Chapter One Notes
1 Dr. Anson Jones, Memoranda and Official Correspondence Relating to the Republic of Texas, its History and Annexation (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1859), 35.
2 Marquis James, The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston, Introduction by Robert M. Utley (1929; reprint, New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc., 1990), ix-x.
3 Ibid.
4 Moseley Baker to Sam Houston, October (1842), Evergreen, Manuscript Collection, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas, hereafter cited as MC-TSL; D. G. Burnet, Review of the Life of Gen. Sam Houston (Galveston: News Power Press Print, 1852), entire publication; Sidney Sherman, Defense of Gen. Sidney Sherman Against the Charges made by Gen. Sam Houston in His Speech Delivered in the United States Senate, February 28th, 1859 (Galveston: “News” Book and Job Office, 1859), entire publication. The year is not given in the Baker letter’s date, but Baker referred to the invasion that had taken place the previous spring. This appears to have been the Mexican attack on San Antonio conducted by Rafael Vasquez that occurred in March 1842. The Baker missive and the two pamphlets detail many of the complaints made against Houston by his fellow soldiers. Baker wrote the letter in response to political attacks Houston made upon him.
William C. Davis, in Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1998), 547-548 and 568-569, was the first twentieth-century historian to objectively and accurately report on Houston’s negative military behavior during the revolution. Davis, in making his case, used Thomas Ricks Lindley, “Drawing Truthful Deductions,” Journal of the Alamo Battlefield Association, I (September 1994), 31-33.
5 Robert M. Coleman, Houston Displayed, or Who Won the Battle of San Jacinto By a Farmer In the Army (Velasco: [Press of the Velasco Herald], 1837), entire publication.
6 John H. Jenkins, Basic Texas Books (1983; revised, Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1988), 81.
7 Sam Houston to James Collinsworth, March 13, 1836, Gonzales, in John H. Jenkins, ed., The Papers of the Texas Revolution, 1835-1836 (10 vols.; Austin: Presidial Press, 1973), V: 69-70; hereafter cited as Papers.
8 Ibid.
9 Sam Houston to Henry Reguet, March 13, 1836, Gonzales, Jenkins, ed., Papers, V: 71-72.
10 Sam Houston to James Collinsworth, March 15, 1836, Camp on the Navadid [River], Jenkins, ed., Papers, V: 82-84. This letter conflicts with Houston’s January 17, 1836, missive to Governor Henry Smith in which Houston asked for Smith’s approval to destroy the Alamo and abandon San Antonio.
Also, in writing Collinsworth, Houston alleged that he gave the order on January 16, 1836, which is at odds with the date of January 17, in the actual missive to Smith. It is of note that Houston, on March 13, damned Fannin for not reinforcing the Alamo. Then on March 15, Houston wrote Collinsworth that the troops should not be garrisoned in forts where they could not be supplied with “men and provisions.” Could Houston have been worried that Collinsworth might order him to reinforce Fannin, who was at that time ensconced in Fort Defiance at Goliad?
11 Sam Houston, “A Refutation of Calumnies Produced and Circulated Against His Character as Commander-In-Chief of the Army of Texas, February 28, 1859,” in Amelia W. Williams and Eugene C. Barker (eds.), The Writings of Sam Houston, 1813-1863 (8 vols.; 1938-1943; reprint; Austin and New York: Pemberton Press, 1970), VII: 306-336; hereafter cited as Writings.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid. This Houston statement contains several errors. Travis was not sent to Bexar to relieve Neill, but rather to reinforce him and furnish cavalry to scout the roads west of San Antonio. Travis arrived on February 5 and assumed temporary command on February 11, 1836. The Mexican army entered Bexar on February 23, not the “last of February.”
In “A Lecture on Trials and Dangers of Frontier Life, January 28, 1851,” in Williams and Barker, eds., Writings, V: 272, Houston claimed: “The commander-in-chief had expressly ordered the Alamo to be blown up, and everything that could be, brought off forty days before the enemy besieged it. . . .” Santa Anna commenced the investment of the Alamo on February 23, thus “forty days before” would have been January 15, 1836, two days before Houston received Neill’s letter that requested assistance.
Houston’s blaming of Travis for not destroying the Alamo and abandoning San Antonio appears to be the foundation for the twentieth-century view of Travis as an insane young man who was consumed with ambition to command at the Alamo, regardless of the human cost. That interpretation of Travis and the Alamo, however, is false. For a more accurate picture of Travis see William C. Davis’s Three Roads to the Alamo.
14 James Coburn, “Houston descendant to attend rededication of Fort Sam,” San Antonio Express-News, November 12, 1993.
15 Marshall De Bruhl, Sword of San Jacinto: A Life of Sam Houston (New York: Random House, 1993), 186.
16 Marshall De Bruhl, “Letters to the Editor,” Austin-American Statesman, August 21, 1994.
17 Elizabeth Crook, Promised Lands: A Novel of the Texas Rebellion (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 143.
18 Jeff Long, Empire of Bones (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1993), 54. Long, in his work of nonfiction, Duel of Eagles (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990), 119-121, does not claim that Houston ordered the Alamo destroyed and the city abandoned. Instead, he wrote: “Bowie’s mission was to prepare the destruction of the Alamo.”
Then, Long continues that Bowie, after talking with Lt. Colonel James C. Neill, decided: “And so, rather than ready the Alamo for demolition, Bowie added his voice to Neill’s in calling for reinforcements, money, and food. One thing Bowie was not candid about was how a remote command, like the Alamo, meant both prestige and autonomy. Above all, the Alamo command meant limelight, for it positioned upon the bowhead of the Anglo-American warship. It stood clean and separate from the hurly-burly.”
There is no evidence that suggests Bowie recommended that Bexar be defended because he wanted a “remote command” away from the “hurly-burly.” Long’s pen does not serve history but rather his thesis that United States imperialism was behind the Texas Revolution.
19 James L. Haley, Sam Houston (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 119.
20 Sam Houston to Henry Smith, January 17, 1836, Goliad, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 46-47.
21 Sam Houston to Henry Smith, December 6, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 101; Henry Smith to Sam Houston, December 17, 1835, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 239; Sam Houston to James Bowie, December 17, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 222; James C. Neill to Sam Houston, January 6, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 425; Sam Houston to Henry Smith, January 6, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 426; Henry Smith to William Ward, January 6, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 428; James C. Neill to Sam Houston, January 14, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 14; Sam Houston to D. C. Barrett, December 15, 1835, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 201-202; Sam Houston to James C. Neill, December 21, 1835, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 278-279. On December 15 Houston wrote Barrett, a member of the General Council, that he was going to locate a “field officer in command of San Antonio de Bexar with a sufficient number of troops for the defense of the station, I also design, the employment of an Engineer, and [to] have the fortifications and defenses of the place improved.” On December 21 Houston wrote Neill, “On receipt of this you will take command of the Post of Bexar and make such disposition of the troops there as you may deem proper for the security & protection of the place.”
For those historians who believe that Henry Smith and Sam Houston did not support an attack on Matamoros, read this. Smith wrote William Ward: “. . . Every man that is not in favor of Texas becoming independent and free, distrust him! Every one that wishes to supercede the commander-in-chief, or not recognize him in his proper place, distrust him! I have anticipated them and ordered the commander-in-chief forthwith to proceed to the fr
ontier, take charge of the army, establish his headquarters at the most eligible point, and to immediately concentrate his troops, at the different points, so as to be in readiness for active operations, at the earliest possible date. A descent will be made on Matamoros, as soon as it can possibly be fitted out. . . . Some men of whom I have cautioned you are making bold moves to become commander-in-chief of expeditions. I will rob them of the army and they will be flat.”
22 James C. Neill to Governor [Smith] and Council, January 14, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 15-16.
23 Houston to Smith, January 17, 1836.
24 Ibid.
25 F. W. Johnson to General Council, January 3, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 412-413. Johnson, speaking to Bexar’s defense, wrote: “I have ordered all the guns from the town into the Alamo and the fortifications in the town to be destroyed.” Johnson was probably talking about the street barricades from the siege and storming of Bexar in 1835.
26 Houston to Smith, January 17, 1836.
27 Houston to Collinsworth, March 13, 1836.
28 Williams and Barker, eds., Writings, VII: 306-336.
29 D. C. Barrett, J. D. Clements, Alexander Thomson, and G. A. Pattillo to James W. Robinson, January 31, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 206; Henry Smith to William Bryan, February 5, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 268.
See Chapter Four for the data and sources on the three political movements that attempted to turn a defensive struggle into an offensive war by organizing an attack on the port of Matamoros, an act that split the Texas government into two factions. Governor Smith, Houston, James Bowie, and the Alamo garrison were in support of total independence from Mexico so that the region could be joined to the United States. Lt. Governor Robinson, James W. Fannin Jr., and the Council, with the support and influence of Stephen F. Austin, wished to continue the fight in the name of federalism and maintain Texas as a state in the Mexican nation.
30 William B. Travis to W. G. Hill, January 21, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 109; Smith to Bryan, February 5, 1836; William B. Travis to Henry Smith, January 28, 1836, Burnam’s Crossing on the Colorado River, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 176-177.
Travis wrote Smith: “In obedience to my orders, I have done everything in my power to get ready to march to the relief of Bexar, but owing to the difficulty of getting horses and provisions, and owing to desertions, I shall march today with only about thirty men, all regulars except one.”
William B. Travis to Henry Smith, January 29, 1836, Burnam’s Crossing, Army Papers, TSL; hereafter cited as AP-TSL. Travis wrote: “I must beg that your Excellency will recall the order for me to go on to Bexar in command of so few men. . . . Therefore I hope Your Excellency will take my situation into consideration, & relieve me from the orders to command in person the men who are now on their way to Bexar – Otherwise I shall feel it due to myself to resign my commission. I would remark that I can be more useful at present, In Superintending the recruiting service.”
Smith did not recall Travis. Travis, however, continued to complain to Smith. In William B. Travis to Smith, February 13, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 327-328, Travis wrote: “Dear Sir, I wrote you an official letter last night as Comdt of this Post in the absence of Col. Neill; & if you had taken the trouble to answer my letter from Burnam’s I should not now have been under the necessity of troubling you. . . . I do not solicit the command of this post but as Col. Neill has applied to the Commander in Chief to be relieved [and] is anxious for me to take command, I will do it if it be your order for a time until an artillery officer can be sent here.” So much for the allegation that Travis was consumed with a burning ambition to command at the Alamo.
31 D. C. Barrett, J. D. Clements, Alex Thomson, and G. A. Pattillo to James W. Robinson, January 31, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 204-206.
32 James C. Neill to Governor and Council, January 23, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 204-206.
33 Houston to Smith, January 17, 1836; Walter Prescott Webb, H. Bailey Carroll, and Eldon Stephen Branda, eds., The Handbook of Texas (3 vols.; Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1952, 1976), I: 503-504; hereafter cited as Handbook; James W. Robinson to Philip Dimmitt, February 16, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 353. Robinson ordered Dimmitt to furnish the Alamo and Goliad supplies and provisions.
34 Houston to Smith, January 17, 1836; James Bowie to Henry Smith, February 2, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 236-238; William H. Patton file, Audited Military Claims collection, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas; said collection is hereafter cited as AMC-TSL; John Sutherland file, AMC-TSL.
Bowie wrote Smith: “Capt. Patton with 5 or 6 [men] has come in.” Documents in the Patton and Sutherland AMC-TSL files that detail their trip to San Antonio place Patton’s small company at Gonzales on January 27, 1836, and show the unit entered Bexar on February 1, 1836.
These documents also show that Sutherland and Patton departed San Antonio for Gonzales on February 19, 1836. Patton left a small detachment at Bexar. Then he appears to have returned to the colonies to recruit men and attend the March 1 convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos.
According to a petition in the John Sutherland file, January 1, 1854, Memorials and Petitions collection, TSL; hereafter cited as M & P-TSL, Sutherland claimed Travis had sent him to Gonzales on February 23, 1836, “with the express to urge the citizens to his relief.” Sutherland failed to furnish any supporting evidence to prove his claim. The petition was forwarded to a legislative committee, where it was rejected for insufficient evidence.
Neill had informed Houston that if the Bexar garrison was not reinforced within eight days it would be overrun. On January 17 when Houston moved to arrange for relief for Neill from the colonies, three of the eight days had already passed. Thus, there was not enough time to raise a relief command outside of Goliad. Either Houston did not take Neill’s concern seriously or he did not care about getting sufficient assistance to Neill.
35 Sam Houston to Henry Smith, January 30, 1836, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 187-196; Bowie to Smith, February 2, 1836.
36 William G. Cooke, “No. 2169 [1844 Feb. W. G. Cook, Washington, Texas],” in Lamar’s The Papers of Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar, Gulick, Elliot, Allen, and Smither, eds. (6 vols., reprint; Austin and New York: Pemberton Press, 1968), IV: Part I: 42-46.
37 Houston to Collinsworth, March 13, 1836; Houston to Collinsworth, March 15, 1836.
38 Houston to Smith, January 30, 1836.
39 Bowie to Smith, February 2, 1836.
40 G. B. Jameson to Henry Smith, February 11, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 303; William B. Travis to Henry Smith, February 12, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 317–318. See Chapter nine for more information about Lt. Colonel Neill’s departure from San Antonio.
41 Travis to Smith, February 12, 1836; William B. Travis to Henry Smith, February 16, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 317, and 368.
42 De Bruhl, “Letters to the Editor,” August 21, 1994.
43 Henry Smith to Sam Houston, January 28, 1836, San Felipe, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 176; Sam Houston to Chief Bowles, February 5, 1836, Nacogdoches, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 260-261.
44 Houston et al. Treaty, February 23, 1836, Bowles’s Village, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 415-418; William B. Travis to Sam Houston, February 25, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 433-434; Houston to Public, March 2, 1836, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 490-491; De Bruhl, Sword of San Jacinto, 180.
According to De Bruhl, Houston also ran as a delegate for the convention in Nacogdoches, but in a field of seventeen candidates he finished next to last. De Bruhl believed the Refugio “army vote” elected Houston to the convention. Ira Westover, in Westover to Sam Houston, February 7, 1836, Refugio, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 284, reported that Houston was elected by the municipality vote. In Volunteers to Convention [February 1836], Refugio, Jenkins,
ed., Papers, IV: 473-474, we see that the soldiers elected David Thomas and Edward Conrad to represent them in the convention, not Sam Houston.
45 Edwin Waller affidavit, n.d., David Gouverneur Burnet Papers, Box 2B159, Center for American History, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas; hereafter cited as CAH.
According to Webb, Carroll, and Branda, eds., Handbook, II: 856-857, Waller represented Columbia in the 1835 Consultation and was elected to the General Council. At the March 1836 convention Waller represented Brazoria.
Houston’s biographers, while recognizing his alcoholism before the Texas Revolution, have consistently failed to objectively consider that element of his character during the revolution.
Nevertheless, in Marquis James to Mr. Asbury, June 21, year not given, Pleasantville, N.Y., Box 2N488, Amelia W. Williams Papers, CAH, James, the author of The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston, made the following observation about Houston’s drinking problem: “Houston would have drunk himself to death but for her [his wife Margaret Moffette Lea]. Maybe Anna Raguet was a little better fixed to be the wife of a public man, as nearly as I can view it, but maybe not. Texas owes a lot to Margaret, who isn’t the wife I’d have picked for Houston on the ground maybe, but that would have been my lack of good judgment. And even in the church business I think Margaret knew best, or did best whether she knew what she was doing or not. Houston was a serener man after he joined up.”
46 Mary Austin Holley, Notes Made by Mrs. Holley in Interviews with Prominent Texans of the Early Days, April 7, 1844, Mary Austin Holley Papers, Box 2R40, CAH.
Alamo Traces Page 5