39 J. C. Neill to Henry Smith, January 27, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 160.
40 Entry for February 13, 1836, Audited Military Claims ledger, 77; Nancy Timmons Samuels and Barbara Roach Knox, compilers, Old Northwest Texas: Historical – Statistical – Biographical (Fort Worth: Fort Worth Genealogical Society, 1980), I-B: 547-548.
The AMC ledger shows that on February 13, 1836, Neill purchased $333 worth of military supplies from “Horton & Clements.” The identity of Horton is unknown, but the only “Clements” residing within a two-day ride of Bexar who sold supplies to the military was Joseph D. Clements at Gonzales. Also, Neill’s action of obtaining the supplies and the amount of the purchase indicates that he was returning to his command.
Samuels and Knox reported that Neill’s wife, Margaret Harriett, probably died in February 1836, in Gonzales County. Their source for that data appears to have been obtained from a Mrs. C. L. Neill of Pharr, Texas. The two researchers also reported that Neill departed San Antonio on February 14, 1836, and rode to Gonzales. John Alexander Neill, a cousin to James C. Neill, lived in Gonzales. Thus, Neill’s sick wife may have been staying with the John A. Neill family while she was ill. That way she would have been closer to her husband than she would have been in Bastrop, where they had a home.
41 J. C. Neill discharge affidavits, February 14, 1836, Bexar, John T. Ballard file, Robert White file, David Davis file, Thomas Hendrick file, Jesse B. Badgett file, Chester S. Corbit file, William A. Irwin file, AMC-TSL; J. C. Neill affidavit, February 20, 1838, I. L. K. Harrison file, M & P-TSL.
42 W. Barret Travis, Comd. of Cavalry, and James Bowie, Comd. of volunteers, to Henry Smith, February 14, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 339. The Alamo’s volunteer cavalry was most likely composed of Captain William B. Harrison’s company and David Crockett’s small spy unit. James L. Vaughan, one of Travis’s recruiting officers, assisted Harrison’s unit in obtaining provisions (see chapter two) at San Felipe and Mina.
43 J. C. Neill to Henry Smith, February 28, 1836, San Felipe, James C. Neill Papers, Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library, Alamo, San Antonio, Texas; Sam Houston affidavit, December 9, 1839, Austin, Samuel Williams file, AMC-TSL. Houston wrote: “I certify that Col. Jas C. Neill was commander of the Troops until I arrived at Gonzales.”
Conclusion
Last Word:
“The Truth Shall Set You Free”
Walter Lord, in regard to the source material he used to write A Time To Stand (p. 227), wrote: “The Alamo has intrigued writers for more than 125 years, but the contradictions and gaps in the story remain as exasperating as ever. In the end, the only solution was to go back to the original sources and start all over again.”
Lord, by starting over, believed he had solved many of the Alamo’s contradictions and filled some of the gaps. He did carry the Alamo story to a new level of knowledge. However, he also created a number of new problems with his uncritical acceptance of certain old sources and some of the new evidence he discovered. Lord’s incorrect and negative depiction of Alamo commander James C. Neill in order to make William B. Travis, the Alamo’s temporary commander, look more competent and heroic is especially galling. Neill was one hell of a fighting man, and Lord most likely knew it.
Still, what Lord said about the Alamo story being “exasperating” and full of contradictions and gaps is almost as true today as it was in 1961 when his book went on sale. Not only is that the case for the Alamo, but the most recent military and political histories of the Texas Revolution still have their contradictions and holes. The Alamo and the Revolution are areas ripe for a new look. Many explosive primary sources are still out there—some unknown to historians—others sources have been ignored because they did not dovetail with the historian or writer’s bias.
Hopefully, this study has done away with some of the Alamo contradictions and bridged many of the gaps in the Alamo story. Moreover, I hope this work is a new beginning that other investigators and historians can build upon with new sources and valid interpretations. Perhaps historians will agree with my conclusions. Perhaps not. I make no claim that Alamo Traces is the best or the most correct study of the Texian Alamo and its role in the Texas Revolution; it is only, as of its publication date, the new kid on the block.
Alleged execution of David Crockett
Appendices
This section examines a number of new documents that speak to the Alamo and the Texas Revolution. Each document is presented with a short analysis of its importance to history.
[1]
[Alamo Voting List]
Certificate
We certify that in pursuance of an order from the Senior officer in command here & influenced by an urgent general request, we proceeded by order of Lt. Col. J. C. Neil to an election of two persons as members of the convention to represent the citizens of Texas now here on duty, in the convention ordered by the late General Consultation, and to sit at Washington. The election was held in the Alamo fort on the first day of February, in strict conformity with the law and with general usage the within we certify to be a correct return of the polls as kept principally by our clerk, whose name is herewith appended: the return exhibits one hundred and four votes; one hundred and three votes were given to Samuel A. Maverick, one hundred to Jesse B. Badgett and one vote given to each of two other persons: we therefore return Maverick and Badgett, as elected. Given under our hands at Bejar this 2d of Feby 1836.
J Melton
W. C. M. Baker Capt.
Clerk of the Election
Samuel C. Blair Capt.
Wm. Blazeley, Capt.1
Analysis
Alamo historians, in their identification of the Texians who died at the Alamo, have always been hampered by the lack of contemporary muster rolls for the Alamo garrison. The rolls that do exist were compiled days, months, or years after the fall of the Alamo. The names came from non-combatant survivors, couriers, and other veterans of the revolution. In the absence of a February and March 1836 Alamo roster, the February 1, 1836 voting list probably identifies all of the defenders in San Antonio at that time who were old enough to vote. Thus, it will be extremely useful in creating a new and more accurate list of the Texians and Americans who died at the Alamo while fighting under Travis, Bowie, and Crockett.
[2]
Bexar Meeting
At a meeting of the troops now in the garrison of Bejar, on the 31st of December 1835, the following resolutions were adopted.
Resolved, That this be a meeting to ascertain the rights of the volunteers.
Resolved, That we approve and recognize colonel [James C.] Neill as commander-in-chief, and unanimously agree in the sentiments expressed by that gentleman in his letter to us.
Resolved, That we consider it highly essential that the existing army remain in Bejar.
Resolved, That we have at all times the privilege of electing our own company officers, and for the commander-in-chief to recognize the same.
Resolved, That we consider the above highly essential for the unity and interest of the existing volunteer army in Bejar.
Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting be given to major [Green B.] Jameson, for his prompt, communicative, and kind attention to this meeting.
Resolved, That a copy of the proceedings of this meeting to be addressed to the Convention at San Felipe.
Wm. Blazeby
Chairman2
Analysis
This document furnishes an explanation as to why the Alamo’s volunteer soldiers refused to serve under Lt. Colonel William B. Travis after Colonel James C. Neill left the Alamo in mid-February 1836. All Texian volunteer units had the right to elect their commanding officers. As the document shows, the Alamo volunteers voted to serve under Lt. Colonel James C. Neill, despite the fact he was a regular army officer. Neill, however, did not have the right to transfer his control over the volunteers to Travis. Thus, they rebelled against Travis and demanded the right to elect a new commanding officer, who turned out to
be James Bowie.
[3]
Communication from Fernando De Leon and Charles Laso
The Citizens Fernando de Leon & Charles Laso also citizen of the village of Guadalupe Victoria advises the commandancy of this place – that on the 18th of the past month [November 1835] they were made prisoners [and] taken by the Schn Montezuma from on board the Schn Anna Elizabeth in company with six Mexicans and Nine foreigners, at the Port of Matagorda – and was confined in Irons until they arrived at the Brassos de Santiago, treating them without any respect but as common prisoners, that there they received intelligence that they were to be sent to Vera Cruz under the same security, but the two undersigned persons have found means to make their escape and have escaped and presented themselves in this village [Goliad], that on their departure they were informed by a friend that there was in circulation a Decree of the general Government That all Mexicans, foreigners, or Americans, without any distinction whatever taken as prisoners on this side of the Rio Grande should be immediately put to death.
That on their march they met with a friend that provided them with horses to facilitate their escape advising them to avoid the main road and cross the country that there were five foreigners found dead on the road in pursuance of the above said Decree so circulated. That Sadly the command out of the Port of the Brassos de Santingo had informed them that the Mexican government had issued a Decree that all vessels from N. Orleans bound to any port of Texas should be taken into vera cruz as a Lawful Prize – All the foregoing intelligence we thought proper to communicate to the commandant of this village Citizen Filipe Dimitt, in order that it would be generally circulated and communicated to the Army and people of Texas.
We were also informed by the same command of Brassos de Santiago that there was in the Harbor of Vera Cruz five schooners Ready for sea under orders to cruise along the coast of the Department of Texas. We also were informed that information was received by a courier Extra ordinary that there were three thousand troops under command of general Sesma to start from Saltillo destined for Texas, with three pieces of heavy artillery.
God & Liberty Goliad 18 of December 1835
Fernando de Leon
Carlos Laso3
Analysis
On December 20, two days after Captain Philip Dimmitt’s Goliad troops learned of the execution decree aimed at North Americans, they issued a declaration of independence. A section of that document, which appears to have been influenced by the De Leon and Laso report, reads: “The [federalist] counter-revolution in the interior once smothered, the whole fury of the contest will be poured on Texas. She is principally populated with North-Americans. To expel these from its territory, and parcel it out among the instruments of its wrath, will combine the motive and the means for consummating the scheme of the President Dictator [Santa Anna]. Already, we are denounced, proscribed, outlawed, and exiled from the country. Our lands, peaceably and lawfully acquired, are solemnly pronounced the proper subject of indiscriminate forfeiture, and our estates of confiscation. The laws and guarantees under which we entered the country as colonists, tempted the unbroken silence, sought the dangers of the wilderness, braved the prowling Indian, erected our numerous improvements, and opened and subdued the earth to cultivation, are either abrogated or repealed, and now trampled under the hoofs of the usurper’s cavalry.
“Why, then, should we longer contend for charters, which, we are again and again told in the annals of the past, were never intended for our benefit? Even a willingness on our part to defend them, has provoked the calamities of exterminating warfare [italics added]. Why contend for the shadow, when the substance courts our acceptance? War – exterminating war is waged; and we have either to fight or flee.”4
Prior to the declaration, Dimmitt was a determined supporter of Mexican federalism and had strong ties to the Mexican community in Texas. Thus, historians have speculated about why Dimmitt became such a strong supporter of independence in an almost overnight fashion.
Hobart Huson, author of Captain Philip Dimmitt’s Commandancy of Goliad, 1835-1836, believed that Dimmitt had commanded a Tejano company at the storming of Bexar and that the experience caused him to change his view about the political goal of the struggle.
Huson wrote: “During his brief absence from his post [Goliad], Dimmitt’s political opinions appear to have undergone almost complete reversal. Whereas, on December 2d, when he wrote his much publicized letter of that date, urging upon the General council the advisability of an expedition of Matamoros, he yet adhered to the Austinian orthodoxy of Loyalty to Mexico; separate statehood for Texas within the framework of the Mexican Confederacy, under restored Federal Constitution of 1834 [sic]; he had now come to the conviction of its impracticability or, more rather the utter impossibility of its realization.”5
Huson was wrong about Dimmitt. The Goliad commander sent a Tejano company to San Antonio that participated in the siege and storming of Bexar. Dimmitt, however, did not go to San Antonio himself. Thus, he could not have changed his mind about federalism because he had taken part in the siege and storming of Bexar.6
Historian Paul D. Lack, who was either unaware of Huson’s excellent study of Dimmitt’s command or ignored it, claims that the garrison issued their declaration because of their anti-Mexican posture. Lack wrote: “The Goliad declaration of December 22, provided the most complete statement of the independence ideology. It emphasized council ineptitude, hatred of Mexicans [italics added] (including Texas ‘creoles’), the evils of deceitful, office-seeking speculators, and a kind of class rhetoric not uncommon in the Jacksonian era.”7
Lack not only paints the Goliad soldiers as racists, he stained all Texians who supported independence when he wrote that the Goliad declaration was “the most complete statement of the independence ideology.” Lack’s interpretation is contaminated by his agenda—political correctness, an intellectual illness that infected academic historians in the late twentieth century, very much in the same way racism compromised many historians’ objectivity previous to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The Goliad Declaration states:
We have indulged sympathy, too, for the condition of many whom, we vainly flattered ourselves, were opposed, in common with their adopted brethren, to the extension of military domination over the domain of Texas. But the siege of Bexar has dissolved the illusion. Nearly all their physical force was in the line of the enemy and armed with rifles. Seventy days’ occupation of the fortress of Goliad, has also abundantly demonstrated the general diffusion among the Creole population of a like attachment to the institutions of their ancient tyrants. Intellectually enthralled, and strangers to the blessings of regulated liberty, the only philanthropic service which we can ever force on their acceptance, is that of example. In doing this, we need not expect or even hope for their cooperation. When made the reluctant, but greatly benefited recipients of a new, invigorating, and cherishing policy – a policy tendering equal, impartial, and indiscriminate protection to all; to the low and the high, the humble and the well-born, the poor and the rich, the ignorant and the educated, the simple and the shrewd – then, and not before, will [Texas Mexicans] become even useful in the work of political or moral renovation.8
Lack sees anti-Mexican attitudes in documents that are just not there. Simply pointing out that Northern Mexican federalists and the majority of the Tejano population did not understand the freedoms found in the United States and did not support the Texians is not, by any reasonable standard, “hatred of Mexicans.”
In defense of Huson and Lack, they were not aware of the De Leon and Laso report. Huson would have most likely understood its significance in regard to the Goliad declaration of independence. Whereas, Lack would probably have ignored the document because it does not fit with his thesis that the Texians were nothing more than racists, who hated all Mexicans. Also, Lack and other pro-Mexican historians of today would not want to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing aspect of Santa Anna’s campaign against the North Am
ericans of Northern Mexico and Texas. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe the De Leon and Laso data influenced Dimmitt and his soldiers in their decision to make their declaration of independence.
[4]
Pioneer Says Bones Were Texas Heroes
Slain Men Beheaded After Battle of the Alamo,
Spared Funeral Pyre by Foes
There is no rest for the numerous skeletons unearthed at the site of the old post office!
Now comes Charles A. Herff of Seguin, a resident of San Antonio for 81 years, who, from conversation with men who lived in the last century, claims the bones belong to Texans which the Mexicans decapitated following the Battle of the Alamo.9
Mr. Herff declares:
“On Alamo Plaza in 1870 I had a conversation with a Mr. [Antonio] Menchaca and a Mr. [Juan] Losoya [younger brother of Alamo defender Toribio Losoya], a Mr. Castanola and a Peter Gallagher, whose residence, by the way, was immediately back of the Alamo facing Nacogdoches street.10
Place of Slaughter
“All of these men, who lived in the beginning of the last century, declared that the Texans, to a man, were slaughtered in front of the church, in a space between the Alamo proper and a building known as the powder house, which extended east and west in the center of Alamo plaza. This building was constructed of stone with very thick walls and was about 70 feet long, 20 feet wide and approximately 15 feet high at the highest point and stood exactly on the space where now [1935] stands a hollow imitation cypress stump on the plaza.
Alamo Traces Page 40
