutant general, old newspaper clippings about the Alamo, loose pages from Dr. Amelia W. Williams’s master thesis on the Alamo, and other papers pertaining to the Alamo. This box of documents, which is stored in an administrative office, has no finding aid.4
The first version of the alleged Dickinson statement reads:
On the evening previous to the massacre, Col Travis asked the command that if any desired to escape, now was the time, to let it be known, & to step out of the ranks. But one stepped out. His name to the best of my recollection was Ross. The next morning he was missing – During the final engagement our Milton, jumped over the ramparts & was killed –
Col. Almente [sic] (Mexican) told me that the man who had deserted the evening before had also been killed & that if I wished to satisfy myself of the fact that I could see the body, still lying there, which I declined.
[Note made by typist]
Source: Adjutant General’s Letters concerning the Alamo, 1875–1878. Texas State Archives.5
Version two, with the differences in italics, reads:
On the evening previous to the massacre, Col Travis asked the command that if any desired to escape, now was the time, to let it be known, & to step out of ranks. But one stepped out. His name to the best of my recollection was Ross. The next morning he was missing – During the final engagement one Milton, jumped over the ramparts & was killed –
Col Almonte (Mexican) told me that the man who had deserted the evening before had also been killed & that if I wished to satisfy myself of the fact that I could see the body, still lying there, which I declined.
Mrs. S. A. Hannig
[Note made by typist]
Mrs. S A Hannig Wife of Almaron Dicenson [sic] (or Dickerson) Source: Adjutant General’s Miscellaneous Papers,
Archives, Texas State Library.6
The differences (misspelling of Almonte in the first document and “our Milton” versus “one Milton”) in the two versions seem to suggest that the typescripts were completed at different times by different individuals who had seen an actual holographic document; a document that had been moved from the “Adjutant General’s Letters concerning the Alamo” collection to the “Adjutant General’s Miscellaneous Papers” collection.
Nevertheless, two questions must be considered in evaluating the Ross documents. First, since no original holographic document can be found, one must ask: Is there a possibility that the documents are forgeries? Second, is the information found in the two typescripts reliable?
On the surface, the Ross data appears to be a godsend to those who want to believe the Moses Rose story. The document eliminates three major flaws in Zuber’s tale and a serious problem with the Louis Rose land grant statements. First, the Moses Rose story and the Louis Rose testimony place the event in question on March 3, 1836. The Dickinson documents place the event on the “evening previous to the massacre,” which would have been March 5. Thus, this Dickinson evidence counters recent evidence that Travis’s alleged speech to his command and Rose’s escape could not have taken place on March 3. Second, the Dickinson statements offer verification of the Moses Rose tale from a known eyewitness to the siege and storming of the Alamo. Previous to Lord’s discovery of the Dickinson’s documents, there was no independent evidence to support the Zuber story and the Louis Rose testimony. Third, the identification of “Rose” as “Ross” solved the problem of authentic Dickinson statements about defender James M. Rose that conflict with Zuber’s identification of Moses Rose as an Alamo defender. Years earlier Dickinson had claimed that James M. Rose was the only man named Rose in the Alamo. Lastly, the Ross statement declares that Ross was in the Alamo and that Travis called his men together in a formation and offered them the opportunity to escape. Whereas, the Louis Rose testimony does neither. The 1838 Louis Rose statements only infer that he was in the Alamo and departed on March 3. The 1838 documents offer no evidence that Travis called his men together and offered them a chance to leave the Alamo.7
In 1853 and 1857 Dickinson (as Susanna Bellows) furnished affidavits to the heirs of James M. Rose that put him in the Alamo with David Crockett. In 1853 she said that she “knew no other man by that name [at the Alamo].” In 1857 she testified that James M. Rose “was the only man in the army by the name of Rose.” Also, she testified: “I saw Rose often, and upon one occasion heard my husband Capt. Dickinson speak to Rose of a narrow escape he (Rose) had made from a Mexican officer
upon their first attack.”8
On the other hand, one can argue that if Dickinson only knew Rose by the name of Ross, then she would not have remembered him by his right name. Lord argued: “Of course, she did say ‘Ross,’ not ‘Rose.’ But letters and spelling meant nothing to Mrs. Dickinson, who couldn’t read or write. At this distance, her statement looks good enough—especially since there was no ‘Ross’ in the Alamo. Nor does it seem damaging that her statement postdated the Zuber story by three years. It doesn’t have the ring of a coached remark; and Mrs. Dickinson, who was exasperatingly uninterested in her historic role, didn’t have it in her to take off all alone on a flight of fancy.”9
Yes, Mrs. Dickinson was illiterate, but she was not deaf or hard of hearing. Thus, the claim that she would not have known the difference between “Ross” and “Rose” is a weak theory to explain why she would have identified Rose as Ross. Especially, since she had no problem understanding and remembering the name of James M. Rose. Also, Dickinson, being unable to read and write, may have been more attentive to speech sounds than a literate person. After all, her only means of communication was talking and listening to the people in her world.
Unlike the Ross report, the holographic original of Susanna (Dickinson) Hannig’s 1876 interview does exist. The holographic document reads:
[page one]
Austin, Tex. Sept. 23, [18]76
Called on Mrs. Susanna Hannig, whose husband Joseph Hannig is living with her. She was at the sacking of the Alamo in 1836, 6th Mch; was then in her 15th year; was then named Susannah Dickinson wife of Lieut. [Captain] Dickinson, and her maiden name was Susanna Wilkerson. Her parents were in Williamson Co. Tenn. Her husband was one of the killed. They had one child, a daughter, who, then an infant, was with them in The Alamo; This daughter married John Menard Griffith, a native of Montgomery Co. Texas, by whom she had 4 children, all of whom are living; She died in Montgomery Co. Tex about the year 1871.
The Mexicans came unexpectedly into San Antonio & witness & her husband & child retreated into the fort. Enemy began throwing bombs into Fort, but no one hurt till
[page two]
the last day, i.e. The assault, except one horse killed. Had provisions enough to last the besieged 30 days. Among the besieged were 50 or 60 wounded men from Cos’s fight [siege and storming of Bexar, October 20 to December 11, 1835] About 18 cannon (she believes) were mounted on parapet & in service all the time. The enemy gradually approached by means of earth-works thrown up. Besieged were looking for reinforcements which never arrived. The only outsiders who succeeded in coming into Fort were 3 of our spies who entered 3 days before the assault –
On morning of 6th Mch. about daylight enemy threw up signal rocket &
[page three]
advanced & were repulsed. They rallied & made a 2nd assault with scaling ladders, first thrown up on E. side of Fort. Terrible fight ensued. Witness retired into a room of the old church & saw no part of fight – Though she could distinctly hear it. After the fall she was approached by a Col.(?) Black (an Englishman and officer in the Mexican service) who sheltered her from Mexican injury & took her in a buggy to Mr. Musquiz, a merchant in town, where she staid till the next day, when she was conducted before Santa Anna who threatened to take her to Mexico with her child; when Almonte, his nephew, addressing his English, pleaded for witness, saying he had been educated in N. O. & had experienced great kindness from Americans. Witness was thus permitted to depart to her home in Gonzales. Col. Travis commanded the Fort.
[page four]
The only man, Witness saw killed was a man named Walker from Nacogdoches, who was bayoneted & shot. She knew John Garnet from Gonzales, who she is certain was killed though she did not see it. After her removal to Musquiz’s she expressed a wish to visit the scene of carnage, but was informed by the people of the house that it would not be permitted as the enemy was then burning the dead bodies – and in conformation thereof, she was shown a smoke in the direction of the Alamo. She knew Col. Bowie & saw him in the Fort, both before & after his death. He was sick before & during the fight, and had even been expected to die. – Col. Crockett was one of the 3 men who came into Fort during the siege & before the assault. He was killed, she believes.
[page five]
A Negro man named Joe, was in the Fort, & was the slave & body servant of Col. Travis. After the fall of the Alamo, Joe was forced by the Mexicans at the point of the bayonet to point out to them the bodies of Col. Travis & Col. Crockett among the heaps of dead. Joe was the only negro in Fort. The witness’s infant was the only child in the fort. The witness & the two Mexican women already mentioned were the only women in the fort.
The witness has had no children in her present marriage.10
D. Juan N. Almonte, Santa Anna’s aide-de-camp
Photo courtesy Jack Jackson, Austin, Texas
There are two major problems with the Ross typescript documents when they are compared with the authentic Hannig interview document. First the Ross data is not part of the 1876 interview. Second, the typescript documents are written in first person as if the interviewer had recorded it exactly as Hannig had said it. Whereas, the authentic Hannig document is in third person and in a style that suggests the interviewer listened to Susanna and then recorded the data in pretty much his or her own words, not necessarily in Susanna’s language. And there are other problems with the Ross typescripts.
Additional evidence and content analysis of the Ross report reveals that the Almonte and Dickinson dialogue about the deserter most likely could not have occurred in the Alamo on the morning of March 6 or before the defenders’ bodies were burned. The Ross documents claim: “Col. Almonte (Mexican) told me that the man who had deserted the evening before had also been killed & that if I wished to satisfy myself of the fact that I could see the body, still lying there. . . .” The statement appears to suggest that Ross was the deserter. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Dickinson did not go out and see that the deserter was Ross. Nor did Almonte identify the deserter as Ross. If the deserter was not Ross, why would Dickinson have mentioned him? After all, was she not being questioned about a man named Rose who had allegedly escaped from the Alamo?11
Furthermore, how would Almonte have known that the man was a deserter? If the Ross tale is true, the man could just as easily have appeared to be a departing courier. The only plausible way Almonte could have known the man was a deserter would have been if the Mexican troops captured him, questioned him, and killed him. Moreover, Almonte made no mention of Ross or a deserter in his journal, a daily record in which he reported other Alamo arrivals and departures of which he had knowledge.12
Almonte’s alleged claim that the deserter’s body was “still lying there” indicates that the dialogue would have had to occur between Dickinson’s discovery in the chapel and her departure from the Alamo on the morning of March 6 before the collection of the bodies for burning. It is a common belief that Almonte discovered Dickinson and escorted her from the Alamo. That, however, is incorrect; an Englishman named Black found Dickinson, protected her, and transported her in a buggy to the Musquiz home. The available evidence suggests she did not encounter Col. Almonte until the next day, March 7, when she was taken before General Santa Anna.13
The defenders’ bodies apparently were burned on March 6. Francisco Ruiz, who claimed he supervised the burning of the bodies, said: “About 3 o’clock in the afternoon [March 6] they commenced laying the wood and dry branches, upon which a file of dead bodies was placed; more wood was piled on them, and another file brought, and in this manner they were all arranged in layers. Kindling wood was distributed through the pile, and about 5 o’clock in the evening it was lighted.”14
The likelihood that Dickinson did not talk with Almonte before the burning of the bodies is reinforced by new evidence, which reveals that Dickinson, soon after seeing David Crockett’s body between the chapel and the long barrack, entered a state that made a discussion with Almonte within the Alamo compound unlikel
y. Dickinson, after her arrival at Gonzales was taken to the George Tumlinson home. Tumlinson’s son George W. had died at the Alamo. Dickinson told the family of “the fall of the Alamo and its horrors.” Annie White, Tumlinson’s eleven-year-old stepdaughter, was an avid listener. In her old age White reported: “Mrs. Dickinson told us . . . that the Mexicans made her go with them through the Alamo and watch them plunge their bayonets into the lifeless bodies of the fallen patriots. They did this in order to be certain that every one was dead. She said she fainted when they came to the body of her husband.” Exactly how long Dickinson remained unconscious is unknown, but the condition explains why her Alamo exit reports are limited to the chapel and the battleground in front of the chapel, and why officer Black took her to the Musquiz house in a buggy.15
One can argue that Almonte talked with Dickinson after she had been taken to the Musquiz house. There is, however, a conflict between the Ross report and the genuine adjutant general interview that suggests Almonte did not meet with Dickinson at the Musquiz house on March 6. According to the Ross document, Almonte told Dickinson that if she “wished to satisfy” herself that the deserter had been killed, she “could see the body, still lying there,” which she declined. Yet, the authentic Dickinson report states: “After her removal to Musquiz’s she expressed a wish to visit the scene of carnage, but was informed by the people of the house that it would not be permitted as the enemy was then burning the dead bodies – and in conformation thereof, she was shown a smoke in the direction of the Alamo.”16
The next problem with the Ross account is Dickinson’s alleged claim: “The next morning he [Ross] was missing.” That would have been the morning of March 6 when the enemy forces attacked without warning in the darkness. Would Travis have conducted a roll call before his men mounted the walls to fight off a surprise attack? It is highly improbable that Ross’s absence would have been discovered during the frantic rush to the ramparts that morning, or that Dickinson or anybody else would have been aware of such a situation. Lastly, the claim that Ross was not discovered missing until the following morning conflicts with Zuber’s report of Rose’s alleged departure. Zuber claimed that Rose “sprang up, seized his wallet of unwashed clothes, and ascended the wall” in full view of David Crockett and James Bowie during the daylight of late afternoon. Therefore, if the Ross document is authentic and Dickinson was right, Ross could not have been Moses Rose.17
Alamo Traces Page 30
