James E. Crisp’s Sleuthing the Alamo: Davy Crockett’s Last Stand and Other Mysteries of the Texas Revolution details several important moments of the Texas Revolution. This would include: the speech Sam Houston gave at Refugio in 1836; the validity of the De la Peña Diary; Davy Crockett’s death and how he became an icon.
Much to his surprise, Crisp found that many believed the speech Sam Houston had given at Refugio in 1836 had been riddled with anti-Mexican sentiments. Eugene Barker, a popular Texas Historian, believed Texas Revolution was motivated by, “racial and political inheritances of the two peoples.” (23). There had also been several issues with the translations of Herman Ehrenberg’s eyewitness account from German to English.
In 1925, Edgar William Bartholomae’s erroneous translation could have had something to do with the fact that he had edited out and added passages so that the text was better suited for schools mass audiences. Charlotte Churchill’s translation of Ehrenberg’s account was just as unreliable due to her heavy editing. Further research brought Crisp to the conclusion that Houston’s speech was not racially motivated and that mistranslations and politics influenced and imposed the misconception of Houston as a racist.
Jose Enrique De la Peña was a colonel in …show more content…
It was written that Crockett and the other men had been found inside the Alamo and he had claimed to be an innocent bystander who had not participated in the fighting. Crisp believes, “it is not impossible that David Crockett was enough of a champion storyteller… to attempt to talk his way out of a serious jam.” (119). In an 1836 letter to his brother, George Dolson, a Texas sergeant, had a similar testament. According to his letter, Davy Crockett and 5 to 6 other men surrendered in the Alamo and were taken to Santa Anna who had them executed
Much to his surprise, Crisp found that many believed the speech Sam Houston had given at Refugio in 1836 had been riddled with anti-Mexican sentiments. Eugene Barker, a popular Texas Historian, believed Texas Revolution was motivated by, “racial and political inheritances of the two peoples.” (23). There had also been several issues with the translations of Herman Ehrenberg’s eyewitness account from German to English.
In 1925, Edgar William Bartholomae’s erroneous translation could have had something to do with the fact that he had edited out and added passages so that the text was better suited for schools mass audiences. Charlotte Churchill’s translation of Ehrenberg’s account was just as unreliable due to her heavy editing. Further research brought Crisp to the conclusion that Houston’s speech was not racially motivated and that mistranslations and politics influenced and imposed the misconception of Houston as a racist.
Jose Enrique De la Peña was a colonel in …show more content…
It was written that Crockett and the other men had been found inside the Alamo and he had claimed to be an innocent bystander who had not participated in the fighting. Crisp believes, “it is not impossible that David Crockett was enough of a champion storyteller… to attempt to talk his way out of a serious jam.” (119). In an 1836 letter to his brother, George Dolson, a Texas sergeant, had a similar testament. According to his letter, Davy Crockett and 5 to 6 other men surrendered in the Alamo and were taken to Santa Anna who had them executed