|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 10, 2010 1:17:21 GMT -5
Mark: You want something labeled simple opinion, I will give it to you.
It is my simple opinion, based upon the totality of posts on this thread that you do not have the slightest idea how an army in the field functions administratively.
It is my simple opinion that when faced with viewpoints that refute or disagree with your own that you resort to terms like pontification and laborious philosophical blathering, rather than consider that there maybe someone somewhere who may, just may, be more informed on the subject than yourself.
This is the second time to my knowledge that you have been way out on a limb, and protested loudly when some number of people called you on it. That is not simple opinion. That is documented fact for which I can provide times and dates as well as the written record.
It is my simple opinion that you are far from being the Oracle of The Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 10, 2010 1:40:54 GMT -5
Mark: You want something labeled simple opinion, I will give it to you. It is my simple opinion, based upon the totality of posts on this thread that you do not have the slightest idea how an army in the field functions administratively. It is my simple opinion that when faced with viewpoints that refute or disagree with your own that you resort to terms like pontification and laborious philosophical blathering, rather than consider that there maybe someone somewhere who may, just may, be more informed on the subject than yourself. This is the second time to my knowledge that you have been way out on a limb, and protested loudly when some number of people called you on it. That is not simple opinion. That is documented fact for which I can provide times and dates as well as the written record. It is my simple opinion that you are far from being the Oracle of The Alamo. Oh Darn ...and I SO wanted you to think of me as "The Oracle of the Alamo." I already had the t-shirts made..... First of all, I don't even know who you are, and to be honest, I wasn't talking to you in my previous posts. I was aware that you were posting, but that's about it. But you sort of jumped in and got offended.....Now I get the feeling that you want to pick a fight by resorting to personal insults. Such a waste of energy.... It's been my observation that it's just too easy to both give and receive personal insults from the safety of a PC, when we don't have to face the consequences of saying the same things face to face, so sorry, I'm just really not interested. Nor do I particularly care about your opinion of me, for, as a rule, I don't define myself by the opinions of others. But thanks anyway for your input... Er, now, back to topic?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 10, 2010 5:18:39 GMT -5
Well you can be darn sure I was talking to you.
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Aug 10, 2010 8:33:05 GMT -5
Why don't you boys give it a rest.
Maybe the moderators of this site should put up a section called "Playground Sandbox" so all you fellas with too much testosterone and too little maturity can go and throw sand at each other while the rest of us can communicate in a civil and adult manner.
Sorry if I sounded harsh, but the older I get, the more the minuscule buzzing of mosquitoes seems to bother me.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 10, 2010 8:40:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 10, 2010 8:45:32 GMT -5
Mark,
Was it your simple opinion, that led you to use the Mexican formulas for the cannon ramps, or were you relying on facts found elsewhere?
Just as there were facts about how fortifications were made, there are facts on how correspondence was handled, and logbooks maintained.
By definition, a valid assumption/theory, is one based on the known facts, an invalid one ignores those facts.
Does that mean that evidence might someday be found that overturns the valid assumption and proves the invalid one correct? Quite possible, but in the absence of such new evidence the terms remain as they are.
It is not mine or anybody else's fault that you have chosen to ignore facts that disagree with your opinion.
You have a field of expertise, that I know little about. I know when I've disagreed with your findings, I never went out of my way to insult you and the time you have spent researching your field. Instead, I've asked you questions about why you depicted something in a certain manner. Questions, by the way, that you were always gracious enough to answer, no matter how dumb they might have been.
I too have a field of expertise, that I've spent decades researching. You've made a number of statements in this topic alone, to show that this area is outside your own fields of expertise. Does that mean I'm right, no. Does it require you to constantly insult me and denigerate my work, because it contradicts your opinion, apparently so.
One interesting thing has come out of this debate, I've found a trail of evidence, that almost surely confirms that Romero's report was written and received at Santa Anna's Headquarters.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 10, 2010 9:33:23 GMT -5
To those whom I have offended by my expression of temper I am truely sorry. It was totally unprofessional of me.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 10, 2010 11:57:35 GMT -5
Mark, Was it your simple opinion, that led you to use the Mexican formulas for the cannon ramps, or were you relying on facts found elsewhere? Just as there were facts about how fortifications were made, there are facts on how correspondence was handled, and logbooks maintained. By definition, a valid assumption/theory, is one based on the known facts, an invalid one ignores those facts. Does that mean that evidence might someday be found that overturns the valid assumption and proves the invalid one correct? Quite possible, but in the absence of such new evidence the terms remain as they are. It is not mine or anybody else's fault that you have chosen to ignore facts that disagree with your opinion. You have a field of expertise, that I know little about. I know when I've disagreed with your findings, I never went out of my way to insult you and the time you have spent researching your field. Instead, I've asked you questions about why you depicted something in a certain manner. Questions, by the way, that you were always gracious enough to answer, no matter how dumb they might have been. I too have a field of expertise, that I've spent decades researching. You've made a number of statements in this topic alone, to show that this area is outside your own fields of expertise. Does that mean I'm right, no. Does it require you to constantly insult me and denigerate my work, because it contradicts your opinion, apparently so. One interesting thing has come out of this debate, I've found a trail of evidence, that almost surely confirms that Romero's report was written and received at Santa Anna's Headquarters. Herb, I am becoming more and more astonished by some of the posts here. I don't remember insulting you. I do remember commenting on several members' (including myself on one occasion) very long laborious posts. And yes, I really feel that there has been a lot of unnecessary "ink" devoted to what all comes down to a simple matter of opinion. MY apologies in advance for the length of this one. The blunt truth is that, as I said before, there are no known battalion commander reports for the March 6th assault. This can mean only one of two things: They don't exist, or they exist, and we haven't discovered them yet. It really is that simple. So why all the fuss and energy devoted to something which is not supported by facts? And I mean any facts? Trying to reason this or that scenario, based on no direct evidence, does not make something true, it only makes it our opinion. If we had access to the Mexican archives, and nothing was found, your hypothesis would be far stronger. There would still be the small chance that something bizarre happened to them, such as them being misfiled somewhere else, but your case would be far, far stronger. Even very probable. But we know from experience that, on occasion, some researcher with inside contacts has been granted limited access to the archives, and found some astonishing things (ie: Williamson letter) We also know that the Mexicans, for reasons they feel are justified, don't feel any obligation to grant most of us this access. Therefore, based on this fact, and this situation, it is still quite possible, that there are a good number of undiscovered March 6th-related documents there. As for my model, and why I did this or that, you now may realize the conundrum an artist faces when having to commit to something visually for publication. Its one thing to idly speculate in a conversation or forum, or even write a book in which you may explain several different scenarios. But when you render visually, you have to commit one way of the other. I could make only the best choice based on the evidence available, and then build it that way. And by the way, there is very strong archeological evidence, as well as strong circumstantial evidence, that the Mexican fortifications were built according to the book. The evidence is in the digs. Both the height of the rear (east) wall of the church, combined with the fact that the ramp ran to just inside the door, confirmed the 6 to 1 rule. So little speculation there. Hope this has made my position a bit more clear.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 10, 2010 12:56:20 GMT -5
Mark, the reason I brought your model is the point that the methodology you used in making those decisions, is identical to the methodology that I have used here and elsewhere. Just as your conclusions were not idle speculation, neither are mine here.
What has been brought to my attention, is that much of this discussion is somewhat arcane and thus hard to understand, for that I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Aug 10, 2010 13:35:33 GMT -5
I don't know what all the fuss is about.... if we don't have the reports -that does not mean they don't exist!!! Hells Bells they could be anywhere or they might be destroyed. What is so difficult about this? All I read Mark saying is that they either have not been found or they do not exist!! Seems logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 10, 2010 15:24:35 GMT -5
As Wolfpack commented, this thread is relatively arcane, and it might help to restate the debate with some clarity. I'll give it a stab, with the caveat that, until this morning, I haven't been following this thread too closely. I went back to the beginning and read all the posts.
There are two discussions going on here. One is about research methodology (that's the one arguing the "absence of evidence/evidence of absence" question), and another about military procedure.
As I understand it, Wolfpack and chieftan argue that there is little likelihood that any Mexican after action reports survive in the Mexican Archives other than the Sesma report and possibly one from Morales.
They claim that the only reason these particular reports are in the archives is because Morales and Sesma were not captured at San Jacinto and, in Sesma's case, the copy of his report that survives was copied and submitted at a later date.
Other reports, they argue, were likely with Santa Anna awaiting assemblage into a campaign report that was never submitted due to Santa Anna's capture at San Jacinto, where these reports were likely destroyed.
Wolfpack and chieftan cite the military protocol for submitting after action reports to superior officers as the chief reason they believe these reports are likely no longer extant (plus the fact that Mexican Army documents were inarguably destroyed at San Jacinto). They also point out that, so far, none of these reports have turned up.
Mark argues that the reports may, nonetheless, lie in the Mexican Archives, and that the lack of evidence of their submission doesn't preclude their existence. He cites the axiom, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," which sparked a debate on research methodology.
Does that about get it? Apologies if I've shorted anyone here, but this debate is clearly more involved than an argument about whether or not these reports exist.
I'm not weighing in on this, just hoping to clear some smoke and get things back on track.
I'd remind members that these threads aren't required reading. If this topic isn't your cup of tea, skip it and let the interested parties continue.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 10, 2010 15:40:01 GMT -5
I'd say that covers it.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Aug 10, 2010 16:01:00 GMT -5
For what it's worth, a letter from Texas in THE MORNING COURIER AND NEW YORK ENQUIRER of July 9, 1836, noted that:
"At the battle of the 21st April Almonte's and Cos' private journals and letters fell into the hands of the Americans."
One would assume this included orderly books, letter-copy books, and so on. Because Almonte's journal was preserved---at least long enough to send it to the NY HERALD and then on to President Jackson---it can be assumed that other Mexican papers were not destroyed at San Jacinto, but salvaged and kept by Houston and/or his officers.
I've never heard of any ownership, private or institutional, of Cos's 1836 journal or papers. On the other hand, decades later the Texas Archives experienced a devastating fire, and much was lost. So who can say how many official Mexican campaign papers were saved, or destroyed---and who can say how many remain hidden, even today, in Texas (not to mention Mexico).
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 10, 2010 16:29:22 GMT -5
I've never heard of any ownership, private or institutional, of Cos's 1836 journal or papers. On the other hand, decades later the Texas Archives experienced a devastating fire, and much was lost. Gary, great point and one I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 10, 2010 16:47:47 GMT -5
As I understand it, Wolfpack and chieftan argue that there is little likelihood that any Mexican after action reports survive in the Mexican Archives other than the Sesma report and possibly one from Morales. They claim that the only reason these particular reports are in the archives is because Morales and Sesma were not captured at San Jacinto and, in Sesma's case, the copy of his report that survives was copied and submitted at a later date. Other reports, they argue, were likely with Santa Anna awaiting assemblage into a campaign report that was never submitted due to Santa Anna's capture at San Jacinto, where these reports were likely destroyed. I'd just like to endorse this bit. Sesma's report is clearly and quite properly addressed to Santa Anna rather than to some functionary in Mexico City. How did it get there? Well essentially there are two routes. The first is that his Excellency wrote his own report and as was customary attached those of his subordinates in order to (a) back up his own story and (b) draw suitable attention to the splendid work they had done. All we actually have is his letter to Tornel of March 6 announcing his victory and promising more details later, ie; once he'd had his subordinates' reports. I'm not aware he ever sent that "circumstantial report" and while its possible that any enclosures with it might go astray, the fact that such an important primary document has neither been discovered nor published strongly suggests that it never existed. That's not to say it doesn't exist just that the balance of probability is heavily against such a report and supporting documentation ever having been sent to Mexico City. The other, and in this case much more plausible route, is that Sesma originally addressed his report to Santa Anna, but then provided his own record copy for the inquiry that followed the San Jacinto debacle.
|
|