Ques. re: Longrifle in Time Life series: "The Texans"

[C. Cash]

In the Time Life book "The Texans" there is a longrifle pictured on pgs. 84-5 that reportedly picked up at the Alamo and later given to a Texas Colonel.     Not much info is given, and just wondering if anyone has any more info on this rifle?  Thanks!

[Whitedog]

Is there any way that you could post a picture of that rifle?  Thanks,  Fred

[C. Cash]

I'll sure try....nothing on the net about it, it seems.  The rifle picture takes up two pages of the Time Life book.

[jwh1947]

When I wrote my book I was in contact with the "Daughters of the Alamo" or whatever the exact name is, apparently a coordinating group for the docents there.  Their spokespersons really hedged their bets on the reported "Davy Crockett" longrifle in the museum, and I respected their straightforwardness.  The specimen was one of the many that ended up on the cutting room floor and never made the book.  Could be a restock by their own admission and I would agree.  There was a funeral pyre and a heap of debris burned after the fall of the Alamo, and any definite attribution of a piece to an historical figure is just that, an attribution, and an egregious stretch.

[C. Cash]

Thanks for the input. The caption says that it was picked up by a Mexican peasant who was cleaning up after the battle and given to a Texas Colonel(unamed) .  Either it is a huge rifle or the lock is very small.  It looks like a PA rifle to me, but I am among the uneducated.   The barrel looks big and not very swamped at all.  I can find no reference to it outside of the Time Life book, so maybe it turned out to be unsubstantiated.  No doubt a rifle with an interesting history in some shape or form.

[Whitedog]

That sounds to me like the Dickert Rifle that was supposedly found among the debree of the Alamo by a Mexican resident of Bexar who was supposedly conscripted by the Mexican forces as a laborer after the battle. The story went that he'd hidden it at first and then retrieved it later. Then he gave it to a Col. and it wound up in the Alamo museum. Actually, the rifle known as the Dickert Rifle has been pretty much documented as being made up of the parts of different guns. Again, the parts are traditionaly said to have been aquired from different families in the area who found the parts in and among the ruins of the Alamo compound. So, somewhere along the line, one of the Daughters Of The Republic Of Texas have claimed that the rifle is now associated with David Crockett. Hmmm.  There is at least one other rifle in the Alamo museum that David Crockett actually did own. It was left behind by him in Tennessee when he took off for Texas. Another rifle that's possibly there was traded by him to somebody who later had it converted to a cap lock and several inches of the barrel taken off at the breech end. There is also, I think, a rifle that was given to the museum by Fess Parker. The whereabouts of the actual rifle that David Crockett had with him at the Alamo is so far unknown. Actually, he brought several rifles with him as is documented. Two he sold off to an army officer who never got around to paying him for them and another he traded to a young boy for another that the boy had. Where is the rifle that Crocket used? There is one rifle that surfaced in 1838 in New York that was supposed to have belonged to David Crockett that an army Major or Colonel received from a Mexican officer and who later transfered it to a naval officer or visa versa. Anyway, it was on display in New York City or Boston along with a hunting bag and powder horn for awhile, then it vanished from the record. It's current whereabouts are unknown.  Another gun somebody bought along with the story long ago? Who knows?

[C. Cash]

Whitedog,

That's it! Thank you very much for the info.  From the picture and to my untrained eye, the rifle looks finely made so I wonder if the families around there could have found someone to  remake such an exquisite and historically correct looking rifle?  The wood does look a little too nice for having been through one heck of a battle and whatever it should have experienced up to the Alamo though.    Hard to say, but food for thought.  Many thanks to you again.

[Whitedog]

When I wrote my book I was in contact with the "Daughters of the Alamo" or whatever the exact name is, apparently a coordinating group for the docents there.  Their spokespersons really hedged their bets on the reported "Davy Crockett" longrifle in the museum, and I respected their straightforwardness.  The specimen was one of the many that ended up on the cutting room floor and never made the book.  Could be a restock by their own admission and I would agree.  There was a funeral pyre and a heap of debris burned after the fall of the Alamo, and any definite attribution of a piece to an historical figure is just that, an attribution, and an egregious stretch.

Yes, there were two funeral pyres, but no serviceble rifles or firearms were thrown onto them.  Mexican records show that the rifles, pistols and muskets found in the Alamo compound after the final engagement that weren't part of the original arms left by the previous Mexican troops that'd left with General Cos, were ordered by General Santa Anna to be dispersed, given or auctioned off among the troops along with the other items that'd been collected. However, before the bodies of the Texan defenders were stacked in between  piles of logs (from the defensive walls) for burning, the bodies were reportedly stripped of every article of clothing by the Mexican forces who needed the protection in the cold weather to replace their torn, missing and worn out uniforms, if as conscription's, some even had uniforms. Over 800 muskets, rifles and pistols were counted and collected from among the dead after the final battle.  There was never a big pile of burnt stocks, melted brass and iron parts found on the ground when the Texan's reoccupied Bexar later on. Where did they all go? Some were probably left in The Sea Of Mud during the retreat back to Mexico. Others were recaptured from Mexican forces by Texans. Still others were taken to Mexico by the troops that DID make it back intact. Some that were too badly damaged for anyone to care about might've been salvaged by citizens of Bexar afterwards for parts since rifle and musket parts were a desirable item back then to make other rifles and muskets. Little would've been wasted. I think that a lot of the "debree of war" after the final battle was traditionaly thrown into the ditches and trenches that'd been excavated by the defenders and buried to deny the enemy anything of value and to clean up the compound for the occupying Mexican troops who were afterwards posted there and for the Mexican troops who stayed there for the month it took Sants Anna to reorganize his forces before moving on.
  

[The other DWS]

I'm interested in "crockett rifles" ( especially any that might reflect his earlier years in south central TN.)  so I'n going though all the threads with anything to do with him and ran across this one.   I'm also interested in the Alamo story fact and fiction.  is the Mark Leamon book available yet/where?

any other books or references anyone can direct me to in this little project would be very much appreciated as well

[mr. no gold]

The Los Angeles Times ran an article in 1948, (or 1949, my memory is vague on which year) that described a Kentucky Rifle owned by an elderly woman in Lancaster, CA. Best I can recall it was a Lancaster, PA gun, and that it was said to be an Alamo rifle.
She told the story that her family owned a farm in MO and often hired men to work there. One day, a Spanish speaking man came by carrying an old fashioned rifle. He was hired on,
stayed, and almost became a member of the family, over the years.
Shortly before the man passed away, he gave the rifle to his benefactor and told the story that he had been conscripted by the Mexicans to fight at the Alamo. After the battle, he picked up the rifle and returned to Mexico. He kept the gun and brought it with him when he eventually emigrated to the US.
There was no claim that it belonged to Crockett. Last I heard, a prominant west coast collector was investigating the matter and that is where it ended. The collector was well qualified to do it as he had at least one Bowie Knife and other items that had been found at the battle site.
The rifle in the Alamo Museum is a plain gun with a daisy patchbox and said to be a Dickert gun. Many feel that since it is plain it can't be the original stock. Another plain Dickert is owned by a collector in Colorado that has Rev. War history, but also has been decried by many as just another restock. Every rifle made by Dickert (et al) can't have been a work of art piece, in my opinion. Even the best of the makers built some pretty standard, working guns that lacked the carving inlays, and so on that today typify a KY Rifle. Just some random thoughts and memories harking back 65 years, or so.
Dick 

[Whitedog]

I've never been to the Alamo to see the Dickert rifle first hand that's on display there. I've been told that it has a history that verifies that it was assembled from parts of different rifles. Whether or not the parts were all from the ruins of the Alamo battle can't really be proven now, but over the many years since the battle in 1836, a lot of material in the way of artifacts, stones from walls with bullets embedded in them etc. have been recorded as having been salvaged from the ruins of the old compound that no longer exists. There were even three skeletons that were reported to have been found under the colapsed debree within the old chapel by the U.S. Army when they were rebuilding the Alamo church during their occupation in 1848. So, who knows anymore if the rifle on display known as the Dickert Rifle was truly made up of parts found there over the years and gathered up again from verious Texas families as reported.

[The other DWS]

That sounds very intriguing.   any data available on the up coming book?

do you have any info on the "known" Crockett-connected rifle in the Alamo Museums?   I guessing it might have been the one (possibly "old betsy"--the Lawrenceburg community presentation James Graham rifle) that was left with his family back in TN; that might have made its way to the Alamo in later years.

Its one I'd like to know a lot more about?

[C. Cash]

Great info fellas, many thanks for relating it to us.  Raises the hackles on the neck to think about these old rifles and the men who held them.  If I find out any more on this Dickert style rifle at the Alamo museum, I will pass it along.

[Whitedog]

That sounds very intriguing.   any data available on the up coming book?

do you have any info on the "known" Crockett-connected rifle in the Alamo Museums?   I guessing it might have been the one (possibly "old betsy"--the Lawrenceburg community presentation James Graham rifle) that was left with his family back in TN; that might have made its way to the Alamo in later years.

Its one I'd like to know a lot more about?

I don't know anything about them except what a guy I know who lives down there and who knows the Alamo Curator says. He said that the rifles in the Alamo museum attributed to Crockett were brought in from elsewhere for the museum and that none of them were the ones that David Crockett had with him at the Alamo or brought with him. It's known that Crockett did bring several rifles with him. One he traded off for another rifle from a young man whose father talked his son into it after Crockett expressed his desire to trade his for the boys. Another he bought from someone just after he entered Texas. It was described as a plain but dependable flintlock. Two rifles he sold to an army colonel and was never paid for them. His son collected the money from the colonel later. Of the rifle that David Crockett had in his hands when he died or that he fought with on that last morning, no one knows what happened to it or what it looked like.

[The other DWS]

I doubt that anyone will ever know what rifle any of the Alamo defenders had in their hands.  Certainly there were a large quantity of arms salvaged and recycled by the victorious mexican forces. So its probable that some of the long arms survived among the Mexican forces or among the local population. The "bexar rifle" appears to be a veteran of this sort.  There well may be others who were passed down through families until worn out or discarded as "old junk' as their stories were lost and more modern arms became available.
If it was like any similar situation in history the officers grabbed up anything of perceived value, officers swords, ornate knives, pistols and fancy long arms. The residue went to the common troops and the detritus of that to the locals.

Undoubtedly there were a lot of broken rifles due to hand to hand phase of the end of the fight and using civilian rifles of that era as clubs is real hard on them.  Repairable guns probably would have been fixed. Quality gun parts especially barrels locks and perhaps trigger mechanisms would probably have been preserved for reuse since such parts would have been at a premium in a quasi-frontier environment.

 Whether there were local craftsmen in the area capable of recreating a damaged rifle by restocking its original parts in its original configuration would make for some interesting research for someone who can access the local hispanic community records and traditions.  I'd guess that the so-called "dickert" rifle is evidence of such activity.

I'm of the opinion that the only possible actual "Crocket rifle" would be the one that several sources state came from the Crockett family at some later date that might have been the Lawrenceburg Community presentation rifle that was left with his family when he went west.  this is reasonably logical to me.  One assumes it was smaller bore --40 or less--eastern rifle and the need for larger more powerful arms in the west was fairly common knowledge.  So re-equipping for the western move would be a reasonable thing to do.  He was well equipped on arrival, since he sold several extra rifles and engaged in some further rifle trading when he got to Texas.
Later after the battle was done, and the clouds of patriotic holiness descended over the Alamo and its defenders, Crockett was known and revered more for his role in that debacle than in his eastern lifetime.  It would be logical for his "favorite rifle" which he had left behind to find its way west to the "shrine" of Texas independence where he was among the pantheon of heroic defenders.

It would really be enlightening to have the accession records of the Daughters of the Texas Republic library and museum examined for their story of the "crockett rifle" reputed to be in their collection.  Unfortunately I spent too many years in museum administration to assume that there is much accurate documentation for artifacts collected or donated/loaned in the late 19th and early to mid-20th century.  Perhaps someone on these forums who travels to or through San Antionio could at least eyeball the rifle and give us a report of what it looks like.

[Whitedog]

Excellent post! Thanks!

[longrifle]

I have been to the Alamo a good many times and have looked at the Dikert rifle in the display case many times. To the best of my recollection there is no notation that it was associated with David Crockett. As for the condition it look's really good, maybe a little too good, the wood is in very good condition from what you can see of it in the display. The metal looks very good also it does not show much if any exterior pitting. I have often wondered myself about the rifle. It does not look like it has been used real hard or been in a hard battle. I don't know if it was put together out of parts. I also wonder how much restoration was done to it to make it look as good as it does today.

[C. Cash]

Thanks for the report Longrifle!   I don't think the Dickert rifle in the Alamo museum is being asserted here as being associated with Crockett, unless I've missed something.  Those are different rifles being discussed here in this same thread, but all very interesting.

[The other DWS]

to clarify:  this is a citation from a 2004 Guns Magazine article by Bill Ball as found on-line at   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_1_50/ai_110470560/

"For much appreciated service in the Tennessee State Assembly, Crockett's Lawrence County constituents presented him with a .40-caliber flintlock crafted by James Graham around 1822.
Calling this rifle "Old Betsy", Crockett used it to kill 125 bears between 1825 and 1834. When he departed for Texas in 1835, Davy left "Old Betsy" with his son, John Wesley. Today, it resides in the Alamo Museum collection in San Antonio."

I do not have the article itself and I do not know if Mr Ball listed his sources so I cannot speak for the accuracy of his background research.  However his account does jib with several other accounts.   But as we know if a leader's compass is off-kilter so will all the followers go.  Far too many historical "sources" are repeats and rephrasing of an "original source" that is dead wrong.  Not saying this is or isn't.  It sounds like a reasonably logical account---but we know history is seldom logically driven.  It certainly bears a more detailed examination of sources and the rifle itself to the extent possible.

  An examination of the non-dickert flint rifle reputedly associated with Crockett that is said to be in one of the Alamo collections might be very educational.  The Lawrence County rifle was supposed to have been made by one James Graham and presented to Crockett by the community.     Do we know anything about a c 1820 gunsmith by that name who could have provided a (probably ) commissioned rifle to South Central TN?   One assumes such rifle might have some presentation inscription though it simply could have been a high grade but utilitarian "user" rifle.  One would assume that the maker would certainly mark his creation if he knew it was going to be gifted to a local dignitary.   I think it would probably be a smaller "eastern" calibre (say 40 or less) and style as opposed to a larger bore "western" rifle.  Some one with better qualifications and experience with original southern flintlocks would certainly have better criteria than I.