“The building was connected with the church proper by high cedar palisades and I can remember well some of these still standing. They were gradually whittled down by campers who spent the night in the open space of the plaza.
Used as Barracks
“My informants told me that not a single Texan fell on top or inside of the building where the long wall has been reconstructed running north and south from Houston street to the Alamo chapel. The building which stood on the garden site was occupied by a Spanish garrison when Texas still belonged to Spain and the few dismal chambers which were connected with the building were not used as places for either nuns or priests to do penance but were used entirely as prisons for refractory soldiers.
“They further stated that after the Battle of the Alamo Mexican soldiers began cutting off the heads of the Texans, but they were soon stopped by Mexican officers.
Bodies Cremated
“It became imperative by reason of the already existing unsanitary conditions to bury the dead as quickly as possible, but to do this was slow proceeding by reason of the rock bottom which is all around the Alamo. It was thereupon decided to cremate the bodies and a great funeral pyre served this gruesome purpose, which took place on ground located from Blum street south across the block to the Alameda, now East Commerce street, including the site where now stands the Halff building on the corner of Commerce and Rusk streets.
“I was told by Menchaca, Losoya and a noted Mexican woman by the name of [Madam] Candelaria that the Mexican officers felt remorse for the soldiers having mutilated the dead bodies of the Texans and those were buried where the post office now stands.
“Those particular bodies were not burned. They were not buried where they fell, but were buried at the post office where there is a gravel formation which made the burials much easier. I can recall when the basement of the post office was excavated over 50 years ago, that 13 or 14 headless bodies were found at that time, which would confirm the statements made to me.”11
Analysis
First, this Alamo account from a 1935 San Antonio Express article contains data not found in other accounts. Second, Herff’s informants appear to have been Antonio Menchaca, a member of James Bowie’s Alamo unit; Juan Loysoa, an Alamo noncombatant; and Louis Castanon, a member of Juan N. Seguin’s siege of Bexar company. Peter Gallagher, the fourth informant, served in the Texian army in the spring and summer of 1836. In addition, he was a member of the Santa Fe expedition and a member of Jack Hays’s San Antonio ranger company. Thus, given their backgrounds, the informants were probably reliable.12
Most historians and writers place the Alamo’s storage place for powder in the chapel, rather than the low barrack. It makes sense that the powder would have been stored in several places so it would be near the guns that were spread out on the walls. Also, no other account claims that a number of the defenders were buried. Nor are the decapitations mentioned in any other Alamo account. The account also has a good description of the size of the low barrack and identifies the wood that was used to build the palisades between the chapel and the low barrack.
[5]
Jon Winfield Scott Dancy Diary
March 29, 1837
Mr. Smith walked with us to the Alamo which is on the eastern side of the river and explained to us Santa Anna’s plan of attack. He showed where Bowie & where Travis fell; and where the Americans made the last bold stand after they were driven from the walls. It was in a room near the old church. The Alamo is now in ruins. Much of the wall is still standing, but a portion is entirely torn down. It looks like the tomb of those brave men who were sacrificed for the liberty of Texas. He also pointed out the spot where they were burned. A few fragments of bones mixed with ashes are all that remains. Crockett sleeps with the heroes of the Alamo.
Mr. Smith also showed where and how the Americans entered the town in 1835. The stone houses which they occupied are still marked by musket and cannon balls. Under the command of the brave Col. Milam and after his death continued the attack they advanced until the town was taken. He showed where Milam fell and was buried. It is a little strange that San Antonio and its vicinity, one of the most beautiful and delightful places upon earth, a place where a man might so easily enjoy as many of the blessings of life as this world can yield; it is strange that this place so lovely, should be the scene of more bloodshed, than any other perhaps on the American continent.
March 30, 1837
Here you behold the fertile valley of the San Antonio – spread out before you like a map surrounded by a range of beautiful eminences, which the river comes leaping by the Alamo and the town over a succession of rapids and flowing on to the south where the hills seem to have left an opening for it to escape and make its way to the great reservoir of waters.13
Analysis
This account is interesting because it allows us, in a small way, to see San Antonio in the same way the Alamo defenders might have seen the city. Also, the Dancy visit to San Antonio occurred a little over a month after Colonel Juan N. Seguin had collected ashes from two of the three burn sites and had buried the ashes with military honors at the third burn location.14 It would have been nice, however, if Dancy had given more exact detail about what Smith had told him.
[6]
Jesse Burnam Claim
State of Texas
County of Lavaca
Before me the undersigned personally came Jesse Burnam who states upon oath – That during the war between Texas & Mexico his home & outhouses situated in the County of Fayette were burned by order of Genl Sam Houston – by Col [George W.] Hockley & Capt [William H.] Patton. Affiant being absent at the time – And his house on the Navadad [sic] [River] was also burnt during his absence by order of Gen. Houston, by Capt [Benjamin F.] Smith.
That subsequently he had this following conversation with the parties who had set fire to his premises –
Question by affiant to Capt Patton –
I was told you burned my possessions on the Colorado River in Fayette County – I shall come to know the truth of it.
Answer – I did.
Question – By what authority?
Answer – I considered it direct from Gen. Houston – Col. Hawkly [sic] second in command came galloping up and told me to put every thing in flames and he assisted me in lighting the fires.
Question – Will you give me a certificate to that effect?
Answer – I will.
A certificate embodying the foregoing statement was made by Capt Patton and given to me.
Questions by Affiant to Capt Smith.
I am told you burnt my possessions on the Navadad – Colorado Co.
Answer I did.
Question – By what authority?
Answer – I had a direct order from Genl Houston – He told me to keep before [General Martin Perfecto de] Cos’s division and lay the country in waste.
Question – Will you give me a certificate to that effect?
Answer – I will.
And thereupon Genl [Edward] Burleson at my request wrote the certificate which was signed by Capt Smith.
I made claim under this certificate to the Texas Congress of 1840 for relief and the certificates were filed – The action taken upon my claim will appear by reference to the congressional journals of 1840. The claim went over with unfinished business and the certificates were lost.
After the destruction of my property, I had two men to value the same and go before a justice of peace & make oath to evaluation. This certificate was also filed with my claim & was lost with other certificates. The amount of my claim appears upon Journal of Congress of 1840.
Sworn and subscribed before me this 26th day of March 1874, witness my hand and seal, March 1874, Edward Thomas Notary Public, Travis
Jesse X Burnam
Mark15
Analysis
Jesse Burnam operated a ferry on the Colorado River between La Grange and Columbus. His claim is further evidence that General Sam Houston did give orders to burn
all the property of the Texas colonists between Gonzales and San Jacinto.
[7]
Gonzales Letter from 1835 Ayuntamiento Minutes
To Col. [Domingo de] Ugartechea explaining a transaction or affair which occurred in Gonzales between a citizen of this Municipality [and] a party of soldiers passing through sd town.
Excellent Sir
The Ayuntamiento of the Municipality of Gonzales in order to preserve a good understanding between the Authorities of the country and the citizens of their Municipality have taken upon themselves the task of informing your Excellency of a circumstance which occurred here a few days ago. The facts alluded to are as follows – A party of soldiers amounting to perhaps twenty five men (including officers) arrived in this place on Thursday [September 9, 1835] last and remained until the succeeding day, during which time they took up their residence or quarters in a building in which Mr. [Adam] Zumwalt keeps a store. A citizen Jesse McCoy [Second lieutenant of the Gonzales militia company] without any intention of interfering or interrupting those Soldiers, not knowing anything of their regulations or not thinking of their presence attempted to pass them on his way into the Store room, a Soldier met him and attempted to push him aside without as he says and thinks speaking to him; he still without noticing the movement of the cause attempted to move forward when he received a violent blow from the Soldier with his gun giving him a severe wound on the head and causing the blood to flow profusely. Desperate consequences would have followed but for the interference of some peaceable and well disposed citizens who were conscious that a small matter might produce great evil in these excited times, and they thought that an individual had better suffer injustice and outrage than that a whole community should involve themselves by the acts which the excitation of the moment might occasion. This representation is not made to your Excellency for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction or revenge for the outrage and insult this offered to one of our citizens but to prevent misrepresentation and consequently a misunderstanding which might arise between the authorities and the people of this Municipality. For your further information we would remark that [the] house spoke of was occupied by the soldiers without any permission from the owner or any other person interested in it.
With sentiments of the highest consideration
We have the honor to be Yours etc.
Andrew Ponton [Alcalde]16
Analysis
The Texas Revolution started on October 2, 1835, at Gonzales. Colonel Ugartechea had sent a small Mexican force to that settlement to obtain a bronze cannon. The six-pounder had been loaned to the colony in 1831 for protection against Indians who often raided the colony. The Texians refused to give the gun to the soldiers, advising them that the colonists were at war with the centralist government. The centralist troops were given the choice of joining the federalist force at Gonzales or they could “Come and Take It [the cannon]” and suffer the consequences. The Mexican force decided to remain centralist and started back to San Antonio. The Texians attacked the centralists the following morning.
Prior to that incident, the Green De Witt colonists had been very loyal Mexican citizens and were not part of the War Party of Texas. On July 7, 1835, Edward Gritten had written Colonel Ugartechea and reported that he thought the colonists desired peace, but advised that no soldiers be sent to Texas. On the same date the Gonzales citizens passed a set of resolutions demonstrating their loyalty to the Mexican government. The Gonzales relations with Ugartechea were so good that on August 29 he had asked them to assist the Mexican soldiers in pursuing Tahuacana Indians who had been committing depredations in the area.17 What made the Gonzales colonists go from peaceful and loyal Mexican citizens to revolutionists?
It appears that the Mexican soldier’s attack on Jesse McCoy and Ugartechea’s response to the colony’s report of the incident is what changed the attitude of the Gonzales citizens. Soon after receiving Andrew Ponton’s letter detailing the attack on McCoy, Ugartechea answered the concerns of De Witt colonists by sending soldiers to pick up the Gonzales cannon. At that point it became clear that the Mexican army was up to no good.
[8]
Jose Enrique de la Pena’s Authentic
Handwriting and Signature — Sample A18
[9]
Pena’s Campaign Diary — Sample A19
Pena’s Campaign Diary — Sample B20
Pena’s Campaign Diary — Sample C21
[10]
Pena’s Alleged Memoir — Sample A22
Pena’s Alleged Memoir — Sample B23
Pena’s Alleged Memoir — Sample C24
Signature Page from the Alleged Memoir’s Prologue —
Sample D25
Analysis
Soon after the University of Texas at Austin library officials obtained the Jose Enrique de la Pena manuscripts, they selected Dr. David Gracy, the Governor Bill Daniel Professor in the university’s Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences, to defend their belief that the Pena documents were not forgeries. Gracy, who is not a certified document examiner, ruled that the handwriting similarities he found in the questioned documents (the Pena memoir manuscript and its prologue letter) and the one known authentic Pena document (Adrian Woll/Pena report, dated June 27, 1836) were sufficient to declare the alleged Pena documents and their Pena signature authentic.26 Dr. Gracy, however, ignored the fact that if a forger had created the Pena memoir manuscript and its prologue letter, there were bound to be handwriting similarities between the authentic handwriting and the alleged handwriting. After all, a forger would have been attempting to replicate the authentic handwriting of Pena. Therefore, it is reasonable that the alleged Pena documents can share handwriting characteristics with Pena’s bona fide handwriting (the Woll/Pena report, dated June 27, 1836, and the Campaign Diary) and still be a forgery.27
In examining the alleged Pena handwriting and signature, Gracy should have not only looked at the similarities that the authentic document and the alleged documents share, but he should have looked at the differences between the authentic Pena handwriting and signature and the alleged Pena handwriting and signature to determine the truth about the alleged Pena documents. He did not do this. He did, however, admit that such an examination was the best approach to proving the authenticity of the alleged Pena documents. Gracy wrote: “. . . the better strategy for demonstrating falsity is to establish the differences between the suspect document and genuine writing of the purported author of the suspect document.” Therefore, let us look at some of the differences found in the authentic document and the alleged Pena documents.28
First, let us examine the authentic writing of Jose Enrique de la Pena found in the three samples in appendix number eight, the report of an interview conducted by General Adrian Woll on June 27, 1836, at Matamoros. Pena served as Woll’s secretary in recording the interview and is so identified in the document. The spacing of the words in Pena’s writing is constricted, with a jammed up appearance. A few words end with loops below the sentence lines and a few other words end with flourishes or swirls above the lines. These loops, swirls, and flourishes, however, do not visually dominate the writing. This description of the authentic Pena handwriting is also true of the three handwriting samples (appendix nine) from Pena’s 109-page Campaign Diary.
Whereas, in the alleged Pena memoir sample pages and the alleged Pena signature page (appendix ten), the word spacing is more spread out and does not appear constricted. Second, the actual length of the words appear to be longer than in the authentic sample and the campaign diary samples. Third, the vertical spacing between the sentences is also greater than in the authentic samples and in the campaign diary samples. Fourth, the loops, swirls, and flourishes that appear below and above the sentence lines dominate the alleged Pena writing. Visually, these writing characteristics practically jump up from the page.
These observations are supported by the number of words that appear on the page samples. The three pages from Pena’s Campaign Diary average 258 and 2
/3 words per page. Whereas, the three pages taken from Pena’s alleged memoir average 165 and 1/3 words per page. Despite the page size being the same in both manuscripts, the authentic Pena averages 93 and 1/3 more words to the page. This comparison appears to hold true for all the pages of the Campaign Diary and the memoir manuscript.29
Ironically, the constricted handwriting found in the authentic Pena documents is more characteristic of handwriting that is forged. Forgery expert Joe Nickell observed: “The forger often unconsciously shrinks the writing of his subject; according to [Charles] Hamilton this is ‘probably because of a psychological desire to conceal his fraud by making it less easy to read.’ ”30
When this situation was pointed out to Dr. James Crisp, the most vocal of the Pena authenticity supporters, he stated that Pena was probably stressed out when he wrote the documents that contain the Woll interview report and the Campaign Diary manuscript. Thus, also suggesting that Pena was not under any stress when he wrote the memoir manuscript. Such a case seems unlikely as Crisp and other Pena supporters believe Pena wrote the memoir manuscript while he was in prison. Whereas, he wrote the diary manuscript while the Mexican army and he were at rest in Matamoros in the summer of 1836.31
Pena, who joined a federalist rebellion in support of the Mexican constitution of 1824, was captured in May 1838 by centralist forces after he surrendered his force at Mazatlan, Mexico. Seeing that he and his men were in an Alamo situation, he decided he was not that committed to Mexican federalism. He was first imprisoned at Guadalajara on May 27, 1838. From that confinement he had a fellow prisoner write a letter for him. Pena’s reason for not writing himself was: “I consider how much our friends must have felt the event at Mazatlan – I am unable to give you even an idea of it, because so much thinking has affected my nervous system, my brain is not well, and I must rely on a friend to write. . . .”32
Alamo Traces Page 41