|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 17, 2008 11:25:01 GMT -5
As we all know, after the capture of Bexar in December, 1835, a large portion of the Texas Army returned home for the winter, leaving only a small garrison in Bexar/the Alamo. One thing that often gets ignored, is that virtually nobody thought the war was over, and most Texians realized there would be a Spring Campaign (see Moore's Eighteen Minutes where he details every company that formed Houston's Army and how many of them were forming in preparation for the Spring Campaign - before the news of Santa Anna's arrival in Bexar).
Anyway, this "furloughing" of the Volunteer Army in 1835, has led, imo, to the development of another popular myth, that the Alamo was held by "outsiders" who died while Texians slept. A cursory examination of Groneman's Alamo Defenders and the Texas Handbook, shows that's that just not quite true.
Counting couriers, as well as the men killed in the battle, but not noncombatants, I've come up with the following numbers:
117 Texas Residents (before the Battle of Gonzales)
26 defenders of unknown/unverifiable residence
1 Mexican Army Deserter
61 "Outsiders"
By far the largest number of the "Outsiders" were former New Orleans Greys, this included a significant number of Europeans (primarily British Isles, but also Germans and others).
We also know that some of the "outsiders" (at least three of the prominent ones, Crockett, Autrey, and Cloud) came to Texas not because of the War, but despite it.
Of the Texas Residents, not surprisingly, San Antonio and Gonzales are dominant, although virtually every settlement of note is represented. What is surprising, (but not if you really think about it) is the number of Gonzales men in the garrison before you add in the Gonzales 32.
Now, if you look at the Texas Army as a whole, in Feb, 1836, I think you'll probably get a very different trend. A far larger portion of Fannin's troops were "Outsiders". The original nature of the two garrisons probably explains the difference. Goliad was originally offensive - to carry the war into the northern provinces, while the Alamo was but a frontier picket post.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jul 21, 2008 13:35:14 GMT -5
The Texas Revolutionary Experience by Paul Lack has three good tables outlining the background on the "three" armies of Texas during the revolution. I'm using it for a school program on the TWI here at the park.
SMc
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 21, 2008 16:43:28 GMT -5
I'm glad someone is using that book. It's been a while since I read it, but my recollection is that most long-term colonists weren't enthusiastic about the revolution during the early going and that a disproportionate number of soldiers were recent arrivals. Most long-termers wouldn't go any further than demanding separate statehood for Texas and a return to the 1824 Constitution and a more democratic federal system. I don't recall, but many Tejanos may have been in this group. Only later did the established colonists join in the full revolt (and the runaway scrape).
However, I also believe that a large number of completely new arrivals from the States joined the army once things got going and after the Alamo & Goliad. I'm not sure what the breakdown at San Jacinto was, but after that the army actually got a little scary, according to Lack's info.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Jul 21, 2008 23:03:14 GMT -5
I own this book and have read it as well. Unfortunately, that was a few years ago, and some scoundrel has absconded with it and a flintlock pistol of mine. Oh well, I have his original hand-cranked chainstitch sewing machine, so I guess I came out ahead.
I seem to remember from it that the older colonists rose up for the Battle of Bexar, then had to return to their homes to take care of business. The Alamo and Goliad were garrisoned by forces that had much higher numbers of recent immigrants, though as stated above, not entirely. The older colonists had reformed in time to fight at San Jacinto along with quite a few "outsiders", whose numbers grew through the summer of 1836.
Of course, I haven't read this book in some time, so I could be way off.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 22, 2008 4:21:52 GMT -5
Speaking as an outsider with a different perspective on all of this I feel that the question of the Alamo defenders’ origins is an artificial one. The fact of the matter is that with the exception of the Tejanos there were no native-born Texans of military age fighting at the Alamo. All of the Anglo defenders were men who had lived in Texas for no more than 10 years and what matters is their motivation not their origins.
The crucial point in determining who stood at the Alamo was not the dissolution of the Army of the People after the fall of Bexar, but the day Grant marched out of there at the head of what he called the Federal Volunteer Army. Those who followed him were footloose filibusters, including a number of Texas residents, intending to go south of the Rio Grande in the “Federal Service of Mexico”. Had they survived they would in time have become some more of the rowdy loafers,
Those who stayed, whether existing residents of Texas or incomers, were those who considered themselves in the service of their adopted – and soon to be independent – state of Texas and if not already resident intended to settle there as colonists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 22, 2008 8:46:45 GMT -5
Here's a somewhat twisted interpretation along those lines. It didn't much matter to Santa Anna where the rebels came from or how long they'd lived in Texas. Even if only long-term Tejanos were fighting at the Alamo or Goliad, they would have gotten the same treatment, as the Mexicans in Zacatecas did. Still, the image of foreign invaders added an element of justification for Santa Anna's brutality. After all, the United States had already tried to buy Texas more than once, which only served to alarm Mexico and perhaps lend greater urgency to their "Texas problem." More Anglo immigrants would have been additional justification for moving swiftly and brutally against the rebels.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Jul 22, 2008 20:25:48 GMT -5
I believe the distinction is made because the colonists who were already settled had no choice but to be involved in the war in one way or another. Whether they decided to join a filibustering expedition or flee to the US, their homes and fortunes were very much at stake in their success.
I do not mean to say one group is "better" or more honorable than the other. As Stuart stated, almost all participants in the Revolution were somewhat recent immigrants, and they built a nation that is now one of the most prosperous of the United States.
Chalk up another one to "I wish I remember where I read this," but wasn't one of Santa Anna's motivation for his 1836 campaign to wipe out the Anglo settlements?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 22, 2008 21:09:33 GMT -5
I think the Mexicans did make a distinction between rebellious colonists and/or citizens, and "interlopers" or "pirates" who had entered the country only to take part in the rebellion and help pull Texas out of Mexico. Many, no doubt, thought that annexation to the U.S. was inevitable and part of their goal as well. However, I think you are right in saying these distinctions may have been less important than is sometimes thought. Even those who anted to remain part of Mexico were disatisfied with the centralist government and, given the brutal suppression in Zacatecas, might well have sided with the separatists before long. Mexico certainly brought this on itself by inviting U.S. citizens to settle in Texas, since no one else seemed to want to and Mexico was looking to form a buffer against the Comanches. Live and learn.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 30, 2008 6:21:45 GMT -5
"Mexico certainly brought this on itself by inviting U.S. citizens to settle in Texas, since no one else seemed to want to and Mexico was looking to form a buffer against the Comanches. Live and learn. " -- allenw
So true, Allen, is so far as the motivation by Mexico to offer land as a way to entice settlement by the Norte Americanos in the Texas territory. Still, to play devil's advocate, this was Mexican territory, and Cos was chased out of Bexar by what the Mexican government considered rebels. Regardless of secondary motives for Santa Anna's march to the Alamo and into Texas, it certainly was within his right to settle things with what they considered rebels in their own country. We would have done the same thing, I think.
Having said that, these so-called rebels did fight and die for what they firmly believed in. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but placing yourself back in that moment in time, and being faced with the choices these folks faced, kind of puts things in perspective, and gives legitimacy for the revolution, if you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 30, 2008 8:29:27 GMT -5
Agreed (on both sides). As I said, I don't think Santa Anna made a big distinction between newly arrived "trouble makers" and home-grown rebels (Tejanos and long-term American colonists). Rebellion was rebellion and any government will seek to squash it. Santa Anna didn't treat the Texians any differently than the people in Zacatecas. He acted brutally in both places, but regardless of how he sought to end the rebellion, he was doing what any government faced with rebellion would do. I think that there also was an added fear that the U.S. was somehow involved and trying to get hold of Texas.
On the other side we have colonists who, like citizens in many places throughout history, were unhappy or fed up with the government and wanted change (separate statehood for Texas, a return to the federal constitution, and end to or lowering of customs duties on imports, approval of slavery, etc.), but who felt they were being increasingly ignored and threatened. To this was added an increasing number of newcomers from the states who, I suspect, wanted to help wrest Texas away from Mexico. All ended up in the same war for independence that evolved from this.
I guess the bottom line is that governments will always try to maintain order and control and there may always be citizens who don't like some of the ways they do it.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 30, 2008 14:54:44 GMT -5
... and without revolution, there would be no United States. These boys gave a lot for what they believed in, and paved the way for establishing the great state of Texas in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 30, 2008 17:05:28 GMT -5
Still, to play devil's advocate, this was Mexican territory, and Cos was chased out of Bexar by what the Mexican government considered rebels. Perhaps it is simplistic, but here's the way I've always seen it. The Spanish tired to take Texas from the Indians, the Mexicans took what they could from the Spanish, the Texans actually conquered most of the territory, then gave it to the United States. Maybe another country will take Texas away from us one day, but I sincerely hope not.  |
|
