Alamo Traces (37 page)

36
W. P. Zuber to General William Steele, September 14, 1877, Iola, Grimes County, AJC-TSL.

37
Ibid.

38
Zuber, “An Escape,” 81.

39
Travis to Convention, March 3, 1836; Williamson to Travis, March 1, 1836.

40
Williamson to Travis, March 1, 1836.

41
William B. Travis to Jesse Grimes, March 3, 1836, Bexar, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, IV: 504-505.

42
“Testimony of Mrs. Hannig,” September 23, 1876.

43
Zuber, “An Escape,” 83.

44
Almonte, “Private Journal,” 20; Jose Enrique de la Pena, Campaign Diary manuscript, 13, Jose Enrique de la Pena Collection, Box 2J146, CAH. This 109-page manuscript has never been translated or published. The handwriting appears to be identical to a sample of Pena's handwriting found in an authentic Pena document in the Mexican Military Archives. Historian Jack Jackson first discovered this new Pena document in July 2000 but was unable to obtain a copy. This investigator, with the important assistance of Lee Spencer-While of Freer, Texas, obtained a copy of the Pena document.

45
Almonte, “Private Journal,” 20; Filisola,
History
, II: 170-171.

46
Zuber, “An Escape,” 84; Zuber,
Eighty Years
, 253.

47
Douglas P. Hyatt interview, June 11, 1996. Mr. Hyatt, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, who served in World War II through the Vietnam War, informed this investigator that a day's march for a modern infantryman is fifteen miles.

48
Zuber,
Eighty Years
, 253; Houston to James W. Fannin Jr., March 11, 1836, Gonzales, Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, V: 52; J. H. Kuykendall, “Recollections of the Campaign,” edited by Eugene C. Barker,
The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association
, IV: 292; Webb, Carroll, and Branda, eds.,
Handbook
, II: 514-515.

49
Zuber to Steele, September 14, 1877. Because a copy of Steele's letter to Zuber cannot be found in the Texas State Library and Archives, just how Steele obtained his information from Susanna Hannig is uncertain. Steele may have interviewed her or obtained his data from records on hand at that time.

50
Zuber to Steele, September 14, 1877.

51
“Testimony of Mrs. Hannig,” September 23, 1876. See Chapter Nine for a detailed explanation of Lt. Colonel James C. Neill's departure from the Alamo.

52
Zuber, “The Escape of Rose,” 1.

53
Ibid., 3.

54
Webb, Carroll, and Branda, eds.,
Handbook
, I: 501, II: 665.

55
Zuber, “The Escape of Rose,” 4.

56
Travis to Convention, March 3, 1836; Almonte, “Private Journal,” 19-20; Pena, Campaign Diary, 13.

57
William P. Zuber, “Last Messenger From the Alamo,”
The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association
, V: 263.

58
Ibid., 264.

59
Ibid., 266.

60
John W. Smith and William Lindsey testimony for James L. Ewing heirs, first class headright certificate, number 475, Bexar Land District Clerk Returns, GLO.

61
Townsend to Adriance, February 26, 1836; “Testimony of Mrs. Hannig,” September 23, 1876; Joseph D. Clements affidavit, Joseph D. Clements file, AMC-TSL; Davis,
Three Roads
, 416; P. Caldwell to William Patton, May 30, 1837, Camp Lavaca, William Patton file, AMC-TSL. William Patton appears to have entered the Alamo with Crockett, but he has never been identified as having died at the Alamo. The William Patton Texian army discharge shows that he served in the army from June 21, 1836, to May 30, 1837. This Patton should not be confused with Captain William H. Patton, who had an infantry company at the Alamo but did not die there.

62
Richard Penn Smith,
Col. Crockett's Exploits and Adventures in Texas
(1836; reprint: New York: Nafis & Cornish; Philadelphia: John B. Perry, 1845), 200.

63
L. L. Cunningham quote is found in George Alfred Hill,
The Centennial Celebration of the Battle of San Jacinto
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936), 8.

64
Holley,
Interviews
, 20. The story of Houston's line in the sand at Columbus is somewhat verified by another Houston statement concerning his soldiers' readiness before the Battle of San Jacinto. The statement comes from Houston's February 28, 1859, U.S. Senate speech, as quoted in Sherman,
Defense of Gen. Sidney Sherman
, 8. Houston said: “After the men had taken refreshments, the rolls were called and it was found that a good many men had sore feet, and some were sick and had
pale faces
[italics added]; after deducting these we had only five hundred and forty (540) effective men.”

Sidney Sherman answered Houston's statement with these words: “Fellow soldiers of San Jacinto, many years have elapsed since we met on the battlefield, and many of our companions have gone down to the grave. But those who survive! How do your brave hearts respond to this slander? which of you had
sore feet
? which of you all feigned to
be sick
? and who had
pale faces
on that glorious day? Will you not, one and all reply, if there was one who faltered on that day, or at any period before, it was the Commander-in-Chief?”

For the first thirty-eight years of the twentieth century, William P. Zuber's story of Moses Rose's alleged escape from the Alamo was an unsubstantiated tale accepted by few historians. Now, in the early years of the twenty-first century, Zuber's story is accepted by many historians, writers, and Alamo enthusiasts as a “particle” in the Alamo “body of truth.”

In 1989 the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, the Alamo overseers, stamped the Rose yarn as the truth with the installation of a brass rod in the flagstone in front of the Alamo chapel to represent Travis's sacrificial line of courage. Also, the story has been incorporated in the history talk that is given to Alamo visitors. The organization's actions demonstrate that attitudes toward Rose and Travis's alleged line in the sand have traveled from disregard to acceptance during the past century. Why the change?
²

Acceptance of the Rose tale as the truth occurred because of the discovery of documents that seem to verify Zuber's story of Moses Rose. The first evidence came from Nacogdoches land grant records that archivist R. B. Blake discovered in the 1930s. This is the documentation that writer Walter Lord described as “amazing evidence.” He wrote: “It
showed convincingly that there was indeed a Louis Rose, that he had been in the Alamo during the siege, and that his testimony was accepted by the local Board of Land Commissioners in deciding claims filed on behalf of six Alamo victims.”
³

Robert Bruce Blake, a former printer and small-town newspaper publisher, was a court reporter when he found the documents that he interpreted in a way that suggested Louis Rose, a resident of Nacogdoches, was Moses Rose of the Zuber story. He introduced the new evidence in a paper he delivered at the 1938 meeting of the Texas State Historical Association. The presentation impressed J. Frank Dobie, who convinced Blake to turn the paper into an article for the Texas Folklore Society's publication. Blake, with Dobie's assistance, wrote “A Vindication of Rose and His Story,” which appeared in a collection of folklore articles titled
In the Shadow of History
in 1939.
⁴

In regard to the Alamo defenders that Louis Rose gave testimony about, Blake wrote: “Taking these applications in the order in which they appear on the docket of that board, in the case of F. H. K. Day, Lewis Rose testified that he ‘died with Travis in the Alamo.' In the application of John Forbes, administration of M. B. Clark, Rose ‘states he saw him a few days before the fall of the Alamo.' In the application of the ‘Heirs of John Blair, decd., by J. Lee, administrator,' the testimony of Louis Rose is even more specific, when he states that he ‘left him in the Alamo 3 March, 1836.' Again, in the case of Charles Haskell, Rose testified that he ‘knew him four years, supposes him killed in the Alamo.' In the application of ‘The Heirs of David Wilson,' Rose testified that he ‘knew him before the 2nd May 1835, was in the Alamo when taken.' And finally, in the application of ‘The Heirs of Marcus Sewell,' Louis Rose stated that he ‘knew him in the Alamo and left him there three days before it fell.' ”
⁵

Old stone fort at Nacogdoches

Photo courtesy of Texas State Library and Archives Commission

At first glance, this does indeed seem to be unassailable corroboration of Zuber's escape story. But Blake's article, despite its acceptance by historians and writers, does not reflect the true nature of the evidence. Blake's notes and transcriptions differ in crucial ways from the
primary
source materials of the Louis Rose land grant testimony.

In evaluating the Louis Rose evidence and Blake's presentation of it, two questions must be addressed. Was Rose a creditable and truthful witness? Then, because the world only knows of the Louis Rose evidence through Blake's interpretation, one must ask: Is Blake's study a professional and creditable work?

Blake believed Rose was creditable and presented his evidence in a way that, with a superficial examination, appears to support the conclusion that Louis Rose was Moses Rose, who escaped from the Alamo as reported by William P. Zuber. Walter Lord's faith in the testimony notwithstanding, the evidence does not show “convincingly” that Louis Rose was in the Alamo. On the other hand, Lord and other individuals' acceptance of the Louis Rose statements being proof positive that Louis was Moses demonstrates their extremely low threshold for historical proof and accuracy. Just because Louis Rose made statements that identified a number of men as Alamo defenders does not mean he was in the Alamo and left. He may have lied. He might have been mistaken. He may have had knowledge of the men being in the Alamo for a reason or reasons other than having been in the fort himself.

Nor does the Rose testimony verify Zuber's Moses Rose story. Both sources stand alone. The only elements the two sources have in common are the name “Rose” and the date of “March 3, 1836.” Blake and other believers simply assume that because Zuber said Moses Rose left the Alamo on March 3 and Louis Rose reported that he left two men in the
Alamo on March 3 that Moses and Louis were the same man. Moses Rose supporters, knowing that proving a negative is very hard, often argue there is no conclusive evidence that proves a man named Moses Rose did not escape the Alamo on March 3, 1836. The previous Rose chapter, however, addressed that question. Also, there is solid and sufficient evidence that suggests Louis Rose's 1838 statements may not be the truth or they may represent an Alamo situation for Rose that is different from the one described by Blake.

First, Blake's presentation of the Louis Rose evidence is compromised by Blake's failure to include in his article all of the relevant Rose data he had found in the land grant materials. Blake claimed: “In no instance was the testimony of Rose rejected as lacking in credibility.” Evidence from Blake's papers, however, reveals that Blake, early in his investigation, found evidence that in one case Rose's testimony appears to have been rejected because it was untrue.
⁶

The evidence of a Rose rejection is from the second application in which Louis Rose gave testimony for an alleged Alamo defender. The man was Henry Teal, a longtime and well-known resident of Nacogdoches. An early Blake research list, based on post-revolution land grant testimony, contains an entry that reads: “HENRY TEAL, [1] emigrated in 1835, [2] single man, [3] died with Travis in the Alamo. #140.” A second Blake list identified “William S. Blount. A. [Albert] Emanuel and Lewis Rose” as the witnesses for the Teal headright application. It appears that, given the order of the data and the witnesses, Rose furnished the Alamo death statement.
⁷

Blake's article made no mention of finding Rose's testimony concerning Teal. Blake had a powerful reason for ignoring the Teal data when he went to press. Teal had been a member of Thomas J. Rusk's company at the siege of Bexar in 1835. Teal was in Nacogdoches from February 18 to March 5, when he left with his company to join the main army. Teal and his men reached Houston's army on March 23, while the army was camped on the Colorado River. Teal remained in the army until the fall of 1837, when he was shot and killed while sleeping in his tent at Camp Independence. Rose's claim that Teal had “died with Travis in the Alamo” probably confused Blake because it appears to be conclusive proof that Rose may have lied or been mistaken in the testimony he gave to the land board. And there is other evidence that supports that conclusion.
⁸