Alamo Traces

by Thomas Ricks Lindley

  A military claim that Williams failed to find indicates that Harrison’s “Nashville Volunteers,” not the “Tennessee Mounted Volunteers,” appear to have arrived at Washington-on-the-Brazos on January 23, 1836, and were still at that location on January 26. Whereas, Crockett and all but one of his men departed Washington on the morning of January 23, 1836. It would appear that the two companies probably missed each other by only hours.31

  Moreover, Williams claimed that the Harrison and Crockett groups traveled to San Antonio by way of Gonzales. She, however, failed to cite any evidence for that belief. On the other hand, two military claims show that the Harrison company stopped in San Felipe. Harrison obtained forage and provisions from William Kerr and John Echols at San Felipe on January 28, 1836. Two additional claims for provisions reveal that Harrison’s company trekked to Bexar by way of Mina (Bastrop). Harrison purchased provisions from James Gotier on January 30, 1836. The next day Harrison obtained supplies from John Eblin. Gotier lived southeast of Mina near the Gotier Trace that ran between Mina and San Felipe. John Eblin lived two miles below Mina and just across and upriver from present-day Smithville.32

  Crockett commanded a small “Mounted Spy Company” that was organized on or about January 8, 1836, in Nacogdoches. Two claims show that on January 23 and 24, 1836, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, Crockett’s unit comprised himself and five other men. At that time, Crockett and his scouts appear to have been riding for Goliad, rather than San Antonio. On January 9, 1836, while in San Augustine, about forty miles east of Nacogdoches, Crockett wrote his daughter. Of his travel plans, he wrote: “I have taken the oath of government and have enrolled my name as a volunteer and will set out for the Rio Grand[e] in a few days with volunteers from the United States.” Houston was, at that time, sending all incoming troops from the United States to Goliad, which was serving as the staging area for his planned March invasion of Matamoros on the Rio Grande.33

  The last documented location of Crockett before his arrival at Bexar sometime between February 5 and 11, 1836, was Gay Hill, the home of James Gibson Swisher, on the Goliad road, west of Washington-on-the-Brazos. The time frame for this location was most likely sometime between January 23 and 25. The other four men in Crockett’s unit seem to have been riding ahead of Crockett at that point. Benjamin Archibald Martin Thomas appears to have joined Crockett on January 24. Crockett and Thomas’s departure date from the Swisher home is unknown.34

  One other piece of evidence suggests that the Crockett company rode to Goliad. Peter Harper, who had joined the unit on January 8 at Nacogdoches, transferred to Captain John Chenoweth’s company of United States Invincibles on January 27. On that date, Chenoweth’s unit, except for a number of men who had gone to the Alamo with James Bowie on January 17, was spread out between Goliad and Copano. Given the time frame, Harper most likely joined the unit at Goliad. Therefore, it appears that Harper and the other three men from Crockett’s spy company were riding a day or so ahead of Crockett and Thomas.35

  James Bowie’s Offspring

  A third document that Williams misrepresented concerns the death of James Bowie’s wife. Williams quoted a Jose Antonio Navarro letter to Samuel May Williams as saying: “Veramendi, my sister Josepha, his wife, and Ursula Bowie and her children, died unexpectedly in Monclova.” Navarro actually wrote: “Verimendi, my sister Josefa, his wife and Ursula Bowie died unexpectedly at Monclova.” It appears Williams added the element of “her children” in using the document.36 The significance of this misrepresentation should be obvious. Any person who claimed, based on Williams’s study, that Bowie had one or more children who died in 1833 in Mexico would be wrong on all counts.

  Captain De Sauque and John

  One of Williams’s more complex misrepresentations involved John, the defender with no last name. African-Americans take great pride in believing John was a black man. Williams declared: “Francis De Sauque was a merchant of San Antonio and a true Texas patriot. It is now a well-known fact that Travis sent him from the Alamo on the evening of February 21 or 22 to get supplies for the soldiers at the fortress and plead for reinforcements. He left John M. Thurston, his clerk, and John, his Negro slave, at the Alamo. Both perished there; but De Sauque, cut off from his home by the arrival of the Mexicans, joined Fannin’s troops at Goliad and was massacred with them. The Muster Rolls and all the land certificates, issued to De Sauque’s heirs for land due him for his service, show these facts.”37

  The only information that is correct in Williams’s claim is that De Sauque was a “true Texas patriot.” He was not a resident and merchant of San Antonio. The land grants and muster rolls mentioned (but not cited by Williams) contain no evidence to support her statements about De Sauque, John M. Thurston, and John, the man without a last name.38

  John M. Thurston was not De Sauque’s clerk. Just why Williams believed Thurston was the clerk is not clear. The primary source for De Sauque, John, and Thurston dying at the Alamo is a list of Alamo defenders found in the March 24, 1836 issue of the Telegraph and Texas Register. The entries for those three men reads:

  F. Desanque [sic], of Philadelphia,

  John (cl’k in Desanque’s store,)

  Thurstor [sic],39

  Apparently, Williams believed that the entries read as follows: “John (cl’k in Desanque’s store,) Thurstor,” which she assumed was an identification of John Thurston as De Sauque’s clerk. She was wrong. Still, several conclusions about the source are obvious: (1) John was De Sauque’s clerk, (2) John’s last name was unknown to the informant, (3) the first name of “Thurstor” was unknown to the informant.

  John Thurston was not John, the clerk. Thurston arrived in Texas in early December 1835 as the first lieutenant of R. A. Wigginton’s company of Louisville Volunteers. On December 21, 1835, Thurston received a commission as a second lieutenant in William B. Travis’s Legion of horse. Thurston most likely entered the Alamo in Captain John H. Forsyth’s company with Travis on February 5, 1836.40

  De Sauque, a resident of Matagorda, was a former sea captain from Philadelphia. He was a friend to James W. Fannin Jr. and served as his commissary officer at Goliad. De Sauque was in Bexar in mid-February 1836 to set up a dry-goods shop in the city. Despite Williams’s allegation that it was a “well-known fact,” there is no evidence that De Sauque left the Alamo to obtain supplies and men for Travis.41

  As to John’s identity, Frank Templeton’s novel Margaret Ballentine or The Fall of the Alamo, published in 1907, is the only source that identifies John as a black man. Templeton claimed: “John, the negro servant of Capt. De Sauque, was left by him with the officers at the post when he went off to recruit his company and was killed while fighting.” Templeton most likely concluded that defender “John” was black because in the late nineteenth century the use of the single name of John was a disparaging tag applied to black men, much in the same way that “boy” was used in the twentieth century. In 1836, however, the single name of “John” was most often applied to an Indian man who lived on the edge of the white culture.42

  Also, Templeton’s unsupported claim about John appears to be the source of Williams’s allegation that it was a “well-known fact” that Travis sent De Sauque out to locate men and supplies. While it is manifest that the novel was Williams’s source for claiming John was a black slave, she did not cite the book. Ultimately, there simply is no primary evidence to substantiate the claim that John was a black man. Moreover, why did Williams, after having decided that “John” was John Thurston, swing about and also claim that “John” was a black slave? Who knows?43

  Alamo Defender Identifications

  Perhaps the most problematic section of Williams’s study is her list of Alamo defenders—the roster that Dr. Barker lauded as “a real contribution to the history of Texas.” Williams claimed: “I compiled a work list which contained every name mentioned on any previously made roll, or from any other source. Such a compilation yielded nearly 400 names, although contemporary authority is practically agre
ed that the number of Alamo victims was less than 200, most writers giving from 182 to 188. I set myself the task, however, to verify every name on this work, or to determine definitely that it should be discarded.”44

  In creating her list, Williams’s first error was to ignore at least one valid Mexican source that identified the number of Alamo defenders. Colonel Juan N. Almonte put the number at two hundred fifty Texian dead. Williams should not have ignored Almonte’s higher number unless she could have proved the number wrong. That she did not do.45

  Williams’ second mistake was her use of Texas General Land Office documents. She decided that any name listed on an Alamo muster roll was invalid unless the man’s estate had been issued land grants for an Alamo death. She said that the “issued” land grant certificates or patents verified the muster roll entry for Alamo defenders. She failed to see and understand that the actual process worked in reverse of what she claimed. Land grant certificates for Alamo service were only issued after the service had been verified by a muster roll entry, sworn statements from two witnesses, or other creditable evidence. In sum, a muster roll identification alone was sufficient proof to the General Land Office that a man had died at the Alamo. In total, Williams’s methods discarded many names for which there is acceptable evidence to show that the men died at the Alamo. In some cases, however, she did not have the evidence that now identifies some of the men in question. Then she rejected the valid names for no obvious reason.

  New Alamo Defenders

  There is I. L. K. Harrison, whose Alamo death is supported by the following James C. Neill affidavit, a document that Williams did have for her study. The statement is also further evidence that Captain William B. Harrison’s men were not members of Crockett’s mounted spy unit. If they had been in Crockett’s unit, it seems that Neill would have identified I. L. K. Harrison as a member of Crockett’s unit, instead of Captain Harrison’s company.46

  Neill wrote: “Col. Neill being called upon states that he knows of I. L. K. Harrison – states that he distinctly knows he was on the Roll of Capt. Harrison’s company – when he [Neill] relinquished the Command to Col. Travis on the 14 Feby 1836 and that Capt. Harrison’s company was enlisted for six months. Col. Neill has every reason to believe that I. L. K. Harrison was destroyed at the Alamo.”47

  There is Jacob Roth, a Nacogdoches area resident, who commanded a small East Texas company of fifteen to twenty men at the storming of Bexar in December 1835. Roth and company, after obtaining one hundred dollars from the Committee of Vigilance and Safety, departed Nacogdoches on November 17. The Roth unit traveled to Bexar with Captain Thomas H. Breece’s company of New Orleans Greys and Captain John W. Peacock’s United States Invincibles—a company later commanded by John Chenoweth. The three companies reached San Antonio on November 26, 1835.48

  Little is known about Roth and his unit. He may have been Jewish. Roth, however, must have enjoyed some respect in the area because George A. Nixon, chairman of the Nacogdoches Committee of Vigilance and Safety, referred to Roth as “Major” Roth. David Cook and Leonard L. Williams are the only members of Roth’s company thus far identified. Roth discharged both men on December 15, 1835, and they returned to Nacogdoches. Roth, however, appears to have joined the Bexar garrison under Lt. Colonel James C. Neill. Roth’s name appears on the February 1, 1836 Alamo voters list for delegates to the March 1 convention held at Washington-on-the-Brazos.49

  One of the many names that Williams could not obtain data about was “Rough, _______.” Jacob Roth seems to have been the man whose name could only be remembered as “Rough.”50

  Roth’s Alamo death is strongly endorsed by a petition that John Dorset submitted to the Nacogdoches probate court on January 31, 1838. According to Dorset:

  Jacob Roth, late a resident of said County, died while absent in the service of his country on or about the sixth of March Eighteen hundred and thirty six, leaving no will.

  Said deceased was possessed of little or no personal property, but was as your petitioner believes justly entitled to a third of a League of land as a citizen of this Republic, and also some compensation from the Government for his services in the Army.

  The said deceased was at the time of his death and had for a long time been a citizen of this county, and was also indebted to your petitioner, as well as to some other individuals, which requires that some one should be appointed to administer on the Estate of said deceased and that no one has been appointed so to do.51

  New Orleans Greys

  George Andrews, James Dickson, Thomas P. Hutchinson, James Holloway, John Morman, and John Spratt were members of the New Orleans Greys who died at the Alamo but are not on the current Daughters of the Republic of Texas honor roll of Alamo defenders. Williams eliminated five of the names because she could not verify their duty or deaths at the Alamo with other documents. These names come from a muster roll that is titled: “Muster Roll, Captain Thomas H. Breece’s Co. Texas Volunteers, in the Army before Bexar 1835.” The post-revolution status of each soldier is written to the left of each name. The men are identified as: (1) killed at the Alamo, (2) killed with Fannin, (3) living, (4) expelled, and (5) deserted. The roll appears to have been compiled by Breece in the fall of 1836.52

  In regard to Breece’s roll, Williams wrote: “Since it is a proved fact that the majority of Breece’s men were Alamo victims, I verified this entire roll to test its accuracy, and found it to be unusually correct for a muster roll document. I found land certificates or other documents concerning all the names on the roll, except for John Spratt, George Andrews, and _______ Kedison.” Williams stuck with her flawed methodology in explaining those three names.53

  Williams eliminated John Spratt with nothing more than her opinion: “On some lists this name is given as William Spratt. Gray gives simply _______ Spratt, Muster Rolls, p. 25, . . . gives John Spratt as an Alamo victim. No further information has been found. It is possible, though I believe hardly probable, that one Spratt fell at the Alamo.”54

  Williams used the same method to explain George Andrews. She wrote: “This leads me to suspect that the George Andrews of the roll should be George Anderson. In view of the fact that so many of the early lists included the name of Anderson as the quartermaster. . . . I have been forced to the tentative opinion that one George Washington Anderson did die at the Alamo, but I have no conclusive proof of the fact. . . .”55

  Williams, at least in this case of Andrews, was close to being right. She had no evidence to support her belief about Anderson; it was totally based on deductive reasoning and she was wrong. “Anderson” was A. Anderson, who had been involved in the revolution since late September 1835. Thus Anderson could not have been “George Andrews” who joined the fight with New Orleans Greys on November 26, 1835. Nor could Anderson have been George Washington Anderson, who was wounded at the Battle of San Jacinto. A. Anderson, a resident of Bexar, served as an express rider in September and October 1835, for Edward Gritten, an Englishman, who lived in San Antonio and who kept the Gonzales colonists informed of military events in Bexar. During the storming of Bexar in December 1835, Anderson was a member of Captain Peter L. Duncan’s company that served as the Texian army’s color guard unit.56

  For the name “_______ Kedison” Williams wrote: “This name listed on Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 4, 25, and on all former rolls, made of Alamo victims. No further information has been found.” Only one mistake here. Despite Williams’s claim, the name “Kedison” is not on Breece’s muster roll. Williams’s failure to prove Kedison did not die at the Alamo means he is a probable Alamo defender.57

  To eliminate the name of “John Moran” Williams claimed: “Morton, E. This name is a variant for either Edward Norton or John Morman. Both those men fought at the storming of Bexar, but both were honorably discharged on December 27, 1835. John Morman was killed at San Jacinto; Edward Norton was living in 1838 (see Lost Book of Harris County, p. 119).”58

  For this investigator, it is hard to see any similarity between E. M
orton and John Moran. Also, the Lost Book of Harris County contains no entry for John Morman. Neither does the book have entries for E. Morton or Edward Norton. And John Morman was not killed at the Battle of Sam Jacinto.59

  Another example of Williams’s failed methodology is analysis of the name “T. P. Hutchinson.” A review of her sources clearly demonstrates the unreliability of her work and the reliability of the Breece muster roll. Williams dismissed T. P. Hutchinson with this explanation:

  Hutcherson, ______. This name is variously spelled Hutchinson, Hutcherson, Hutchison, and is found on Muster Rolls, p. 25, and on every Alamo list that I have found. On Breece’s company roll and on Frank Templeton’s list the name is “T. P. Hutchinson”; everywhere else only the last name is given. Every land certificate, issued in the name of Hutcherson, or any of its possible variants, has been carefully examined, and all other available documents have been searched, but none of them show that any Hutcherson died at the Alamo. There were, however, two Hutchinsons at the storming of Bexar in December, 1835. There were Robert L. Hutchinson and Thomas J. Hutchinson. Bounty certificate, Matagorda, 190, shows that Robert L. Hutchinson was honorably discharged, January 16, 1836. Thomas J. Hutchinson participated in the battle of San Jacinto and evidence is found (in related papers in I Milam, 1384, he signed his name) that he was living in 1841. My guess is that the service and record of Thomas J. Hutchinson is what confused the list makers of the Alamo men and has caused them to include his name among the victims of the massacre of March 6, 1836.60