|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 14:06:42 GMT -5
Just for the sake of conversation, I re-read a book of mine the other day called "Forget the Alamo". It was written as an alternate history story with the Alamo defenders having time to plan and used Conception as a place to fight. Fannin was the hero as he came to aid the defenders and Houston was left out of the fight.
Really interesting if you look at it from a totally open-minded point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 14:13:20 GMT -5
Hollowhorn: Thanks for the map. I have never seen that one before.
Compelling case: I suppose that could be argued, but I think three things should be taken into consideration before we go whole hog in that direction. 1) San Jacinto was certainly not on any direct route I know of to the border and that protection. 2) He picked a very poor place to stop and make camp if he was heading toward the border by less than a direct route. 3) Unless he was in private communications with someone in the States with one heck of a lot of authority, and I am not dismissing that possability, how could he know that protection would be granted, and how could he know that border would be open to an insurgent army? I think all these must be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2012 15:19:36 GMT -5
Don't forget that Houston was a favorite of President Andrew Jackson. I've always considered him to be Jackson's man in Texas. This is a big reason I've always rejected the oft repeated idea that Crockett was ambling through Texas in search of Houston. Crockett despised Jackson, and it's unlikely that he'd have been on great terms with any Jackson disciple.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by daverothe on Apr 19, 2012 15:26:34 GMT -5
Jim: that's a good point considering the 2004 Alamo movie made it look like Crockett and Houston were good friends.....
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 19, 2012 17:47:51 GMT -5
Mr. Hollowhorn, that was the best map of San Jacinto I've ever seen. As far as strategy and tactics, every point Chuck made is absolutely true. In addition, at SJ, Houston might just have based part of his attack strategy on the Mexican habit of siesta. The fact it was over in 20 minutes demonstates how totally unprepared SA and his officers were that afternoon. I should research some more on Houston and Crockett. While they may have had differences regarding Andrew Jackson, Crockett the politician made friends everywhere and I don't think he would have cared about the Houston and Jackson connection. I do believe that Houston was retreating toward the Sabine just in case there was US help available.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 19, 2012 19:05:50 GMT -5
There's really no evidence to suggest that Crockett and Houston were ever friends, nor did they appear to have any dislike for one another. Crockett mentions him in one letter in reference to Houston's marriage scandal and his resignation as governor. On another occassion, they were both guests at a party and both signed the guest book. That's really about it. And don't kid yourself about the partisanship in Tennessee politics at the time; no one took any prisoners and it was a real case of "you're with us or you're against us." Polk and the Jacksonians wrote Crockett off as soon as he opened his mouth without squaring it with the party line. Because of his independence, Polk quickly concluded that Crockett couldn't be trusted and must have "gone over to the enemy," when the truth is that Crockett wouldn't fall in line for any party. Politics mattered a lot to Houston and Crockett and it's hard to believe they could have been very chummy.
On another note, does anyone want to weigh in on what Santa Anna's strategy was for fighting the Texans on April 22, had Houston not attacked on the 21st?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 19:11:39 GMT -5
That really was a splendid map.
Jackson's man in Tejas. Well Hollywood thought so. The Richard Dix movie in the 1930's. "The First Texan", and the one with Sam Elliott all make that same case. I read John Meecham's Jackson bio a year or so ago hoping that would shed new light on the matter. Nothing. Paul Wellman makes a strong case for it in fiction. Perhaps there are others I have missed. Jackson was one of those guys who missed little, thought much, and was sufficiently into matters clandestine to be the guy in the background stirring the pot, and Houston was just the man to serve up the dish. Then there is the matter of the wink and the nod that put those soldiers "on leave" and they happened to choose to take Spring Break in east Texas. Well if you walk into a kitchen and there is a smell of fish in the air, it's a pretty good bet there will be fish for dinner.
Crockett and Houston: Maybe, perhaps, possibly, not really likely. A couple of old political salts like those two, both thinking of post hostility Texas, I suspect they would keep each other at arms length, looking toward the future.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2012 19:26:15 GMT -5
Good God Allen I have just starved out the Alamo, cleaned up the remnants at Goliad, beaten Sam Houston in open battle and now you want me to do it for real.
April 22: Dig in tight. Put some guns into position to cover that road leading to the left near where Lamar's cavalry is shown in the map, also making sure Castrillon has those folks out on the line in a 50/50 state of alert to include outposting that ridge top. find Emily Morgan and take a nap.
Houston either has to attack or swim, and I don't think swiming is in the cards. Santa Anna is in a reverse slope defense. Were his soldiers alert the moment Houston comes over that ridge top its curtains, Waterloo and the Guard, and the Scots at Cowpens. Game, set, match.
If Houston elects to neither swim nor fight, you send gallopers to every Mexican Army detachment to include latrine guards in Texas and have them concentrate on San Jacinto. Houston won't last long. He has to eat, and I doubt if they had more than a scant few days rations with them.
Why would Santa Anna want to attack if he is a soldier? On the other hand if he nothing more than a 19th Century Central American Dictator, concerned more with image than sound tactics, let him attack and get his ass handed to him.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 19, 2012 20:29:53 GMT -5
Crockett despised Jackson, and it's unlikely that he'd have been on great terms with any Jackson disciple. I respectfully disagree. I think they had a lot in common. They were both frontiersmen, Indian lovers and Tennesse politicians, who got kicked out of office through controversy. They also ran in the same circles and Crockett supposedly visited Houston after the general's wife ran out on him. Sounds like a possible friend to me.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 19, 2012 20:41:31 GMT -5
Unlike others, I'm not convinced about Houston's tactical brilliance here, there is plenty of first hand evidence that the Texas Army would have attacked with or without Houston. What is the truth and what was politics is pretty hard to determine. What is true, though is that the rudimentary training Houston enforced with the help of US Army "deserters" at Groce's is what allowed the Texas Army to successfully execute the maneuvers that were necessary at San Jacinto. Plus Houston's requested 4-pounder galloper guns.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2012 21:02:26 GMT -5
Crockett mentioned Houston's wife leaving him in a personal letter, but there's no indication he knew Houston very well. It's not even clear he got this info from Houston. I don't recall the legend that Crockett visited Houston after this incident. Do you remember where you read it?
The only hard evidence of their being seen together socially is that both Crockett and Houston signed a lady's autograph book one night at a party.
It's within the realm of possibility that the men were acquainted but, by the time Crockett left the US, he was a pariah among Jacksonians. Friendship with Crockett signified betrayal to Jackson, who made it clear to his followers that he wanted Crockett ruined.
I don't know that Houston ever expressed any personal animosity toward Crockett (or vice versa) but, given Crockett's state of mind at the time and the lack of any evidence, I don't think he'd have been seeking Houston out.
Crockett's primary interest in Texas was in procuring land in hopes of becoming a speculator.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2012 21:17:30 GMT -5
Bingo. Except I think that if Crockett had managed to score a lot of property to sell, he'd have kept his promise and stayed away from elected office which, to him, was a means to an end. Despite my admiration for him, Crockett was basically a one issue congressman and it eventually cost him his seat. His reason for going to Texas was inextricably connected to his pet issue in Tennessee. He wanted public lands made available at reasonable prices to the average person in order that they might better themselves economically. The Washington/Tennessee political machine stymied his efforts and he saw an opportunity in Texas to fulfill his dreams. Cheap land, and lots of it. Sorry to drag this thread off track. You guys know that happens when somebody pushes my Crockett button. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 19, 2012 21:23:47 GMT -5
They may have had things in common, but not their politics. There is one other key difference between the two men. Houston not only remained loyal to Jackson while in Texas, but shared Jackson's desire to eventually annex Texas. Crockett had come to Texas because he was fed up with the U.S. and believed that Jackson and Van Buren had turned into a tyranny in all but name, and that the public was dociley going along with Jackson because they saw him as a hero, even when his policies worked against their best interests. Crockett would not have been interested in fighting for a new country that was simply going to become part of the same country he'd just left. He swore that he'd go "to the wilds of Texas" before living under Martin Van Buren's government. Why would he bother staying in Texas, let alone fight for it, if it was going to join the union, thus placing him under Van Buren's government anyway?
Crockett didn't just want a new start; he wanted a new country. That may be uncomfortable for many Americans since Texas history, the Alamo and Crockett are all blended into our national history and the heritage of Manifest Destiny; the Alamo sacrifice is seen as an American sacrifice. The nuances, infighting, disagreement among the Texan rebels themselves are often forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 19, 2012 21:29:34 GMT -5
Crockett mentioned Houston's wife leaving him in a personal letter, but there's no indication he knew Houston very well. It's not even clear he got this info from Houston. I don't recall the legend that Crockett visited Houston after this incident. Do you remember where you read it? I may have jumped the flintlock a little. I have read vague references to their having an acquaintance, but none that they were unfriendly. The story that Crockett visited Houston was within one of the recent books, but I can't remember which one.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 20, 2012 13:57:20 GMT -5
|
|