|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 9, 2010 15:55:30 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. It is somewhat madding that some informed folks had prolonged directed contact with many of the Alamo players (Ampudia, Cos, Morales, Almonte and of course, Santa Anna) during the US Occupation of Mexico but apparently no questions were asked and nothing written down...
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 9, 2010 16:59:25 GMT -5
Mark in one of your first posts on this subject you said that you believed that Santa Anna had adequate time to submit an after action report to Mexico City. I don't believe the fact that he had time is in question. My question would be why would he submit it. The Alamo was one battle in a much larger campaign. There were others, and we have absolutely no idea if he had yet received reports from say Goliad. I would make the most sense to assume that Santa Anna would look upon it in this same way and wait until he could gather all the reports from all of the troops under his command and write a campaign after action report. He was after all an army commander. At that level of command you think in those terms rather than submitting reports after each engagement. At lower levels, such as battalion, it is somewhat different.
To put this in perspective Robert E. Lee was still working on the Seven Days campaign report of June 62 in October of the same year.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 18:59:57 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All involved and interested in this current discussion will, no doubt, enjoy examining the previously-unpublished Mexican Army letters and newspaper accounts that will appear in the forthcoming issue (Sept. 2010; #158) of The Alamo Journal.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. Ah Bill, I hate a tease like that! But, am looking forward to it. Even if it's Romero's report! ;D Like Jim Crisp says, the next best thing to being proved right, is being proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 9, 2010 20:02:45 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. Don't toy with me, Bill!! Oh, and happy birthday!!! You DID notice that the date is 8-9-10??? Can't get that out of my skull since the guy on the radio pointed it out this morning! Allen
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 9, 2010 20:07:42 GMT -5
I certainly will look forward to seeing the documents Bill mentioned in Alamo Journal. There's nothing like long-accepted beliefs being dashed by a new discovery, and we all live in everlasting hope of finding one in a lifetime.
This is an interesting discussion as it addresses some fundamental aspects of doing history. It is very much about what evidence is and the need to be guided by it. I like the principle of Occam's Razor, although it’s hardly ideal, but is sometimes all we’ve got and the best way available to get as close to the truth as possible.
Speaking only for myself, evidence is essential to draw any conclusions or hypotheses, regardless of how tentative, about historical events. Where there is no evidence, there is no knowledge about those events. In fact, with no evidence at all, how could there be events that we consider historical? How could there be history, even bad history? Frankly, I’ve never bought or really understood the idea that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Actually, quite the reverse is true. An absence of evidence means there is no evidence; it’s absent. True, there still could be evidence somewhere that remains undiscovered, which could alter our understanding of historical events, but unless and until it is found, it doesn't exist. We are free to speculate about it, including documents of this kind that very well might have existed, but disappeared, perhaps forever, but it’s only speculation. I could speculate that there actually is life on Mars, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Since Mars has been little explored, and there are indications that life may well have existed there at one time, there is every chance that evidence could be found at a future date verifying that life does exist there. But, for now, there is no such evidence and the evidence we do have leads clearly to the conclusion that life does not exist there. I don’t see the point of speculating beyond that about hypothetical evidence that might or might not ever appear. Of course, we should keep searching, but unless those searches turn something up, the current evidence stands.
To take this to the most ridiculous extreme, I would cite the New York Sun editorial of September 21, 1897, which famously announced, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” It also included the rhetorical Q&A, “Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there,” a classic example of absence of evidence not constituting evidence of absence. This is a nice thought for a child that wants to believe in things unseen, but reconstructing historical events requires real evidence, although hypotheses often can stimulate and move research along. It's not that other things may be possible; it's that we just don't know until we find evidence for them.
And, yes, Crisp is quite right!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 9, 2010 21:01:53 GMT -5
Of course, we should keep searching, but unless those searches turn something up, the current evidence stands. Allen ...and one won't keep searching if he decides up front that something *isn't* a certain way. Assume that it can be, in spite of the assumption that it isn't, and then you might find that it is. In my mind, military protocol does not eliminate the possibility of opposite actions. These can occur due to unforseen circumstances, insubordination, accident, individuality, error, quirky behavior.... hyperventilation.... If we assume something dumb happened and protocol was not observed, then we might go to Mexico and look for whatever we can find. If we accept protocol (modern protocol, at that) as the final word, then we won't look for what just might be down there.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 9, 2010 21:02:29 GMT -5
P.S. -- I can't afford the trip.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2010 21:08:51 GMT -5
I am not inclined, and have not the time, to engage in another of these seemingly endless long winded forum marathons about the nature of reality, or evidence, and how the lack of it at any given moment along a time spectrum proves anything whatsoever. Please accept this as my last word on the subject, as I have a life to live.. It is playing it safe, to be sure, to deny the existence of something just because there, presently, is no "evidence" of it. But those who pomously and self-assuredly take this position often end up with egg on their faces. As always, I advise caution in our terminology. Where hard evidence of a supposition is not present, we may if we wish propose that, "as the evidence stands today, we HAVE NO PROOF that this, or that happened." But we CANNOT responsibly say that "because we have no evidence of this or that, this or that DID NOT happen."
By the way, I am also able to cite numerous examples of how "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Allen, you are being coy I think when you claim not to understand its meaning. It is not to say that the absence of evidence means there is no evidence. That is silly, and preposterous, and no one would seriously say that. What I mean by that is that the current lack of evidence for something in NO WAY proves that it does not exist, but rather that at the moment, we have no evidence of it. Time after time, this has been shown to be the case. Using this phrase is a lesson in caution. Never say "never," say "not so far..." Scientists the world over, the "Alamo Experts" of the Marine Biology world, had absolutely NO evidence that the Coelacanth, a pre-historic fish known to have lived over 65 million years ago, lived today. There was no "evidence" for it. But lo and behold, in 1938, one was caught live, knocking asunder all those self-assured notions of extinction. The absence of evidence was not the evidence of absence.
But what's worse, I see a clear double standard being employed here. Where there is no evidence of the battalion commanders' reports being destroyed at San Jacinto, those decrying my supposition that copies may exist in Mexico as "totally invalid" supposition, blithely go ahead and engage in "totally invalid " supposition of their own, by saying that they were probably destroyed at San Jacinto.
What all of this amounts to is opinion, and your opinion, no matter how odious or "invalid" it may seem to me, is just as possible as mine is, barring any hard data to prove the matter one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2010 21:10:30 GMT -5
Of course, we should keep searching, but unless those searches turn something up, the current evidence stands. Allen ...and one won't keep searching if he decides up front that something *isn't* a certain way. Assume that it can be, in spite of the assumption that it isn't, and then you might find that it is. In my mind, military protocol does not eliminate the possibility of opposite actions. These can occur due to unforseen circumstances, insubordination, accident, individuality, error, quirky behavior.... hyperventilation.... If we assume something dumb happened and protocol was not observed, then we might go to Mexico and look for whatever we can find. If we accept protocol (modern protocol, at that) as the final word, then we won't look for what just might be down there. Dammit Rich, leave it to you to say concisely what I tried to say in about 5 paragraphs...!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 21:54:47 GMT -5
If we accept protocol (modern protocol, at that) as the final word, then we won't look for what just might be down there. Rich, I think you missed some critical infromation in the above discussion. This is not based on Modern protocol, but on the established procedures used in the early 1800s. That similar procedures are still practiced today, probably speaks to the general nature of armies through the ages. Modern military experience, without researching the topic is without value, but making statements about an army and a battle ignoring the normal operating procedures of the time without giving evidence to the contrary is the worse kind of idle speculation. I will agree with you that there are all kinds of reasons that normal procedures may not have been followed, but without evidence that they weren't followed, if one is to be taken seriously, the first assumption must be that they were followed. Research may subsequently turn up that contrary evidence, then one must be mature enough to change his theories. For instance, Mark made a major assumption when he made his model. He assumed (and rightly so, imo) that in the absence of definitive evidence, the fortifications in the Alamo were made in accordance with Mexican Army doctrine, and established procedures. That is the very same assumption I have made in this debate. Just like Mark's model, while not definitive, there is some evidence that those procedures were indeed followed.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 9, 2010 22:04:13 GMT -5
Speaking of Mark's model, I'm reminded of a rather histronic debate on another site about Moorish style towers on top of the Long Barracks. While Mark tried for a long time to logically show why they weren't there, the reply was always very similar "the absence of evidence doesn't mean that they weren't there". Pardon me, if I don't understand the double standard.
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Aug 9, 2010 22:08:13 GMT -5
Well, that's about 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 9, 2010 22:08:40 GMT -5
Mark: The only thing those of us who hold an opinion in conflict with your own have stated are the administrative norms, and drawn from that the tentative conclusion that it is most likely that most if not all of the operational documents of the Mexican Army were captured, destroyed, or lost a San Jacinto.
You base your entire argument on the supposition that some or all of Santa Anna's subordinate commanders were insubordinate, error prone, or just plain stupid. Making a gross error by violating the chain of command in that manner is ample reason for relief for cause. Armies are only armies rather than mobs because of an imposed administrative dicipline. The violation of protocol by going over your commander's head, is a very serious mistake. Such an action would signal that you had no confidence in your commander to tell the truth. When you question your commanding officer's integrity in this manner you had better also drive a stake in his heart, pack your bags, and find another career. You will never be trusted again.
So we have stated the norm. We have no burden of proof. It is upon your shoulders to prove that these documents exist. You can show no evidence that they do exist only your pet theory. You base that theory on gross levels of unprofessional conduct and a breakdown of order and dicipline. You will have to do much better than that if this theory of yours is to achieve any level of credibility
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 9, 2010 22:41:06 GMT -5
Of course, we should keep searching, but unless those searches turn something up, the current evidence stands. Allen ...and one won't keep searching if he decides up front that something *isn't* a certain way. Assume that it can be, in spite of the assumption that it isn't, and then you might find that it is. In my mind, military protocol does not eliminate the possibility of opposite actions. These can occur due to unforseen circumstances, insubordination, accident, individuality, error, quirky behavior.... hyperventilation.... If we assume something dumb happened and protocol was not observed, then we might go to Mexico and look for whatever we can find. If we accept protocol (modern protocol, at that) as the final word, then we won't look for what just might be down there. Rich and Mark; the key word here is assume; neither can or should we assume there is no more evidence to turn established thinking on its ear, nor assume that it is there. Scientific theories become theories (that is, stronger than mere suggestions, hunches or suspicions) because they are repeatedly tested and hold up. If they hold up long enough, they become scientific laws, like the law of gravity. For example, if you get one Mexican report, written shortly after the battle, relating casualty figures, it's only one report. But, if you uncover more and more reports, each of which gives essentially the same casualty figures, then those figures become far more solid and reliable. In other words, the evidence indicates very strongly that those are the probable casualty figures. Nonetheless, it does not rule out the possibility that they could be wrong and that conflicting evidence may be found calling them into question. But we can't assume that it exists and build credible hypotheses based on that mere suspicion. Of course you keep looking, but until you find, as well as seek, you haven't overturned or weakened the currently accepted theory. If we kept doubting existing evidence, regardless how strong, under the mere suspicion that something else might be out there, we'd never conclude anything, nor would much history get written. For a long time, scientists thought the sun went around the earth. It was even a crime to suggest otherwise at one time. As both attitudes and technology improved, that "fact" became a joke and we now know the earth revolves around the sun, along with several other planets. And that is no longer a theory but a broadly accepted scientific fact that has held up over and over again. Regarding the Mexican documents under discussion here, I see no difference in guessing they were destroyed and guessing they still exist somewhere but haven't been found. Until someone proves either by finding some of them, they're both just unsupported guesses. Also, let's remember that what you've been debating is whether or not certain documents ever existed or, if they did, what became of them. It's a bit different than debating the relative merits of evidence used to recreate historical events. If we found all those missing documents (assuming they exist), they might have an impact on such research. But whether or not unseen, unknown, even hypothetical documents exist is really, at best, educated guess work. It would be different if other documents were found that mention or refer to such missing documents; then you'd know they had, at one time, existed. But merely assuming they existed is just that; an unsupported assumption. Maybe it's just me, but I think an absence of evidence is just what I called it; a lack of evidence, meaning it's evidence that there is no evidence. There is no inconsistency in that and the idea that it might not always stay that way. Some day evidence might be found, and then it won't be absent anymore; it'll be evidence. How can it be interpreted differently? Perhaps a better way of phrasing the idea is that "Just because there is no evidence now, doesn't mean there might not be some that is as yet undiscovered." Or, "everything I write is based on the most current and complete evidence, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that additional, contrary evidence may exist somewhere." I think that's just a given, or you'd see it at the front of every book on history ever written. So, as I said, you have to go with the evidence you have, draw conclusions supported by the evidence, and keep looking if you believe there's more. Also, there's always the chance that any new evidence you find will only strengthen existing theories. Allen
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 10, 2010 0:37:17 GMT -5
All of this spilled ink and laborious philosophical blathering is not much more than "scholastic masturbation."
The plain facts are that we don't know what happened to the official reports, or even if they existed.
If they did, the chances are just as great that at least a copy of some of them made their way to Mexico, as it is that they were destroyed at San Jacinto. Period.
If the "destroyed at San Jacinto" proponents have evidence, present it, or please stop pontificating about military theory and procedure and admit that your position is as theoretical as is mine. I can present as many THEORIES based on this or that example as can those who favor them being destroyed. That's not what I'm talking about. You either have facts, or you have supposition.
Anything else is simple opinion, and should be stated as such.
As Allen said:"Regarding the Mexican documents under discussion here, I see no difference in guessing they were destroyed and guessing they still exist somewhere but haven't been found. Until someone proves either by finding some of them, they're both just unsupported guesses. "
The fact that we don't have any of the battalion commanders' reports can only mean one of two things. Either they don't exist, or they haven't been located yet. To ascribe, without actual evidence, one position prominence over the other based solely on personal opinion is not legitimate scholarship, but merely a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess).
|
|