|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 20, 2012 15:33:54 GMT -5
That's a good map; makes the battle and the ground more clear to me. It looks like Santa Anna did have his troops in position, but let his guard down and didn't think an attack would come so late in the day on the 21st.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 20, 2012 15:37:39 GMT -5
FYI - the actual wording in Crockett's letter to Gales & Seaton, dated April 13, 1829, is as follows:
"I was in Nashville a few days and a Circumstance took place last Saturday which created much exitement Our Governer Houston has parted with his wife and Resigned the governers appointment he told me that he was going to leave the country and go up the arkensaw and live with the Indians as he calls them his addopted Brothers The balance of his days So I expect Wm Carroll will be our next governer with out opposition I hope the Chance is good for Lea and Polk both to be beat and Doct Marable will be Badley Beaton"
This language does suggest a personal aquaintence with Houston and that Crockett actually spoke to him and got this news directly from Houston. Perhaps they were friendly aquaintences, but certainly not political allies. Maybe Houston was less vindictive about it than Jackson, Polk and the Jacksonian machine in Tennessee. Houston was a bit off the wall himself, so maybe he had a different view of Crockett's own independence.
We don't really have any further evidence of such a friendship. Neither man ever wrote to the other. If Crockett was close to Houston, I'd think he would have consulted him about Texas and written to him about it. Crockett had Texas in the back of his mind for some time before he lost his final election and lit out for Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 20, 2012 15:52:36 GMT -5
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. Chuck - That sounds plausible to me and the second map posted here shows that he had troops and artillery in position. I wish I knew more about 19th century military practices and standards. You seem to be suggesting that Santa Anna's best bet was to "shelter in place," shore up defenses and be prepared to repel any Texan attack, or wait them out, with time on Santa Anna's side. He did have his own cavalry on the left, but placing guns at that road makes sense too. In the end, it all ended up "coulda, woulda, shoulda."
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 20, 2012 16:31:54 GMT -5
Allen: I think it is the only thing that makes sense. I believe Santa Anna should layer his defense by outposting the Texian side of that ridge to his front. Now really it is a rise in the ground, but as reality has told us suffient to mask a Texian advance. That provides the early warning. With the bulk of your forces on the other side of the rise and within as Herb tells us musket range, any Texian advance as actually played out would be stopped cold. A subsequent counterattack by Mexican forces would find the Texians in the unenviable position of having to run back to those woods, and I don't expect they could have gotten there and to some temporary safety.
The success of the actual Texian attack was due to inattention to detail, non-existent security, and violence of execution consistent with surprise, spelling in the end poor generalship on the part of the Mexican Commander.
As far as shoring up defenses go, simple field works will do the trick. The reverse slope provides protection from the Twin Sisters. The artillery as you have already surmised cuts the road. Non-complex dispositions. All this adds up to the preferential fighting of a defensive battle, but one whose terms are dictated by Santa Anna.
And no I don't think old SA ought be sporting Emily. His place is out there checking anything and everything concerning preperations for battle.
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 20, 2012 16:48:48 GMT -5
At this point where I see SA really dropped the ball. He had no "eyes On the Enemy" No recon to watch troop movement. He Got arrogant he knew where the Texian army was and thought he' will finish the Texians "tomorrow" No Eyes On RECON to warn him of Texian movements... had he had simple eyes on might have made a Huge difference in the Battle of San Jacinto. On the other hand Gen Houston was smart and always was using "spies" recon troops through out his retreat and lead into battle.. says something for good use of intell gathering.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 20, 2012 16:59:30 GMT -5
Allen: It is one thing to render an opinion on what one, anyone, would think to be the correct course of action for Santa Anna. It is quite another if the question was rephrased as to what does one think he will do.
To answer that, actually I find it quite easy. Santa Anna was going to attack. He could not help himself. He would attack and drive or kill. In his mind he could do nothing else. That was just as valuable as anything else in bringing about his defeat. Knowing what he would do, ego over deliberate calculation.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 20, 2012 17:53:55 GMT -5
I forgot about the "he told me." I should have referred to the original document. This does show, however, that even in 1929 Crockett was clearly anti-Jackson as evidenced by his comments about Polk and Lea. Of course, Crockett's animosity increased over the years, as did Jackson's.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 20, 2012 20:46:20 GMT -5
You know James, your post above has propted a question in my mind and perhaps someone here has the answer. I sure don't
Houston had "scouts out". That is well known. Houston was heading east with Santa Anna a day or so back. I wonder if there were any attempts to funnel Santa Anna along routes of Houston's choosing? In other words were there active measures taken to blow bridges, sink ferry barges and the like to keep SA on the straight and narrow so to speak, and this for the express purpose not of delay but channeling him where Houston wanted him to be?
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 21, 2012 0:23:49 GMT -5
Chuck, If memory serves me Houston had the following offical Scout "Spy" units (and their were detachments of other Texians scouting on occasion) Henry Wax Karne's scouts and Juan Seguin's scouts attached to Gen Houston's army to do his direct bidding. He also had Williamson's Rangers north of him to track Gen Ganoa' s movements. I know Seguin's men were with Mosley Bakers company doing a River delaying Fight 14 April 1836 and Karnes unit captured Mexican dispatch riders with key documents that may have given Gen Houston the info needed for the decision to fight at San Jacinto. Santa Anna while there are few written incidents of Mexican scouts in what I have read. As for Channeling him to Houstons desired postion I think we would have to crack open allot books again studying Movements during the retreat. I remember Santa Anna being critical of Gaona dalleying on his northern march and Urrea being told to pick up the pace as well and all to link up with his vanguard. But I think Karne's capture of the dispatch riders was a key factor. In my humble opinion. To You and All The members of This Forum. a Nice discussion on 21 April 2012 the day of the Battle of San Jacinto "Remember the Alamo!!" "Remember Goliad!!" Texas has her FREEDOM
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2012 0:56:12 GMT -5
Texas has her freedom, and it is well to remember this day that were it not for San Jacinto, everything south of the Arkansas from the Gulf to the Pacific would not have been opened to become part of the Greatest Country on Earth, the UNITED States. San Jacinto did not do that by itself, it would take more blood, treasure, and sacrifice, but San Jacinto started it and without it, none of the rest would have followed.
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 21, 2012 12:54:11 GMT -5
That's a great thought Chuck.. how what would be considered events of a day would shape the Nation and our Future.
I feel like singing the Yellow Rose of Texas!
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 21, 2012 15:57:54 GMT -5
A few thoughts: San Jacinto is the least-known most important battle fought in the Western Hemisphere. It is difficult to overstate its impact on history.
An army is rendered blind when it has poor intelligence. Houston had excellent intelligence working for him. Santa Anna, once he crossed the Colorado; had little or no intelligence. The capture of three Mexican couriers on April 18 by Karnes' spy company provided Houston with invaluable information. The letters indicated the position of Santa Anna, his strength, the plan for Cos to reinforce Santa Anna at Lynch's Ferry, and perhaps most importantly, Santa Anna’s ignorance of Houston's current position.
As for the battle itself, I see two key factors in the routing of Santa Anna’s forces. The first factor was the “flanking maneuver” of the 2nd Regiment Texas Volunteers, led by the Nacogdoches Volunteers of “A” Company. Moving through islands of trees, the men of “A” Company pushed hard into the right flank of the Mexican Army and chaos ensued; most definitely “violence of action.”
The second factor in the rout was Santa Anna abandoning the field. I am of the opinion that the families of the dead Mexican soldiers need only look to the C-I-C of the Army of Operations to find out where to place ultimate responsibility for the death of their sons, husbands, and brothers. When a commander abandons his men, it quickly becomes every man for oneself. Castrillon fought and died bravely, as did hundreds of others; but the personal cowardice of Santa Anna directly resulted in the death of hundreds.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 21, 2012 16:03:59 GMT -5
San Jacinto is the least-known most important battle fought in the Western Hemisphere. It is difficult to overstate its impact on history. From an American perspective, certainly.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2012 16:13:46 GMT -5
Well, considering how much Mexico lost in the long run, it turned out to be pretty important to that country too.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 22, 2012 11:56:47 GMT -5
San Jacinto is the least-known most important battle fought in the Western Hemisphere. It is difficult to overstate its impact on history. From an American perspective, certainly. I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly. Surely you mean, the least known of the important battles, and not that San Jacinto was the most important battle fought in the Western Hemisphere. I know you Texans are a proud lot, but Waterloo immediately comes to mind (and I don't mean Austin!). ;D Jim
|
|