Post by Allen Wiener on May 22, 2012 10:31:14 GMT -5
I'm attempting to move this topic from the discussion of Santa Anna's route to Bexar onto this new thread. This one's probably long overdue anyway and I think the new Donovan book gives us plenty of food for thought.
On the other thread, Estaban posted the following:
"Donovan says Santa Anna went to Bexar because he expected to find a sympathetic Tejano population base there, which I guess would have been essential for supplying the army, along with raiding rebel ranchos like Erasmo Seguin's. The Bexar area turned out to be much more federalist than he expected.
"I'm curious about what you guys think would have worked for Santa Anna. I'd have struck Galveston and Harrisburg instead, and maybe conceded the Big Thicket for the time being, finished off Bexar at leisure and just kept control of the open plains at first and let the U. S. get used to the idea that the Texas republic was over. Cavalry superiority over the Texians seems like the equivalent of combined air and armor superiority. But I can see how the idea of conceding any territory, even temporarily, would have been unacceptable. I don't think my plan would necessarily have worked for decades--Santa Anna doesn't seem interested in addressing the problems that were breeding federalism in that area--but maybe it would have worked at first. Others will know more than I do so I was wondering what they think S. A. ought to have done."
Naturally, it's of great benefit to have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, so it may appear pretty simple to us. It's possible that Santa Anna could have followed the course Urrea did with his larger army and made even shorter work of Grant, Johnson and Fannin than Urrea did. He would have been able to kill, capture or scatter the fledgling Texan government and take Gonzales as well. That really would have left the Alamo garrison completely alone with no real cause to fight for anymore. They might well have abandoned the place, scattered and thought about what Texas could do next.
I think Santa Anna did think of the rebellion as the work of a minority of colonists and a larger number of recent arrivals who were no different from the filibusters that he had aided Arradondo in smashing some 20 year earlier. Once such interlopers and malcontents were smashed, the war would be over because, to Santa Anna's thinking, most other colonists were loyal to Mexico and, if they weren't, such a brutal demonstration of Mexican power and willingness to use it, would disabuse them of any further ideas about rebellion. It also would send the message you suggest to the U.S. This does make sense if you recall that few long-term colonists were interested in rebellion or independence in the early months of the war and less interested in signing up for military service. That only changed after the Alamo fell, Goliad was wiped out, and Santa Anna's forces were on the march east. The "Runaway Scrape" that followed also gave rise to anger among the colonists, especially after Houston burned and evacuagted Gonzales, and a growing shift in views in favor of the rebellion.
So, it's also possible that a quick strike into the colonies by Santa Anna would have resulted in the sowing the same kind of anger and worsening the rebellion. However, in that case, the colonists would have lost what little organization they had and virtually all of their military forces, in addition to facing a large Mexican army on its soil.
I'm sure there are many more "What Ifs"!
On the other thread, Estaban posted the following:
"Donovan says Santa Anna went to Bexar because he expected to find a sympathetic Tejano population base there, which I guess would have been essential for supplying the army, along with raiding rebel ranchos like Erasmo Seguin's. The Bexar area turned out to be much more federalist than he expected.
"I'm curious about what you guys think would have worked for Santa Anna. I'd have struck Galveston and Harrisburg instead, and maybe conceded the Big Thicket for the time being, finished off Bexar at leisure and just kept control of the open plains at first and let the U. S. get used to the idea that the Texas republic was over. Cavalry superiority over the Texians seems like the equivalent of combined air and armor superiority. But I can see how the idea of conceding any territory, even temporarily, would have been unacceptable. I don't think my plan would necessarily have worked for decades--Santa Anna doesn't seem interested in addressing the problems that were breeding federalism in that area--but maybe it would have worked at first. Others will know more than I do so I was wondering what they think S. A. ought to have done."
Naturally, it's of great benefit to have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, so it may appear pretty simple to us. It's possible that Santa Anna could have followed the course Urrea did with his larger army and made even shorter work of Grant, Johnson and Fannin than Urrea did. He would have been able to kill, capture or scatter the fledgling Texan government and take Gonzales as well. That really would have left the Alamo garrison completely alone with no real cause to fight for anymore. They might well have abandoned the place, scattered and thought about what Texas could do next.
I think Santa Anna did think of the rebellion as the work of a minority of colonists and a larger number of recent arrivals who were no different from the filibusters that he had aided Arradondo in smashing some 20 year earlier. Once such interlopers and malcontents were smashed, the war would be over because, to Santa Anna's thinking, most other colonists were loyal to Mexico and, if they weren't, such a brutal demonstration of Mexican power and willingness to use it, would disabuse them of any further ideas about rebellion. It also would send the message you suggest to the U.S. This does make sense if you recall that few long-term colonists were interested in rebellion or independence in the early months of the war and less interested in signing up for military service. That only changed after the Alamo fell, Goliad was wiped out, and Santa Anna's forces were on the march east. The "Runaway Scrape" that followed also gave rise to anger among the colonists, especially after Houston burned and evacuagted Gonzales, and a growing shift in views in favor of the rebellion.
So, it's also possible that a quick strike into the colonies by Santa Anna would have resulted in the sowing the same kind of anger and worsening the rebellion. However, in that case, the colonists would have lost what little organization they had and virtually all of their military forces, in addition to facing a large Mexican army on its soil.
I'm sure there are many more "What Ifs"!
