The cause of Davy Crockett’s death was the subject of Dr. James E. Crisp’s lecture. Crisp’s latest book entitled, “Sleuthing the Alamo: Davy Crockett’s Last Stand,” which he wrote to rectify some of the untruths of the Texas Revolution, examines Crockett’s death a little more closely and unveils whether or not Crockett died fighting.
The lecture was titled, “Sleuthing the Alamo: Documenting Davy’s Death.” Davy Crockett was immortalized with the spirit of the Texas Revolution, primarily with the Alamo and the belief that he died fighting. But a diary from a Mexican officer named, Jose Enrique de la Pena says otherwise.
Dr. Blackwell, associate professor of the Department of Social Sciences, introduced Crisp.
Crisp began with the definition of a revisionist historian or more appropriately a “working historian.” He said you can not touch the past, but “when you did the story changes.” According to Crisp some historians have the tendency to lie especially if their work receives any form of publicity, but it is a true historian’s duty to sift through it and correct it.
History is an “imperfect science, if it’s a science at all,” Crisp said. He went on to say that not all amateur historians are bad, but you have to look for the “document behind the document behind the document” in order to write about history. Dr. Crisp went on to discuss the de la Pena diary.
Bill Groneman’s book, “Defense of a Legend: Crockett and the de la Pena Diary,” was written to defend Davy Crockett. The diary of de la Pena is controversial because he claims to have witnessed Crockett being arrested and then shot by order of General Santa Anna.
Crisp said that it was not sure whether Santa Anna was unaware of Crockett’s identity or that he was a prisoner. Most of what we are told, according to Crisp, is told to us by “amateur historians.” But Crisp added that they “aren’t all bad.”
For many people the truth behind Crockett’s death is not really the truth at all, and as for others it has never been so clear.