Mark: OK I will give you "I really think that". Adding these four words on to your statement does not change them in any way. In fact you dig yourself in deeper. You are still speculating, and drawing conclusions from that speculation. That is exactly what you accuse those who disagree with you of.
Further you speculated by exception that Santa Anna, a theater commander, would deem that the battle at the Alamo would be of such importance to rate a seperate set of after action reports, at the theater level. That is total speculatuion on your part, which there is absolutely no evidence to support.
Further you speculated by inference that the Mexican Army was superior administratively to every other army on the planet, by demonstrating unheard of speed in the preparation, colation, and evaluation of these reports by senior and subordinate units alike.
Your greatest speculation however is to assume that the people on this site cannot read your words and evaluate their validity on their own, not to mention track the thread of your ever changing stances on this issue over the last few days
Now what is it Mark? Are they on the way to Mexico by 23 April. Are they left behind in San Antonio? Have they somehow been mislayed for 174 years in some dusty attic? Each of these is YOUR speculation, for which you have not one shred of proof to back up.
You also seem rather put off by you insistance the the Mexican Government is uncooperative to those wishing to do research. Did you ever consider the possability that there is nothing there to warrent further research. Lord was given access according to his own statement on Page 223, although I must admit he hedges his bets by saying that his skids were greased by a friend.
If you accuse me of cherry picking, I would say to you that given the fact that it was such low hanging fruit the temptation was to great.
It is unfortunate that you seem to be deliberately misstating my position, even to selectively quoting me for your own benefit.
There is indeed a
great difference between my saying: "
I really think that by April 23, these official after action documents were long gone, and on their way to Mexico." ......
as opposed to " by April 23, these official after action documents
were long gone, and on their way to Mexico."
The first is an
opinion, and the second is a statement of
fact. Your cutting my quote in that manner blatantly shows your deliberately misrepresenting what I said, in the most cynical manner.
And speaking of opinion, if you think that my expressing an opinion weakens my argument, then you are
monumentally mistaken, and missing the entire point.
On the contrary, it
strengthens it, as I have
only ever said that it was
my opinion that the reports, or the implied copies, were probably on their way to Mexico. It was always
just an opinion. (The last time I checked, we are
allowed on this forum to express an opinion, and I'll continue to do so, like it or not.)
But what I was
met with was an artificially robust reasoning, also without direct evidence, that virtually insisted that they were irretrievably lost, in the fire of the baggage at San Jacinto.
By the way, I'll not vector off into this now, but I still believe there is a very good chance that some of these documents, or copies, rest in some Mexican government archive. I agree that the battalion log books would accompany the respective unit to the field. But this does not necessarily include other official correspondence that may have remained with the main body of the army. Again, I said "MAY HAVE."
Yes, I admit that the fire in the Texas Archives completely slipped my mind, as well as the fact that documents,
as well as munitions and stores, were plundered at San Jacinto. I instantly admitted as such. How is this "changing my position?" It only allows for more possibilities for what may have happened to the reports.
Herb also missed that one, and had to allow that it was a possibility. Are you also accusing Herb of changing his story? No, I didn't think so...only I am so fortunate.One thing you seem desperately and defiantly unable to understand is that although I mentioned that I thought they were there, my underlying point was never joined at the hip with the Mexican archives, just that I felt, and feel, that a very real possibility exists that they still may be out there. The archives was
just the strongest suspect, and the only one I listed.
If you followed my posts, you'd see that my main point was really not "Mex Archives," but "Reports may still exist." Thus the whole mess about "absence of evidence.."
After Gary reminded us about the probable survival of some documents, and then the fire in the Texas Archives, this just adds more possibilities.
I have no problem, nor should anyone else, with people here stating an opinion. That's a key ingredient to this or any other forum.
What I
do have a problem with is when people,
without proper data to support them, slide from opinion to probability, and then ease into certainty.
I never did this, just stated my opinion. Herb labeled my opinion as "totally invalid," and went on to posit his own opinion in terms that were as near to implying certainty as I have ever seen written or described on this or any other forum. And this is based on what? No direct evidence, facts, or data, just Army experience, and resultant "informed opinion" based on that experience. OK fine.
We can engage in informed opinion all day long, as long as we label it as such, and allow for other possibilities. If you read my post, that is exactly what I did.
I'll admit that Herb
may be right. Or I may be right. But neither of us has the right to arrogantly say that what we theorize is truly what in fact happened,
or even imply it.
And most importantly, at some point, preferably early on in the process, the two opposing side should "
agree to disagree." If you read back over other disagreements I've been involved in on this forum, you'll see this as a constant refrain from me when an impasse is reached, and things get out of hand, or threaten to. Just ask Gary Zaboly, or Jake Ivey. We finally resolved our differences amicably, and are now good friends. In fact, I spoke with Gary recently, will be conferring closely with Jake in the near future on some Alamo architectural issues. And if I run into Zaboly in San Antonio next March, I'm gonna get him knee-crawling drunk.
I have often (I admit) disagreed , even hotly, with some on this forum, but in all cases save one did we all reconcile. Personally I like those odds.
And while tempers sometimes flare in all matters Alamo, nothing we are discussing here is worth getting seriously pissed off about to the level of lasting animosity.... especially
this matter of documents, that has absolutely no empirical data to support
either side.
If nothing I said in this post makes any sense to you, then I propose that we just agree to disagree, or else take any further personal comments between us off the forum, and deal with them by PM.
I ask the moderators support in this matter.