Antonio López de Santa Anna--Hero or Villain?

It was, Bruce; no question. I think, all things considered, Sam Houston made the right call, however. This gave Texas its independence, which is what all of those men fought and died for. Also, had they executed Santa Anna, who would have succeeded him? Would any of the Mexican commanders still in the field have turned and headed back to Mexico, as they did, or would they have renewed the offensive, quite possibly defeating the small Texian army? I realize that they Mexicans had logistics problems of their own, but I still think they had the edge.

I thought it was a bit galling that Santa Anna is said to have been treated as a visiting dignitary in Washington after San Jacinto, but I see the truth is a bit different. Here is a description of what really happened in Washington, from the DeWitt Colony Website:

"The real story of Santa Anna's trip to Washington has never been widely known. There was a determined fight in the American Congress, which convened in the autumn of 1836, upon the recognition of Texas' independence. Jackson's administration was coming to a close and he was to be succeeded the following March by Van Buren and the new administration was very conservative about the recognition of Texas, or any other act that would bring on war with Mexico. Houston, who became President of Texas in September, 1836, sent William H. Wharton, Minister to the United States, to negotiate for annexation. President Houston conceived that it would materially help the situation if Santa Anna would go in person to Washington and say to President Jackson that Mexico did not intend to make an effort to reconquer Texas. This would be an answer to the critics in Congress who were urging that the recognition of Texas would be considered an unfriendly act by Mexico. It was one of the conditions of Santa Anna's release that he should do this, and though he was authentically liberated when he left Texas under a military escort, in fact he was a quasi prisoner until he left Washington. He carried out his part of the bargain and in private conversations with President Jackson gave the message that he had been sent to deliver and this was a powerful aid to the recognition of Texas which was accomplished during the last hours of the Jackson administration."

Thus, there was obviously a lot at stake for Texas that was more important than revenge against Santa Anna. I wonder what would have happened, though, if the Texans had strung up the old tyrant.

AW

A kind of war of attrition is sure one possibility. Had the Mexicans simply picked strategic locations to hold onto, I don't if the Texians were in any shape to retake them. If the Mexicans held onto southwest Texas, including Bexar, it would have been in line with Houston's aim for a non-Hispanic Texas anyway.

AW

It is important to realize that Filisola did not have any idea as to the fate of Santa Anna when he and the other Mexican generals (including Urrea) decided to withdraw to Victoria and await orders from the Mexican Government. Filisola did not get the orders from Santa Anna until April 27 when they were already deep into the Sea of Mud. Please go back and look at the initial orders that Santa Anna sent to Filisola from San Jacinto on April 22. Santa Anna ordered Urrea and his division to go to Victoria and Sesma and his division to go to San Antonio. He did not order the Mexican army to leave Texas and they never paid any attention to his orders, even the later ones.

After the 2500 soldados, 1200 or so female camp followers, 1200 mules, 120 wagons and eight pieces of artillery were extracted from the Sea of Mud the Mexican army was in no condition to resume the offensive. Even de la Pena admitted that there was no fight left in the army after two weeks in the mud. When Urrea took command he was already in Matamoros and gave orders for the Mexican army to halt their retreat and return to Goliad. Andrade, who was now second in command, sent a letter back to Urrea stating that there was no way that would happen and continued on to Matamoros.

Filisola was a cautious but well educated general. Had he not gotten stuck in the mud he may have been able to eventually resume the campaign. I would disagree that he was an "Old Woman." Urrea on the other hand was very aggressive, probably to a fault. His attack on the mission at Refugio was embarrassing, even to his staunch supporter, de la Pena.
Urrea never openly opposed the retreat until it was obvious that the Texas Campaign was over and his Federalist nature began to show itself. Urrea was the first to get to Victoria and the first to arrive at Matamoros--hard to explain when he was supposedly the most dead set against the retreat.

I hope that you all get Filisola's Analysis that we just got published by TSHA (I got my copies in the mail yesterday) and you will get a better feel for Filisola and Urrea.

I would love to find out where you were able to find out what happened at the meeting with Jackson and Santa Anna in DC. I went to Washington and the library of congress trying to find any record of what was said at the meeting and could find nothing. I e-mailed several Andrew Jackson scholars and they told me that they were not aware of the meeting and had never seen any notes taken at that time. I do remember reading that Santa Anna was invited by Jackson to a state dinner, but he declined as he wanted to get on his way to Mexico.

I do not think that Houston or the Texans ever trusted Santa Anna to take their side once he returned to Mexico. Whether by luck or design it was genius to keep him in captivity but not kill him. This essentially left Mexico with no valid leader as the shadow of Santa Anna was still present and the country was unable to move on. There were many Texans who would have killed Santa Anna on the spot given half a chance. There was at least one, if not more attempts on his life while in captivity.

Please help me spread the word!!! Filisola did not obey Santa Anna's orders! The Mexican Generals made their plan of action at Madam Powell's on April 25 and did not deviate from that plan when they got Santa Anna's orders. It was the mud that was the last straw. That and the fact that Filisola had the worst troops, all the female camp follower es, no supplies to speak of, and no money at all. OK, I will shut up now.

I found it here: www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2007/dimmick.htm. Has Urrea's diary been published in English? It sounds like Filisola's book is heavily biased against Urrea and was a rebuttal to Urrea's diary, which is highly critical of Filisola. I'm sure that both are self serving to some degree. A defeat typically brings a search for scapegoats and a campaign to cover one's butt.

AW

No problem, I love this subject. I am more and more convinced that after San Jacinto, politics came back to the forefront. Considereding that Urrea was in Matamoros writing letters to Filisola telling him not to retreat past Goliad--one has to wonder. Urrea was in great shape to help the Federalists in northern Mexico if he could get Filisola to stay in Texas. Once it became obvious that Filisola would not stay in Texas he and Fernandez seemed to start a anti-Filisola campaign to have Urrea replace him as commander. Urrea somehow convinced the Mexican Government that if he were commander Texas could be saved. It took Tornel about six months to realize that they had been duped by Urrea.

I have always felt that Urrea was the best general in the Mexican army but if you look at his tactics I am not sure that was the case. He sent his poorly trained Yucatan troops against the Texans in a fortified postion at Refugio causing several of them to get killed. He attacked the Texans at Coleto on the 19th when his troops had no cover and were short on ammo. He could have waited until the next day when his artillery arrived. He claimed to have always been against the executions but he carried out executions on a lesser scale at least twice and sent prisoners south knowing they were to be executed. I do think that his aggression was a trait that was lacking in several of the other generals (not Santa Anna, but look where that got him). If you could have taken his aggression and Filisola's tactics and desire to have quality information on the enemy, and combine them, you would have had a fine Mexican general.

You all can get the Filisola book "General Vicente Filisola's Analysis of Jose Urrea's Military Diary" at Texas A&M University Press, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, etc. Let me know what you all think of this work. It is fascinating to me to see how much animosity and political turmoil was aiding the Texans.