Wednesday, November 30, 2011

NEW BOOK ON DAVID CROCKETT SHEDS LIGHT ON ALAMO MYTH

By Juan Montoya
For years Hollywood has given us a mythologized version of the final days of a coonskin-cap-clad David Crockett and the other "martyrs" at the Alamo, the cradle of Texas liberty.
But a new Crockett biography lays bare the cold facts: that Crockett was slave-owning n'er-do-well who came to Texas after having abandoned his family and escaping his debtors.
The book, David Crockett, the Lion of the West, by Michael Wallis, W.W. Norton and Company, 2011, 379 pages, is a no-frills account of the life of one of the most mythologized figures in U.S. and Texas folklore. Even though everyone from stage plays in the 1800s and later Walt Disney characterized him as a happy-go-lucky backwoodsman whose folksy yarns and coarse humor endeared him to 19th Century voters who elected him to state representative of Western Tennessee in 1821, the picture that emerges from Wallis' book is vastly different.
Crockett here emerges as an avowed expansionist whose push west coincided with the rush to acquire as much free land as possible and to stay one step ahead of his creditors. Among those he met when he was a state rep was one James K. Polk, who was a senator in the Tennessee legislature and would later go on to become president.
In 1821, Missouri was annexed into the U.S. as a slave state and was the same year that Stephen F. Austin started moving settlers into the Mexican state of Texas-Coahuila. Crockett would go on to serve in the U.S. Congress where Wallis notes that he served with the greatest distinction that he did not get a single bill passed during his tenure. While he started out as an Andrew Jackson adherent, he fell out with "Old Hickory" after they parted ways on Crockett's proposal to allow settlers to squat on vacant land in the west. Jackson favored the construction of towns and allowing land speculators to profit in the process.
Under the so-called Manifest Destiny coined in 1845 by magazine editor John L. Sullivan, the national aspirations were defined "in terms of so many bears destroyed, so much land preempted, so many trees hacked down, so many Indians and Mexicans dead in the dust," Wallis wrote.
Crockett not only met Polk, but also met Sam Houston, another Tennessean who was escaping a ruinous personal relationship who as of 1834 was already "making plans for the liberation of Texas."
Houston and Crockett wanted to "liberate" Texas from a Mexican government that had abolished slavery, required new settlers to become Mexican citizens, join the Catholic Church, accept the language and laws of the country, and observe the ban on the enslavement of human beings.
Wallis notes that: "Like many others making the same journey at the time, Crockett understood what he faced once he crossed the Red river and left the United States. He had to be aware that, in the weeks before he departed (1835), the animosity had increased between the government of Mexico, and the American settlers, called Texians, in the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas. 
The white colonists were becoming increasingly tired of living under Mexican rule, and they headed for war with hopes of forming their own separate republic. Many of these Anglos were illegal immigrants and did not abide by Mexican law...By 1823 at least 3,000 U.S. citizens had entered Texas illegally, along with 700 legitimate settlers...
"By 1830 there were more than 20,000 settlers and 2,000 slaves living in Texas, making Anglos more numerous than Mexicans...
"The situation only worsened for the Mexican government," Wallis wrote. "By 1835. the population had ballooned to 35,000, including 3,000 black slaves."
In a letter to his cousin Mary Austin Holley, Austin wrote that in no uncertain terms: "Texas must be a slave country. It is no longer a matter of doubt."
Crockett arrived in Texas just a month or two before the confrontarion at the Alamo in San Antonio. When he arrived, the Texians saw it as a good omen that the Lion of the West on their side. And even though Houston himself ordered the defenders of San Antonio to destroy the old mission and depart, Crockett, along with James Bowie and William Travis did not heed his call and were killed in the futile struggle with Antonio de Santa Anna.
"Bowie had become famous in many circles because of his trademark knife he used with proficiency in bloody duels and altercations," writes Wallis. "He did not himself make the knife; rather, his brother Rezin commissioned it for him. Some years earlier, the Bowie brothers partnered with Jean Lafitte, the notorious privateer who supplied mercenaries for Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. The Bowies helped Lafitte traffic the many slaves he smuggled into Galveston Island and sold to plantation owners.
"Besides making a fortune as a dealer in human cargo and subverting the ban on the slave trade, Bowie – like Stephen Austin – also became a land speculator. He sold fraudulent claims in Arkansas Territory, masterminded a series of property swindles in Louisiana, and speculated in Texas land...(When his wife and two children died during a cholera epidemic)...Bowie went into an alcoholic depression that lasted until his death in a sickbed at the Alamo..."
And what about that other Texas martyr, Travis, an attorney by trade?
"A South Carolina native, Travis – like many others – came to Texas to escape bad debts and avoid going to prison. After abandoning his pregnant wife and young son in Alabama, hen entered Texas illegally and immediately became involved in the slave trade...He was one of the first to die at the final Alamo assault, of a bullet to the brain. He was 26 years old."
"No  one knows with any uncertainty how David Crockett died," Wallis writes. "His death has been obscured by legend. with accounts and theories of his death including scenarios both implausible and ludicrous...One popular theory was that Crockett died while swinging old Betsey over his head...some claimed he donned a disguise and snuck away from the Alalmo like a sniveling coward..."
Houston spelled out what may have been teh most likely scenario soon after the fall of the Alamo. In a dispatch sent to Col. James Fannin MArch 11, he said that "after the forst was carried seven men surrendered and called for Santa Anna, and for quarter. They were murdered by his order."
Houston's account was bolstered by Mexican army officer Jose Enrique de la Peña, an army officer under Santa Anna during the siege.
"Among the (seven)...was one of great stature, well rpoportioned, with regular features, in whose face was the imprint of adversity, but in whom one also noticed a degree of resignation and nobility that did him honor. He was the naturalist David Crockett...
"Santa Anna answered (General) Castillon's intervention in Crockett's behalf with a gesture of indignation and, addressing himself to the the sappers, ordered his execution."
To tose of us accustomed to the Hollywood and Texas history versions of the Siege of the Alamo, this unflattering description of this historian might not be pleasing to read, but Wallis' documentation leaves little room for argument. 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mexico had no slaves, but they did have peons who went with the land when sold and received no wages. Generations of these peons were born into this defacto slavery.

Anytime a Mexican tried to claim the moral high ground on the slavery issue, it is blatant hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Interesting account

Anonymous said...

We is all peed on, but only slaves wear chains.

Juan Ytuchi said...

Montoya, you are one sick fuck. Is there anything out there that you don't want to destroy. You write nothing but lies. Did your mother not nurture you as a child and that is the reason for your pitiful existence?

Anonymous said...

Anytime a Mexican tried to claim the moral high ground on the slavery issue, it is blatant hypocrisy.

So for you it's OK to buy and sell human beings, kidnapping them from their culture and transporting them across an ocean, breaking up their families, etc.

Low wages went with the times, and even continued into the early 20th Century in the USA, prior to labor unions.
There is nothing wrong with a Mexican claiming the high ground on this point.

Anonymous said...

I learned this at the university. It's a shame it's not common knowledge. Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

Que cosas senor Montoya, Austin ilegal y vandido, este pais esta lleno de mitos y mentiras, asesinatos e invasiones, y lo mas grande de todo es que, todo en nombre de dios, lamentablemente los hispanos, siempre nos hemos deslumbrado por los espejos, los mexicoamericanos como yo, que nos sentimos gringos frente a nuestra raza, pero mexicanos ante los gringos, que nos tratan como cuidadanos de quinto nivel, como dijo Porfirio Dias, pobre Mexico, tan lejos de dios, y tan cerca de los gringos.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference in low wages and no wages.

Slavery was never right, nor moral, whether it was by chains or economics.

As to Mexicans being able to claim the high moral ground on human rights, well a review of Mexican history and current culture will deal that notion a death blow.Ask the Mayas!

I am not anti-Mexican at all. I just want people to have intellectual honesty and not jump on any bad act or practice of ant group and use that declare to declare the group unworthy.

Both Mexico and the US have good things they can point too in their culture and bad things as well. People are people!

rita