The examination of the Sewell application concludes the critical analysis of the Louis Rose land grant testimony and Blake’s presentation of that evidence. Thus, a number of conclusions can be drawn at this point.
Louis Rose appears to have testified for the estates of five alleged Alamo defenders: F. H. K. Day, Henry Teal, John Blair, Charles Haskell, and David Wilson. W. P. Zuber claimed that Moses Rose had been a member of the Alamo garrison. Yet, in no instance did Louis Rose, who Blake assumed was Moses Rose, testify that he had been a member of the Alamo garrison. In no instance did Louis Rose report that he had been inside the Alamo fortress during the thirteen-day siege. In no instance did Louis Rose claim that he had escaped the Alamo on March 3, 1836. The Rose statement in the John Blair application, “left him in the Alimo 3 March 1836,” and the Rose statement in regard to David Wilson (the wrong Wilson), “3 Day of March 1836 then he was in the Alimo” are the only reports that can be interpreted to claim that Rose was in the Alamo on March 3, 1836. The validity of the Rose statements, however, is compromised by Rose’s claim that Henry Teal died at the Alamo, and the 1854 fraudulent bounty certificate in Rose’s name. Isaac Lee’s (Blair’s cousin and estate administrator) confusion about when Blair died damages the credibility of Rose’s statement about Blair. Lastly, in regard to David Wilson, it appears that the man Rose identified did not die at the Alamo.
In regard to the application of alleged Alamo defender M. B. Clark, Stephen Rose was the witness, not Louis Rose. Blake furnished no evidence to prove Stephen was Louis or that Stephen was Moses Rose, who Zuber claimed had escaped on March 3, 1836. Nor does the Stephen Rose statement put Clark or Stephen in the Alamo, or prove that Clark died at the Alamo.
Blake’s presentation of the Louis and Stephen Rose evidence shows that Blake’s research and writing were dominated by his belief that Zuber’s story of Moses Rose was true. Blake appears to have abandoned objectivity and perhaps honesty to achieve fame as the person who proved that Moses Rose’s tale was true. Blake’s Rose article lacks credibility for three reasons: (1) Blake’s failure to include Louis Rose’s Henry Teal testimony in his article, (2) Blake’s incorrect transcriptions of the primary documents, (3) Blake’s inclusion of a Louis Rose statement about Marcus Sewell that does not exist in the primary document.
In total, the Louis Rose statements do not appear to be very “amazing,” reliable, or creditable. Most certainly, the evidence is not corroboration of William P. Zuber’s Moses Rose tale. Still, there are two nagging problems with the Rose land grant evidence that require additional examination.
First, there is the situation of the man Stephen Rose knew as “M. B. Clark,” who Rose had seen a few days before the fall of the Alamo. The Clark name does not appear on any of the early Alamo muster rolls or victim lists. The February 1, 1836 Alamo voting list does not include the Clark name or a similar name. The name “B. M. Clark,” however, does appear on the roll of Captain John Chenoweth’s company of United States Invincibles, one of the units that reinforced the Alamo on March 4, 1836. Chenoweth’s list shows Clark as being “killed.” Therefore, if Stephen Rose was lying, how did he know to lie about Clark? Or was Stephen telling the truth and simply got the initials reversed?36
B. M. Clark appears to have come to Texas as a member of Peyton S. Wyatt’s Huntsville (Alabama) Volunteers in late December 1835. On January 27, 1836, Clark, while Wyatt’s company was at Goliad, joined the U.S. Invincibles. Nacogdoches County probate records report that Clark “died while absent in the service of Texas on or about” March 5, 1836, a date estimate that includes the March 4 Alamo relief. It may be that Clark was killed outside the Alamo while attempting to enter with the March 4 force, instead of in the final attack on March 6. The date of the fall of the Alamo was well known. The March 4 reinforcement was not that well known. So there may have been some confusion as to the exact date, thus the estimate of “on or about.” Therefore, it may be that Stephen Rose knew Clark because he (Rose) was a member of the combined force that reinforced the Alamo on March 4, 1836. Such a situation also explains the nature of Stephen Rose’s testimony, which does not place Clark in the Alamo or claim that he was killed in the Alamo. Rose could have known that Clark rode to the Alamo with the group, but did not know for sure that he had entered the Alamo.37
Second, there is the Alamo victim list that appeared in the March 24, 1836 Telegraph and Texas Register. That list, in addition to identifying a “_____ Blair and David Wilson” from Nacogdoches, identifies a “_____ Rose, of Nacogdoches.” Because the other Alamo Rose, James M. Rose, was from Tennessee, the Register listing might have been Louis Rose. Louis Rose, however, did not die at the Alamo. If the identification was for Louis Rose, it was a mistake.38
Furthermore, the three names are listed as _____ Rose, _____ Blair, and David Wilson, which might mean that whatever their role in the Alamo siege, they were together, or at least whoever identified them as Alamo victims may have based the identification on having seen Blair, Wilson, and Rose together. It may just be there was a second David Wilson in Nacogdoches, who was a single man. That possibility is supported by the fact that Louis Rose’s most definitive statements were made about Blair and Wilson. Rose said he had left Blair in the Alamo on March 3. In regard to Wilson, Rose said: “knew him for 6 years 3 Day of March 1836 then he was in the Alimo.” The Wilson statement is not clear. It might mean: Knew him for six years and knew him March 3, 1836, when he was in the Alamo. Or it could mean: Knew him for six years and knew him on March 3, 1836, outside the Alamo and then he entered the Alamo. Still, it is clear that whatever Rose knew about the Alamo defenders, he knew the most about Blair and Wilson, whose names followed the name Rose on the Register victim list.39
The Register list had been compiled by John W. Smith and Gerald Navan. Smith was the Alamo’s storekeeper who guided the March 1 reinforcement into the Alamo and had departed the Alamo twice as a courier to Gonzales. Navan had been a clerk in the Bexar garrison, working under Green B. Jameson, the Alamo engineer. They created the roll over a three-week period after the fall of the Alamo. The roster was probably based on their own knowledge and interviews with other individuals who had knowledge of who was in the Alamo or who had attempted to enter the Alamo during the thirteen-day siege. If Louis Rose was not in the Alamo on March 3, how is it that Smith and Navan could have believed he had died at the Alamo? If the name of Rose on the Register list does represent Louis Rose, how can one explain the mistake, other than Rose having escaped the Alamo as claimed by Zuber?40
One explanation is, as with Stephen Rose and B. M. Clark, that Louis Rose participated in the March 4 reinforcement. The Register roster has one other identification error, “F. Desauque, of Philadelphia.” De Sauque was not a member of the Alamo garrison. He, however, participated in the March 4 reinforcement of the Alamo. After the fall of the Alamo, De Sauque rejoined Fannin’s command and was later executed with the Goliad men.41
Also, Louis Rose being a member of the March 4 relief force explains the inconsistent character of his testimony in the cases of David Wilson (“3 Day of March 1836 then he was in the Alimo”), Charles Haskell (“supposes him killed in the Alimo”), John Blair (“left him in the Alimo 3 March 1836”), and F. H. K. Day (“died with Travis at the Alimo”). If Rose and the men had been members of the March 4 relief force, Rose’s final experience with each man could have been different. Perhaps he actually saw Blair, Day, and Wilson enter the Alamo but did not see Haskell make it into the fort. Thus, in regard to the Blair statement, if Louis had participated in the March 4 reinforcement, he could have left John Blair and David Wilson “in the Alamo” and still not have been in the Alamo himself. Also, such a circumstance explains why Isaac Lee would have believed that John Blair had “died while absent in the service of Texas on or about fifth of March 1836.” An estimate that is identical to the estimate found in Nacogdoches County probate records for M. B. [B. M.] Clark’s Alamo death.42
Moreover, another fact worthy of note i
s that F. H. K. Day entered with the Gonzales ranger company. Blair, Haskell, and Wilson may have also been part of the March 4 Alamo reinforcement. The three men appear to have been in the Alamo on February 1, 1836, which suggests they did not enter with a reinforcement. A number of men, however, were discharged by Lt. Colonel James C. Neill on February 14, 1836. At least three of the men, John Harris, Robert White, and John Ballard, returned to the Alamo as reinforcements. White and Harris made it into the Alamo and died. Ballard was separated from the group and survived. Thus, it is possible that Louis and Stephen Rose knew of the men they testified for because Louis, Stephen, and the men were among the sixty men from Gonzales and Mina who reinforced the Alamo.43
While the evidence for this Rose/reinforcement interpretation will be less than conclusive for many “Moses Rose” true believers, the interpretation also suggests an explanation for another puzzling element of the Alamo story. That being the two men (one badly wounded) who appear to have survived the fall of the Alamo and rode to Nacogdoches to report the tragic event. Perhaps the two men were Louis and Stephen Rose, and they were father and son. Maybe Stephen later died from his severe wounds or for some other reason. Thus he disappeared from the historical record after his testimony for the M. B. Clark estate.44
Chapter Six Notes
1 R. B. Blake, “A Vindication of Rose and His Story,” in J. Frank Dobie, Mody C. Boatright, and Harry H. Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History (reprint; 1939, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1980), 32.
2 Author unknown, “Tour Guide History Talk,” The Alamo, San Antonio. Thanks to Bruce Winders, the Alamo historian and curator, who obtained a copy of the history talk script for this writer. The Zuber/Rose part reads: “Unsheathing his sword during a lull in the virtually incessant bombardment on March 5, Colonel Travis drew a line on the ground before his battle-weary men. In a voice trembling with emotion he described the hopelessness of their plight and said, ‘Those prepared to give their lives in freedom’s cause, come over to me.’ Without hesitation, every man, save one, crossed the line. Colonel James Bowie, stricken with pneumonia, asked that his cot be carried over.”
Alamo tour guides, however, have been known to alter the story. Writer Stephen Harrigan informed me that when he visited the Alamo in March 1997, the tour guide, who gave the history talk, claimed that Moses Rose’s departure from the Alamo so enraged General Santa Anna that he decided to immediately storm the fort.
3 Lord, A Time, 202.
4 Tyler, Barnett, Barkley, Anderson, Odintz, eds., The New Handbook of Texas, I: 579-580; R. B. Blake to Dr. E. W. Winkler, April 3, 1936, Nacogdoches, J. Frank Dobie to R. B. Blake, May 10, 1938, Austin, R. B. Blake to J. Frank Dobie, May 13, 1938, Nacogdoches, R. B. Blake Papers, CAH.
5 Dobie, Boatright, and Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History, 33-34.
6 Ibid., Zuber, “An Escape From the Alamo”; Dobie, Boatright, and Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History, 32.
7 R. B. Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 204-205, CAH. The Center for American History at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas has two Blake collections: R. B. Blake’s Papers and ninety-three bound volumes of Blake’s typewritten transcriptions. The Blake Transcriptions, LXIV: 1-3, contain a second reference to Teal having died at the Alamo. Blake wrote: “The official records of Nacogdoches County give the following as those from Nacogdoches who died on that occasion [fall of the Alamo]: Capt. William Blazely of the New Orleans Greys, Dr. Edward F. Mitchueson, Charles Haskel, John Blair, David Wilson, F. H. K. Day, Marcus Sewell, John Harris, Micaijah Autry, Henry Teal, M. B. Clark, Bluford Mitchell, and James Taylor.” The names are correct, except for Henry Teal and Bluford Mitchell. Application number 732 for William Baker found in Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 225 identifies Mitchell as the administrator of Baker’s estate. Just how Blake came to believe Mitchell died at the Alamo is unknown and hard to understand.
8 Webb, Carroll, and Branda, eds., Handbook, II: 718; A. Huston to Sam Houston, March 5, 1836, Nacogdoches, Jenkins, ed., Papers, IV: 517; G. W. Hockley to Thomas J. Rusk, March 23, 1836, Camp near Beeson’s on the Colorado River, Jenkins, ed., Papers, V: 167.
9 Lewis Rose file, Number 7117, Court of Claims records, Archives, GLO.
10 Ibid.
11 Thomas Lloyd Miller, The Public Lands of Texas 1519-1970 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), 32-33.
12 Dobie, Boatright, and Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History, 31.
13 Miller, The Public Lands, 29-30.
14 Character Certificate Collection, Archives, GLO; Character Certificate Collection, Nacogdoches Archives, TSL.
15 Dobie, Boatright, and Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History, 34; Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 156.
16 Ibid.; Number 106, “Proceeding of Land Commissioners,” RHRD #114, Nacogdoches County Records, East Texas Research Center, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, Texas, hereafter referred to as ETRC. This collection is one of two collections that contain the original holographic records of testimony given to the land commissioners. The other collection is the “Rough Minutes” of the board. Both collections, despite different titles, appear to be the same kind of record—the original notes made in regard to testimony given by individuals before the board. Often it is hard to determine just what Blake saw and used as his sources. Blake, however, cited the “Proceedings of Nacogdoches County Board of Land Commissioners” as his source for the Louis Rose statements. One assumes that Blake’s sources were the original handwritten documents. The one original Nacogdoches board document pertaining to F. H. K. Day that this writer located identifies the Day headright application as number 106. Yet Blake claimed he saw a record of the testimony that identified the application as number 125. This writer could not find an original record of the testimony for the Day application as reflected in Blake’s transcript of the alleged document.
17 F. H. K. Day first class headright grant – Fannin I-973, GLO; W. W. J. Smith affidavit, June Session, 1839, and Thomas S. Grubbs affidavit, July 7, 1840, Horce Eggleston affidavit, January 3, 1841, found in probate Number 21, Gonzales County Probate records, Archives, Gonzales County Courthouse, Gonzales, Texas.
18 F. H. K. Day unfinished Spanish land grant, number 83:5, GLO; Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 225.
19 Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 158.
20 Ibid.
21 Number 203, “Proceeding of Land Commissioners,” RHRD #114, ETRC.
22 Dobie, Boatright, and Ransom, eds., In the Shadow of History, 29; John E. Rose character certificate, number 91:16, Character Certificate collection, GLO; James H. Starr to John P. Borden, Land Commissioner, February 14, 1838, Nacogdoches, General Land Office Correspondence Collection, Archives Division, TSL; Louis Rose character certificate, 1835.
23 The Daughters of the Republic of Texas, “The Story of The Alamo, Thirteen Fateful Days in 1836,” a small information sheet given out at the Alamo that contains the official list of Alamo defenders.
24 Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 162.
25 Number 259, “Rough Minutes – Board of Land Commissioners,” RHRD #112, ETRC.
26 Isaac Lee petition for letters of administration of the John Blair estate, April 11, 1837, and Isaac Lee petition for letters of administration of the John Blair estate, April 2, 1846, transcriptions found in John Blair folder, Box 3G299, Blake Papers, CAH. Given that these documents are Blake’s typewritten transcriptions, the 1835 date might be a typing error.
27 Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 163.
28 Ibid., 165.
29 Number 427, “Proceeding of Land Commissioners,” RHRD, #114, ETRC.
30 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836.
31 David Wilson bounty land grant, Milam B-788, GLO; David Wilson donation land grant, Nacogdoches D-662, Milam, D-781, Duplicate Certificate Voucher 1927, GLO; David Wilson first class headright grant, Travis 1-60, Duplicate Certificate voucher 292, GLO; Henning et al. v. Wren et al., Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, May 27, 1903,
Southwestern Reporter, Vol. 75, 905-911.
32 Goliad Declaration of Independence, December 20, 1835, Goliad, Jenkins, ed., Papers, III: 269; Alamo voting list, February 1, 1836; J. C. Neill Alamo Return, Muster Roll book, 20.
33 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; David Willson Character Certificate, number 542, Nacogdoches Archives, TSL.
As to the true identity of the Alamo David Wilson, Ms. Bette Whitley of Seguin, Texas (Whitley to Lindley, June 20, 1989, Seguin, author’s Alamo files) furnished this writer the following information from J. S. Powell, “A Biographical Sketch of Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Powell.” Mr. Powell wrote that his grandfather, James Powell, born 1774, “came to Tennessee and married a Widow Allen, who had one child, a son. . . . The Widow Allen was of a family by the name of Spence. A sister, another of the Spence family, married a Mr. Wilson. A son, David Wilson, was one of those killed in the Alamo.” Perhaps, Mrs. _____ Spence Wilson’s son was the true Wilson at the Alamo.
34 Blake Transcriptions, LXI: 166.
35 Number 579, “Proceedings of the Land Commissioners,” RHRD, #114, ETRC.
A second record of the Sewell testimony is found in a large ledger book titled A Book Containing the applicant’s name and the evidence of his or her residence in the county, Nacogdoches, Texas June, 1835 in the archives of the Nacogdoches County Courthouse, Nacogdoches, Texas. Those records were published in Carolyn Reeves Ericson, Nacogdoches Headrights, 22. The entries in both the ledger book and the Ericson book show that the Sewell witnesses were John Dorsett and Adolphus Sterne. No Louis Rose is identified as a witness for the Sewell estate. Either Blake made a huge mistake in his note taking or he misrepresented the Sewell application to include Rose as a witness.
36 Telegraph and Texas Register, March 24, 1836; Muster Roll book, 20-28, 104; Alamo voting list, February 1, 1836; John Chenoweth’s Muster Roll, February 1836. See Chapters Three and Four for the story of the March 4, 1836 reinforcement of the Alamo.
Alamo Traces Page 29