Talk:List of Alamo defenders

message: :I removed J.D. Elliott, who Lindley incorrectly includes on pp.143-144 in a large group of men for whom "evidence exists" as Alamo defenders. Lindley's only evidence for Elliott is a muster roll where his name is not marked as killed (see http://www.txgenweb.org/records/muster/314482-68.pdf and note the absence of a ditto mark under "killed" next to Elliott and a couple of others). In reality, James D. Elliott went on to serve in San Jacinto and remained in the Army as a captain for a couple more years (see https://www.sanjacinto-museum.org/Library/Veteran_Bios/Bio_page/?id=276). I can tell I'm going to have big problems with Lindley pp.143-144 and his "evidence exists" list. DavoLWS (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: March 6 (J.D. Elliott)

message: :I'm proposing to remove William George, who is included by virtue of being on Lindley's infamous (to me) pp. 143-144 "evidence exists" list. Lindley's evidence is a document entitled "Petition in regard to the deaths of brothers James and William George at the Alamo." James George is an uncontroversial member of the Immortal 32 from Gonzales. There are multiple biographies for James George, including one that calls him James William George, and while they don't agree on all the facts, none of them list a brother named William. See for example, https://www.geni.com/people/James-George-Immortal-32-Gonzales-Ranger/6000000018270729614, which pulls heavily from the Sons of Dewitt Colony web site (or vice versa), but also seems to contain some original research. All sources do agree that James George and William Dearduff, another of the Immortal 32, were brothers-in-law. The source I cited also states that a man named Rowe petitioned the probate court in Gonzales "for administration of the estate of his wife's slain husband James George and brother William Dearduff." I believe that somehow James George and William Dearduff being brothers-in-law got morphed into them being brothers named James and William George. I realize this is only a theory, but let's be honest, theory is how Lindley built his "evidence exists" list in the first place. He took a document with the words "deaths of James and William George at the Alamo" and turned that into "evidence exists" that William George died at the Alamo. That's plausible until one tries to find who this William George was (where was he born? when?) and can find no evidence that he existed. Also, Lindley never actually states that these "evidence exists" men were at the Alamo; on the contrary, he writes, "Conclusive identification...is probably impossible" and "the roster may contain a few errors," He closes by saying, "Still there is at least one piece of primary evidence that puts each man in the Alamo or strongly suggests each man was an Alamo defender." In my opinion, including someone in a table of Alamo defenders on Wikipedia should require a higher standard than one careless historian saying things like "evidence exists" and "strongly suggests" about someone who probably did not even exist. Comments welcome. DavoLWS (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: March 15 (James George-William George-William Dearduff)

message: :I removed William P. Johnson. He and John Johnson were both listed in the table as couriers sent out on 2/23. This comes from a statement John Sutherland made that Travis sent a courier named Johnson to Goliad as soon as the Mexican army arrived. Groneman proposes him to be William P. Johnson, who was killed in the Goliad massacre, and who there is no record of ever being in San Antonio. Lindley proposes John Johnson, who was known to be in the Bexar garrison on 2/1 and who Niell transferred from his command to another unit on 3/6. John Johnson was also given a courier assignment on 3/7. Neither man can be proven to be the 2/23 courier, but John fits the evidence quite well. Groneman himself admits that the evidence for William P. is "flimsy." One thing is certain - it could not have been both, so one of them needed to go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoLWS (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: March 29 (William P. Johnson) 

message: :I'm cleaning up more entries from Lindley's pp. 143-144 "evidence exists" list, namely those who were part of Captain Chenowith's company. Lindley proposes that 13 men from Chenowith's company may have died at the Alamo mainly because 1) they were noted as killed, and 2) they weren't killed at Goliad. Four of those - M. B. Clark, Dr. E. F. Mitchusson, William A. Moore, and Thomas H. Roberts - are accepted as Alamo defenders by Williams and/or Groneman, TSHA, the thealamo.org web site, etc., leaving 9 whose only justification is Lindley pp. 143-144. I've already removed J. D. Elliott, who wasn't marked as killed on the muster roll. Maile previously removed N. Debicki and A. Petrussewicz, who, Lindley's research notwithstanding, did die at Goliad. I'm leaving Samuel M. Edwards - the one person of the 13 for whom Lindley presented actual written evidence of him dying at the Alamo - alone. That leaves 5 to deal with:
* William Hunter: Chenowith marked him killed, but he wasn't. He was wounded at the Goliad massacre, recovered, held office in the Republic of Texas, and lived another 50 years. See tshaonline.org.
* W. T. Green, L. R. O'Neil, and W. H. Sanders: all killed at Goliad, according to http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org/goliadmenframe.htm
* S. W. McNeilly: I have not found anything for him.
::Just following up on this one. I found that he joined the Matamoros Expedition, was captured in San Patricio, was released after the Revolution, and died in Texarkana in 1889.  DavoLWS (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above, I've removed Hunter, Green, O'Neil, and Sanders from this article. I've also removed McNeilly for good measure, as I think it has been amply demonstrated that Lindley's work - at least as it pertains to the Chenowith list on pp.143-144 - is too sloppy to be relied upon as the only source for an entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoLWS (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: April 17 (Captain Chenowith's Company) 

message: :I removed Francis H. Gray, who was killed at Goliad, according to official records dating back to 1851. Lindley simply says "evidence exists" that he died at the Alamo without addressing the discrepancy between his findings and these records.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoLWS (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: July 26 (Francis H. Gray) 

message: :I removed James Dickson, who was added from Lindley, p. 54. Lindley writes that James Dickson and 6 other men "were members of the New Orleans Greys who died at the Alamo but who are not on the current Daughters of the Republic of Texas honor roll of Alamo defenders ... These names come from a muster roll that is titled: 'Muster Roll, Captain Thomas H. Breece's Co. Texas Volunteers, in the Army before Bexar 1835.'" The name Lindley is referring to is the last one on Breece's muster roll, seen here: 
::
:Lindley misread the name. It written is James Dicken on this roll. It is written Dockon, Dickens, etc. on other rolls and Dimpkins on thealamo.org website and this table. It is not an addition, just yet another variation on a name already on the list. DavoLWS (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: August 29 (James Dickson) 

message: :I removed Jesse B. Badgett, who was elected as a delegate to the convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos on February 1 and left within a few days. He was in Washington when the siege of the Alamo began. I also removed (Jose) Antonio Menchaca. Lindley, on p. 94, gives a list of 14 Tejanos who "appear to have" entered the Alamo with Seguin on February 23, then, on p. 134, "seem to have exited." Like most of Lindley's other lists, this one is poorly documented, vague, and riddled with errors. Menchaca left San Antonio days before the siege (Feb. 18 at latest), went to Seguin's ranch south of town, and six days later, heard about "the Americans" entering the Alamo from Nat Lewis, who was passing by on foot. This is in Menchaca's memoirs and is summarized on his Wikipedia page. DavoLWS (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: September 22 (Jesse B. Badgett, Antonio Menchaca) 

message: :I removed Luciano Pacheco, who is said to have gone into the Alamo with Seguin on the 23rd, went back out to do an errand for him, and was unable to make it back in time. Being in the Alamo for a few minutes before the Mexicans surrounded it does not make one an Alamo defender. DavoLWS (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: September 29 (Luciano Pacheco) 

message: I feel like it's time to change the perspective on Lindley in the introductory matter to this list. While Lindley's criticisms of Williams are valid, and I agree with many of his findings, he's very much a mixed bag. He makes all of the same mistakes he calls out Williams for, and then some. For every mistake of his that I've pointed out in my comments here, I have five more that I haven't pointed out. To put it bluntly, his work is, to use Walter Lord's words, sometimes pure trash. I've made an attempt at refining what this article says about him without verging on my original research. If it doesn't seem right, I'm happy to discuss. DavoLWS (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting Lindley in perspective 

message: I added Louis Rose, styled as (Louis?) Rose, private, Nacogdoches. There is no real dispute as to whether there was an Alamo defender from Nacogdoches named Rose. The dispute is whether he died in the battle, as the early casualty lists indicate, or whether he left early and was the man now known as Louis, Stephen and/or Moses Rose. But even if everything claimed about Louis and the other Roses is false, there was still a Rose from Nacogdoches at the Alamo, and he gave his life there. DavoLWS (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis Rose 

message: I believe that a requirement to be an "Alamo defender" is that they were actually in the Alamo for some part of the siege. Being in the vicinity of San Antonio the morning that the Mexican army was spotted doesn't cut it. (If it did, we would have to include the entire population of San Antonio de Bexar.) Hurrying into the Alamo and back out that morning, but not being in the walls when the army marched into town, and never going back inside, doesn't cut it. With that in mind, I'm proposing to go through and eliminate some people who left San Antonio before the siege and thus were not actually Alamo defenders.
• Jesse B. Badgett - already deleted. He left San Antonio in early February and was in Washington when Santa Anna arrived.
• Horace Alsbury - proposed for deletion. The sources don't say he was in the Alamo when Santa Anna arrived.
• Francis L. DeSauque - proposed for deletion. The sources specifically say he was *not* in the Alamo.
• Philip Dimmitt and Benjamin F. Nobles - proposed for deletion. Ditto.
Going further, I would not argue if Byrd Lockhart, William Patton, and Andrew Jackson Sowell were removed, but I acknowledge that there are some historians who put them there during the siege (incorrectly, I think).
I also don't believe John Sutherland was in San Antonio on February 23 at all, and don't believe he was an Alamo courier in any sense, but I realize that's definitely a minority view. DavoLWS (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Author and former UNT history teacher Richard B. McCaslin seems to agree with you regarding   As for the rest, if they weren't at the Alamo during the siege, they weren't defenders. Technically, I think the scouts weren't exactly defenders, since they were in and out.  — Maile  (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove Alsbury, DeSauque, Dimmitt, and Nobles. I'll leave the others I mentioned since there is some debate about them. As for John Sutherland, the only witness who ever saw him anywhere near the Alamo was John Sutherland, but a lot of people, including most historians, it seems, have bought his story. DavoLWS (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Just a comment/question: Why didn't they all just leave, and live to fight under Houston another day? They knew from scouts the Mexican army was advancing, and likely had an idea of the size of it. That often mentioned theory that they were buying time for Houston to form an army, doesn't hold water as far as I am concerned. David Crockett is the one who really puzzles me.  He had served in the US Congress. He had served under Andrew Jackson during the Creek War. Of all those inside the Alamo, Crockett was possibly the most intelligent. Why would he stay when he could be more use with Houston in Gonzales? — Maile  (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were sure that Fannin, Houston, and all of Texas were going to come to their aid. Maybe they were overconfident in the defensibility of their position and the ease with which they had won other battles and skirmishes up to that point. Add to that, the place seemed to almost cast a spell on people once they got there, that it *must* be defended. Neill wrote that more than once; Bowie wrote it soon after he got there. Then the enemy surprised them, and it's kind of hard to turn one's thinking around on a dime. But above all, I think it was their expectation of reinforcements. If Houston and Fannin had succinctly told them early on, "No, we aren't coming, no one is," then I think it's much more likely they would have left. But Travis got a letter on March 3 telling him 60 men were probably already there by then and another 300 were on the march. DavoLWS (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Before the Siege 

message: Over the last few months, I've gone over the table and removed entries for 19 men listed as fatalities and 12 listed as survivors. In every case, I've shown my work and done my best to avoid original research, although it's unavoidable in some cases. Is pointing out that a man Lindley said died at the Alamo actually died in Texarkana in 1899 "original research"? Technically, it might be. All 31 of the removals I've made are rock-solid. I'm done now, but there are still a large number of changes that I personally feel certain about, but I don't have as rock-solid evidence for, or where I would not just be contradicting Lindley, but other historians as well. For what it's worth, here are the changes I would make if given free reign:
:Additions: A. Anderson, Robert Bowen, John Burnell, James Ingram, ____ Robbins (not George S. Robbins)
:Changes: Replace Robert Allen from Virginia with R. Allen, biography unknown. Replace Samuel E. Burns with John Burns. Replace George D. Butler with ____ Butler. Change Robert Brown to a fatality.
:Removals (fatalities): Jesse B. Bowman, Robert Campbell, John DeSauque, Samuel M. Edwards, Carlos Espalier, William Keener Fauntleroy, James C. Gwin, John Benjamin Kellogg, William J. Lightfoot, William McDowell, William Mills, George Olamio, George Pagan, Guadalupe Rodriguez, Andrew H. Smith, ____ Thompson (but keep John W. Thomson), James Tylee, William B. Ward, William Wills.
:Removals (survivors): Jose Maria Arocha, Simon Arreola, Samuel G. Bastian, Cesario Carmona, Matias Curvier, Lucio Enriques, Manuel N. Flores, Salvador Flores, Ignacio Gurrea [sic], Pedro Herrera, Byrd Lockhart, Samuel Augustus Maverick, William Sanders Oury, William Patton, ____ Silvero, Andrew Jackson Sowell, Eduardo Ramirez, Ambrosio Rodriguez, John Sutherland, Vicente Zepeda.
Just to show that this is a high-quality list. James Tylee went on the Matamoros Expedition with Grant and Johnson and was killed. He's listed on a Matamoros muster roll as a fatality. There's zero-point-squat evidence that he died at the Alamo. But unfortunately, I haven't found any historian who has looked into him or written about him. I don't have any way of asserting these findings without it rightly being called original research.
I would end up with 181 defenders killed on March 6, plus Brigido Guerrero and Henry Warnell, for a total of 183 defenders. I have 8 couriers who went out and didn't come back, and Joe. I'm posting this list here in case anyone else wants to do another round of edits and possibly discuss some of these names. DavoLWS (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Recent and Possible Future Updates