Everyone knows that Davy Crockett died in the courtyard of the Alamo,
swinging his Kentucky long rifle like a club, surrounded by sixteen dead
Mexicans. That’s basically the story
Joe, William B. Travis’ slave, told after he was spared by Santa Anna. Susannah Dickinson, the teenage mother who was
also spared, said she saw Crockett’s body on the floor at the door of the chapel. Not enough difference to quibble about. Enter Walt Disney, who un-earthed the story, identified the market, wrote a catchy ditty, and cornered the market for coon-skin caps.
In 1837, Ramon Martinez Caro, Santa Anna’s personal secretary
during the Texas campaign, published his memoirs which contained an interesting
paragraph mentioning Davy Crockett.
According to Caro, after the battle, General Castrillon brought five
prisoners to Santa Anna and asked him to spare them, saying he had guaranteed
their safety. One of the prisoners was
identified as the famous ex-congressman, David Crockett. Santa Anna, incensed that his “no quarter”
instructions had been ignored, ordered the immediate execution of the entire group,
and turned his back. The five were fallen
upon by soldiers and murdered on the spot.
In June of 1836, a letter reportedly written by William H. Attree, was
published in the New York Courier and
Enquirer, telling essentially the same story. The story was picked up and published in
several newspapers of the time, among them the Frankfort Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Attree was an eastern reporter of some note, who was visiting Galveston
Island in the weeks immediately following the Texas Revolution. He attributed the story to a Mexican officer
being held in a prisoner of war camp there.
In 1960, a graduate student working on
his thesis discovered a letter from one Sergeant George Dolson to his brother,
written in July of 1836 and published in a Detroit newspaper in September of
that year. Sergeant Dolson was a Texas
army interpreter at Camp Travis, a prisoner of war camp on Galveston Island,
and interviewed Mexican prisoners being held there. He related a story of the death of Crockett,
told him by an unnamed Mexican officer who supposedly witnessed the event. In Dolson’s version, General Castrillon
brings six prisoners to Santa Anna, but outside that detail, the stories are
identical.
The eastern reporter and Sergeant Dolson may have interviewed the same
Mexican officer, or two different officers may have recounted the same event. According to all reports, there were dozens
of witnesses. When added to these
stories, the account given by twenty-eight year old Jose Enrique De La Pena,
written in his diary during the battle for Texas in 1836, makes a compelling
case. Lt. De La Pena tells the same
story, except in his version, Castrillon delivers seven prisoners to Santa
Anna, not five or six.
De La Pena came to Texas with Santa Anna’s army and distinguished
himself in combat at the Alamo. He kept
a daily journal through the whole Texas Revolution and was truthful, but less than kind, about
his military superiors.. He blamed Santa
Anna for the debacle at San Jacinto and Filasola for the disastrous retreat across
the muddy Gulf Coast. He accused Sesma
and Gaona of everything from avarice to cowardice.
De La Pena, fiercely proud of his Mexican
heritage, mistrusted foreign generals, mercenaries hired to shore up the
leadership of Mexico’s army. He praised
every action of General Urrea, one of the few Mexican generals in the army, and
constantly found fault with Filasola, an Italian.
His journal may have been published in 1838 or 1839, but, if so, was
likely quashed by officials high in the Mexican government. In 1955, a hundred and seventeen years later,
De La Pena’s diary was published in Mexico at the height of the Davy Crockett
frenzy created by Walt Disney. While much
of the two-hundred-page document was accepted as fact, the two paragraphs
concerning Crockett’s demise were considered questionable. For this reason, the whole work was brushed
aside by many historians.
When De La Pena’s journal was translated
into English by Carmen Perry in 1975, all hell broke loose among serious
students of Texas History. One side held
that Crockett died fighting in the battle and any other tale is akin to blasphemy. Another group believed that the manner of
Crockett’s death was not important, because it was honorable—a nod to Hillary
Clinton’s “What difference does it make?” defense.
The
original story, based upon two “eyewitness” accounts, leaves ample room for
doubt. Joe, Travis’s slave, was known to
tell whatever story he felt his audience wanted to hear, and he disappeared
(ran away) not long after the war.
Susannah Dickinson’s recollections grew more vivid and outlandish as
time passed while she sank deeper into alcoholism and debauchery.
Doubt was cast on the De La Pena narrative
because he was mistaken in his account of the death of Travis. He told of a handsome, blond Texian officer that he assumed was Travis, killed
while bravely rallying his troops on the south wall. According to Joe, the dark-haired Travis was
killed on the north wall by a random shot to the head in the first moments of
the battle.
The debate over De La Pena’s diary
continues to rage. Detractors claim it is a forgery, but cannot say who forged
it, or why, or even when it was done. The
high rag content paper used in the document was tested and found to have been
made in Lisbon between 1825 and 1832. Historians
agree that this Lisbon paper was used by the army in Mexico in 1836, and De La Pena had access to it.
Mature, level-headed, intelligent scholars are at odds over what
happened to Davy Crockett. Four
different accounts, from at least three different eye-witness sources, tell
essentially the same story. Learned
individuals frantically search for details that differ, or accuse long-dead
writers of making up bald-faced lies for less than apparent reasons, or claim
forgery on hundred-year-old paper.
Carmen Perry was castigated by some of her peers for simply translating
De La Pena’s work. When the paper from
the diary was proven genuine, the opposition quickly assumed the position that
even if the diary was authentic, there was no reason to believe it was
accurate. Historians want to be
precise. Sometimes.
De La Pena wrote a rough draft, his diary,
with entries faithfully scribbled every day during his sojourn in Texas. When he returned to Mexico, he revised and
expanded his notes and provided conclusions for many of the questions he raised. His announced intention to publish this work
in 1838 was not met with universal enthusiasm.
After spending some time in prison, he was mysteriously murdered one
night on a dark street in Mexico City.
Historians think it was 1841, but, to be precise, it might have happened
in 1842.