Growing up in Texas and attending public school here, we were taught Davy's Crockett's motto: "First make sure you are right, then go ahead". It is a good motto. It speaks to having the humility to consider the fact that you may not be right and that maybe you should not act unless you are likely right about whatever you are acting upon. It also requires what we used to call 'gumption', which is a word I see used differently by people who do not seem to be from Texas.
As I was taught, gumption is the correct mixture of good judgment and assertiveness, so that one can be sure your actions are in the right. Do not be a coward, but do not be foolhardy either. Fools who do not ascertain the facts first end up getting people killed.
You learned your Texanese well, Cynthia. Gumption is one of those great and under appreciated words—a throw back to when we had more folks with gumption.
Santa Anna later in life sailed to New York with a shipment of chicole with which he hoped to make a fortune. He didn’t make his fortune, but the result was the invention of modern-style chewing gum.
My wife and I honeymooned in Mexico many years ago. Whenever we remember those days we say to each other, “Chiclets,” because the number of boys selling gum on the street, yelling, “Chiclets.”
I’m going to write about Crockett and the coonskin cap sometime, but I believe that was an invention of an actor portraying Crockett on stage—he was famous in his lifetime—and not something he actually wore.
Like Boone was a legend in is own time. I live in Boone country, real close to were he settled and died here in missouri. A real good on-going controversy is that of his true burial site. I live about three miles from his first and “true” burial site 😁. There are some compelling stories that it's not Boone buried in Kentucky…his wife yes, but not him. I love it because neither site will dig him up to find out.
Sounds like some Texas related controversies, including whether Crockett died fighting or surrendered as was executed. As far as his burial, he was burned on funeral pyres along with other defenders. Some of which, or so it's claimed, were later gathered and buried in the San Fernando Church in San Antonio. Here a piece I wrote somewhat dealing with that: https://www.yallogy.com/p/juan-segun-buries-the-hero-dead-of-the-alamo
You're correct, Michael. Thank you for the correction. I'll change it immediately. I had been working on a Goliad piece at the same time. I knew both event occurred on Sunday—and that Palm Sunday was when the Goliad Massacre occurred, but transposed it to the fall of the Alamo. Again, I appreciate your careful reading and point out this mistake.
I believe many of the evens described in the de la Peña narrative are accurate, but I'm suspicious of the story concerning Crockett's surrender/capture and execution. Executions took place at the Alamo, and it was probably seven men, but naming Crockett in the narrative given the facts as described about Folio 35 should make us question the authenticity of the story. I'm not saying it's absolutely untrue. But neither should anyone serious about history say it's absolutely true and present it as such. The plain fact is, we'd don't know with any level of historical certainty whether Crockett died fighting or died by execution. It's a mystery that has, of yet, been unresolved.
I appreciate you comments and supporting my endeavors here. Blessings.
Thank you. But the founders of the Republic of Texas did include slavery in a founding document: the Constitution of 1836. But just because it’s in the constitution doesn’t support the claim that it was the reason for the revolution. And as I said, there’s no reason for southern Anglos to shy away from including slavery as the or a reason for rebellion in earlier documents. They didn’t.
I see that Mr. Burnett has basically summarized Adrew J. Torget's argument in "Seeds of Empire." Burnett should have given Torget credit. But that's a different matter.
He tells an interesting story. But I always find it interesting that those who argue that slavery was at the heart of the Texas Revolution never wrestle with at least two central documents signed by representatives from Texas that outline the reasons for armed conflict: The Declaration of Causes for Taking Up Arms Against Mexico (November 1835) and the Texas Declaration of Independence (March 1836). Neither document addresses slavery—not just as a central reason for the revolution, but not even as a tertiary reason.
If slavery were as important to the Texas Revolution as folks like Torget and Burnett claim, why don't they explain why these two documents are silent on the question of slavery? And arguments from silence are not persuasive or legitimate—for example, that the Texans didn't need to include slavery because it was implied. If slavery was so important, and the Mexican government was so anti-slavery (that in itself is more complex than most want to admit), then there would have been no reason not to list slavery as one of the causes of taking up arms or declaring independence—especially given that most of the Anglos in Texas came from southern and slaveholding states.
Give me a compelling argument for the silence of slavery in primary documents, written by the men who were on the ground and fought the Texas Revolution, then I'm happy to change my position. I'm persuadable because I value the truth. But you and others have to deal with facts as they were, not as you wished them to be or the stories you say they were.
That was for like 20 years. Why fixate on that exact moment in time? What about before that when Spain had it for much longer? Don’t they have more of a claim? We can play this game all day long, it’s a vapid attempt to conceal the bottom line that you hate America.
William Morrison has been banned from commenting on Y'allogy for his use of foul language, which I will not tolerated nor allowed. All my readers are free to disagree, but must do so agreeable—persuasively. Theodore Roosevelt said, "Profanity is the parlance of fools." The world is full of fools. They are not welcomed here.
See "Death of Legend - the Myth and Mystery Surrounding the Death of Davy Crockett."
Growing up in Texas and attending public school here, we were taught Davy's Crockett's motto: "First make sure you are right, then go ahead". It is a good motto. It speaks to having the humility to consider the fact that you may not be right and that maybe you should not act unless you are likely right about whatever you are acting upon. It also requires what we used to call 'gumption', which is a word I see used differently by people who do not seem to be from Texas.
As I was taught, gumption is the correct mixture of good judgment and assertiveness, so that one can be sure your actions are in the right. Do not be a coward, but do not be foolhardy either. Fools who do not ascertain the facts first end up getting people killed.
You learned your Texanese well, Cynthia. Gumption is one of those great and under appreciated words—a throw back to when we had more folks with gumption.
Excellent work to unravel fact from fiction while using conflicting accounts.
Thank you so much, David. I appreciate the kind words.
Santa Anna later in life sailed to New York with a shipment of chicole with which he hoped to make a fortune. He didn’t make his fortune, but the result was the invention of modern-style chewing gum.
My wife and I honeymooned in Mexico many years ago. Whenever we remember those days we say to each other, “Chiclets,” because the number of boys selling gum on the street, yelling, “Chiclets.”
I read that Crockett idolized Daniel Boone and even dressed like him except Boone never wore a coonskin hat.
I’m going to write about Crockett and the coonskin cap sometime, but I believe that was an invention of an actor portraying Crockett on stage—he was famous in his lifetime—and not something he actually wore.
Like Boone was a legend in is own time. I live in Boone country, real close to were he settled and died here in missouri. A real good on-going controversy is that of his true burial site. I live about three miles from his first and “true” burial site 😁. There are some compelling stories that it's not Boone buried in Kentucky…his wife yes, but not him. I love it because neither site will dig him up to find out.
Sounds like some Texas related controversies, including whether Crockett died fighting or surrendered as was executed. As far as his burial, he was burned on funeral pyres along with other defenders. Some of which, or so it's claimed, were later gathered and buried in the San Fernando Church in San Antonio. Here a piece I wrote somewhat dealing with that: https://www.yallogy.com/p/juan-segun-buries-the-hero-dead-of-the-alamo
It's great to hear some of the true source detail on the life of a semi-mythical hero. Most historians just summarise the standard belief.
Thank you, Sean. I appreciate the kind words.
Really thorough research! Thank you! Great article!
Thank you, Jeri. I work hard at it.
Exciting reading! Thanks for sharing this!
Thank you so much for the kind words. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
The Alamo did not fall on Palm Sunday; the massacre at Goliad took place on that day.
You're correct, Michael. Thank you for the correction. I'll change it immediately. I had been working on a Goliad piece at the same time. I knew both event occurred on Sunday—and that Palm Sunday was when the Goliad Massacre occurred, but transposed it to the fall of the Alamo. Again, I appreciate your careful reading and point out this mistake.
Absolutely excellent!
Thank you so much, Michael. I've been thinking about this for some time.
It was all great. I’ve been looking at de la Peña’s writing recently and it’s helpful to know your perspective.
I believe many of the evens described in the de la Peña narrative are accurate, but I'm suspicious of the story concerning Crockett's surrender/capture and execution. Executions took place at the Alamo, and it was probably seven men, but naming Crockett in the narrative given the facts as described about Folio 35 should make us question the authenticity of the story. I'm not saying it's absolutely untrue. But neither should anyone serious about history say it's absolutely true and present it as such. The plain fact is, we'd don't know with any level of historical certainty whether Crockett died fighting or died by execution. It's a mystery that has, of yet, been unresolved.
I appreciate you comments and supporting my endeavors here. Blessings.
No relation to Jasmine Crocket …
‘let history show that David Crockett died fighting “among friends”’ .... and that he fought in the name of slavery.
Thank you. But the founders of the Republic of Texas did include slavery in a founding document: the Constitution of 1836. But just because it’s in the constitution doesn’t support the claim that it was the reason for the revolution. And as I said, there’s no reason for southern Anglos to shy away from including slavery as the or a reason for rebellion in earlier documents. They didn’t.
The Texas Revolution wasn’t fought to support slavery. https://www.yallogy.com/p/was-slavery-the-cause-of-the-texas-revolution
https://crossculturalsolidarity.com/how-slavery-led-to-the-texas-revolution/
I see that Mr. Burnett has basically summarized Adrew J. Torget's argument in "Seeds of Empire." Burnett should have given Torget credit. But that's a different matter.
He tells an interesting story. But I always find it interesting that those who argue that slavery was at the heart of the Texas Revolution never wrestle with at least two central documents signed by representatives from Texas that outline the reasons for armed conflict: The Declaration of Causes for Taking Up Arms Against Mexico (November 1835) and the Texas Declaration of Independence (March 1836). Neither document addresses slavery—not just as a central reason for the revolution, but not even as a tertiary reason.
If slavery were as important to the Texas Revolution as folks like Torget and Burnett claim, why don't they explain why these two documents are silent on the question of slavery? And arguments from silence are not persuasive or legitimate—for example, that the Texans didn't need to include slavery because it was implied. If slavery was so important, and the Mexican government was so anti-slavery (that in itself is more complex than most want to admit), then there would have been no reason not to list slavery as one of the causes of taking up arms or declaring independence—especially given that most of the Anglos in Texas came from southern and slaveholding states.
Give me a compelling argument for the silence of slavery in primary documents, written by the men who were on the ground and fought the Texas Revolution, then I'm happy to change my position. I'm persuadable because I value the truth. But you and others have to deal with facts as they were, not as you wished them to be or the stories you say they were.
Thank you for your interesting articles.
No one, I think, would be likely to include an encomium to slavery in the foundation documents of their new republic.
Never forget that all of Texas belonged to Mexico. Mexico went all the way up to Oregon before the US murdered and stole it all.
That was for like 20 years. Why fixate on that exact moment in time? What about before that when Spain had it for much longer? Don’t they have more of a claim? We can play this game all day long, it’s a vapid attempt to conceal the bottom line that you hate America.
William Morrison has been banned from commenting on Y'allogy for his use of foul language, which I will not tolerated nor allowed. All my readers are free to disagree, but must do so agreeable—persuasively. Theodore Roosevelt said, "Profanity is the parlance of fools." The world is full of fools. They are not welcomed here.