|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 22, 2012 12:58:28 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. Sorry I am late coming in: was out all SanJac Day at a dedication of a gravestone for a local CW Medal of Honor...
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.”
Good point. And even better those men hit the section of the ine where the exhaused soldados from Cos' force march were at. In addition, with the Mexican cavalry unsaddled and walking their mounts back and forth to water killed any chance of mounted response...
San Jacinto is one of the more important battles in the region: and certainly set into montion the events that would lead to the capture of Mexico City and US expansion to the Pacific...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 22, 2012 14:39:58 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. Jim's point about the year being 1829 is important and I overlooked that. In 1829, Crockett was at the top of his game and the peak of his political career. The Jacksonians had gone after him with both barrels, both on the floor of the House and in sparing no effort to defeat him in the election that year. Their plans backfired and Crockett was reelected later that year in a landslide. One of Polk's Tennessee allies was defeated and another (Lea himself) nearly lost and only won on a recount. Polk ran unopposed. At that point, Crockett's beef was with the Tennessee delegation and its efforts to force him to tow the party line and sacrifice the interests of his own constituents, which he wouldn't tolerate. Jackson had only just taken office as President, so he had not had time to institute any policies that Crockett would take exception to. Nonetheless, Crockett had never allied with the Jacksonian faction in Tennessee politics and he undoubtedly associated them with Polk's antagonism toward him. As Jim says, later on his differences with Jackson, and later Van Buren, would become serious and bitter. But in 1829, I don't know that the situation would have alienated someone like Houston from being courteous or even friendly toward Crockett. According to Crockett's letter, Houston was even willing to discuss his personal affairs with him, including his plans to leave Tennessee and reside among the Cherokee. Six years later, things were quite different. Crockett had barely survived politically and lost his final bid for reelection in 1835. By then, he was among Jackson and Van Buren's bitterest and most outspoken foes, even swearing never to live in a country that still believed in them. Houston, on the other hand, remained a Jackson ally and protege, so that would not have suggested the same sort of freindly relations between the two that might have been the case in 1829.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 22, 2012 17:07:06 GMT -5
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 I don't know about least known, but it was certainly one of the most important battles in the so-called New World. San Jacinto "helped" set the stage for the United States to quickly obtain a huge chunk of North America and eventually surpass our mother country as a super power. So far as the apparently opposing Western Hemisphere definitions. It's been a long time since I've studied geography, but I think Hollowhorn might mean the hemisphere west of the prime meridian, while Jim means the modern political/ civiliazations, which I guess would include Waterloo in Belgium.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 25, 2012 14:43:58 GMT -5
The point I made (rather poorly) was as you surmised Jim; that less has been written about San Jac than any other battle that dramatically altered the course of Western history.
There have been volumes on Tours, Waterloo, Gettysburg, Normandy, and other decisive battles, but San Jacinto? Almost nothing. That is why the Battle of San Jacinto is the least known important clash fought in the Western Hemisphere. Taking out the word most clarifies the statement.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 25, 2012 14:55:33 GMT -5
On the subject of geography, my own reference to the Western Hemisphere goes by traditional definition; west of the Prime Meridian and east of the International Date Line. I think the questions about my earlier statement had more to do with the wording than with the geography. Again, as a former newspaperman, I should have done better!
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 25, 2012 15:21:33 GMT -5
I had to go look up 'Prime Meridian'
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2012 16:07:09 GMT -5
Boy, was my education lacking -- or they may have changed things these days. I was taught that the Western Hemisphere was North, South and Central America. I didn't know there was an alternate concept.
I agree on San Jac; in and of itself, it seems relatively insignificant and something of a fluke, but the same could be said of many a key battle that hinged on some small detail ("for want of a nail," etc.). But in the broader scope of the history that followed over the next decade, it looms very large indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 25, 2012 17:16:08 GMT -5
Boy, was my education lacking -- or they may have changed things these days. I was taught that the Western Hemisphere was North, South and Central America. I didn't know there was an alternate concept. Not by much and it's a minor issue. I guess when explorers rediscovered two new continents and proved the world was round, they had to come up with a new system of deviding the Earth. Cartographers had to take some of their flat maps and turn them into round ones. I figure some English or French fellow decided that the 0' meridian should start near their countries and longitude should move west. That's how I remember geography and put it together. The North and South continents are also called the American hemisphere according to Wikipedia, but this sounds a bit grandiose and not very accurate. At least we're on the same page and can get back to the main topic.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 25, 2012 17:56:04 GMT -5
Consider me schooled on the definition of "western hemisphere." Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2012 20:28:55 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure in the dark here. I do recall, however, a book called "Longitude," which related the story of how a very determined fellow invented the concept of longitude so that navigation could be made far more accurate. That came a long time after the Europeans stumbled onto the "new world," or as they would have it, "discovered" it.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 25, 2012 22:02:25 GMT -5
I read the book Longitude and saw the docudrama a long time ago, but I think they had the concept a long time before that guy. As I recall he was a clock-maker, who came up with a device to measure time with longitude, which made trans-Atlantic and world sea voyages easier. Not schooling as I don't enough about geography, just ruminating on an interesting side-topic in the absence of the other.
|
|