Alamo Traces (42 page)

D. Juan N. Almonte, Santa Anna's aide-de-camp

Photo courtesy Jack Jackson, Austin, Texas

There are two major problems with the Ross typescript documents when they are compared with the authentic Hannig interview document. First the Ross data is not part of the 1876 interview. Second, the typescript documents are written in first person as if the interviewer had
recorded it exactly as Hannig had said it. Whereas, the authentic Hannig document is in third person and in a style that suggests the interviewer listened to Susanna and then recorded the data in pretty much his or her own words, not necessarily in Susanna's language. And there are other problems with the Ross typescripts.

Additional evidence and content analysis of the Ross report reveals that the Almonte and Dickinson dialogue about the deserter most likely could not have occurred in the Alamo on the morning of March 6 or before the defenders' bodies were burned. The Ross documents claim: “Col. Almonte (Mexican) told me that the man who had deserted the evening before had also been killed & that if I wished to satisfy myself of the fact that I could see the body, still lying there. . . .” The statement appears to suggest that Ross was the deserter. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Dickinson did not go out and see that the deserter was Ross. Nor did Almonte identify the deserter as Ross. If the deserter was not Ross, why would Dickinson have mentioned him? After all, was she not being questioned about a man named Rose who had allegedly escaped from the Alamo?
¹¹

Furthermore, how would Almonte have known that the man was a deserter? If the Ross tale is true, the man could just as easily have appeared to be a departing courier. The only plausible way Almonte could have known the man was a deserter would have been if the Mexican troops captured him, questioned him, and killed him. Moreover, Almonte made no mention of Ross or a deserter in his journal, a daily record in which he reported other Alamo arrivals and departures of which he had knowledge.
¹²

Almonte's alleged claim that the deserter's body was “still lying there” indicates that the dialogue would have had to occur between Dickinson's discovery in the chapel and her departure from the Alamo on the morning of March 6 before the collection of the bodies for burning. It is a common belief that Almonte discovered Dickinson and escorted her from the Alamo. That, however, is incorrect; an Englishman named Black found Dickinson, protected her, and transported her in a buggy to the Musquiz home. The available evidence suggests she did not encounter Col. Almonte until the next day, March 7, when she was taken before General Santa Anna.
¹³

The defenders' bodies apparently were burned on March 6. Francisco Ruiz, who claimed he supervised the burning of the bodies, said: “About
3 o'clock in the afternoon [March 6] they commenced laying the wood and dry branches, upon which a file of dead bodies was placed; more wood was piled on them, and another file brought, and in this manner they were all arranged in layers. Kindling wood was distributed through the pile, and about 5 o'clock in the evening it was lighted.”
¹⁴

The likelihood that Dickinson did not talk with Almonte before the burning of the bodies is reinforced by new evidence, which reveals that Dickinson, soon after seeing David Crockett's body between the chapel and the long barrack, entered a state that made a discussion with Almonte within the Alamo compound unlikely. Dickinson, after her arrival at Gonzales was taken to the George Tumlinson home. Tumlinson's son George W. had died at the Alamo. Dickinson told the family of “the fall of the Alamo and its horrors.” Annie White, Tumlinson's eleven-year-old stepdaughter, was an avid listener. In her old age White reported: “Mrs. Dickinson told us . . . that the Mexicans made her go with them through the Alamo and watch them plunge their bayonets into the lifeless bodies of the fallen patriots. They did this in order to be certain that every one was dead. She said she fainted when they came to the body of her husband.” Exactly how long Dickinson remained unconscious is unknown, but the condition explains why her Alamo exit reports are limited to the chapel and the battleground in front of the chapel, and why officer Black took her to the Musquiz house in a buggy.
¹⁵

One can argue that Almonte talked with Dickinson after she had been taken to the Musquiz house. There is, however, a conflict between the Ross report and the genuine adjutant general interview that suggests Almonte did not meet with Dickinson at the Musquiz house on March 6. According to the Ross document, Almonte told Dickinson that if she “wished to satisfy” herself that the deserter had been killed, she “could see the body, still lying there,” which she declined. Yet, the authentic Dickinson report states: “After her removal to Musquiz's she expressed a wish to visit the scene of carnage, but was informed by the people of the house that it would not be permitted as the enemy was then burning the dead bodies – and in conformation thereof, she was shown a smoke in the direction of the Alamo.”
¹⁶

The next problem with the Ross account is Dickinson's alleged claim: “The next morning he [Ross] was missing.” That would have been the morning of March 6 when the enemy forces attacked without warning in the darkness. Would Travis have conducted a roll call before his men
mounted the walls to fight off a surprise attack? It is highly improbable that Ross's absence would have been discovered during the frantic rush to the ramparts that morning, or that Dickinson or anybody else would have been aware of such a situation. Lastly, the claim that Ross was not discovered missing until the following morning conflicts with Zuber's report of Rose's alleged departure. Zuber claimed that Rose “sprang up, seized his wallet of unwashed clothes, and ascended the wall” in full view of David Crockett and James Bowie during the daylight of late afternoon. Therefore, if the Ross document is authentic and Dickinson was right, Ross could not have been Moses Rose.
¹⁷

In sum, the evidence and its analysis suggest that the typed versions may not have been copied from an original handwritten document. Still, there is evidence that the Adjutant General's Office may have contacted Mrs. Hannig about the veracity of Zuber's Rose story, most likely in August 1877, almost a full year after the date of the authentic interview.
¹⁸

Adjutant General William Steele wrote Zuber on August 29, 1877, concerning the truth of the Rose story. Unfortunately, Steele's copy of the letter is missing from the letter book for that period. We do, however, have Zuber's response, which throws some light on what Steele appears to have written. After his presentation of an obviously untrue story about Lt. Colonel James C. Neill and Mrs. Dickinson, Zuber wrote: “I have made the foregoing digression to explain my reasons for holding that Mrs. Dickinson may be mistaken in the time of Rose's escape. As to General Almonte's remark that Rose was killed & Mrs. Dickinson could see his body if she wished. I presume he would have made the same remark of any other man in the Alamo. I think his meaning was equivalent to this, ‘Every man in the Alamo has been killed. Not one has escaped, you can see the bodies of all; or of any one of them, if you wish.' ”
¹⁹

Some individuals might argue that Zuber's response is proof that there was an original Ross document. Adjutant General Steele, however, appears to have written Zuber that Dickinson had reported that a man named Rose had been killed in the fall of the Alamo and that Almonte had verified Rose's death. That information clearly conflicts with the Ross document, which does not report that Almonte said Ross was killed. According to the Ross report, Almonte told Dickinson the “deserter” was killed. But by any reasonable interpretation of the Ross document, Ross and the deserter were the same person. Therefore, Ross, Rose, or whoever was killed.
²⁰

What about Zuber's reference to Dickinson being mistaken about Rose's time of escape? The Ross account reports that Dickinson said Ross escaped on March 5, and Zuber maintained Rose went over the wall on March 3. Does that difference prove there was an original handwritten Ross document? Probably not. Zuber, however, was certainly worried about Dickinson's claim of a different escape time for a defender named Rose. Whatever Dickinson told Steele or his representative about the time of a Rose escape conflicted with Zuber's story that Moses Rose departed the Alamo in late afternoon on March 3. If that is not the case, then why did Zuber respond with a piece of fiction to argue that Dickinson was not in the Alamo during the last three days of the siege and could not have known about Rose's departure. Remember, Zuber claimed that three days before the final assault the local priest had taken Dickinson and her baby out of the Alamo and placed them in cupola of the San Fernando church.
²¹

Exactly what Dickinson told the adjutant general or his representative about a defender named Rose will probably never be determined. A written record of the discussion may not have been made. We do, however, know what Dickinson said to a Caldwell County judge about James M. Rose in the summer of 1857. Susanna, when asked to describe Rose, answered: “He was about thirty-five or forty years of age. He was of medium height, heavy set, rather full square face, very quick spoken – he fell with the rest of the defenders of the Alamo – during the siege. I saw Rose often, and upon one occasion heard my husband Capt. Dickinson speak to Rose of a narrow escape he (Rose) had made from a Mexican officer upon the first attack.”
²²

First, James M. Rose's escape was from a Mexican officer, not the Alamo. Second, the event most likely occurred during the enemy's arrival and capture of Bexar on the afternoon of February 23. It is highly improbable that James Rose's escape from the Mexican officer occurred in the confusion of the final assault on the morning of March 6, and that Rose stopped to report the incident to Almaron Dickinson, who in turn stopped to tell the story to his wife. The adjutant general or his representative may have simply asked Dickinson: Do you know anything about the escape of a defender named Rose? Dickinson could have answered with her story about James M. Rose's escape. If she was specifically asked about a “Moses Rose,” she may have assumed Moses Rose was James M. Rose, the “M” standing for Moses.
²³

Nevertheless, Zuber's answer to General Steele about Dickinson's statements concerning Rose does have one element that is hard to explain. The element is the sentence that reads: “As to General Almonte's remark that Rose was killed & Mrs. Dickinson could see his body if she wished.” That statement appears to mirror the third part of the Ross report that reads: “Col[.] Almonte . . . told me that the man who had deserted the evening before had also been killed & that if I wished to satisfy myself of the fact that I could see the body, still lying there, which I declined.” The similarity of the two statements seems to verify that at one time there was an original Dickinson report about Ross.
²⁴

There are, however, other explanations for the Almonte “remark.” If the Ross document ever existed, Steele or whoever talked with Dickinson may have misunderstood her. For example in the clearly authentic Dickinson document of September 23, 1876, the interviewer wrote that Dickinson was fifteen years old at the fall of the Alamo. That is incorrect. Dickinson married Almaron Dickinson when she was fifteen years old. Her exact age at the time of the Alamo is unknown, but she would have turned twenty-two sometime in 1836. Angelina, Dickinson's infant daughter, would have been fifteen months old on March 14, 1836. Perhaps Susanna said that all the defenders, including Rose (probably meaning James M. Rose), had been killed. Then the interviewer assumed she had obtained that from Almonte because it was a common, though wrong, belief that he had taken her from the Alamo.
²⁵

Then there is the possibility that Steele made up the Almonte statement about Rose being killed to bluff Zuber to see how he would respond. And Zuber answered with a huge lie about Dickinson not being in the Alamo the last three days of the siege.
²⁶

Lastly, there is the possibility that there never was a written record of Dickinson's conversation about Rose's escape and that the Ross document is a fraud created by an unknown person to substantiate the Moses Rose tale by furnishing an eyewitness and eliminating the problematic date of March 3 found in the Zuber account and the Louis Rose land grant testimony. If that is the case, the document's creator could have used Zuber's letter to Steele as a springboard for the alleged Almonte statement.

Moreover, the creator of such a forged document would have been confronted with another problem in attributing the statement to Dickinson. The writer, however, would have had no choice as Dickinson
was the only Alamo survivor still living in the 1870s who could serve as an acceptable eyewitness to verify the Moses Rose tale. The problem was that Dickinson had given earlier affidavits that identified James M. Rose as the only man in the Alamo with the last name of Rose. The alleged Dickinson statement solves that complication by calling the deserter Ross. In sum, the Ross document seems, at least to this writer, to be almost too perfect in what it says.

In the end there may not be sufficient evidence to prove to most people that the Ross document is fiction. On the other hand, given that there is no original handwritten Ross document; given that Steele's copy of his letter to Zuber is missing; given that Zuber's response to Steele indicates Steele reported that Almonte had told Dickinson Ross had been killed; given the improbable nature of the Ross document's data; given the perfection of the Ross statement in providing answers to the major flaws in the Zuber and Louis Rose evidence, branding the document as highly unreliable and a fraud is a reasonable conclusion.