This account of the Texas Revolution is told from the perspective of José Enrique de la Peña, a brevet Lt. Colonel in the Zapadores (Sappers) attached to the Toluca Battalion of the Mexican Army of Operations in Texas. De la Peña has produced one of the more readable first hand Mexican accounts of the war. It is vastly easier to comprehend than the convoluted writing of his superior officers, Generals FIlisola, Urrea, and Santa Anna.

The first part, comprising most of the book, details the movements of the Mexican Army leading up to April 21, including accounts of the battles at Coleto and the Alamo. De la Peña describes the hardships endured by the Mexican Army, especially the lack of adequate food and clothing. He also casts aspersions on the Army’s leadership, attacking leaders from Santa Anna, to Ramirez y Sesma, to Secretario de Guerra y Marina Tornel. De la Peña is very fair to the Texan soldiers, noting their courage and tenacity, while still decrying their efforts to separate Texas from Mexico. He also attacks the execution of American and Texan prisoners as inhumane and unworthy acts.

De la Peña was not present at San Jacinto, but was with Filisola at Thompson’s Crossing on April 21. He describes the reaction of the Mexican leadership as panicked and irredeemable, and claims that the Mexican Army rank and file is chomping at the bit to go attack the Texans under Houston. While de la Peña and his compatriots might have been ready to go, I highly doubt that the typical mestizo draftees who comprised most of the remaining Mexican troops in Texas wanted anything but to go home. De la Peña goes on to describe the terrible conditions during the retreat back to Mexico.

It is relevant to note here that de la Peña was a Federalist and eventually joined a short-lived rebellion against the Centralist government, along with Urrea. Most of de la Peña’s attacks are targeted at Centralist generals and should be read with that in mind. I don’t think that de la Peña was immune to exaggeration in promoting his side of the Federalist-Centralist debate. Also, de la Peña was caught up in the finger-pointing after the loss of Texas and actively sided with Urrea in attacking Filisola and other Centralists in the editorial battle between the two sides.

Of course, de la Peña’s account is famous (or infamous) due to his account of the battle of the Alamo, including the surrender and execution of Davy Crockett. Entire books have been written supporting and attacking the authenticity of this book because of this one passage.

I think that there is little evidence that the diary as a whole was a forgery. The text is rich with details about the Mexican and Texan Armies, the towns the Army passed through and descriptions of the American colonies in Texas. If this was a forgery created in the 1950s as some have claimed, new information discovered over the last 50 years would have exposed errors in the text. As far as I know, no glaring errors have been found except for a description about Travis fighting in the Alamo after the Mexicans breached the walls.

I consider this book essential reading for anyone interested in the revolutionary history of Texas. For someone dipping a toe into Mexican accounts of the Revolution, this is a great starting place as it is very readable and entertaining. The end of de la Peña’s book will also give you a taste of the attacks the Mexican generals made on each other after returning to Mexico.

For those who have not read this book, this is a pretty accurate and discerning review.

A couple of points of amplification: the main defender of the authenticity of this book told me that he did not think the book added much to the discussion that was not already known. He said it was authentic, not accurate.

Also, de la Pena authored this book while in jail; he was settling scores with people he was very upset with. He had a good idea that Texas might not ever be regained and unlike most Mexicans, he understood just how valuable this territory was.

Another interesting book that can be read in tandem with this is Filisola's commentary on the hatchet job Urrea did on him after the war. Filisola both repeats Urrea's attacks and tries, sometimes not so successfully, to rebut them. The annotations by Gregg Dimmick are excellent.

I agree that Dimmick's book is excellent.

In my opinion, Filisola had problems because he tried to rebut every allegation made against him when some of his decisions were clearly mistakes. If he had acknowledged the mistakes, he would have advanced his case. Urrea came off to me like a person angling for political advancement in the aftermath of a disaster.

The attacks and defenses of this memoir are also interesting reading. The whole account of Davy Crockett being captured and killed riled up a whole lot of folks and the debate got as heated as some of the threads on B&P. It sort of mirrors the heated attacks between the Mexican generals after the loss at San Jacinto.

Personally, I don't think de la Pena was at the execution of the Texan prisoners, but heard of it second hand. Crockett may or may not have been one of them.

What are some other good first hand accounts of the Revolution & early Texas?

I read Noah Smithwick's book Evolution of a State when I was younger... how does it hold up to historical scrutiny?

The second part of the de la Pena diary is clearly a fake.

The first diary is clearly de la Pena's work, as it not only matches his hand writing but also has many points that can be confrimed with research.


Back to the second part, not only does the hand writing not match; but its on many different types of paper (seeing how the Alamo fight was over 100 years before the diary came out, if your going to fake a diary its hard to come by paper).

I have seen people in the history field fake a number of documents, items, etc over these long years.

Here is my favorite one to tell people about, in the late 1950's though the late 70's a number of people (2-3) were going around buying very old dresses, pants, shirts. What for you ask? To make Confederate flags, that were being sold for 5k in the 1960's and today nearer 50k.

Faking items is nothing new, and as has been pointed out many times by some very good work by a few historians the second diary of de la Pena is a bad fake.

It was most likely faked in the mid to late 1940's.

I could bring up the accounts of the battle that are known not to be faked and you have 3 people who saw Davy's body in the court yard, and with just a little research you even know who killed Davy in the court yard.

Why was this document taken as being real goes into the fault of University and publishing and the pressure but on the teachers of major University to publish.

A good book covering the vaults of higher education is "The Bone Peddlers" by William Fix.




[This message has been edited by tigger1 (edited 9/3/2008 5:22p).]

I suppose you're referring to the original war-time diary and the subsequent memoir based off it.

I'd like to hear your reasoning on the Davy Crockett issue because I've never seen anything that indicates that anyone incontrovertably identified Crockett's body.

I don't think there is any definite evidence as to when Crockett died, much less that you can figure out who killed him. Frankly, that part of your argument is silly because there is really no way to figure out who killed somebody during a night assault involving about 1000 people over 150 years ago.

Ben:

Having seen former congressman Crockett before (evidently while working at a hotel in Washington) Ben was sent into the fort to identify Crockett's body. It was surrounded by about 16 Mexicans, his knife stuck in one.

Susanna Dickinson:

She saw the body of Crockett between the chapel and the barrack building.

Joe:

Crockett, the kind hearted, brave David Crockett, and a few of the devoted friends who entered the fort with him, were found lying together with 24 of the enemy around them.

Enrique Esparza:

He fough to his last breath. He fell immediately in front of the large double doors which he defened with the force that was by his side.

Ie the court yard in front of the church.

I can give you the accounts that link Davy to an Odd hat and the Mexican account that say who killed the brave fighter in the odd hat.

It takes place in the court yard, right were Crockett was assigned to command.

[This message has been edited by tigger1 (edited 9/3/2008 9:38p).]

I think the Crockett thing is interesting, but there is no definitive answer. De La Pena had never seen Crockett and though he identifies him by name, never states how he knew his identity.

Esparza's account is the most credible. He was there after the battle and knew Crockett well.

My own feeling is that Pena may have misidentified Crockett, but either way, the guys he says were captured are described as dying pretty heroically, and met their fate with dignity.

As tigger says, Sussanah Dickinson identified the body and where it was for the Mexicans or so she said and there is no reason to doubt her.

Of course we all know the truth, he was found pinned to the door of the mission with a broken cavalryman's lance, while blowing up the powder magazine.

Before assuming any part of the diary/manuscript is a fake, I recommend you read James Crisp's "Sleuthing the Alamo."

After reading Crisp's book I had the chance to talk to him and it is his opinion that the de la Pena book is authentic but not always reliable. As Groneman and others who have attacked it have pointed out, most of its contents are available from other sources.

The foremost paper and ink expert in Texas has vouched for its authenticity and wrote an interesting article on the subject in the Southwest Historical Review a few years ago.

As for Susanah Dickinson's recollections, that interview was conducted very late in her life about something very traumatic that happened when she was still a teenager.

Although it has been 172 years, interesting things keep popping up. Ramirez y Sesma's account of his actions as Mexican cavalry commander got unearthed from the catacombs of the DF archives a few years back and offered some good explanations for some head scratchers of long duration. There are other things out there and a lot more to come.

I would really like to see a good book devoted to Texas' place in the overall struggle between Centralists and Federalists in Mexico. A number of people have touched on it but its significance has not been sufficiently explored for english speaking audiences.

quote:

---

I would really like to see a good book devoted to Texas' place in the overall struggle between Centralists and Federalists in Mexico.

---

I second this one. When you look at the writings of Mexican participants, this was the framework in which the Revolution took place. Propaganda on both sides soon turned it into a Anglo-American vs. Mexican war, but at the beginning, both sides claimed it was part of the Federalist-Centralist wars raging all through Mexico.

In de la Pena's work, he refers several times to the overreaction of the Mexican authorities to the rebellion in Texas. In his opinion, the brutality showed to foreigners and colonists captured in Texas forced them to choose to seperate totally from Mexico rather than fight for a return of the 1824 Constitution. Of course, de la Pena was a federalist, so this may have been propaganda on his part. The fact remains that there were many causes for the rebellion in Texas, and stealing land from the Mexicans wasn't necessarily the primary one.