Alamo Express [San Antonio, TX], September 1, 1860
In Friday’s Daily Herald, Captain Potter attempts to defend his account of “the fall of the Alamo” against the stubborn facts presented in the simple and straight-forward narrative given by Don Francisco Ruis. We thought to let this matter go until answered by an impartial compilation of the existing facts and knowledge relating to this event, which we shall place before the public as soon as possible, but as Mr. Potter has presented to the public an account which he attempts to defend as infallible against all others, we propose to take a brief review of the two accounts as they now stand.
In the outset of his narrative, Mr. Potter says that so far as the final assault was concerned, the details have never been correctly given by any of the current Histories of Texas; that the official reports of the enemy cannot be relied on; and that a trust-worthy account can only be compiled by comparing the verbal accounts of assailants with military documents.
Mr. Potter either was not aware of, or ignores the fact that an account had been given by an eye-witness—Don F. Ruis; declares the accounts of the enemy to be unreliable, and then gives as his authority the narrative of assailants, and the second-hand statements of Mexican officers; to wit: Gen. Bradburn, who had been driven out of Anahuac by Travis, and whose evidence to Capt. Potter was only hearsay derived from Mexican officers.—The reliability of such authority we must be allowed to doubt when it faces the statements of Mr. Ruis.
Again, in his estimate of Santa Anna’s army he attempts to establish on probability, the actual force. He says that there were thirteen battalions of foot, and two regiments of cavalry, which, if full, would amount to 22,500 men. Mr. Potter reduces this number down to 7,500 men. His reason:
“The nominal compliment of a Regiment or Battalion is 1500 men; but I have never known one to be full, or to much exceed a third of that number.”
It is quite probable, for we have the Captain’s word for it, that these battalions were not full when he saw them, but this does not controvert the probability that they were full or half full when they appeared before the Alamo.
He makes a few minutes’ work for the Mexicans to take the Alamo; and declares that the account given by Yoakum “is evidently one which popular tradition has based on conjecture.” In his defence , in relation to Mr. Ruis’ account, he says: “It is in substance, the very account I refer to as adopted by Yoakum and others.” And Mr. Potter calls this account of Mr. Ruis’ a tradition. The narrative of an eye-witness a tradition?
In regard to the Mexican loss, Mr. Potter says:
“The estimate made by intelligent men in the action, and whose candor I think could be relied on, rated their loss at from one hundred and fifty to two hundred killed, and from three to four hundred wounded.”
What is Mr. Ruis’ testimony on this point? He says:
“The dead Mexicans of Santa Anna were taken to the grave-yard, but not having sufficient room for them I ordered some of them to be thrown into the river, which was done the same day.
“Santa Anna’s loss was estimated at 1600 men. These were the flower of his army.”
He disposed of the dead; had them carted off, and knew how many a cart would contain, and how many cartloads there were. We therefore contend he is the best possible authority on this point; and it is absurd for any man to call this statement a “tradition based on conjecture,” and to attempt to impeach Mr. Ruis’ authority as Mr. Potter has in saying in his defence that “the credulity which can swallow this, cannot be relied on for historical data.” Let us turn the tables on the Captain: The credulity that can swallow the account of such men as Gen. Bradburn and other Mexican [illegible] cannot be relied on for historical data. We think [illegible]
Now let us in conclusion [illegible] up the points of difference, briefly:
The first is as to the time of day.—Mr. Ruis says, “on the 6th of March, at 3 o’clock P.M.” Mr. Potter says just at the peep of day.
Mr. Ruis says the attacking forces amounted to 4000 men. Mr. Potter says 2500.
Mr. Ruis says the Mexicans were twice repulsed. Mr. Potter says they walked right in.
Mr. Ruis says the Mexican loss was 1600. Mr. Potter says only 500.
Now let us review their capabilities as witnesses: Mr. Potter was, according to his own admission, several hundred miles away when the storming of the Alamo took place; therefore is of himself no authority, and surely cannot have the face to claim before the people of Texas the same credence for his sources of information as the direct testimony of Mr. Ruis deserves.
Mr. Ruis is one of our most respected and intelligent Mexican citizens; was Alcalde or Mayor of the City at the time of the fall of the Alamo; was present and as close as a reporter could have been, during the action; disposed of the dead; know, and was in company with the most prominent actors of that occasion; has been a resident here from that time to this, and would therefore be more likely than any other man to come in possession of all the existing traditions, narratives and incidents in relation to this event, and would hardly make a statement contrary to his knowledge and all the evidence of the case.
We suppose he gave this account at the solicitation of the compilers of the Texas Almanac, in as condensed and simple a style as possible, without any idea of literary display, or as a correction of any former accounts. It is simply his straight-forward narrative.
Mr. Potter was hundreds of miles away from the scene of battle; gathers his statements from indirect sources; and takes the probabilities in the case as truth; therefore we must set him down as probable, not positive authority, however much he may object to the contrary. If Mr. Potter is desirous of acquiring, or adding to this literary fame as a writer and historian, we have no objections; in fact we wish him success, provided he does not jump to conclusions upon assumed facts, or such as are not entitled to belief; and does not introduce so many probabilities to contradict existing authority.