Authors: Thomas Ricks Lindley
Williams's words of rejection for Nathaniel Kerr are highly hypocritical, given that when she submitted her dissertation to the University of Texas, she knew that she had identified at least ten men as having died at the Alamo without any valid “data” and had excluded a number of individuals from the roll when the evidence for their inclusion was sufficient. A 1941 Williams letter suggests that she knew exactly what she was doing; that her Alamo list was a ticking time bomb she had to retain control over.
In 1941 Stuart McGregor, editor of the
Texas Almanac
, wrote Williams requesting permission to publish her list in the next edition of the almanac.
99
Williams's answer to McGregor is enlightening. She observed:
. . . Then, what is my point of view? Your letter indicates that you do not understand it. It is simply this. For a hundred years, first one and then anther [person] has mulled around trying to reconstruct a correct list of the men who died at the Alamo, March 6, 1836. After more than three years of hard work, eight months of which time I was constantly at work on the list, I was able to make a list of some 187-189 names. Houston and other contemporaries claim that was the number of men who were killed at the Alamo. My own opinion is that there possibly were others, but I failed to find sufficient proof of the fact. After the publication of this reconstructed list that I had made, I have had many, many letters disputing this or that name. Most of these contentions I have been able to prove erroneous; others I have either not had time to
work on sufficiently to prove or disprove. There are some five or six names that should be added to the main list or probably to the list of couriers. In fact, it is my opinion that the entire list should be carefully and painstakingly worked through. Such a job will require a very great deal of work, a thorough knowledge of the problem, a complete verification of all former lists, or disproving certain names as belonging on the list. This I have done, and I have all the evidence of this. Who ever “brings my list down to date,” will have to do the same thing, not only for all other former lists, but for mine also â that is if his list is historically correct. Because
I cannot vouch for all the names on my list being accurate
[italics added], until I have had the time to do the work that I have indicated as necessary, I have thought,
and I still think
it a pity for it to be published in the Texas Almanac.
100
Some historians might defend Williams by arguing that the graduate work standards of the 1930s were different from today, that her study is no better or worse than others of the period. Perhaps misrepresentation, alteration, and fabrication of data were routine and acceptable behaviors at the University of Texas in the 1930s. That possibility, however, is extremely doubtful. Williams's own words and actions work against her. In the end, she claimed that her list was “an annotated and documented roll of the Alamo victims” when she clearly knew that with many of her defender names that was not the case.
101
On the other hand, as Walter Lord wrote: “Miss Williams did amass a mountain of material.” And to Williams's credit, her study does contain correct information about the Texian Alamo and its defenders. For that she deserves recognition. The Alamo historian must start with her study. Therefore, historians and writers should understand that if they are going to rely on Williams's work, they best verify her sources and conclusions before going to press. Otherwise, depending on what is used from the work, the users will fall into the group described by historian Paul Hutton: “Those who have written on the battle, for the most part, have simply repeated false stories told before in books, articles, and newspaper accounts.”
102
More importantly, because of Williams's methods, the official Alamo honor roll of defenders is flawed. In 1905 the Texas government placed
“custody and care” of the Alamo in the hands of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to “be maintained . . . as a sacred memorial to the heroes who immolated themselves upon that hollowed ground.”
103
Are the Daughters of the Republic of Texas really operating the Alamo as a “sacred memorial” when their official roll honors men who did not die at the Alamo and does not honor men who did die “upon that hallowed ground”?
1
Thomas B. Brewer, “The âOld Department' of History at the University of Texas, 1910-1951,”
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, LXX: 240-241. This article reveals that the teaching of history during Williams's time at UT was a man's game. Despite Williams's Alamo study and her work with Dr. Eugene C. Barker on
The Writings of Sam Houston
, there is no mention of her in the article. A true mistake on the part of Brewer.
2
Dr. Eugene C. Barker statement, September 20, 1931, Amelia Worthington Williams Papers, CAH; hereafter cited as the Williams Papers.
3
L. W. Kemp to Amelia W. Williams, December 4, 1937, Houston, Williams Papers.
4
“Amelia Williams Note,” on back and front of A. W. Grant to Amelia Williams, San Antonio, March 12, 1936, Williams Papers.
5
The Dallas Morning News
, January 12, 1936.
6
San Antonio Express Evening News
, June 16, 1939.
7
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, XCVI: 419, Bill Groneman,
Alamo Defenders: A Genealogy, The People and Their Words
(Austin: Eakin Press, 1990), 4-125; Ron Tyler, Douglas E. Barnett, Roy R. Barkley, Penelope C. Anderson, Mark F. Odintz, eds.,
The New Handbook of Texas
(6 vols.; Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1996); Susan Prendergast Schoelwer, “The Artist's Alamo: A Reappraisal of Pictorial Evidence, 1836-1850,”
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, LCI: 403-456; Tim J. and Terry S. Todish,
Alamo Sourcebook 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Alamo and the Texas Revolution
(Austin: Eakin Press, 1998), 76-91.
8
A. Waldo Jones to Frank H. Wardlaw, August 13, 1956, Atlanta, William I. Lewis file, Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library, San Antonio; hereafter cited as DRTL.
9
Miss Jan Smoot to Kent Biffle, of
The Dallas Morning News
, July 18, 1995, Austin, author's copy.
10
Walter Lord, “Myths and Realities of the Alamo,” in Stephen B. Oates, ed.,
The Republic of Texas, by the editors of the American West and the Texas State Historical Association
(Palo Alto, California: American West Publishing Company, 1968), 19.
11
Thomas Lloyd Miller, “Mexican-Texans at the Alamo,”
The Journal of Mexican American History
, II: 33. Miller also had praise for Williams: “In spite of the few corrections which have been made to the Williams roll, she made a tremendous historical contribution and all scholars studying the subject must begin with her work.”
12
Richard G. Santos,
Santa Anna's Campaign Against Texas, 1835-1836
(Waco: Texian Press, 1968), 84, n. 88.
13
Harbart Davenport, “Notes on âSiege and Fall of the Alamo' by Amelia Williams,” Williams Papers.
14
Paul Hutton, “Introduction” in Susan Prendergast Schoelwer, with Tom W. Glaser,
Alamo Images
(Dallas: DeGolyer Library and Southern Methodist University Press, 1985), 4.
15
Amelia W. Williams to Morris Sheppard, March 6, 1928, Austin, Williams Papers.
16
Amelia W. Williams, “A Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of Its Defenders,”
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
, XXXVII: 41-42.
17
Examination of Andrew Barsena and Anselmo Bergara, March 11, 1836, Gonzales, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, V: 45-46; E. N. Gray letter, March 11, 1836, Gonzales, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, V: 48-49; C. B. Stewart to Ira R. Lewis, March 16, 1836, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, V: 93; Delores Beeson affidavit, November 3, 1853, Colorado County, Anselmo Bergara file, M & P-TSL; Alexander Horton, “The Life of A. Horton and Early Settlement of San Augustine County,”
The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association
, XIV: 311.
At the time, Houston reported that Ben, Colonel Juan N. Almonte's black cook, brought the pardon proclamation to Gonzales. In his 1858 memoir, Juan N. Seguin said that Bergara and Barcena were members of his company that he had “left for purposes of observation in the vicinity of San Antonio.” In this case Seguin's veracity is doubtful as it is not supported by the other evidence. In regard to his role in the defense of the Alamo, Seguin's self-serving book is often contradicted by his later statements about the Alamo. See Chapters Three and Four for this writer's interpretation of Seguin's role in the defense of the Alamo.
18
Williams, “A Critical Study,” 41-42.
19
A. Briscoe to editor, March 16, 1836,
Red River Herald
, date unknown; B. B. Goodrich to Edmund Goodrich, March 15, 1836, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, V: 81; Houston to Raguet, March 13, 1836. Goodrich, a member of the convention and brother of Alamo defender John C. Goodrich, reported: “Col. Travis, the commander of the fortress, sooner than fall into the hands of the enemy, stabbed himself to the heart and instantly died.”
20
Alamo account,
Telegraph and Texas Register
, San Felipe, March 24, 1836; Gray,
From Virginia
, 137. The informant who described the death struggle to Joe is unknown. Susanna Dickinson may have told Joe of the incident. The death struggle report first appeared in the
T&T Register
, and she was the paper's source for the description. Dickinson was in the Alamo chapel and did not view much of the battle. Thus she would have had to obtain the information from a Mexican soldier, most likely Colonel Juan N. Almonte. On the other hand, Joe may have told the story to Dickinson. Joe's
informant may have been Captain Manuel Barragan, of the Rio Grande Presidial company of cavalry, who captured and saved Joe from being killed.
21
Telegraph and Texas Register
, March 24, 1836.
22
Francisco Ruiz, “Fall of the Alamo and Massacre of Travis and His Brave Associates,”
The Texas Almanac
(Galveston: The Galveston News, 1860), 80-81. See Chapter Eight for additional analysis of the Ruiz account. The evidence indicates that Ruiz was not in San Antonio on March 6. Therefore, the report is not an eyewitness account and cannot be trusted.
23
Doctor Greg Dimmick interview, October 19, 1998, Nixon, Texas. Dimmick is a member of the Houston Archaeological Society. This group has been excavating the route of the Mexican army's April and May 1836 withdrawal in Wharton County for the last four years. Dimmick reported that they have found numerous English Brown Bess musket cartridges comprised of a single musket ball and a number of buckshot pellets, which proves the Mexican soldiers were shooting “buck and ball” loads in their muskets.
24
Ramon Martinez Caro, “Verdadera Idea De La Primera Campana De Texas Y Sucesos Ocurridos Despues De La Accion De San Jacinto” in Carlos E. Castaneda, trans. and ed.,
The Mexican Side of the Texan Revolution
(1928; reprint: Austin and Dallas: Graphic Ideas Incorporated, 1970), 105;
Republica de Tejas Commandencia militar de Galveston Lista de los oficioles mejicanos muertos en la accion de San Jacinto, el 21 ded abril de 1836
, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, VI: 84.
25
El Mosquito Mexicano
, Mexico City, April 5, 1836. The missive from the unknown soldier was dated “Bexar, March 7, 1836.”
26
Williams, “A Critical Study,” 165-166.
27
Ibid., 251-252. A copy of Williams's original study was reviewed to make sure the version in the SWHQ was not a printing error. There was no error.
28
A. L. Harrison file, AMC-TSL.
29
Nacogdoches Enlistments, January 14, 1836, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, IV: 13-14; Evaluation of David Crockett's horse and equipment, January 15, 1836, Nacogdoches, David Crockett file, AMC-TSL.
30
S. Sherman affidavit, transcription copy, April 24, 1836, Headquarters in Camp on Brazos, Williams Papers, CAH. The original Sherman claim could not be located in the archives division of the Texas State Library. Also, there is a problem with the transcription. The HQ of the Texian army on April 24, 1836, was not on the Brazos River. The HQ was near the San Jacinto battleground. Nevertheless, Military Warrant Ledger, call number 304-2511, Archives Division, TSL, contains an entry on pages 37 and 38 for a military supplies and service claim, voucher 203, for A. L. Harrison that was authorized by Sidney Sherman on April 24, 1836.
31
Martin & Clem & Co., July 23, 1836, Summary of Claims dated from October 26, 1835, to March 19, 1836, Martin and Clem & Company file, AMC-TSL; William B. Harris to Martin and Clem, January 23, 1836,
Washington, Quarter Master Records, 401-1227-13, TSL; David Crockett to John Lott, January 23, 1836, Washington-on-the-Brazos, David Crockett file, AMC-TSL; B. A. M. Thomas to John Lott, January 24, 1836, John Lott file, AMC-TSL.
32
William B. Harrison to William Kerr, January 28, 1836, San Felipe, William Kerr file, AMC-TSL; William B. Harrison to John Echols, January 28, 1836, Quarter Master Records, 401-1218-25, TSL; William B. Harrison to James Gotier, January 30, 1836, James Gotier file, AMC-TSL; William B. Harrison to John Eblin, John Eblin file, AMC-TSL; Kenneth Kesselus,
Bastrop County Before Statehood
(Austin: Jenkins Publishing Company, 1986), 183.
33
Sam Houston to Peter Harper, February 9, 1837, Columbia, Peter Harper file, AMC-TSL; David Crockett to Son[-in-law] and Daughter, January 9, 1836, San Augustine, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, III: 453-454; Sam Houston to All Volunteers and Troops for the Aid of Texas in her Conflict, December 27, 1835, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, III: 335; Sam Houston to James Power, December 28, 1835, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, III: 350; Sam Houston Army Order, December 30, 1835, Headquarters, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, III: 373.