Sleuthing the Alamo draws a rich indictment of knowledge through the great historic battle of the Alamo which took place during 1835-1836. Many great artifacts have been discovered through the years of the Alamo, but one in fact, the De La Pena diary is a historical importance of information of a Mexican soldier discontent with the Leadership of Santa Anna along with brutality killings at the Alamo along with Davy Crockett’s surrender. The Diary of De La Pena has been argued of its originality, was it forged, and how accurate was the events that occurred. James E. Crisp and Groneman both affiliate themselves with this argument throughout Sleuthing the Alamo.
James E. Crisp digs deeper into his investigation over the De La Pena diary, and the …show more content…
James Crisp went through several ways of providing the truth that would help prove his argument towards the diary, in which, Crips analyzed the diary itself, found several anachronisms belonging to that specific time period along with publication dates. Crisp quoted that “De la Pena’s discontent with the Mexican government landed him in jail”, therefore this leaves the diary to never be published officially (258). James Crisp used this to help settle the disagreement with Groneman of the actual publication date of the diary being later, rather than it officially intended. Also James Crisp continued to examine its importance of the diary, and why it was important to explore truth than rather to accept its heavily misleading interpretations of Davy Crockett. The reason why Davy Crockett is a big figure in the De la Pena diary is because some of the most contentious information regarded Crockett’s surrender. Therefore, the De La Pena Diary states that “ Davy Crockett and his men were offered protection by an officer of Santa Anna’s army, but Santa Anna ordered the execution anyway”, and this misleads the legendary Crockett’s legend of his gruesome fight in the Alamo (267). This is relevant to help exploring the truth because James Crisp examined a letter that publicized in 1836 from George M. Dodson, a bilingual Texan …show more content…
When it comes to his examination of material that tends to corroborate De La Peña and his less heroic version of Crockett's last minutes, however, Groneman's historical imagination is quite lacking, and he tends to be abruptly dismissive of evidence that deserves much more careful consideration”(tamu.edu). However, James Crisp concludes that the Diary of De La Pena is in fact, authentic and forgery which Groneman argues did not back up enough evidence to support the forgery of the diary. Crisp comes to this conclusion because of his close examinations, and the underlying research done against Groneman’s claims. Crips himself went through man intriguing translations such as the letter found in 1836 by Dodson. This help confront that the fact of forgery would have been misleading in the first place as the actual contentment’s of the letter contained misleading information about Crockett’s death. James Crips himself contended that the De La Pena diary is authentic and credible, and provides a strong evident of information for his argument against Groneman as well as many other disbeliever’s of the
James E. Crisp digs deeper into his investigation over the De La Pena diary, and the …show more content…
James Crisp went through several ways of providing the truth that would help prove his argument towards the diary, in which, Crips analyzed the diary itself, found several anachronisms belonging to that specific time period along with publication dates. Crisp quoted that “De la Pena’s discontent with the Mexican government landed him in jail”, therefore this leaves the diary to never be published officially (258). James Crisp used this to help settle the disagreement with Groneman of the actual publication date of the diary being later, rather than it officially intended. Also James Crisp continued to examine its importance of the diary, and why it was important to explore truth than rather to accept its heavily misleading interpretations of Davy Crockett. The reason why Davy Crockett is a big figure in the De la Pena diary is because some of the most contentious information regarded Crockett’s surrender. Therefore, the De La Pena Diary states that “ Davy Crockett and his men were offered protection by an officer of Santa Anna’s army, but Santa Anna ordered the execution anyway”, and this misleads the legendary Crockett’s legend of his gruesome fight in the Alamo (267). This is relevant to help exploring the truth because James Crisp examined a letter that publicized in 1836 from George M. Dodson, a bilingual Texan …show more content…
When it comes to his examination of material that tends to corroborate De La Peña and his less heroic version of Crockett's last minutes, however, Groneman's historical imagination is quite lacking, and he tends to be abruptly dismissive of evidence that deserves much more careful consideration”(tamu.edu). However, James Crisp concludes that the Diary of De La Pena is in fact, authentic and forgery which Groneman argues did not back up enough evidence to support the forgery of the diary. Crisp comes to this conclusion because of his close examinations, and the underlying research done against Groneman’s claims. Crips himself went through man intriguing translations such as the letter found in 1836 by Dodson. This help confront that the fact of forgery would have been misleading in the first place as the actual contentment’s of the letter contained misleading information about Crockett’s death. James Crips himself contended that the De La Pena diary is authentic and credible, and provides a strong evident of information for his argument against Groneman as well as many other disbeliever’s of the