|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 9:36:26 GMT -5
Yestderday, Mark Lemon wrote in the Degulleo thread:
I really think that by April 23, these official after action documents were long gone, and on their way to Mexico. The Battalion commanders should have submitted their reports within a couple of weeks at the most after the battle. These documents would likely have either remained with the army's main body, or been sent back to Mexico, probably sometime in March. I doubt very seriously if these important reports would have been carried, over a month and a half later, with Santa Anna's smaller advance force trying to head off Houston. By late April, Santa Anna, even in the unlikely (to me) event that he had originally left San Antonio with these official documents, would have had plenty of time to have read them, and have them sent back via courier to the main body, and thence to Mexico. There is always a chance that these official reports were at San Jacinto, but for the reasons stated, the percentages are against it.
Of course, this still leaves the officers' personal papers, letters home, diaries, etc, which would have been the most likely documents captured at San Jacinto. It is an arguable point that these more personal documents may have been even more accurate or revealing.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 10:29:59 GMT -5
While, I'm as hopeful as anyone that more documentation will be found, I don't think (and I hope I'm wrong) that other than possibly Morales we will find any after action reports from the column commanders.
Mark, with all due respect I think you have made a totally invalid assumption, and I'll try to explain.
First off subordinate reports are made for the next higher commander, to aid him in the preparation of his report ie column commanders to Santa Anna - and Santa Anna to the War Department. Subordinate reports are usually only forwarded to the second higher level, when the commander who they are addressed to includes them with his report, or if for some, normally, unusual reason request by that higher level.
It would be very unusual, for these reports to have not been with Santa Anna - more on this later.
The copy of Sesma's report in Hansen bears this out. If you look at the last two paragraphs, you'll see that the original was written from the vicinity of Salado (Creek?) on March 11th, 1836, and addressed (and presumably submitted to Santa Anna).
The very next line is "This is a copy, Mexico, August 23, 1836." Followed by Sesma's signature.
Normal, procedure for the day and for a long time afterword, was for a staff officer to maintain a letter book that included copies of all correspondence sent and received. Since, other than his victory bulletin, Santa Anna, never submitted an official report of the taking of the Alamo, or of the Texas Campaign, Tornel as the War Minister no doubt was trying to acquire what records he could from the surviving free officers. And, Sesma, simply copied the letter from his letter book and resubmitted it - but this time to the War Ministry.
Official Records at the time were much more brief and far fewer than what we have today in the age of Word Processors. All of Santa Anna's correspondence would have probably not mounted to more than two or three of these letter books/journals and would have certainly been maintained by one of his staff officers with him, where he could use them at his convenience. When you think of the baggage that accompanied Santa Anna, his tent, china, etc. you can see we're not talking an added encumbrance of any significance. Even, today, I had a map pouch , that slung around the neck/shoulder that I carried with me and held all papers - until I got too senior and had too many papers to fit - but by then I had staff to carry them!
The Texian correspondence captured at the Alamo is significantly different. It was probably almost immediately collated probably by Almonte, and that which could aid the campaign was entrusted to the care of a staff officer, the rest (except for the obviously irrelevant) was probably forwarded right away to the Minster of War.
At San Jacinto itself, while we would like to think that some Intelligence Officer type immediately secured the Mexican correspondence and went through it with a fine tooth comb. I think given the undisciplined state of the Texas Army as soon as the Mexican Army broke and ran that, that is a forlorn hope. The Texians were more concerned with killing Mexicans and pillage, than either history or future operations. Then you must add in the burden of a foreign written language ....
Besides the original subordinate reports, and perhaps even a draft of Santa Anna's probably being destroyed at San Jacinto, you also had the battalion log books or journals of the attacking battalions that were also lost there. Greg Dimmick recorded the fate of one of them in his Sea of Mud. Thus, except for the San Luis Potosi Battalion's journal, they too are probably permanently lost to history.
While I wish, I'm wrong, given the normal practices of the day I'm afraid that they are lost, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2010 11:32:19 GMT -5
Herb, "With all due respect," labeling my assumption that the reports, or at least copies of them, made their way back to Mexico in the 1 1/2 months that passed after March 6th as "totally invalid" is a bit harsh and pejorative.
While you are I suppose entitled to your opinion that my assumption is invalid, just as I am entitled to mine that you are using just as much assumption and supposition as I am, your extensive US Army experience notwithstanding.
We just disagree in our views on this issue. I feel that there is just as much, or more, chance that these reports, or at least copies of them, made their way back to Mexico in the more than one and a half months that passed since the Alamo battle, as them being captured and destroyed at San Jacinto.
Saying with any sort of certainty that this cannot be possible, or even that it is highly unlikely, is, in my opinion, simply argumentative.
And until the archives are open and available to more researchers with carte blanche to look for them, we'll probably go on with these circular arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 12:02:22 GMT -5
Mark, don't get me wrong, in the normal course of events these reports would (or at least should) end up in the archives, but that is usually significantly after the fact. And, then, that is as historical records - not as official reports per se. I know that probably sounds like a minute difference, but it is not.
The fact is until Santa Anna submitted his official report, the subordinate reports would normally be held by him and not be forwarded to War Ministry.
In may cases senior commanders would attempt to direct subordinates to change their reports (see Winfield Scott and Pillow and Worth in the Mexican War or Jackson and AP Hill in the American Civil War). Very obviously, not too many commanders were or are going to allow a subordinates' word (especially if it conveys a message the senior doesn't like) to be the first one his higher headquarters heard.
The primary use of subordinate reports are for the superior to prepare his report. Until, Santa Anna prepared his report, these reports in the normal course of events, would not have left his headquarters.
Can it be proved, no, but Occam's Razor certainly applies.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 9, 2010 12:14:01 GMT -5
Mark: What Herb did not say but I will is that submitting reports directly back to Mexico without sufficient reason is a direct violation of the chain of command. Were I Santa Anna or any other commander I would have been more than upset if such a thing had occured. After action reports from subordinate units are for the exclusive use of the next higher commander. He and only he may decide to enclose them as annexes to his own report.
This of course does not preclude reconstructing these reports at a much later date from memory, assuming that all of the battalion records were lost. I think this unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 9, 2010 12:35:51 GMT -5
Would not the reports end up with the Mexican equivalant to our 19th century Assistant Andjutant General who would be under Santa Anna's chief of staff? If needed, copies would be forwarded to the Minster of Marine and War (Tornel).
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2010 12:42:46 GMT -5
The opinions from the army veterans is greatly appreciated, and considered. I, too, have an extensive military background as an officer of 10 years, with I might add, some not too little experience in submitting reports to superiors. I just don't talk about it much, unless cornered and forced to do so This just shows that officers can, and often do, disagree. I agree and acknowledge that subordinate officers' reports exist and are promulgated for the use of the superior commander's own report. The supposition in this debate is that Santa Anna did not submit such a detailed official report which made use of these subordinate reports. Therefore the subordinate reports would not be forwarded to the war department, unless as attachments to Santa Anna's own. This, as we see, presupposes that the superior officer did not submit such a report. I am of the opinion that he very well may have in the extensive time that followed the March 6th battle. Santa Anna had ample time to do just this, and attach the after action reports to his own. The fact that the Mexican government has not Fedexe'd these documents to our doorsteps or otherwise made them readily available ignores the animosity that that governing body has shown to the US and it's interest in the Texas revolution all these years hence. My point that such a report, with all its attachments may in fact exist, but that, like the Williamson letter and Travis documents in their possession, they are supremely indifferent to our knowing about it, and allow these reports to surface with agonizing slowness, if at all. I am a big supporter of Occam's Razor, but it I must admit is sometimes trumped by another: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." When dealing with the Mexican government, this is particularly true. In any event, is does allow for the possibility, and we should couch our language accordingly, and refrain from the pejorative when describing another's informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 9, 2010 12:43:24 GMT -5
Then again, there are all sorts of copies of military reports to be found in the Bexar Archives, including the monthly returns for the Morelos Battalion in 1835....
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 13:08:52 GMT -5
Would not the reports end up with the Mexican equivalent to our 19th century Assistant Andjutant General who would be under Santa Anna's chief of staff? If needed, copies would be forwarded to the Minster of Marine and War (Tornel). It gets complicated, but you would think so. This is where the difference of being part of the historical record versus a report comes in. But, the simple fact is no commander - especially one like Santa Anna is going to allow a subordinate to usurp his position by letting the subordinate report to national headquarters independently. Part of the Scott/Pillow uproar (and it led to either a court of inquiry or martial I can't recall off hand) was Pillow released part of his report without going through the chain of command and it included the part Scott wanted suppressed (Pillow taking credit for things he wasn't involved in). Anyway, in the US system at the time, even those reports sent to the AAG in Washington were supposed to go through the commander's AAG beforehand ie the commander could still hold them up, until he was ready to release them. That Pillow survived the ordeal and Scott was relieved was an abnormality due solely to the partisan Democrat vs Whig politics of President Polk.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2010 13:13:21 GMT -5
This per Roger Borroel, who I believe is beyond reproach as a translator of Official Mexican correspondence of the Revolution period:
"Mark: Good afternoon, I hope all is well with you. I was just tracking the Mexican Archive thread on the Alamo Studies website, and you are correct in saying that the battalions at San Antonio, before they marched east, kept their battalion logbooks, and important papers behind in San Antonio. There was no need to take all of their battalion documents with them, as they chased Houston, and his men into east Texas. There is a striking example of the Toluca battalion leaving behind their unit strong box and case of official documents, hence, they were not lost on the field of San Jacinto. In a letter, dated the 11th of 1836, Colonel Duque, wrote to an official of the Mexican government, Jose de Herrera, where he writes, on this very subject under discussion, "The [unit] strong box and the case of official documents, both of sufficient interest and value, have been saved and up to this hour, only some documents appeared to have been mislaid." If the other battalions acted as Col. Duque did, before leaving San Antonio, leaving behind their unit's important papers, then they ARE somewhere in the Mexican archives. Here was the general rule for the issuance of Mexican army orders, at least in 1836 Texas campaign: At least THREE copies were made. One for the recipient. One copy for the commanding general at Matamoros, in this case, General Vidal Fernandez, and one for Mexico City. Of course, this was not set in stone, important orders would go to Santa Anna too. But at least three copies had to be made. And that's why they had secretaries. When I uncovered those letters, I know when I have a copy, because at the bottom of the dispatch, it will be written, "Es Copia", ie, This is a Copy, then the secretary's name will be next to this statement. If this brief statement is not there, then I know, I have an original document in hand. This why when Professor Castaneda with to Matamoras in 1933, with his students to transcript all those documents, they were at Matamoras, as he must have known. A PS here, the quoted document is from Volume I of Field Reports, page 50-52, source, U. of Texas, 2Q174 v. 335...."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 9, 2010 13:35:01 GMT -5
). [[/i][/quote]
Being familar with the workings of the US Army during this period, including how its paper work was done, everything goes through the commander, with the battalion or regimental staff keeping the records and generating the copies which get forwarded on to the AAG in DC.
I can see where the Santa Anna's and the other battalions HQ documents would stay in Bexar while the army moved out east. The 2nd Dragoons and the 7th Infantry did the same thing when they were sent to Nacogdoches that summer, with their monthly returns being part of the regular paperwork of Fort Gibson and Fort Towson.
It would also explain why there are Mexican Army documents, including the Morelos Battalion returns in the Bexar Archives, and items turned up in Matamoros.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 14:27:51 GMT -5
I lost rather a long post, and can't take the time to totally reconstruct it, but in brief.
Almonte records receiving Sesma's report and also Romero's. This maybe all that was ever received, due to Duque's wounding and Morale's early departure from Bexar. Nothing is mentioned from Cos, and nothing is mentioned about Santa Anna submitting one to Mexico. Almonte does seem to be pretty concienctous in recording significant correspondence.
Roger's info is interesting, I am not surprised at all that Toluca left its strong box and important documents in Bexar - that is but normal operating procedure. I think it is a significant leap, though to assume that the unit logbooks were left in Bexar. First off, their primary purpose was to record the units daily activities. They certainly wouldn't be accomplishing their purpose being left behind. Second, we know that at least two of the other units took their logbooks with them, the one lost in the river crossing recorded by Dimmick (I believe DLP is the source) and the one logbook known to exsist today the San Luis Potosi Journal.
The comments about orders are interesting, but irrelevant to the current discussion, we're not talking about orders, but reports. Two very different things.
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Aug 9, 2010 15:02:01 GMT -5
I had mentioned this information on a previous thread, but given the nature of this discussion it might be worth repeating. Santa Anna had a lot of his records destroyed or stolen during the American invasion of Mexico. In his autobiography he described it this way," I have written these pages of history with a bold pen- with no other aid than my taxed memory. Unfortumately, much of the data which could have helped me prepare a more scrupulous account were burned at Manga de Clavo by United States soldiers in 1847... Other memorabilia was robbed from me, along with my belongings when I was in New York. " We can only wonder what vital Alamo records he might have possessed.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 9, 2010 15:41:11 GMT -5
Mark: I believe you told me you had naval service. What you and evidently Roger are saying is the same as if the USS Whatever had put to sea without the ship's log. A ships log does no good on the beach with the ship at sea. It is the same for a TOC log where everything of significance going on in a unit is recorded as it happens. I can fully understand some unit documents being left behind or in storage while a unit is in the field. Such documents as a log or field copies of recent reports would in all probability not be among them. None of these procedures are modern or in fact unique to the U S or any other army. They go back to the Roman legions and beyond. While in the field there are some documents that you a forced to make reference to on a daily basis, or are in daily use, such as a log.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Aug 9, 2010 15:43:22 GMT -5
All involved and interested in this current discussion will, no doubt, enjoy examining the previously-unpublished Mexican Army letters and newspaper accounts that will appear in the forthcoming issue (Sept. 2010; #158) of The Alamo Journal. The documents were submitted by two well-known individuals. When the issue goes to the printer next week, a complete overview of the issue (and the identity of the "individuals") will be posted here.
All the best.
|
|