Alamo Traces (53 page)

In the end, Houston, Bowie, and Smith's attempted invasion of Matamoros was postponed until after the convention. Santa Anna's arrival at Bexar, however, prevented the move to the west until the Mexican War in 1846. Still, the evidence suggests that in January 1836, the Bexar troops were flying a flag for independence with Sam Houston's name on it, which appears to have represented the Johnson and Grant proposed new republic made up of Texas and three or four Eastern Mexican states. Was that flag the Alamo flag?
¹⁹

Other evidence strongly suggests that the Houston flag was most likely the Alamo banner. When Santa Anna's army approached San Antonio sometime after 2:00 p.m. on February 23, the Alamo defenders welcomed them with a flag that appears to have flown from the San Fernando church tower. Colonel Juan N. Almonte described the standard with these words: “The enemy, as soon as the march of the division was seen, hoisted the tri-colored flag with two stars, designed to represent
Coahuila and Texas. The President with all his staff advanced to Camp Santo (burying ground.) The enemy lowered the flag and fled, and possession was taken of Bexar without firing a shot.”
²⁰

In spite of Almonte's belief, it is extremely unlikely that the standard represented Texas and Coahuila. Texians had been working to separate Texas from Coahuila since the early 1830s. At this time there is no other evidence that clearly defines the two-star tricolor. Speculation, however, suggests that the banner was probably the Sam Houston flag for independence. The stars, a United States design attribute, most likely represented the Anglo-Celtic American and Mexican partnership in the proposed Grant and Johnson confederacy. The Mexican tricolor element probably symbolized the proposed nation's genesis from Mexican soil. The use of Sam Houston's name, probably on the reverse of the two-star panel, was an attempt to convince the volunteers from the United States that Houston supported the confederacy. Even if this explanation for the design is off base, the two-star tricolor appears to have been the Alamo standard.
²¹

Almonte's words and two other eyewitness reports indicated that the two-star tricolor was the flag flown from the Alamo fortress during the thirteen-day siege. Pablo Diaz, a young man in 1836, reported in 1906: “. . . From the mission [Concepcion] I could see also the flag of the Constitutionalists [federalists] floating from the Alamo. The later flag was not the flag that was afterward adopted by the Texas Republic, with its blue field and single star and a stripe of white and one of red, but the flag of Mexico under the Constitution and prior to the usurpation and assumption of the dictatorship by Santa Anna.”
²²

Antono Chavez, who was nine years old in 1836, reported in 1907: “I was born under the Mexican dominion. Its constitutional flag of A.D. 1821, against which Santa Anna contended and prevailed, was floating over the Alamo when he came here in 1836. He captured it together with the Alamo and annihilated its brave defenders.”
²³

Diaz and Chavez are wrong about the Alamo flag having been the national federalist Mexican flag. As Walter Lord said, the Alamo defenders were supporters of independence. They would not have flown a federalist flag. Diaz, however, seeing the flag from the Mission Concepcion would not have been able to tell the difference between the two-star tricolor and the federalist tricolor. As for Chavez, it is possible that as a young boy, he did not realize there was a difference in the two
flags. He may have assumed the two-star tricolor was another version of the federalist banner.

The important element in the Diaz and Chavez evidence is that both reported the Alamo banner appeared to be a Mexican tricolor, which coupled with Almonte's report and the Houston independence banner evidence, suggests the flag that was flying over the Alamo was the two-star flag. That flag was also most likely captured by the Mexican army. Still, Mexican historians, like Lord, mistakenly believe that the banner captured during the dawn attack was the New Orleans Greys flag.
²⁴

Several reasons strongly indicate that the Greys flag was not the emblem the Mexican troops captured on March 6. Given that the captured flag was most likely ripped from its pole, it would have probably been torn. The Greys flag does not appear to have been damaged in such a manner. Also, the banner had no eyelets or cords to attach it to a pole.
²⁵

Moreover, the Greys flag includes the motto “God and Liberty,” a Mexican saying that dates to Mexico's first attempts at independence. General Santa Anna and other Mexicans officers closed their correspondence with the dictum. The flag and its adage were appropriated during the siege and storming of Bexar when the Texian forces were fighting under the Mexican national flag of federalism. During the Alamo siege, however, it is extremely hard to believe that when Travis wrote on February 24, “. . . our flag still waves proudly from the walls,” he was writing about the Greys banner.
²⁶

Nevertheless, Mexicans appear to accept the Greys flag as the Alamo standard because it was the one Santa Anna sent to Mexico City with his March 6 report of the final assault. The Mexican narrative detailing the capture of the Alamo flag, however, is probably close to the truth. It reads:

It is appropriate that Mexican historians honor the brave Mexican soldiers who fought and died at the Alamo
for their government
. On the other hand, it is important to note that it would be a disgrace and insult to the memory of the Alamo defenders to trade the Mexican unit flags captured at the Battle of San Jacinto for the Greys flag. The United States banner did not represent the Alamo unit because the Greys were disbanded after the fall of Bexar. A few men remained in San Antonio and joined the garrison under Lt. Colonel James C. Neill as the San Antonio Greys. The other members were either discharged or joined the Johnson and Grant expedition that moved down the road to Goliad.
²⁸

Besides, in reality, the Greys flag no longer truly exists. In 1961 Lord reported: “The flag remains in Mexico City today . . . it is not on exhibit but buried in the files . . . crumbling to pieces in brown wrapping paper. Thanks to the courtesy of the Mexican government, it was recently brought out once again, and enough of it pieced together to identify it beyond any doubt.” The banner that former governor Bush and Truan wanted to return to Texas is essentially a replica that contains an unknown number of scraps of the original material. The two politicians might as well purchase a replica of the Greys flag from the IMAX Theater in San Antonio.
²⁹

In sum, any Texan politician who exchanges the San Jacinto flags for the Greys banner will be giving back to Mexico the flags that truly symbolize the victory that Travis, Bowie, Crockett, and the men, women, and children of the Alamo were fighting for and died for; a triumph to create an independent and prosperous Texas based on North American political principles. The captured Mexican banners represent the San Jacinto victory that gave birth to Texas, and the Alamo defenders' deaths were its
down payment. That fact should not be forgotten or dishonored by modern political ambitions.

Were the Alamo defenders fighting for independence or for the federalist constitution of 1824?

On this question, there is no doubt. The defenders were for independence. As previously stated, Alsbury said on December 30, 1835, the troops at Bexar were disposed to second the Goliad Declaration of Independence. On January 12 William R. Cary wrote: “The Colo. [James C. Neill] and myself has twice called a general parade and addressed them in such a manner that they would get satisfied for a while, but we are now discouraged ourselves. . . . We have sent and made known our situation to them, and as the safety of Texas depends mostly upon the keeping of this place they certainly will soon as possible do some thing for us especially when we expect to declare
independence
as soon as the convention meets.”
³⁰

Later in January, Joseph M. Hawkins wrote Governor Henry Smith a letter of support. Hawkins closed with: “May God bless you and prosper you is the sincere wish of an honest son of Erin and a friend of Texian Independence.”
³¹

Then, at the end of January, Amos Pollard, the Alamo's surgeon, also sent a supportive missive to Smith. He said: “I hope that the provisional government would continue till we could establish another and a more firm one – This we shall endeavor to do in March and God grant that we may create an independent government.”
³²

On February 1, 1836, the citizens of Bexar elected Jose A. Navarro, Jose F. Ruiz, and Gaspar Flores to represent them at the convention to be held in Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 1, 1836. On February 13 Pollard again wrote Governor Smith. Pollard made it clear as to what was expected of the three Tejanos at the convention. He wrote: “However, I intend that those representatives shall distinctly understand, previous to their leaving, that if they vote against independence, they will have to be very careful on returning here.”
³³

Likewise, Green B. Jameson, the garrison's engineer, wrote Governor Smith on February 11: “I have been in the field on actual duty more than four months and have not lost one hour from duty on account of sickness nor pleasure. But have served my country in every capacity I
possibly could. When I left home it was with a determination to see Texas free & Independent sink or swim die or perish.”
³⁴

Finally, on March 3, Travis wrote his friend Jesse Grimes, a member of the convention: “If independence is not declared, I shall lay down my arms, and so will the men under my command. But under the flag of independence, we are ready to peril our lives a hundred times a day, and to drive away the monster who is fighting us under a blood-red flag, threatening to murder all prisoners and make Texas a waste desert.”
³⁵

When did Bexar garrison commander Lieutenant Colonel James C. Neill leave Bexar and turn the command over to Travis?

Neill first left Bexar sometime, probably in the morning, February 11, 1836. Green B. Jameson, on that date, wrote Governor Smith: “Col. Neill left today for home on account of an express from his family informing him of their ill health.” The following day Travis wrote Smith: “In consequence of the sickness of his family, Lt. Col. Neill has left this post, to visit home for a short time, and has requested me to take Command of the Post.”
³⁶

After Neill's departure a bitter argument erupted between James Bowie and Travis over who would command the troops at Bexar. Neill had commanded both regulars and volunteers. The volunteers had voted to serve under Neill on December 31, 1835. Bowie appears to have believed that because he had declared himself a full colonel of volunteers he had rank over Travis, a regular army lieutenant colonel. Thus the fractious knife-fighter felt that he should have been left in command of the garrison.
³⁷

J. J. Baugh and Travis wrote Smith of the disagreement that took place on February 12 and 13. Baugh wrote: “An Election was consequently ordered by Col. Travis and Bowie was Elected. – without opposition none but the volunteers voted & in fact not all of them – The consequence was, a split in the Garrison, Col. Travis, as a matter of course, would not submit to the control of Bowie and he (Bowie) availing himself of his popularity among the volunteers seems anxious to arrogate to himself the entire control.” Travis wrote that Bowie was “roaring drunk all the time” and had taken total command of the garrison. Travis then added: “I do not solicit the command of this post but as Col. Neill
has applied to the Commander in Chief to be relieved. . . . I will do it if it be your order for a time until an artillery officer can be sent here.”
³⁸

Travis's statement about Neill's request for a release from command at San Antonio suggests that Neill, in addition to visiting his family, was probably going to confront Governor Smith and Sam Houston about the lack of support for the Bexar garrison. On January 27 Neill had written Smith: “In my communication to the Executive I did not ask for pledges and resolves, but for money, provisions and clothing. There has been money given or loaned by private individuals expressly for the use of the army, and none has been received. . . . We can not be fed and clothed on paper pledges. My men cannot, nor will not, stand this state of things much longer. . . .”
³⁹

Whatever the reason for Neill's departure, he was in Gonzales on February 13. The Alamo courier that carried the Baugh and Travis letters to San Felipe appears to have encountered Neill at Gonzales and informed him of Bowie's behavior. Thus Neill was forced to return to the Alamo to settle the clash over command at San Antonio.
⁴⁰