<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Very important Alamo document. Critiques often fantasy.
Review: De La Pena presents a battle recollection not unlike many soldiers' accounts. Perhaps miscounting the numbers of burning corpses on a pyre, or the number of men killed and wounded, etc.,as many memoirs do, he nevertheless opens a window to the horrors and cruelties of the battle and its aftermath. Bayonets or no bayonets? Note that in a report of the inventories of arms and equipment in the town, the arsenal, and the Alamo itself, turned over to Col. F. W. Johnson by subordinates of General Cos in Dec, 1835, there were 257 carbines and muskets, 50 muskets with bayonets, two barrels containing 166 bayonets,thousands of musket cartridges, and hundreds of pounds of powder. The Texans had more ammunition and weaponry than they could use,plenty of bayonets included. There was more artillery in the fort (est 13 -21 guns) than in the Mexican army (10 guns). What the Texans lacked was manpower to use all that equipment. Maybe some of them did stack loaded weapons in ready. Flintlocks can be loaded, but not primed...it's the priming that usually dampens and causes misfires (personal experience). Some of the defenders were members of militia units and knew how to handle military weapons. De La Pena's views actually lean toward much that is verified elsewhere, but they often are contrary to many of the fanciful beliefs and various speculations associated with this battle. His description of the prisoner incident is a genuine attempt by a soldier to record a brutal event that he found to be distasteful and dishonorable...not unlike Crockett's own recollection of his disgust with the Creek War. This book should be carefully read and evaluated by any student of the Alamo. De La Pena is certainly more likely to have been an eyewitness, than any of his modern critics, regardless of whether or not he made errors.
Rating: 
Summary: Controversial, but still worth reading
Review: Few books on the Texas Revolution have caused as much furor as this book, and it's primarily because of the brief description of David Crockett's death after the fall of the Alamo. With just a few short sentances, De La Pena earned the wrath of many modern day historians. To suggest that the imortal Davy cowered in fear and begged for his life was unthinkable, especially to "baby boomers". But, for all the nay-sayers out there, if you read this part of the text CAREFULLY, it makes NO SUCH CLAIM. And hero worship is hardly a reason to condemn the work. Taken as a whole, it's obvious that De La Pena was an observant, articulate and some would say a compassionate individual. What many scholars are unaware of, is that De La Pena dictated these pages while he was in prison for his opposition to the Santanista regime. He was deathly ill at the time, and it's very likely that De La Pena put more than a little of his anger towards "El Presidente" into the "diary" Some have suggested that the description of Crockett's death was exaggerated and was recorded as more fodder to use against Santa Anna. Only time will tell
Rating: 
Summary: Just a Few Problems
Review: Interesting reading, but many problems,especially when De la Pena states he was a participant in the battle.... 1. Alamo defenders DID NOT have bayonets. You cannot fit a bayonet on the barrel of a long rifle, the stock extends too far out, almost to the very end of the muzzle. These were NOT military issue weapons. 2. Alamo defenders did not have 3-4 weapons stacked beside each defender. Remember, this was a volunteer, frontier, Army and the men had brought their personal guns from home. There were 189 defenders and 189 rifles, maybe a few more (or less) but certainly not the 700-800 De la Pena needs to prove his theory. Also, gunpowder in 1836 became damp when exposed to night air and to have rifles already loaded would have only ruined the powder. There was no powder to spare. 3. De la Pena misidentified Travis. He stated he watched Travis calmly retreating across the courtyard, turning periodically to fire a pistol. Travis died on the North Wall. His slave,Joe, saw him fire his SHOTGUN only once. Then, Travis was killed by a single shot thru the forehead and died where he fell. 4. De la Pena states Mexican casualties were 60 dead and 253 wounded. There were 600 dead Mexicans and "many" wounded as counted by the mayor of San Antonio (who was in charge of disposing of the bodies). 5. De la Pena says Crockett and the other prisnors were taken to Santa Anna's tent before they were executed. Santa Anna headquartered in the city and did not have a tent on the Alamo battlefield. 6. De la Pena says he counted 253 dead Texans on the funeral pyre. The mayor of San Antonio (Franciso Ruiz) counted 182.He should know.....he recruited the townspeople who gathered the bodies and stacked them to be burned. The 253 dead Texan bodies De la Pena cites is also the same number he claimed as Mexican wounded....quite a coincidence. 7. De la Pena says General Castrillion captured Crockett and the 5 or 6 men with him....Both Joe and a Mexican Colonel named Urizza state they saw Castrillion with only one prisnor....an old man. Joe said this old man was named "Warner". Joe knew Crockett and would have recognized him. 8. Mexican General Cos said, after the Battle of San Jacinto, that he, Cos, had captured Crockett at the Alamo and taken him to Santa Anna (he said Crockett told him he was just an innocent traveler). Mexican Sergeant Becerra also claimed to have captured Crockett. Was it Cos? Becerra? or Castrillion? Maybe NONE of the above? 9. Neither Santa Anna, his aide Col. Almonte, nor General Sesma (all of whom left detailed accounts), ever mentioned Crocketts capture and execution....even though De la Pena states Almonte was the Mexican officer who recognized Crockett. If Almonte recognized such a famous prisnor (and his execution) why did he never mention it? Another good question is HOW did Almonte know it was Crockett? There was no CNN or TV news back then...and both drawings and paintings often exaggerated the subject to the point they were hardly recognizable to their friends (in real life)!! It had been over 2 years since Almonte had been in the United States (Louisianna) and Crockett's appearance would have changed (perhaps dramatically) after 2 years on the frontier. If Almonte saw a picture of Crockett, at all, there is NO evidence of it. 10. Santa Anna requested both Joe and the mayor of San Antonio accompany him to identify the bodies of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett. Seems odd he would need to have Crockett identified....especially after his own aide, Colonel Almonte, had just told him it was Crockett he had executed. Recent forensic evidence tends to disprove the theory that the De La Pena diary is a 20th century forgery....but, at the same time, it sure doesn't look like whoever WROTE it actually participated in the battle. I believe De la Pena recorded some things while he was in prison and someone else then took these notes and expanded on them....later passing off the work as being 100% authentic De la Pena. The errors concerning details of the battle seem so glaring. Even looking back years later one would think an actual participant would be more accurate. Surely the location where Travis was found (the North Wall) was discussed among the Mexican officers after the battle and other things, too, should have remained with De la Pena years later. If, for example, he attended the officers call at Santa Anna's headquarters (as he claimed) he would remember it took place in the private home where Santa Anna headquartered and not in a tent. Interestingly, also, is that virtually ALL of his account concerning the movements of the Mexican Army during the rest of the campaign are accurate. I'll give him a pass on the snow storm as other Mexican officers mentioned it in their accounts as well. A freak event for South texas....but NOT impossible!!The things he recounts AFTER the battle are so strikingly accurate and in such contrast from the mistakes mentioned concerning the battle itself....it does seem 2 people wrote these accounts. The mistake he makes in identifying Travis, how Travis died, and where his body was found, is especially troubling as it leads one to believe De la Pena misidentified Crockett, as well. There is also the very real possiblity the old man Joe identified as "Warner" posed as Crockett in an effort to save his own skin. Joe specifically said Warner was a "weak old man" perhaps even a non-combatant. The poor old guy may have believed that posing as Crockett (a former U.S. Congressman) would save his life. Wouldn't be the first time a prisnor tried to "change ranks" and pose as an officer in the hopes it would gain him more lenient treatment. Other than De la Pena's very questionable account, there is no credible evidence Crockett surrendered and was executed. In fact, the hard evidence,such as it is, points to Crockett dying in the small courtyard outside the Alamo chapel. This was the area originally assigned to Crockett and his men and it would have been almost impossible for them to withdraw into the long barracks. They would have had to expose themselves to a 3-way cross fire from the Mexicans coming in from the North wall, the Mexicans coming over the Southwest corner of the West wall and the Mexicans coming over the South wall. To withdraw into the Chapel would have been equally difficult. The Tennesseans would have to turn their backs on the enemy to enter the Chapel and the Chapel doors were barred from the inside by this time anyway. Recent forensic studies tend to show the De la Pena dairy is not a "modern" forgery. However,while there is no evidence this "dairy" was "forged" in the 20th century.....there is also no evidence it was not "forged" in the 19th century....most likely an oral account De la Pena gave to a fellow prisnor was expanded on and livened up over the years and then presented and sold as the actual writings of De la Pena himself.
Rating:
Summary: A Worthwhile Read
Review: Questions of authenticity aside (for readers interested in tracing the arguments, I would recommend James E. Crisp's "The Little Book that Wasn't There: The Myth and Mystery of the de la Peña Diary" in the October 1994 Southwestern Historical Quarterly, and Bill Groneman's "The Death of a Legend"), this book is worth reading. The narrator voices his frustration at command mistakes made during the invasion of Texas, a theme that threads the journal episodes together. Poor planning and execution doomed what should have been a successful military venture. The book is very readable, and passages that catalog plant life are beautifully written.Those well-versed in the Alamo story will spot mistakes in the narrative. (My favorite was Peña's misidentification of Travis. And why not? The Alamo defenders were foreign strangers to the Mexican army. How could they be expected to correctly identify anyone?) Those hoping for definitive answers as to the fate of Davy Crockett, though, will likely be disappointed. Peña's account differs in enough important details from other contemporary accounts (number of survivors, manner of death) so as to cast doubt on the author's claim that he witnessed the events. Perhaps he cobbled his memories together with bits of camp gossip. (This isn't so surprising: the fans who claimed to have witnessed Bobby Thompson's home run against Ralf Branca couldn't have fit in three baseball stadiums.) When Peña states, "my ear can still hear the penetrating, doleful sound of the victims," I believe he is embellishing. Still, the passage is, like any skillful fiction, powerful and compelling.
Rating: 
Summary: Believing in this is like believing in the tooth fairy!
Review: The whole controversy surrounding this narrative seems to center around the way Mr Crockett met his end, and the onle reason this version is believed over the previous ones is its age and the fact that a Mexican supposedly wrote it. Does that mean that, in another hundred years or so, someone will rediscover the Rosswell flying saucer reports, and they will suddenly become the true version of what happaned? Just wondering...
Rating:
Summary: Helpful addition to the study of the 1836 revolution
Review: This book comes in for a lot of criticism, especially regarding the events at the Alamo. However, the book is well written and provides a great deal of insight into the plight of the Mexican soldier and the lack of military responsiblity on the part of the command of the Mexican army. The route of the army in and out of Texas is accurate, as is the description of the retreat. In reading the book, it appeared that a good deal of the content was used as background for Stephen Harrigan's "The Gates of the Alamo" (a highly recommended read). For Texas history buffs, the de la Pena book is one you should read.
Rating:
Summary: Believing in this is like believing in the tooth fairy!
Review: This book is a bunch of bunk.
I cannot reccomend this to any serious sudent of Alamo and Texas history.
If Pena wrote any of it, it was the first few pages that covered the march to Texas. Nothing else.
It is a forgery plain and simple and painfuly obvious.
There are so many errors in it that it is ludicrous to believe in it. But there are those who do and it is their right to be so misinformed.
If you really want to study this subject, leave out this book and all the revisionist authors who believe in it.
<< 1 >>
|
