With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution

It's amazing to me, as a military historian and researcher, that there is still so much contoversy surrounding the Diary of Enrique de la Pena. "With Santa Anna in Texas" is not only authentic, but it's also one of the best resources we have regarding the Texas revolution and is also perhaps the BEST first hand account of the Texas Revolution. I know, I know, I see ya shakin' your head, saying "It ain't so." Well...pilgrim...it is. Now you listen here: I'm a Davy Crockett fan and I lived in Texas for a while and loved it...so you give me a listen now before you close the door on one of the best resources you're gonna' ever find about the Texas Revolution because you're doing yourself a dis-service if you take such a narrow attitude.First, let's get the authenticity question out of the way. In April 2000, before a packed LBJ Auditorium at the University of Texas, Austin, David Gracy, archivist specially hired to research the authenticity of the diary of Enrique de la Pena finally delivered his findings as part of the "Eyewitness to the Texas Revolution" conference. Before Gracy delivered his report people in the hall were betting...most against the authenticity of the document. (Yep...the students were there wagering each other like good Texans always do.) Gracy delivered his findings and it felt just like that scene in John Wayne's Alamo where the Mexican army is marching around playing band music and then suddenly falls silent. One of the Alamo defenders perks up and goes "What's that?" The camera pans to the silent ranks of Soldados and the defender then says, "It sure is loud." Ditto the LBJ auditorium. Complete silence. It prompted one Texas journalist to write that Texans should man up and simply accept the fact that the Diary is real.So it's REAL. It's been proven to be real since April of 2000. End of story.Now, to the controversy. First of all...reading some of these other reviewers it becomes painfully apparent that they either did not read the diary, or gave it a prejudicial reading to poke holes in it.So why all the controversy? Well...it's due to the fact that the De la Pena diary was one of the first source documents to emerge that said that Davy Crockett did not die fighting inside the Alamo and that not all the defenders of the Alamo died in the battle. It also stated that some defenders got out of the Alamo and were lanced down by the Mexican cavalry. That's where all the controversy began because the Diary of Enrique de la Pena also came to light right in the middle of the "Davy Crockett" craze in 1955. Many Americans felt that the diary was a fiendish attempt by Mexican nationalists to throw water on the legend of Davy Crockett.To this day, this mis-understanding still swirls around the diary. Even Wikipedia gets it wrong, declaring that De la Pena is the ONLY source that says Davy Crockett was captured during the battle and died AFTERWARDS (being executed by Santa Anna.) Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, and the Davy Crockett legend this simply is not true. There are literally dozens of Mexican documents besides De La Pena that deal with the Alamo battle, and virtually ALL of them state that Davy Crockett was captured and executed. (As a footnote, some of the earliest AMERICAN documents also state this is how Crockett died.)The controversy is strictly speaking outside of the realm of a book review, but I will give my own closing thoughts on it below, which you are free to read. Now to the Diary itself. This paperback version is the latest edition and includes what is known as the "missing" week in it, which makes the book worth having if you are someone who is into researching the Mexican Army during the Texas Revolution. However, if you're a Son (or Daughter) of Texas you will also find the diary worth reading because of the simple fact that De la Pena was the BEST writer from the period of the Texas Revolution whose works have survived and been put into print. All wars have a "voice" an everyman like Sam Watkins (Co Aytch!) who enables us as historians and researchers to go back in time and get a feel for what it was like. Enrique de la Pena is that voice for the Texas Revolution. He writes beautifully and, contrary to what you may assume, is NOT pro-Mexican. In fact he spends most of his time blasting Santa Anna and the corruption of the Mexican government that has resulted in the revolution in Texas. So if you're worried about some "Mexican bias" well...guess again. De La Pena HATED Santa Anna and admired the Texans. If anything, he has an anti-Santa Anna bias.De La Pena's diary is good to read because it shows you just how miserable this war was for both the poor Mexican Soldados and the "Texians." He gives wonderful descriptions of the Texas colony and provides you with a very good idea of what the terrain, the weather and the "life experience" was like during the days of the Texas Revolution. Unfortunately, no such document exists on the Texan side...none of the Texans were as good a writer as De La Pena (although John Sutherland did give it a noble attempt.) In addition, his account of the Alamo attack is the best, bar none, and it is his account which enables historians to piece together the OTHER surviving accounts and assemble them into a workable chronology of the attack. Most of the other surviving Mexican military accounts are pretty dry, matter-of-fact blurbs written solely from the perspective of the officer writing them...De La Pena however gives an over-all picture of how the attack shaped up and this is very helpful in trying to put together a workable scenario of the Mexican assault.So if you're really into the Texas revolution, I encourage you to give De La Pena a chance because you'll find him to be a good writer, with a remarkably honest and balanced view of the entire Texas Revolution. Although he's a proud Mexican, he's not some mindless automaton that followed Santa Anna's orders, attacking the walls of the Alamo in some Mexican version of a Banzai charge. Instead you will find De La Pena to be a compassionate, professional military man with a flare for writing and a very good head on his shoulders. He was also a very good tactician...lucky for the Texans he was politically "incorrect" and was apparently on Santa Anna's "enemies list" so he was never utilized as effectively as he could have been.So that's my review. I urge you to give Enrique de la Pena a chance. You'll find him to be a remarkably good read.Now to the "controversy."Enrique de la Pena wrote one simple paragraph in which he stated that the "famous American naturalist" Davy Crockett was captured and executed by Santa Anna. That's it. But De La Pena's account is not the only Mexican account that claims Crockett was captured. Virtually all the Mexican accounts say this happened. And so do some of the American versions. You might be asking yourself, well, what do you (the reviewer) believe happened?Well...here's the Hiratsuka hypothesis. BOTH versions are correct.Let me explain this possible version of events.First of all we must remember that spelling in those days was very irregular, especially when it came in regard to names. For example: Fannin (the commander at Goliad) spelled his name "Fanning" for a while. And some of the documents about the battle of Goliad also refer to him as "Fanning" instead of "Fannin." Susanna and Almeron Dickinson spelled their last name many different ways (Dickinson, Dickerson, etc.) So trying to figure out who was who can be confusing even if you are dealing with documents in English dealing with the Texians. (Is the Dickerson named the same as the Dickinson in the Alamo, etc.)Also virtually nobody on either side spoke the other sides language. Hence Santa Anna thought that Fannin's name was "Fancy" (at least it sounded like that to him.) Other Mexican documents also refer to the Texian commander at Goliad as "Fanning" (which was how Fannin originally spelled his name prior go coming to Texas, thereby further confusing things.)Jim Bowie was sometimes referred to as "Wuy" or "Buy" in Mexican documents. William Barret Travis was called "Travis Barnet" by some Mexican officers. So it's very reasonable to assume that the Mexicans were also confused as to the identity, and reputation of Davy Crockett. There was no 24-hour news cycle in those days and the identity of an obscure American congressman like Davy Crockett was probably only dimly recognized by the Mexicans.All this brings me to one almost forgotten account of the Alamo battle by a Mexican officer, Captain Juan Jose Sanchez-Navarro. Captain Sanchez-Navarro claimed that the name of the "dignified old man" they captured was "COCRAN" and NOT CROCKETT. Historians seem to have glossed over this thinking simply that "COCRAN" is Sanchez-Navarro confusing the spelling of Crockett (like Santa Anna calling Fannin "Fancy.") However, the historians have over-looked one crucial piece of evidence...the Alamo defenders lists show that there was at least ONE defender of the Alamo named COCRAN. The actual name and spelling depends on which defenders list you read; however there were between two and possibly three people named Cochran(e)inside the Alamo. In one list the man is identified as William Cockran. Another identifies him as R.Cockran. Yet other accounts call him Robert Cochran (or Cochrane.) He was either from Boston Mass, or someplace in Pennsylvania again depending upon which defenders's list you consult.Most of the Mexican and the American accounts agree as to how Travis and Bowie died. Only Crockett's shows this massive discrecpancy of him either dying in battle or being captured. It seems reasonable to me that what happened is this: Davy Crockett died fighting...and William/Robert Cochran(e) surrendered or was over-powered and captured. Cochran was then executed but he went his death very bravely and quite defiantly (like in the Ron Howard "Alamo" movie.) After the battle the Mexican reports simply confused who was captured because of the problem with (1.) the American names and (2.) the identities of the Americans themselves (once again, this was not the age of 24 hour news and although the Mexicans knew who Travis and Bowie were, they had only a vague idea of who Davy Crockett was and even less of an idea of how he looked.)So there you have it...my version of what happened. Enrique De La Pena's diary isn't fake, but De La Pena most likely was confused as to the identity of who was executed, as were virtually all the other Mexican Officers who wrote accounts, except for Sanchez-Navarro (who probably heard the name of the executed man correctly and then wrote it down phonetically, but accurately.) Should I be proven to be right, remember, you read it here at Amazon.com first!In then meantime, give Enrique De La Pena a chance. You might just be surprised how good and objective a writer he is.

Lieutenant colonel jose Enrique de la penas narrative is informative but never gets bogged down in boring details. A quick read that Pena Passion for the mission and is caring for the soldiers around him.

This book first became controversial when it reported that Davie Crockett didn't die fighting the Mexicans, but was executed, hacked to death actually, after he was captured. That's just a small part of the tale, but an important one.What's most important here is the War from a Mexican perspective, the ruthless criticism of Santa Anna, and the inside reports about the bungling of the entire affair by the Mexican military. You'll discover, for instance:Troops assaulting the Alamo only had seven rounds of ammunition each.The night before the battle, all but 10 of the "American" forces were in Bejar at a dance. Had the Mexican Army blocked the bridge between the town and the Alamo, the battle would never have been fought.The phrase "Remember the Alamo" doesn't refer to the battle itself, but to the massacre of prisoners after the battle was over.In the assault, only one ladder made it to the wall, the other ladder bearers having been shot down during the approach.In the smoke and confusion of battle, many Mexican soldiers were shot by other Mexicans.Being wounded in the battle was a death sentence. In the haste to put down the rebellion, Santa Anna had failed to bring either doctors or medical supplies with him.The final facts I'll mention are about the surrender of James Fannin and the Goliad Massacre. The massacre at the Alamo was limited to about seven men, including Crockett. The Goliad massacre killed over 300 men who had surrendered to the Mexican Army.Interesting first person account.

I have read a few books on the Alamo, and the only thing is too read between the lines . I) De La Pena seemed to be wrong on a lot of things, even the number of casualties. He stated that the men in the Alamo had 4 or so rifles stackd next to them. It is possible that after each attempt to attack the Alamo the men would go out in the cover of darkness and gather up weapons and prepare them for the final assault.That would account for 936 extra rifles,( with bayonets), which could cause a lot of damage. I have read about the carnage on the battlefield when Santa Anna road to the fort. It would seem that all those rifles were not counted for after the final assault, where did they go? I would also say that Santa Anna was one of the worst military leaders I have read about. His soldiers seemed to be poorly trained and just sent in to storm the Alamo with no real plan. Santa Anna Was soundly beaten, his dead and wounded had to be more than 1,544, De la Pena said the battle field was a scene of total destruction of his army. As Santa Anna road into the fort he had to be aware of the fact that his horse was stepping on bodies and carnage the likes of which he had never seen. Then the twelve men with no heads, were they crocket, Bowie, Travis, and other leaders that had been captured. Santa Anna sent the flag that was flying over the Alamo to Mexico city, is it possible the heads of Crocket , Bowie, Travis and others are in Mexico city sent by Santa Anna himself. I would think those heads are not far from his headquarters, as strange as that may seem. I think he was so deranged and mentally unstable after the defeat that Santa Anna would do anything to look like he had won the battle. The fact is, he got his behind kicked so bad by those brave 234 men that he may have been close to insanity. Santa Anna could have done anything to Crocket, Bowie, Travis, and others, sick with revenge he was capable of anything.

The INTRODUCTION by James Crisp is worth the purchase of this book Alone!The main work is a MUST HAVE for any Historian, Amateur or Professional. Great Read!Especially engaging sentence constructions.

Book was as described and p& p was excellent ,service was good alround