Talk:Davy Crockett: Difference between revisions

	Spoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

United States: Texas Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Was David Crockett buried at the Alamo? I ask that Question 'cause I read something at findagrave that his remains are entombed within the Alamo not creamated or scatted at sea.So what's true? Entombed or scatted at sea?thanks.

• Crockett's body , along with the other 180-250 combatants inside the Alamo, were taken outside the Alamo and burned. Almost a year later, on 25 February 1837, Captain Juan Sequín and his calvary company, rode into San Antonio and scooped up some of the ashes. He had a wooden coffin built and buried the ashes where he found them. A marble and concrete casket today resides inside the San Fernando Cathedral supposedly containing the mixed ashes of some of the fallen men from the Alamo.~TLincoln

Where's the info about all the legendary stuff he supposedly did? What about his frontier life?

The Daniel Boone article states that Boone did not wear a coon skin cap, while this article states that he does. Doesn't seem to be on topic for Davy Crockett in any event.

How about the Davey Crockett haircut! It's true!

Um...1872 to 1884 isn't exactly 24 years last time I checked...

So he just died while fighting...why does that make him any more notable than all the other soldiers? Doesn't seem so legendary to me, I expected something extraordinary.

• Crockett and Bowie had already made names for themselves before arriving at the Alamo. Travis was a relative unknown at the time in Texas History. Together, all three are now legends within Texas History. Also, Crockett's death is cause for serious debate among scholars.~TLincoln

He was actually executed under orders from Santa Anna following the battle. A ruthless bastard, I find it amusing General Sam Houston allowed him to live--I sure hope he remained embarrassed over that for the rest of his life. A reputed rapist and murderer (He allowed his men to do so), I'll bet he's crying in Hell for all eternity.

• Houston allowed Santa Anna to live because he knew only Santa Anna could stop the Mexican army. Houston knew there were close to 5,000 Mexican troops still in the field and the Texan military was in poor shape. Santa Anna's order for all Mexican troops to pull back to the Rio Grande was a schrewd political and military move on Houston's part.~TLincoln

You watched the movie, you cant say for certain that he was "actually executed under orders from Santa Anna" when it is all speculation. I love how the movie tries to demolish the legend that is davy crockett...hollywood always trys to defile everything that is great and American.

• The movie on purpose wanted to show the human side of the main characters. Legends and actual fact often become tightly twisted together.~TLincoln

The article does need a lot of work. On a minor matter, Crockett's son served as US Congressman from Tennessee (a Whig like his dad) from 1837 to 1841, not 1843 (also the account could be taken to imply that he served from Texas, which would have been impossible since Texas was not part of the US until after the 1844 election).

== ugh == --68.193.163.234 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) divya[reply]

He killed 108 bears between two sessions of legislature while a Congressman.He killed 108 bears between two sessions of legislature while a Congressman.He killed 108 bears between two sessions of legislature while a Congressman.He killed 108 bears between two sessions of legislature while a Congressman. [cough] evil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.163.234 (talk • contribs)

• Well, yes, but then things really were different back then. Even the naturalist John James Audubon went around killing birds, etc., left and right. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont be stupid...you live in the 2000s...you are weak, davy crockett lived in a time where men were men so you will never understand hunting for survival since you have everything you need at your mcdonalds, put down the hoagie and open your eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.216.1.4 (talk • contribs)

But he did it for no reason whatsoever! He just left them there to rot. only vultures could maake use of them, duh! Natives, on the other hand, actually used every part of the animal. Don't even mention Mcdonalds. I am a vegetarian animal lover, but do not mistake me for a PETA official who thinks it is kinder to bake the chicken, not fry it. (they are idiots). Also, people during that time, when riding in trains, used to shoot buffalo from the windows, again leaving them to rot. Someone back me up here! (please, of course)-- 68.193.163.234 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) divya[reply]

• The mass shootings/killings of buffalo, via trains, occurred from the late 1860s till the 1880s and were shot by wealthy easterners who wanted to 'go west for excitment'. They were only interested in the buffalos' hides. The transcontinental railroad wasn't completed till 1869. Correct statement, wrong decade. ~TLincoln

It really wasn't for no reason-- bears killed livestock (and sometimes people). It certainly made more sense than the slaughter of the buffalo did. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The killing of animals wasn't a matter of concern at all in the 19th century, neither was soil conservation of any kind. The people of that time felt it all was an unexhaustable supply.~TLincoln

they only kill humans if provoked- and injuring them provoked them, u idiot.everyone knows that. Okay, your vegetarian animal lover, how about you travel to the middle of Alaska and try to befriend the bears there? It's easy for you to be an animal lover when you aren't out in the woods trying to survive.

I would use them to survive. Seriously i'm not an idiot--- that much according to my friends.--Divya da animal lvr 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says he was a folk hero, that should mean that he did something that won the hearts of all of his townspeople, but what did he do???

• Crockett was a proponent of the 'common man' of the day while in office. He often championed Indian rights bills in congress.~TLincoln

It says in my book here that "In 1798, David left to work as a hired hand on a 300-mile cattle drive." Is this true?

• In 1798 Jacob Siler was passing by the Crockett tavern in Tennessee and was driving a herd of cattle to Rockbridge, Virginia, about 225 northeast. David's dad, John, hired out David to Mr. Siler for the trip.~TLincoln

The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Old West by Mike Flanagan copyright ???

The article is flagged as being the subject of an accuracy dispute. What is disputed?

And please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplcate of note on: User talk:Ashibaka#I should bill you for the time

Hi! Poor Summary — Many of us would appreciate a comment like "Applied ACCURACY Template because...". We'd appreciate it even more if you annote the talk:Davy Crockett with a prominent section title and notes as is implied by the template: "See Talk..." For example a heading like the below would be in order:

Because ...

1. this
2. that
3. and more importantly...

• I hope you've been checking back on any such tagged articles... the rest of us shouldn't have to spend our limited wikiTime trying to trace such unthoughtful behaviour, wouldn't you agree?
• In sum, you owe me for nearly a half-hours effort. My billing rate is fairly high, so I'll give you a pass this time. Do be more considerate going forward. You have a responsibility to the other volunteers here do so, wouldn't you agree?

I'm removing the Template now. If you don't like it, put it back with such documented reasons if you are too lazy or disinterested in cleaning up the article yourself. Best regards, FrankB 18:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source for the charge that Davy Crockett might have tried to flee. I will remove that sentence in 24hrs without a credible source for this; as it conflicts with the historical record and generally accepted history. --Northmeister 18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Brian, on sourcing. Interesting facts. --Northmeister 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Texans slipped over the walls during the battle within the mission fort. Santa Anna had placed calvary, Gen. Ramírez y Sesma, outside to patrol the Béxar-Goliad road and in case of Texan reinforcements or escape. Mexican lancers surrounded the fort. Source: Santa Anna Order, March 5, 1836 in Jenkins, ed.,Papers IV, 518-519./Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution by Stephen L. Hardin-pp 133,pp138,pp148. All accounts of Crockett's death place him within the Alamo compound.~TLincoln

Exactly, use the time stamp for your signature when editing. --Northmeister 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TLincoln- What source are you using to remove the material from the lead paragraph? --Northmeister 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "King of the Wild Frontier" is a 20th century, Walt Disney, commercially created label. It has no historical bearing on the article and you will not find that tag in any Texas History books. In addition, I have been researching Texas History for over 20 years and I believe in extreme accuracy when dealing with this topic. All true Texas Historians know that Crockett did not like being called Davy, but David. Also, I stand by my research in the case of David Crockett's son John W., and his time in congress. It should be reinstated into the article in my POV. Thank you. Tlincoln 02:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, he is popularly known as "King of the Wild Frontier" as it states and that should stay. We are dealing with the man and the Americana of the man as well. For example he may not have liked th e name "Davy" has Roosevelt did not like the name "Teddy" but history and popular American culture use those terms, they should stay. Keep that and add your observations about John W. if they have sources for us to check. --Northmeister 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I say it stays. So who wins? We could go back and fourth forever, but, it doesn't really matter. If something is removed for being so silly, what's to stop someone from putting it back only because they like it? Like the Crockett part about his funeral! That is pure nonsense. I could easily type " A parade of Mexican clowns came in and danced around the fire", and it would stay. I give up on this site trying to educate people. I am a Texas History teacher, have been to the Alamo many times and I know my facts. Historical garbage will only make my job a little harder in correcting misinformation to our students. This nation's founding fathers were correct in calling the mass of people to dumb to govern themselves. I will not attempt to correct any further historical mistakes on Wikipedia. You're free to write anything you want, I will not respond nor read any commments. Have a nice day and good luck.Tlincoln 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt we find a picture with coonskin cap on? Davy always wore it and its surely how he would like to be remembered.

Ice Cold 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]