|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2010 8:37:21 GMT -5
"This again means that these documents were either captured and subsequently lost or accidentally destroyed in the fire of April 23rd."
"The overwhelming evidence is that the majority of this information was lost by the Mexicans at San Jacinto, and while I said it was probably burnt in the accidental fire that consumed a large portion of the Mexican baggage two days after the battle. There are other possibilities, Gary's reminder about the Texas' Capitol's burning is another very strong possibility. A far lesser possibility is that these records ended up in private hands, Houston's aide, Hockley, for example , and may yet be found in some attic."
Gary not just ordinance was lost in the fire, according to Private Bob Hunter "The baggge was all gathered up and piled all in one big pile: saddles, blankets and all kind of clothing, gun powder, aprahoes or pack saddles." (Moore p393) The majority of the baggage was saved and sold at auction the next day.
Since, your reminder about the capital fire, I think that this is the more probable outcome. The key point here is that these reports were lost by the Mexican Army at San Jacinto, and subsequently lost in some matter by the Texians. It is highly improbable that they ever ended up in the Mexican Archives.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 11, 2010 10:11:54 GMT -5
garyzaboly wrote:
Gary, sorry if you've already answered this, but I can't find the reference. What's the source that the Almonte journal wound up in Jackson's hands? Thanks, Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 11, 2010 11:13:43 GMT -5
Again, good points, Gary. My original point all along was that the reports may exist somewhere.
The only example I gave was the Mexican archives, as I had failed to account for their quite possibly being searched through and taken from the heap of baggage, ordinance and stores after the battle either prior to, or after the fire. So I'll take the hit for not listing more possibilities. But the point, as previously stated utilizing the "absence of evidence" maxim, was that they may have survived, and may still exist, but have not yet been accounted for.
It's safe to say, and I think you'll agree, this issue is far from certain, and we should exercise caution in speculating with anything resembling definitive assurance.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Aug 11, 2010 11:38:40 GMT -5
No Mark. Your original point was and I quote "by 23 April these official after action documents were long gone and on there way to Mexico"
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 11, 2010 11:43:39 GMT -5
garyzaboly wrote: Gary, sorry if you've already answered this, but I can't find the reference. What's the source that the Almonte journal wound up in Jackson's hands? Thanks, Jim I spoke to Dan Feller, who is in charge of the Jackson papers, and he says the journal is definitely not there and there is no reference to it either. His best guess is that, if it ever actually got to the White House, it was sent there by the Herald as a kind of courtesy under the assumption that Jackson might like to see it. It was most likely returned to the Herald; I gather it has not turned up there (or wherever the remnants of the Herald are). Allen
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 11, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
we should exercise caution in speculating with anything resembling definitive assurance. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 11, 2010 11:50:28 GMT -5
You beat me to the punch, Allen. I was planning on dropping Dan Feller a line. Sure would like to know where this journal wound up! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 11, 2010 11:53:50 GMT -5
You beat me to the punch, Allen. I was planning on dropping Dan Feller a line. Sure would like to know where this journal wound up! Jim That would be quite a find. It's like we're saying here; it may still reside somewhere, been destroyed or lost for good, but we just don't know and can't assume anything more about it. Allen
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Aug 11, 2010 11:59:24 GMT -5
I would just like to draw your attention to my earlier post on Ramon Caro, He states that many of his and Santa Anna's documents were shipped to Veracruz in Santa Anna's baggage. Unfortunately he does not state what was included and when this happened.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2010 12:07:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure but would this be the baggage and the paperwork dealing with Santa Anna's captivity, that Jim referenced on the previous page?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 11, 2010 12:10:54 GMT -5
What was in the baggage and what remained in the hands of the Texians? This is probably moot if Santa Anna's papers were later destroyed during the Mexican War.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 11, 2010 12:12:09 GMT -5
What's the source that the Almonte journal wound up in Jackson's hands? New York Herald, 29 June 1836: "As to the authenticity of Almonte's journal [which has been doubted by some of the 'distant papers'], the original went yesterday to Washington, to be exhibited to his Excellency, the President of the United States." "exhibited to" doesn't have the same connotation as "presented to" or "given to". Almonte's Texas, edited by Jack Jackson, translated by John Wheat, has quite a bit on the history of Almonte's 1836 journal, and Jackson presents the case that the original journal was back in Texas by the early 1840s.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2010 12:13:13 GMT -5
Almonte's Texas, edited by Jack Jackson, translated by John Wheat, has quite a bit on the history of Almonte's 1836 journal; this book is a must-have. +
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 11, 2010 12:29:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure but would this be the baggage and the paperwork dealing with Santa Anna's captivity, that Jim referenced on the previous page? They might be. Santa Anna wrote the letter from Vera Cruz, and mentioned that Almonte would be bringing these papers relating to post-San Jacinto to the Minister of War. This was in early 1837.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 11, 2010 12:33:36 GMT -5
No Mark. Your original point was and I quote "by 23 April these official after action documents were long gone and on there way to Mexico" Its perhaps the cheapest and lowest form of argument to cherry pick quotes for our own benefit. If you'd bothered to back that quote up just a bit, you'd have seen the words: " I really think that..." before the quote you selected. I wasn't being conclusive, or definitive. And later in the same post, I also allowed the possibility that they may have been at San Jacinto. I just thought the odds were against it. I also assume, perhaps wrongly, that people here are capable of gleaning a bigger point from a specific possible example. Thus the whole dust-up about "The absence of evidence.." What I was saying, while using only one example, that they may exist, we just haven't accounted for them. For me, due to the absolute lack of hard evidence for either side, this has never been a point about which it paid to demagogue, and as I said earlier, " I don't have a dog in this hunt." I just feel now as I did then, that our own personal experience in the Army, or whatever, does not necessarily translate to early 19th century Mexican military doctrine, and even if it does, that still does not tell us what happened to these documents. It only gives us a "hunch." By the way, I spent many years as an officer, and yes, in the field, operating as well as writing reports. That has no bearing on this issue, it truly does not. And I wouldn't cite it as such. I still ask, and will continue top ask, for one shred of data, not personal insights, regarding any specific reference to these column commander reports. Without this data, we're only guessing.
|
|