|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 14, 2010 14:38:57 GMT -5
Have any after-action reports about the Alamo battle from any subordinate officers that were captured at San Jacinto been located? Those specific reports all seem to be missing. What is the possible reason? That's what this discussion has been about from the outset, but it seems people are debating at cross purposes. No one has ever disputed that some Mexican reports from the Texas campaign are in the Mexican archives, or in some archives somewhere. When this discussion began, Wolfpack and Mark were debating the likelihood of why these reports were missing and where they might be found. Jim Jim, The major point I'm trying to get across is this: That duplicate copies of after-action reports written for Santa Anna were sent to various recipients during the Texas campaign. This was also rote for the reports and communiques of the commanders of the other sections in Texas. Thus, the other commanders, and government officials in Mexico, not to mention newspaper editors, had possession of these extra copies. This is the crux of my argument: how can we assert with any certainty that it is useless to try to hunt for duplicate copies of Alamo-action reports in Mexican military archives, or government or even literary (newspaper) files?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 14, 2010 14:58:52 GMT -5
Thanks, Gary, this is beginning to clear up for me. Were copies of these missing reports sent out though, before Santa Anna approved or utilized them? Sesma's report, for example, we know (generally speaking) how that was released and made public. The other after-action reports though, from commanders who were captured, haven't been found. Is it just a coincidence that no after action reports from these men have turned up, or is there a reasonable explanation for it? Your point about the Mexican papers is well taken, and it would be a real find if some of these reports did "escape" and were published. Are you aware of any published Alamo after-action reports from commanders who were captured at San Jacinto? I don't expect spoilers, I know you have a book coming out, so I'm not going to press you for specific names. Thanks, Jim
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 14, 2010 15:07:54 GMT -5
I think in order to underscore the indisputable fact that many reports written by the subordinates of Mexican commanders were being copied and widely dispersed throughout Texas and Mexico during the campaign---and by inference some of the Bexar military action reports, too, other than Santa Anna's--- it's again best to go back to the hard evidence.
Do we have any after-action report to Santa Anna of any column commander of the March 6 battle other than Sesma? No. Does this mean that other reports, if indeed they had been written, are forever lost? Again, no.
Look at the issue of the MERCURIO MATAMORAS of March 7, 1836. This contains two related series of communiques: 1.) Urrea's account of his defeat of Francis Johnson. 2.) Lieutenant Nicholas Rodriguez's after-action report of his defeat of Grant, addressed to Colonel Jose M. Guerra. Sarcastically, he writes: "We charged them in the plain for the distance of two leagues and a half; and pursued them as if they were savage horses (mestanos). They forgot they carried muskets and pistols," etc. (I wonder if anyone has anyone ever seen the original of Lt. Rodriguez's report).
From Guadaloupe Victoria on March 22, Urrea wrote to General Fernandez: "I am so fatigued that I have only time to enclose to you copies of my despatches to our General-in-Chief, referring to my last operations." Note: "copies" of "despatches." Did this include Rodriguez's report?
Back on December 29, 1835, Filisola forwarded to Santa Anna a "complete report by General Cos concerning his defeat at Bexar, and apparently some declarations by the soldiers under his command." So, all kinds of official papers were being transferred about in the Mexican army.
In another letter to the Generalissimo from Filisola, dated January 20, 1836, he acknowledges receiving not only Santa Anna's "communique" but also "those attached by senor General Ramirez y Sesma and Lieutenant Nicholas Rodroguez, of the present state of the city of Bexar, and of the expedition heading towards Lipantitlan." Like after-action reports, these "attachments" had to eventually be put into a file somewhere, if these originals or copies survived.
In other words, it's an error to assume that there was only one copy of Sesma's report floating around; a copy might have been sent by Santa Anna to Mexico City, or to General Fernandez on the border, long before Sesma sent a copy after being requested by the government. A copy might have been received---and even printed---in a Mexican newspaper (and Lord knows we have seen very few 1836 Mexican newspapers).
So, are such after-action Alamo battle reports "likely" to be found in Mexican archives, be they military, newspaper, or private? Good question! But when I hear "not likely," I begin to shake my head and must certainly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 14, 2010 15:29:33 GMT -5
As one example, the Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, has loads of 19th-century Mexican newspapers on microfilm, and the last I knew you could order them for cheap. In the early 1990s I stocked up on several runs of newspapers from Mexico, Veracruz, and Saltillo spanning 1839 to 1848, but at the time, IIRC, I wasn't noticing much, if anything, in the Bancroft's holdings for 1835-36. I'm currently trying to figure out how to access the Bancroft's online catalog of these materials and will report back when I do.
IMO, the most promising newspapers to search for Alamo and TxRev reports and documents would be along the land-communications lines: i.e., Matamoros, Saltillo (or Leona Vicario, as it was temporarily renamed at the time), maybe San Luis Potosi, and, of course, the City of Mexico. My memory's shaky, but I seem to recall that there wasn't much, if anything, available for Saltillo for 1835-36.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 14, 2010 16:15:28 GMT -5
I'm kind of MIA today, but wanted to say a quick "thanks" to everyone who's contributed to this discussion; it's very enlightening and a real tutorial on the nitty-gritty of research.
I'm new to much of this, but what I'm seeing, on one hand, is a consideration of formal military reports and communiques among officers, or between them and appropriate government officials; and, on the other hand, a kind of "House of Borgias" mentality, in which many top officers harbored personal animosities/jealousies toward others, professional ambitions, and "off-net" relationships with various military and government officials. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like some of these officers "leaked," or "bootlegged," reports to various military or civilian government officials, and/or to newspapers! While this would be a big deal today (as in the recent leaking of military info on Afghanistan), I get the feeling it was common practice in the Mexican army at the time. If true, then Santa Anna must have known about it and accepted it himself as business as usual, probably doing the same thing himself for much the same reason.
If this is a generally accurate picture, then it seems quite possible that copies of reports of various kinds could have been in circulation, as Gary describes. I wonder if those kinds of "leaked" materials (if "leaked is the right word) were actual, official after action reports. Was it common practice for those to be sent to newspapers at the same time that they were officially transmitted, say to the War Dept.? If so, it sounds a bit bizarre, but would increase the possibility that the reports survived in that form.
But, there is what we might call the "San Jacinto factor"; the absence of after action reports, to date, by those who were captured there. It may be only a coincidence, but we have to take account of the fact that none have been uncovered so far.
It may well be that such documents are lost, or simply unlikely to exist in certain repositories, and more likely to be found elsewhere. To me, that's just a way of trying to calculate where the most likely productive route is; kind of hedging one's research bets in hopes of finding a payoff sooner rather than later. However, that's a very different thing than saying there's no point in looking in any of these places. I haven't heard anyone suggest that.
The newspaper lead sounds worth pursuing, if such newspapers still exist somewhere. There are now several excellent online, searchable data bases with complete photostats of 19th century U.S. newspapers. It would be great to have a similar source for these Mexican papers, or to find that many do exist in the Bancroft collection that Tom mentioned.
I'm not familiar with the state of Mexican libraries and museum collections but, based on my own experience with the Mexican government, I'm guessing they are not state of the art.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Aug 14, 2010 17:10:19 GMT -5
Michael Costeloe in his article The Mexican press of 1836 and the battle of the Alamo, (SWHQ April 1988), discusses how partisian the Mexican press was in reporting the Alamo battle.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 14, 2010 20:50:22 GMT -5
In case you don't know this, a portion of the Mexican Military Archives has now been digatized and is available on line. Rick Herrera, an associate of mine, turned me on to this, and Tom and I have been having fun over the last couple of days. Go to: www.archivohistorico2010.sedena.gob.mx/Over on the left side, go to the version en ingles, click on it. Once the new screen appears, go the Historical filing cards and click. When it comes up, go up to the top of the screen, you will see a "Search" button. Hit it and your into the digital documents. At this point, you are back in Spanish, and I am sure most of you can figure it out. Type in things like Alamo, Ampudia, San Jacinto and such. You will get a list of documents, most of which are pretty massive, and you will have to go through them to see what is there. I know Tom has found Sesma's report on the burning of Gonzales, but not his Alamo report. I found in an artillery ordnance reports file the return for the artillery and equipment at San Luis Potosi before the Army of Operations pulled out. Ampudia's report is there as well. Already tried to look up reports by the name of the battalion and attack column commanders-not a lot of luck, but there apparently is something in regards to Texas by Morales, but that file won't come up. Keep in mind, this search engine covers everything from Independence to the 1920's. So if you type in Cos, you are going to see everything they have scanned regarding him (which of course includes stuff up till the 1850's). Morales is the same, including much on his command of Vera Cruz in 1847. Also, when you get to the English page, look at the bottom, and you will see several books. These are all PDF. and are pretty cool. The one with maps is way cool. Not a lot of 1836 stuff, but still... Mexico is celebrating the 200th of the start of the Wars of Independence and the 100th of the 1910 Revolution. So much of the actual web page is focused there. Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Aug 14, 2010 21:07:08 GMT -5
That is great stuff, Qunicey
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 14, 2010 22:29:58 GMT -5
Many thanks for posting that link, Kevin!! Great stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 14, 2010 23:44:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Kevin.
It'd be great to find some more info on Morales. Maybe we'll finally find out what happened on the south side!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 15, 2010 6:14:03 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin. Haven't checked it out yet but doubtless it's worth a study.
By the way, maybe one of the problems concerning the relatively paltry number of Alamo-related documents found in Mexican military archives is that "we" should also be looking in other Mexican depositories---libraries, other institutions, estates, etc. An analogy would be researching for documentation in the United States: it would be silly just to look for Civil War data in U. S. Army files, for instance. But then, I'm not sure how similar the overall archival situation in Mexico is to that in America.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 15, 2010 8:34:30 GMT -5
I found in an artillery ordnance reports file the return for the artillery and equipment at San Luis Potosi before the Army of Operations pulled out. I'm familiarizing myself with that expediente now, and it also contains much correspondence from various army and department chiefs that trace how supplies of arms and munitions filtered their way to Santa Anna's Army of Operations in late 1836/early 1836.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 15, 2010 9:52:46 GMT -5
This is of course fantastic news.
I would suggest those who are looking for the Alamo AfterAction Reports, besides the obvious names...follow Semsa's August 23 suggestion and look at the files of General Amador, Mr Salas. and General Amat.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 15, 2010 14:41:57 GMT -5
Michael Costeloe in his article The Mexican press of 1836 and the battle of the Alamo, (SWHQ April 1988), discusses how partisian the Mexican press was in reporting the Alamo battle. I wouldn't doubt that, but it could not have been much more partisan than the U.S. press at the time. Newspapers were openly and blatantly partisan. The pro-Jackson press did all it could to destroy Crockett and contributed greatly to his eventual defeat. The Washington Globe was virtually run by Jackson and he saturated Crockett's district with "free" copies of it, all at taxpayer expense as he used his free franking privileges to do it. Crockett never had the kind of money that would have been necessary to counter attack. My question was whether or not the Mexican press simply reprinted these military reports verbatim, or were they edited, embellished or otherwise tampered with before being published there? Allen
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 27, 2011 23:28:43 GMT -5
Does anyone know how I would access Lt. Vivauis (Vivois) records in the Mexican Military Archives? He deserted the Mexican Army before the Battle of Bexar, then was captured by Bate Berry. He appears in various narratives, but little seems to be known about him.
|
|