Why Did Davy Crockett Surrender 140 Years After the Alamo Fell?

It was a Sunday afternoon at my Grandma Lucille's house.  I was sitting in the recliner, reading the Wichita Falls newspaper when I found a story about one of my favorite historical figures - Davy Crockett.  Like most boys, especially Texans, I was fascinated by Crockett.  I remember driving Mrs. Armstrong crazy at the Gruver Public Library finding books about Crockett when I was in second grade.  Oddly enough, I don't remember ever seeing the Disney movies starring Fess Parker.  They were released before my time.  I did see the movie starring John Wayne as Crockett several times.  If only he had made it to the armory with the torch!
Most of my knowledge about the siege of the Alamo came from books.  I read everything I could find from the time I was able to read through now.  I even read Crockett's autobiography when I was in Jr. High.  So I knew about Davy Crockett.  He lived in a log cabin, first in Kentucky, and later in Tennessee.  He became famous as a hunter, explorer, and especially as a storyteller.  Even though he wasn't born Texan, he definitely mastered the art of the tall tale.  My favorite was his claim that he could stare at a raccoon until it would just give up and come out of a tree.  Once he mistook a knothole for a raccoon's eyes.  He stared at it for hours before realizing his mistake.  In fact, he stared at it for so long that the edges of the knothole were worn smooth.

I knew that he had been elected to Congress by Tennessee voters and was a follower of fellow Tennessean,  President Andrew Jackson.  Only recently did learn about his falling out with Jackson over Jackson's Indian Removal Act.  He left Tennessee for Texas after losing his bid for reelection.  He led a group of Tennessee volunteers to the Alamo, where they joined Texas revolutionaries in the defense of the old mission.  Of course, I knew that there were no Texan survivors of the siege at the Alamo.  And that they died fighting.  The story of the battle and the defender's fall came from history texts that referred to newspaper stories from the time of the battle and diaries of Mexican soldiers and the few civilian survivors of the Alamo.  All told the same story.  The defenders knew that Santa Anna had ordered that all the Texans be killed - "no quarter" would be given.  Numerous accounts told of seeing Crockett's body in the plaza surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.

So, you can imagine how surprised and outraged I was to read the newspaper article saying that Crockett and a few other Texan soldiers surrendered and were executed by Santa Anna's officers.  Where did the newspaper get this information that contradicted all the other accounts of the battle?  Now, I was only about 12 years old and inclined not to believe the new account anyway.  But even a 12 year old was suspicious of a newly discovered diary of a Mexican officer who was not only at the Alamo, but almost every other major event of the Texas revolution.  Then I read that the "diary" had never been authenticated.  It was written on at least five different types of paper, some dating years after Texas' war for independence, all cut to the same size to fit into the bound diary.  Later I read that the officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, was not mentioned in any other account of the battle of the Alamo or any other battle mentioned in his "diary."

Now 35 years after the translation of the diary and its publication under the title, With Santa Anna in Texas:  A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, this is the accepted version of the events at the Alamo.  Why would respected historians change the story based on a very questionable document that contradicts accounts written at the time of the battle?

I think there are a couple of possibilities.  The first is to further demonize Santa Anna.  He was incompetent, both as a military leader and as president of Mexico.  His cruelty was demonstrated in his orders to take no prisoners, not only at the Alamo, but at other battles such as Goliad.  Taking no prisoners in battle is cruel enough, but to execute survivors of a 13 day siege goes beyond cruel.  I'm not sure what purpose would be served by adding more evidence supporting Santa Anna's already wretched reputation.

So, how does the revised history change the view of Crockett?  Even while still alive, he was bigger than life.  He was the epitome of the American ideal of self-reliance and integrity.  He was elected to Congress because his story (both the real story and the tall tales) was already known by almost everyone in America.  As a congressman, he showed his true character.  His first speech mentioned in records of Congress concern an appeal for aid to farmers in Georgia that suffered through a long drought.  His response, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."  He then donated his own money to help the farmers.  What would happen today if members of Congress followed Crockett's lead?

As I mentioned before, one of Crockett's biggest supporters was President Andrew Jackson, a fellow Tennessean.  As president, Jackson advocated some very questionable policies, especially those affecting American Indians.  One of the most controversial was the Indian Removal Act that would move the so-called civilized tribes from their land in Florida and Georgia to reservations further west.  Jackson expected Crockett's support, but Crockett refused to support his president in an action that he believed was wrong.  "I was also a supporter of this administration after it came into power, and until the Chief Magistrate changed the principles which he professed before his election. When he quitted those principles, I quit him. I am yet a Jackson man in principles, but not in name... I shall insist upon it that I am still a Jackson man, but General Jackson is not; he has become a Van Buren man."  His refusal to go against his principles cost him Jackson's support in his reelection campaign in Tennessee and he lost his bid.  His most famous quote came after his defeat, directed to Jackson and Jackson's followers in Congress, "You all may go to hell.  I am going to Texas."   

According to several accounts, Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers had numerous opportunities to escape during the siege of the Alamo.  He and a couple of the volunteers actually did leave one night and led a group of volunteers back into the compound.  So Crockett and the others had the chance to save their own lives, but committed their lives to their cause and actually followed through on their commitment.  I really liked Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of Crockett.  He portrayed Crockett as being trapped by his reputation.  He says to Bowie, "I would like to drop over that wall and just disappear.  But those boys are watching me.  What would they do if I left?"  He led by example and felt responsible for his volunteers.  The last entry in his diary says it all.  "Pop, pop, pop! Bom, bom, bom! throughout the day. No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever." 5 March 1836.

I think it's obvious from his quotes and his actions why current politicians and leaders would try to diminish Crockett's image.  In fact one of the sites I looked at in my research was from Texas A&M university.  They said that Crockett was one of the country's first celebrities.  "Sort of an 1800's Paris Hilton."  Would any of our current leaders compare favorably to Crockett?  As I said in yesterday's post, only by knowing what others have done, will we know what we are capable of doing.