|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 12, 2008 23:33:38 GMT -5
Last week, I was doing some research on the battle of San Jacinto at the Center for American History here in Austin, TX. Once I had exhausted a few source avenues, I decided to take the suggestion of a Pennsylvania poster and peruse the Defence of Gen. Sidney Sherman, Against the Charges Made by Gen. Sam Houston, In His Speech Delivered In The United States Senate, February 28, 1859. In late 2006 or early 2007, I was led to believe that this small pamplet was written to denounce the character and actions of Houston during the Texas Revolution. I was repeatedly told as well as others in a public forum that 35 revolutionary veterans had written statements for this very controversial document, which was published in late 1859 by Sidney Sherman and again in 1885 by his still bitter family. Upon reading through the book, I discovered that there was nowhere close to 35 testimonies, although I did find exactly 35 pages. There are actually only 19 witness statements in Gen. Sherman's book, which really is just a defense of his actions against the charges of Gen. Houston. Obviously, Gen. Sherman, David G. Burnet, M. B. Lamar, Anson Jones, Jesse Billingsley, James Tarlton and a couple others have derogatory opinions of Houston, but the majority are non committal or friendly. Although, this pamplet is very biased at times and not contemporary, I found it really informative. If it had not been misrepresented earlier, I may have looked at it sooner. Another lesson learned.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 13, 2008 11:43:27 GMT -5
RR, I could think of several hard lessons to be learned from that experience I'm a little rusty on my San Jacinto history, but would appreciate knowing about any particularly interesting nuggets you gleaned from the booklet, copies of which, I understand, are quite rare.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 13, 2008 12:47:36 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't have my copy of the book with me at the moment, but I remember one nugget. Sherman makes the statement that the night before the Texan army reached the Trinity and Harrisburg Crossroad, Gen. Houston acknowledged that Gen. Rusk was the Secretary of War and that he was bound to follow his order to march south. In my opinion, Sherman's testimony may negate the apparent myth or supposed confusion of Gen. Houston at the Whichaway Tree. Houston, Rusk, Sherman and possibly other officers had prior knowledge of the famous turn down the Harrisburg Road, while the rank and file troops were in the dark, perceiving that their leaders were indecisive. As a veteran, I have been there and as a civilian, I'm still there.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 13, 2008 16:18:51 GMT -5
RR -- How much intel did Houston, Rusk and Sherman have when they made that decision? Did they know that Santa Anna was located at San Jacinto with a relatively small force?
I notice that in "Alamo Traces" Tom Lindley mentions the Sherman book you're talking about, but only in passing and only as ammunition against Houston. On page 203 he refers to it in recreating some background on the story (via Zuber) about Travis drawing the line. It portrays Houston as trying to call his own men's bluff on March 26, when they insisted on fighting instead of running, by drawing a line and daring those who would fight to step up to it, which nearly all of them did. In footnote #64 on page 210, he elaborates further on the "Defense of Gen. Sidney Sherman," again to criticize Houston and charge that only he (Houston) "faltered on that day" (April 21, 1836), or at any period before...."
However, from the excerpt you quoted, it would appear that Sherman was letting Houston off the hook on one of the key criticisms that's been leveled at him -- namely that he did not direct the march of his troops toward Harrisburg, but simply stood by while they took the turn in the road on their own.
I wonder if the story of the woman taking back her oxen from Houston is true?
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 13, 2008 17:22:38 GMT -5
This might be one Doc could wade in on. According to the traditional story as told in his "Santa Anna's Texas Cmpaign" (Osprey), the woman in question was Pamela Mann - presumably the same Pamela Mann referred to in one of his posts on the Texas Macabre thread.
Is the story to be taken literally or is it a veiled allusion to a different story entirely?
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 14, 2008 2:07:45 GMT -5
RR -- How much intel did Houston, Rusk and Sherman have when they made that decision? Did they know that Santa Anna was located at San Jacinto with a relatively small force? So far as the pamplet, Gen. Houston's staff apparently had no special knowledge of Santa Anna's movements or troop size prior to taking the Harrisburg Road. Well, Lindley and Sherman certainly had their opinions of Sam Houston as we all do. I'm not sure what percentage of their views were based on primary or contemporary facts. I looked at the Traces page (pg. 203) that you cited and the paragraph seems to rely on a lot of hearsay for that particular cross-the-line story. Sherman doesn't mention it in his pamplet. That's pretty much what I was thinking. I have some doubts about that story too.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Apr 14, 2008 11:38:02 GMT -5
This recent thread is interesting... where did the story of Pam Mann retrieving her oxen come from and what leads one to doubt it if there is evidence to support the story(assuming there IS eveidence to support it)?
I've always enjoyed that story and Pam Mann ran a boarding house at the site I work at so in the interest of being correct when discussing Pamelia, where did that story come from?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 14, 2008 12:43:14 GMT -5
In "Texian Illiad" Stephen Hardin cites "Narrative of Robert Hancock Hunter" written by Hunter (Introduction by William D. Wittlif. 1936; reprint, Austin: Encino Press, 1966). Hunter, a Private, was there and he's quoted by Hardin. Hunter also took part in the Grass Fight.
AW
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 14, 2008 13:42:28 GMT -5
I should clarify that I think the explosive Pam Mann took an ox or two from the army, but that it was not as damaging to the cannon transportation as some have stated previously. Private James Winters reported that the oxen were taken from the ammunition wagon, not from the cannon. These beasts were not as rare in the Texas army as one might believe. General Houston and his men obviously didn't push and pull the cannon down that long muddy road.
|
|
doc
Full Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by doc on Apr 17, 2008 10:31:22 GMT -5
Okay, Stuart, I'll contribute what I can.
To begin with, the incident of Mrs. Mann and the oxen really took place.
At least four veterans of the campaign tell the story in their accounts: Robert Coleman, Nicholas Labadie, Robert Hancock Hunter, and James Washington Winters. One can read most of these narratives online at Sons of De Witt Colony.
Houston groupies attempt to discout Coleman out of hand, but the others had no special political axes to grind.
Additional evidence is found in a 15 May 1836 letter from W. B. Dewees to Clara Cardello in Jenkins, ed., PAPERS OF THE TEAS REVOLUTION, vol. 6, p. 286.
True, the various versions differ in particulars, but relate the same basic story. Still, that's simply the nature of primary accounts. Let us strive not to turn this discussion into the cluster copulation the Pena debate became, with advocates parsing each word to uncover its hidden meaning. I'm soooo tired of that paticular parlor game!
I discussed this incident in ILIAD, but also in my article on Houston's generalship for the Alamo de Parras website. For another errudite disscussion of the incident see, William C. Davis, LONE STAR RISING: THE REVOLUTIONARY BIRTH OF THE TEXAS REPUBLIC, pp. 264, 330-331n.
And, yes, it is the same Pam Mann who was involved in the Oxen incident and later ran the Mansion House in early Houston. She got around and made a lasting impression wherever she went.
Okay, everybody read the sources and there will be a test next week. Oh, sorry . . . force of habit.
SLH
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 18, 2008 9:45:03 GMT -5
Amen, Doc, and thanks for the background.
I've always wanted to ask you --- what's your view of Paul Lack's book on the Texas Revolution? I'm not trying to flatter you by saying it's not nearly as readible or fun as "Illiad," but it is sort of the opposite "bookend" to that.
AW
|
|
doc
Full Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by doc on Apr 18, 2008 10:00:13 GMT -5
Well, AW, I like Paul Lack's THE TEXAS REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE: A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY, 1835-1836 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1992) a lot. If for no other reason, it allowed me to focus on the military history of the Texas Revolution without having to mess with political and social concerns. In the introdution to ILIAD, I simply told folks if that's your bag see Lack's book. In that regard, I found it somewhat liberating.
Lack does not follow the narrative tradition as I do, but his style is much more in keeping with the current academic orthodoxy.
I'm really interested in his subject, but I must admit I found the reading hard plowing. Still, there's good stuff there--if you're willing to work for it.
SLH
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 24, 2008 2:16:55 GMT -5
Here's another interesting item from Gen. Sherman's pamplet. On page 23, an embittered Anson Jones claims that Sam Houston was retreating to the Neches River for a showdown with Santa Anna, not the faraway Sabine River as some detractors believe. What a complicated story.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 24, 2008 10:10:51 GMT -5
Well, AW, I like Paul Lack's THE TEXAS REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE: A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY, 1835-1836 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1992) a lot. If for no other reason, it allowed me to focus on the military history of the Texas Revolution without having to mess with political and social concerns. In the introdution to ILIAD, I simply told folks if that's your bag see Lack's book. In that regard, I found it somewhat liberating. Lack does not follow the narrative tradition as I do, but his style is much more in keeping with the current academic orthodoxy. I'm really interested in his subject, but I must admit I found the reading hard plowing. Still, there's good stuff there--if you're willing to work for it. SLH Thanks Steve; I had the same impression (which is similar to reading Shackford's bio of Crockett; heavy going). Still, the only book that takes a look from that angle and there's a lot of good info in it. I don't know how reliable his demographic tables and stats are, but I found his arguments convincing regarding who took part in the Revolution at the start and who joined up later, especially his point that the longer-term residents/colonists tended to join up later, after the Alamo and Goliad. AW
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 24, 2008 10:14:01 GMT -5
Here's another interesting item from Gen. Sherman's pamplet. On page 23, an embittered Anson Jones claims that Sam Houston was retreating to the Neches River for a showdown with Santa Anna, not the faraway Sabine River as some detractors believe. What a complicated story. It certainly is and these questions about Houston remain intriguing. Did he plan to fight the Mexicans on his own, and was just waiting for the right opportunity, or was his aim to get to the border and bring the U.S. troops in? If the latter, was that just wishful thinking on his part, or did he have good reason to believe those troops would dive right in? Equally puzzling is Houston's apparent belief that there were no Mexicans besieging the Alamo, despite his own man, Bowie, remaining there. AW
|
|