| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Rich |
Posted - October 15 2002 : 06:58:44 AM
At the Alamo, how do you believe Davy Crockett met his death? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - February 02 2007 : 8:41:58 PM
"The brave but unfortunate men were marched to the tent of Santa Anna. Colonel Crockett was in the rear, had his arms folded, and appeared bold as the lion as he passed my informant (Almonte.) Santa Anna's interpreter knew Colonel Crockett and said ti my informant, the one who is behind is the famous Crockett.
Castrillon said to him, "Santa Anna the august, I deliver up to you six brave prisoner's of war." Santa Anna replied, "Who has given you orders to take prisoners, I do not want to see these men living - shoot them." As the monster uttered these words each officer turned his face the other way, and the hell hounds of the tyrant dispatched the six in his presence, and within six feet of this person."
Truth or mere propaganda to raise troops and animosity against the Republic of Mexico? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 21 2007 : 7:39:58 PM
I had an opportunity,once again,to see the film version of the Alampo starring Billy Bob Thorton as David Crockett on television. I was more impressed this time than I was before. I'm convinced that this version was as close to reality as Hollywood will allow. I refer specifically to the scene wherein Bowie calls upon his slave Joe to flee. Joe responds, Mr. Bowie, are you giving me my papers of freedom? Bowie immediately responds in the negative avowing to pick up his "property" as soon as the battle was over.
Unfortunately, this was the reality of that era. Unlike the John Wayne version where Joe throws his body over Bowie as the Mexican bayonets skewered him in a futile effort to save Bowie.
There are other instances as well. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 04 2006 : 8:24:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster6233
It's simple as this. Crockett was not a real soldier. He was a politician. He was a talker. Even during the Creek War he deserted.
With the possible exception of the alleged desertion by Crockett, your supposition is indisputable. Davy was certainly not a soldier. Apparently he was not much of a politician either. He was,I believe, a dreamer who sought the one commodity available to him and other men of his ilk during this era; precious land. To every defender of the Alamo the precious reward of thousands of acres of land for each participant must have been a chief form of motivation.
There were exceptions of course, there always are. An example would be the dramatic Col. Travis. Truly this was a man whose desire for personal glory was as important to him as any other physical reward.
Regardless of the personal motivation of each of these men, they, for the most part, died admirably. Can anyone ask for more.? |
| Anonymous Poster0584 |
Posted - March 27 2006 : 8:27:12 PM
I believe your right it would make everything wrong and being a hero is very important then making history right.quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster4897
The reason the blue haired old ladies of the Daughter's of the Republic of Texas debunk this view on how Crockett died, is because it sheds light to the FACT that not all the defenders died to the last man fighting as "legend" says. And being a History major I have posed questions about the deaths to those who give the tours of the Alamo. No one wants to believe the De La Pena diary as well because it was not written by an Anglo. That is the consensus I got from these so called peudo-historians. The one question I ask that leaves them speechless and angry is this. "If none of the defenders survived, do you know how they died?".
|
| Anonymous Poster6233 |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 3:27:23 PM
It's simple as this. Crockett was not a real soldier. He was a politician. He was a talker. Even during the Creek War he deserted.
There's no shame in him surrendering or being captured oescaping or even hiding. Why die when all is lost? It's called self preservation. Sorry but to me that is the way it was and though DLP has innacuracies, show me any eyewitness who can tell yoou exactly what transpired.
I also believe that Crocket probably did identify himself. Just because it is recorded doesn't mean he didn't. Many is the time I have heard people recall stories that happened yet do not bring in every detail...IMO he was executed.
As for where he was found there's another case in point. No one mentioned it. The only person who saw him "supposedley dead" was Mrs. Dickinson, who's story is so out there she also claimed she saw Bowie and Travis die. Which was impossible.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 05 2005 : 8:39:30 PM
Your point can not be disputed. The defenders eventually arrived at the realization that victory or death were their only options. Mercy was not part of the agenda. I wonder how each one of these men came to gripes with this fatal realization at the end? God bless them all, they certainly had more courage than I. This would include the courageous Mexican soldiers who died there also. |
| aj |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 11:02:43 AM
I think that Crockett went down fighting or try to escape because I think that he knew what the Deguello meant and that the Mexicans would accept no mercy. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 05 2005 : 1:49:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster7968
Does it really matter how Crockett died? The acts and decisions of each individual leading up to and culminating in the sacrifice of each member of the Alamo garrison is where the importance really lies. Each man made a choice and that choice has inspired untold numbers of individuals ever since. The garrison's status as heroes was earned at a horrible price at a time when Texas needed heroes. Their status has not diminished over the years because their actions still set the standard for courage and honor.
The enigma concerning the circumstances of Crockett's death (the other's as well) is a critical portion of the overall mystique that these hero's share. I find nothing demeaning nor enhancing as to the exact geographical location of death. The fact that they died in the Alamo environs at all is the only requirement necessary.
It is human nature to attempt to know, speculate, surmise, debate, and guess how their hero's fall. It is the final moment before death, when a person offers the greatest gift he or she is capable of, that makes a hero; all else is mere commentary. |
| Anonymous Poster7968 |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 4:54:13 PM
Does it really matter how Crockett died? The acts and decisions of each individual leading up to and culminating in the sacrifice of each member of the Alamo garrison is where the importance really lies. Each man made a choice and that choice has inspired untold numbers of individuals ever since. The garrison's status as heroes was earned at a horrible price at a time when Texas needed heroes. Their status has not diminished over the years because their actions still set the standard for courage and honor. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 9:07:40 PM
"Brigido Guerrero, who had deserted from the Mexican Army about four years earlier. He talked his way out of being killed by claiming to be a POW."
A man knows that sometimes it is better to surrender and live to fight another day for a just cause. By no stretch of the imagination do I mean to infer that Brigido Guerrereo and Crockett were comparable in courage, faith, and dignity. What I am suggesting is that when faced with eminent death, talking your way out, if possible, is a viable option. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 9:08:59 PM
Tuck I agree with you. Survival is an intrical part of our psyche, as much as hero worship. If given my druthers, the vision of Crockett swinging his rifle like a club against overwhelming odds is the one I would prefer. However, other variations are acceptable to me.
The de la Pena issue is a valid one. How would he know who Crockett was? Speculation: If Crockett surrendered he would certainly be in a precarious position; how to to stay alive after being involved in a bloody battle. Is it possible he identified himself and, in doing so, hoped to have his life spared by emphasizing his politcal reasons for being at the Alamo as opposed to his martial reasons. Is it possible the Pena over heard this converstion? Again, just speculation. |
| Tuck |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 8:19:58 PM
There would be no sin in surrendering if one finds himself trapped in a corner.There also would be no sin in trying to escape the compound into the fields when you realized it was all over and you were doomed.
As much as I want Davy to go down swinging "old Betsey" like a Louisville "slugger",I wouldn't blame him for trying either option!
My biggest problem in the de la Pena diary is; how did de la Pena know who Davy Crockett was? I know he was very well known thru out the states but, was he all that well known in Mexico ? I really wouldn't think so.
I just started reading this board so I hope you guys don't mind me throwing my 2 cents in! I've always been fascinated by the Alamo story and hope to stick around the board for a while. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 8:58:59 PM
Larsen, I deem you to be knowledable regarding this battle; honestly. I would like to learn more. Foe example, every picture representing this battle displays Travis fighting for quite sometime before he is finally overwhelmed. Yet, I remember reading or hearing that he received a wound to the head in the first moments of the initial assault.
Secondly, is it possible that Crockett, and a few others, surrendered. I see no dishonor in that if it is true.. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - November 15 2004 : 12:06:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster4124
There are several different theories regarding Crockett's death. Travis' slave, Joe, gives the description of many dead lying around Crockett's body in the "West".
No he did not. You quote a word as though it actually derives from Joe, when it appears nowhere in the 2nd hand accounts which relate his story. Joe didn't place Crockett's body anywhere that we know of, just said he saw it. If you're going to chastise de la Pena for inaccuracy you need to first get a handle on yourself.
quote:
Susanna Dickinson also said that she saw him lying dead in approximately the same place. He had many bayonet wounds and was riddled with bullets, with his peculiar hat lying next to him.
Now you're just falsifying the record, if you claim to know what type of wounds Mrs. Dickinson saw. She merely said he was "mutilated". I have no idea where you extracted these gory specifics.
quote:
De La Pena journal, purchased by the University of Texas says that he was amoung those captured. The De La Pena account has many inaccuracies and has been hotly debated. For example, De La Pena's account of Travis' death. How could he have seen and Known Travis? The raid began before day light, and his slave Joe gave the first hand account. How could De La Pena know or see Travis in the dark?
The de la Pena account has no more inaccuracies than any other reasonably reliable historical account; and I think you exaggerate when you claim them to be "many". There are some, misidentifying Travis for example. I don't know what the story is behind that, whether he's reporting hearsay (Travis "was seen," rather than "I saw"), or just made a mistake in the dark. He happens to be the only guy who reports Travis being killed in the plaza. He is, however, one among several who report Crockett's execution.
R. Larsen
|
| Anonymous Poster4124 |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 6:34:44 PM
There are several different theories regarding Crockett's death. Travis' slave, Joe, gives the description of many dead lying around Crockett's body in the "West".
Susanna Dickinson also said that she saw him lying dead in approximately the same place. He had many bayonet wounds and was riddled with bullets, with his peculiar hat lying next to him.
De La Pena journal, purchased by the University of Texas says that he was amoung those captured. The De La Pena account has many inaccuracies and has been hotly debated. For example, De La Pena's account of Travis' death. How could he have seen and Known Travis? The raid began before day light, and his slave Joe gave the first hand account. How could De La Pena know or see Travis in the dark?
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - November 11 2004 : 10:07:28 PM
No you didn't. If you did devote a half-hour to writing your post, it was all spent thinking up your feeble and not very coherent insult. You would have been better off just sticking to that instead of trying to spice it with such a lie as your phantom "detailed response". It does nothing except show that when backed into a corner, your first and natural instinct is to lie.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - November 11 2004 : 9:43:56 PM
Larsen, I just spent a 1/2 hour writing a detailed response to your last post. I then erased it. I realized that that your way of thinking is at the edge, where the shoreline of sense meets the wild ocean of imbecility. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - November 09 2004 : 5:17:39 PM
I can't think of any recent movie that is all that factual, or faithful to its sources --- for that is what we really mean when we talk about history. The idea that modern audiences are more sophisticated than they were in the past, or that they especially desire a "balanced" presentation of facts, is risible --- and utterly lacking in proof. It's a movie, not a lecture in history; it's safe to say that all anybody really wants from it is a good story. Only a moron would try to extract history from these productions. I don't know what you mean by "balanced," but yes, "The Passion" does share the same stigmata of Hollywood story-boarding as does "The Alamo". Which is not a problem, per se; movies operate under different rules than documentaries or written history. But you're bloviating when you try to make these films into something they are not.
Steering back to the original subject. Do you have any sources to back up your claims about Crockett?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - November 08 2004 : 3:36:05 PM
The Motion pictures of today that are based on historical events are often (not always) thoroughly researched to ascertain actual facts pertaining to what actually occurred. The sophistication of today's audiences, and its search for a more "balanced" presentation of history makes this perspective possible. This ideology is reflective in the vast amounts of money movie executives are willing to spend to obtain authenticity in their recreation of backgrounds, buildings, etc.
The term "Pure Hollywood" does not neccesarily carry the negative implications so richly deserved by past productions. The Passion, The Alamo, and hopefully the up-coming production of Alexander the Great, offer a balanced mixture of "fact" with poetic-license. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - October 16 2004 : 10:26:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Another belated post, forgive me. Once again, I just realized an opportunity to view the Thorton film. Is it not ironic that the portrayal of Crockett, by Thorton, generally conforms to my personal perspectives posted earlier. Any man who is made a legend in his own time, as was "Davy" is subjected to enormous and, unrealistic expectations from the everyday man.
No, it's not ironic. As I said at the time, your picture is pure Hollywood. What is the basis for it in history?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 16 2004 : 9:10:23 PM
Another belated post, forgive me. Once again, I just realized an opportunity to view the Thorton film. Is it not ironic that the portrayal of Crockett, by Thorton, generally conforms to my personal perspectives posted earlier. Any man who is made a legend in his own time, as was "Davy" is subjected to enormous and, unrealistic expectations from the everyday man. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 8:30:33 PM
Methinks Wiggs is moving into the dreaded "offensive circle" position. Watch out Larsen and don't charge blindly through the high grass.
Wiggs, in one of your posts, you referenced TOS rules regarding no profanity. How does that square with your P*** ant comment bucky?
Wiggs, best of wishes for your continued contributions to the general hilarity of the reading world.
Billy |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 19 2004 : 9:34:30 PM
May I pontificate on this, you are an insignificant Little P*** Ant. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 9:15:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, you are a vulgar, crass, uncouth, spineless little boy. Your comments do little towards portraying you as an adult. Although you are probably a balding, old man ancient in years, you are emotionally stunted.
And you're a liar demonstrably ignorant in the subjects which you pontificate on, and who, when challenged, can resort to nothing but whiny and self-destructive insults.
quote:
However, there are several good books about Crockett, Travis, and Bowie. I suggest you read one of them.
I've read a few, though other than Shackford's "Crockett" and Davis's trilogy-in-one, there are no other comprehensive biographies of any of them really worth a bean.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that no one notices how relentlessly you dodge any effort to defend your views. Why, in that case, you spend so much time on these boards is a mystery you might care to fetishize over.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 10:08:08 PM
Larsen, you are a vulgar, crass, uncouth, spineless little boy. Your comments do little towards portraying you as an adult. Although you are probably a balding, old man ancient in years, you are emotionally stunted.
However, there are several good books about Crockett, Travis, and Bowie. I suggest you read one of them. |
|
|
