Alamo Traces (13 page)

In the case of James Hannum, the name “Hannum” or a variant is not found on any of the Alamo lists that Williams investigated. Just how Williams came up with this name remains a mystery. Nevertheless, she claimed that private James Hannum, aged twenty-one died at the Alamo. Her sources were “Milam, 1212; Refugio, 154; I Milam, 53, 202.”
⁷⁷

First class headright grant Milam 202 was issued to Lucian Hannum, a single man, rather than James Hannum. Lucian was identified as deceased, but the file does not identify him as an Alamo defender. Bounty grants Milam 1212 and Refugio 154 were indeed issued to the heirs of James Hannum. Milam 1212 reported that Hannum died while in the service of Texas and identified him as a private in Captain Philip Dimmitt's company, a unit that was stationed in Goliad. Refugio bounty grant 154
and Milam headright 53 contain no data that identifies Hannum as an Alamo victim. Also, James Hannum's age is not found in any of the grant documents. Lastly, Dimmitt's morning report for December 14, 1835, reports: “REMARK - DIED - This Morning James Hannum, Private.”
⁷⁸

Likewise, Jesse B. Bowman, Jesse G. Thompson, George Brown, James Brown, and Charles H. Clark are alleged Alamo victims whose Alamo deaths are not supported by the sources cited by Williams.

An examination of Williams's Jesse B. Bowman information further reveals her methodology. She wrote: “BOWMAN, JESSE B.: Rank, private. Sources: I Lamar, 109; I Bowie, 119; I Red River 670; Court of Claims Vouchers, No. 17, File (A-B).”
⁷⁹

Again there are a number of problems with Williams's alleged Bowman sources. The three first class headright files involve one grant that was obtained under Red River County certificate number 538. The patent files identify the assignee as “Jesse B. Boman.” The Red River County clerk returns, however, show the name as Jesse T. Bowman, who arrived in Texas in March 1835. Nevertheless, the three files contain no mention of Boman or Bowman dying at the Alamo and contain no data that could be interpreted to mean he died at the Alamo.
⁸⁰

There is no Court of Claims file for Jesse B. Bowman or a variant of the name. Also, the name Jesse B. Bowman or a variant is not found on the government's muster rolls. The only evidence Williams found of a Bowman dying at the Alamo is the name “J. B. Bowman,” which appears on a list that reports the names that were on the first Alamo monument, which was destroyed in 1881. She, however, cited no evidence that proved J. B. Bowman was Jesse B. Bowman, or other evidence to show that Jesse B. died at the Alamo. Yet, Williams said she had verified every name on her final list with other official evidence.
⁸¹

Analysis of Williams's source material for Jesse G. Thompson is similar to the Jesse B. Bowman situation. Williams claimed that her primary sources for Thompson's death at the Alamo were: “Bexar, 519; Fort Bend, 51, 53; Colorado, 97; C. M. S. R. No. 7093;
Court of Claims Vouchers
, No. 954, File (S-Z); Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 28 ( ______ Thompson is given).”
⁸²

Bounty land grants Bexar 519, Fort Bend 51, and Fort Bend 53 were issued to “Jesse Thompson,” a different man, not Jesse G. Thompson, and contain no data that reports an Alamo death for Thompson. Bexar 519, however, does report that Thompson served in the Texian army
from March 7, 1836, to June 7, 1836. Colorado 97 was issued to Jesse G. Thompson and contains no claim of his death at the Alamo. Bounty grant Milam 1512, however, was issued to Jesse G. Thompson for fighting in the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. The C. M. S. R. No. 7093 claim shows that Jesse G. Thompson received his last pay for military service on May 30, 1836. In sum, not one of the documents cited by Williams identifies Jesse G. or Jesse Thompson as an Alamo soldier. To the contrary, the records show that “Jesse” and “Jesse G.” were separate men, both of whom were living after the fall of the Alamo. The muster rolls identify a man named Thompson as having died at the Alamo, but his first name remains to be discovered.
⁸³

In regard to George Brown, Williams claimed he was a thirty-six-year-old private, born in England, who resided in Gonzales. Her sources for those claims were: “I Liberty, 317; Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 256. The muster rolls are not definite for this name. They give merely ‘_______ Brown.' The records show four George Browns in the Texan army in 1836, but the headright files and C. M. S. R. No. 728, show that but one of them died at the Alamo.” An examination of the muster rolls shows that the name “Brown” does not appear on page two. The name “Browne,” however, is found on page three. There is no page 256. The last page of the Muster Rolls book is 255.
⁸⁴

The first class headright grant for Liberty 317 was issued to Mrs. George Brown and contains no data that reports the death of a “George Brown” at the Alamo. Also, the file does not give Mr. Brown's age, rank, birthplace, or Texas residence. There are two C. M. S. R. claims identified as 728. The first originated on July 4, 1836, and was authorized by George W. Poe for D. B. Posey for military service and supplies. The second originated on July 30, 1836, and was authorized by Captain A. G. W. Pierson for Albert G. Perry for military services. This investigator was unable to locate a military claim in the name of George Brown for service or death at the Alamo.
⁸⁵

The situation with James Brown is similar to that of George Brown. Williams claimed that James was a thirty-six-year-old private from Pennsylvania. Her sources were: “Bexar, 962; I Nacogdoches, 399, 681; I Washington, 193; Muster Rolls, pp. 2, 20, 256 (the muster rolls give only the last name); James E. Winston, ‘Pennsylvania and the Independence of Texas,'
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, XVIII, 266;
Telegraph and Texas Register
, March 24, 1836; the
Register of Spanish Archives
, General
Land Office, shows that this man registered in De Leon's Colony, April 17, 1835.”
⁸⁶

Bounty grant Bexar 962 was issued to James Bowie, not James Brown. First class headright Nacogdoches 399 was issued to Henry B. Rodney. First class Nacogdoches 681 was issued to Philip Mason. There is no first class headright Washington 193. The last first class grant for the Washington land district is 92. The James E. Winston article does not identify Brown as being from Pennsylvania. Winston only stated that reports of the fall of the Alamo appeared in the Philadelphia newspapers in April 1836. According to Winston one of those articles claimed that a man named “Browne” had died at the Alamo. The
Telegraph and Texas Register
of March 24, 1836, only listed a “Browne.” A man named James Brown did obtain a land grant in De Leon's Colony in 1835, but none of Williams's other sources identify this man as having died at the Alamo. Nor do any of the sources give the man's age and rank. Also, despite the fact that Williams's muster roll page numbers for the name Brown are not valid, it appears she used the same single listing of the name of Brown to refer to both James Brown and George Brown. If James was “Browne,” then George could not have been “Browne,” and vice versa.
⁸⁷

Nevertheless, a man named Brown appears to have died at the Alamo. He was Robert Brown, whom Travis mentioned in a letter to Sam Houston. Travis wrote: “Lieutenant Simmons of cavalry acting as infantry, Captains Carey, Dickinson and Blair of the artillery, rendered essential service, and Charles Despallier and Robert Brown gallantly sallied out and set fire to houses which afforded the enemy shelter, in the face of the enemy fire.”
⁸⁸

Williams acknowledged that Robert had been in the Alamo. She, however, believed, without any solid evidence, that he had departed the compound as a courier. She wrote: “The registers at the Land Office list but one Robert Brown in the Texan army in 1836. . . . he was a single man who came to Texas in October, 1835, and that he rendered service during the San Jacinto campaign by guarding baggage at Harrisburg.” This man's army discharge, however, shows that he is not the Alamo Robert Brown. The document shows that the “San Jacinto” Robert B. joined the Texian army on March 5, 1836, and was discharged on June 5, 1836. Thus, it appears that the name “Browne” in the Muster Rolls book refers to Robert Brown.
⁸⁹

Just as Williams had ignored conclusive evidence about Robert Brown's death at the Alamo, she turned away from the evidence that gave the location of Charles Clark's demise. She reported that Clark was Charles H. Clark, a “private; native of Missouri, came to Texas about November, 1835, probably with the New Orleans Grays. He was a single man, and his heir, a nephew, John C. (Charles) Clark, applied for lands due to him in December, 1837.” She claimed her sources were: “Milam, 1425; Travis, 648; I Robertson, 1435;
Court of Claims Vouchers
, 891.”
⁹⁰

An examination of Williams's Clark sources reveals a different picture than the one she presented. Court of Claims file 1549 (
Court of Claims Vouchers
, 891) reports that Clark had been a member of Captain Thomas H. Breece's company of New Orleans Greys and was killed at Goliad with Fannin. The two bounty grants, Milam 1425 and Travis 648, were issued for Clark's death at Goliad, not the Alamo. Robertson first class grant 1435 does not exist.
⁹¹

James Robertson is another example of Williams's egregious misrepresentation of sources. Williams claimed:

Land grants Goliad 227 and Bexar 1917 were issued to J. B. Robertson, who was still living after the revolution. Fannin 1304 was issued to J. W. Robertson for military service from February 1, 1836, to May 1, 1836. Page 96 of the Lost Book of Harris County does not contain an entry that reports that a James Robertson died in the second battle for San Antonio. Also, this man was not a member of a unit commanded by Blas P. Despallier. Robertson served in Captain Peyton Splann's company during the siege and storming of Bexar in 1835. In regard to “Captain” Blas P. Despallier, there is no page 250 in the Lost Book of Harris County. That book's last page is 141. Page 24 of the Muster Rolls book, which Williams cited, shows Despallier was a private in Captain William G. Cooke's company of New Orleans Greys.
⁹³

Then, the biographical data for many of Williams's correct names are wrong. Probably the best example of her flawed methodology is her evidence concerning Jonathan Lindley. Williams claimed Lindley was “Jonathan L. Lindley,” a thirty-one-year-old Englishman, a Gonzales resident, and member of the Gonzales Thirty-two. The age of thirty-one and birthplace of England appears to have been taken from a muster roll entry for Charles Linley, who died with Fannin at Goliad. Williams said that land grants identified Lindley as a Gonzales resident and a member of the Gonzales reinforcement group. Yet, none of the grants she cited for Lindley contain that data. Nor do any of Williams's sources contain proof that Lindley's middle initial was an “L.”
⁹⁴

As to Jonathan Lindley's true identity, his Quaker family moved from England to Ireland in the late 1600s. The family came to America in 1713 as part of the Irish Quaker immigration of that period. Jonathan was a stock raiser who came to Texas in 1833 from either Illinois or Tennessee. He selected a Mexican land grant in the Vehlein colony in East Texas. He participated in the siege and storming of Bexar as a private in Captain John Crane's company. Afterward, Lindley joined the Bexar garrison as an artilleryman on December 14, 1835.
⁹⁵

Lindley is not the only man for whom Williams's biographical claims fail to hold up under a close inspection. However, the purpose of this chapter is not a total review and correction of every error, fabrication, and fallacious conclusion found in Williams's dissertation. The goal has been the presentation of sufficient evidence to show that Williams's methods were flawed and that her study is unreliable.

Still, one important question remains. Just how did Williams's Alamo study become so flawed? Her methods and her post-publication attitude suggest that she did not pursue her graduate work with a single goal of searching for the truth and new knowledge. After obtaining her doctoral degree at a public institution and having her study published in the
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, she saw her Alamo defender list as her personal property, instead of a scholarly contribution to Texas and United States history. Also, with the Daughters of the Republic of Texas's acceptance of the roster, Williams's actions indicate that she seems to have appointed herself as the gatekeeper of the Alamo honor roll.
⁹⁶

In 1939 George P. Carrel asked the DRT's Alamo Committee to add the name of Nathaniel Massie Kerr to the Alamo list. Nathaniel was the
brother of defender Joseph Kerr. Nathaniel died of some unknown illness on or about February 19, 1836, four days before Santa Anna's centralist army stormed into San Antonio. Joseph Kerr died in the final assault on March 6. Initially, the Alamo Committee was going to add Nathaniel Kerr to their defender list.
⁹⁷

Williams quickly killed the idea. She wrote: “. . . I think Nathaniel Kerr was as true a hero as his brother; he paid the same supreme price – His life. But according to my historical training, I am compelled to exclude his name from my roll. . . . Moreover, if we here in Texas begin to distort our historical judgment to appease our sentiment, we should have to enroll hundreds of names on battle muster rolls without having any actual data for so doing.”
⁹⁸