|
Post by Herb on Nov 29, 2012 14:14:11 GMT -5
Forgive me for not researching this reply. In an earlier discussion, I recall finding evidence, that Houston did intend to fight on the Colorado(?), but decided to retreat after learning of Fannin's defeat and surrender. It is one thing to risk battle when there are other friendly forces in the field, quite another win a defeat means the probable loss of the war. After Fannin's defeat, the army in fact only had one more battle in it, whether Houston knew this or not, doesn't really matter. Barring US intervention, the colonies were already lost at San Jacinto. The army's survival was irrelevant. It was literally Victory or Death (of the colonies).
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 29, 2012 14:25:01 GMT -5
With no intention to be offensive, I have always found the either/or argument about Houston simplistic. Like almost all men, he had both the hero and the villain within him. Sometimes his actions were obviously flawed, (his charging piracy against the Texas Navy is an obvious case in point). But, no mattered how flawed he was in some areas he stood head and shoulders above other men in others.
He is such a complex man, and given the extreme political climate in Texas throughout his career, i'm not too sure if even Daniel Day-Lewis could give us an accurate portrayal.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 29, 2012 23:53:17 GMT -5
I'm very pleased to read this letter segment from Neill. An officer and a gentleman sticking up for what he clearly saw as truth. Funny, when I hear rampant criticisms of Houston on the San Jacinto trail, I simply file them as the typical "loose cannon" reactions and accusations that always accompany extreme actions and deep decisions. The truth, IMO, is always much deeper and what you least hear it to be. What's sad is that Col. Neill was challenged to come forward and corroborate the false statements of publications and was forced to defend the honor of a fellow veteran he didn't particularly like anymore. Service at San Jacinto wasn't as kind to Col. Neill as it was to Gen. Houston and others. He was severely wounded in the hip by grapeshot and apparently never served in the army again. By 1841 Col. Neill was destitute and certainly not looking to be drawn into a political fray by former friends and comrades. He received a donation grant for battle participation and a pension from the Texas Congress, but seems to not have lived long afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 30, 2012 14:49:10 GMT -5
I agree with Herb and find this to be the case with many important historical figures. No one is all black or white; usually more gray. Houston certainly had is weaknesses, but the same can be said of most people who also achieved greatness. I have always admired him most for his brave stand against secession. He knew the cost of gaining independence for Texas and then statehood and I don't think he could bear the thought of it being all thrown away. I'd love to see a good movie about Houston that could achieve what "Lincoln" has done for the 16th president. Houston is very mercurial and often hard to figure out; even a great actor would have his hands full getting a handle on him.
Regarding Neill, I always thought he was terribly under appreciated. For years, I got the impression people regarded him as a minor Alamo figure who abandoned the place, using the family crisis as just an excuse. But he was probably a better commander of that motley garrison than either Travis or Bowie, although in Bowie's defense, he didn't have much chance to do that before falling ill. Neill's contributions to the rest of the war, especially at San Jacinto, were also not commonly acknowledged for a long time. Texas was not always kind to those who paid the price for independence.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Nov 30, 2012 15:48:21 GMT -5
I'm in agreement when describing Houston as a man of complexities and contradictions. Among the questions posed to him by Alexis de Tocqueville was the following:
Do you think that the Indians have great natural intelligence?
Houston's response: Yes. I do not think they yield to any other race of men on that account. Besides, I am equally of the opinion that it is the same in the case of the Negroes. The difference one notices between the Indian and the Negro seems to me to result solely from the different education they have received. The Indian is born free; he makes use of this freedom from his first steps in life. He is left to look after himself as soon as he can act; even a father’s power is an imperceptible bond for him. Surrounded by dangers, pressed by necessities, and unable to count on anyone, thus his mind must be ever active to find means to ward off such troubles and to maintain his existence. This necessity imposed on the Indian gives his intelligence a degree of development and ingenuity which are often wonderful. The ordinary Negro has been a slave before he was born. Without pleasures as without needs, and useless to himself, the first notions of existence which he receives, make him understand that he is the property of another, that care for his own future is no concern of his, and that the very power of thought is for him a useless gift of providence.
Suffice to say this was an atypical position.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Dec 1, 2012 2:43:11 GMT -5
Yes, Houston was a complex figure and much about him falls in a gray area. Sherman? Not so much. There's nothing gray about Sherman to me. He spurred a cavalry charge on the 20th at SJ against orders. M.B. Lamar bailed him out of it. On the 21st, Lamar was in charge of cavalry, not Sherman. Bottom line: Houston simply called Sherman to account. It's not at all surprising that Sherman spent the rest of his life finding opportunities to snipe at Houston.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 2, 2012 18:59:07 GMT -5
I believe Gen. Houston had numerous strengths and a few vices, but on occasions lost his equilibrium due to excessive drinking and circumstances beyond his control. I think a lot of historical figures were plagued by various weaknesses, but were judged less harshly by their contemporaries and the newspapers. Many heroes and villians in the past wore moral shades of gray, but Houston in my mind is one of that rare breed that wore calico and tried to choose his own path. As Col. Neill said: "He will not swerve and cannot be driven." I think he proved this several times.
So far as Col. Sidney Sherman's San Jacinto service, I was under the impression that he was the commander of the 2nd Regiment of Volunteers on the 20th and the 21st of April, that he was given permission by Gen Houston for a cavalry charge on the first day and that it just went wrong. Pvt. Lamar saved two men during Col. Sherman's charge and was rewarded with a cavalry command, but this unit only amounted to a company or less. I agree that Col. Sherman was bitter and not one to sugar-coat his feelings on his former commander. Both men, like Gen. Houston were ambitious.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 6, 2012 22:22:12 GMT -5
One of the worst charges against Gen. Houston in the months, years and decades after the victory at San Jacinto was the bold claim that he was a coward. I think the first and one of the few Texicans implying this during the eastward retreat and in the weeks after the battle was Pres. David G. Burnet. Later Burnet's political cronies, seekers of political/ military appointments and various anti-Jackson newspaper editors jumped on the brand wagon. Ultimately, they viciously tried to mark Gen. Houston for all-time as coward, drunk and incompetent victor over a lazy Mexican army. Lindley, Niesen and a few others on the Disney Davy Train followed this line apparently without conducting much contemporary research on the San Jacinto campaign and the immediate battle aftermath. Some have taken the statements of a few S.J. veterans and non-veterans years after the battle and implied that these charges were the almost universal opinions of those that participated in the campaign. Hundreds of soldiers served in the final battle and bore witness to the actions of Gen. Houston, his officers and the men in their commands, but I think only a couple dozen wrote about their experiences. For every promoted detractor of Gen. Houston's courage and honor, there is probably a contemporary supporter, who has been ignored like Col. James C. Neill. As with most 19th century wars and battles there was a vast silent majority that did not comment on whether they liked, hated or were indifferent to their commander's leadership. I believe there would have been a much larger outcry in 1836 TX military dispatches, newspapers, diaries and other print media if a large number of soldiers and civilians had the slightest indication that Gen. Houston was a coward and not a fighter. One of Gen. Houston's biggest flaws (some would considerate it an attribute) was that he was a consumate politician and schemer for things he wanted. He manipulated for Texas independence, U.S. annexation and against Southern secession, but rarely changed his spots from a Jacksonian and union man. Friends and enemies also conspired against him and he wasn't one to ignore an attack. Sometimes Gen. Houston comrades responded for him as follows:
Papers of the Texas Revolution, John H. Jenkins (3411)
To the editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer. Washington City, June 13, 1836
To Col. Webb,
Dear Sir: With great regret I have noticed in several papers for a week past, a statement that there was a project on foot to supercede Gen. Houston, and to place Gen. Hamilton of South Carolina, in command of the Texian army. It is stated in some of the paers that the Texian Commisioners have sent a dispatch to their government to effect this purpose. This rumor is referred to in your newspaper of the 9th, which induces me to trouble you with the following remarks:
The Texian Commisioners have never held any communication directly or indirectly with Gen. Hamilton. He is personally unknown in all of them, and they have never mentioned his name in any of their dispatches to their government. Moreover, they have never made a proposition to supercede Gen. Houston. They have never received a proposition to that effect, and would have rejected any such proposition with indignation, no matter from whence it proceeded. Furthermore, they have viewed Gen. Houston's conduct as commander-in-chief of the Texian army with feelings of unalloyed and unqualified approbation. My colleagues, Gen. Austin and Dr. Archer, are absent; but inasmuch as I have joined them in all their dispatches, and am entirely acquainted with their sentiments in relation to Gen. Houston's military career in Texas, I pledge my honor for the truth of the above statements. I have a great dis-inclination to appear in the public prints, but feel that the above is due to Gen. Houston, to ourselves, and to truth.
Very respectfully, yours, &c.
William H. Wharton
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 7, 2012 0:14:15 GMT -5
Col. James Watson Webb was a noted New York editor, duelist, brawler and Andrew Jackson enemy.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 11, 2012 23:37:21 GMT -5
With no intention to be offensive, I have always found the either/or argument about Houston simplistic. Like almost all men, he had both the hero and the villain within him. Sometimes his actions were obviously flawed, (his charging piracy against the Texas Navy is an obvious case in point). But, no mattered how flawed he was in some areas he stood head and shoulders above other men in others. He is such a complex man, and given the extreme political climate in Texas throughout his career, i'm not too sure if even Daniel Day-Lewis could give us an accurate portrayal. Indeed. Beyond his numerous biographies, I think most people only scratch the surface of his personality with his legend, grandiose statements/ politic and Cherokee hokum. Just as Houston played up his life and accomplishments at times, his enemies and some historians have exaggerated criticisms and cracks in his armor for dramatic effect. Most modern authors harp on President David Burnet's frantic, insufficiently dated Laughing you to scorn letter and specifically date it to various times on the retreat. Houston biographer De Bruhl dates the hasty note to April 12th while the 04 Alamo movie places it before the Colorado encampment. Almost no one reveals Burnet's March/ April letters where he seems to have faith in Houston's leadership and calls him a galant, valiant, talented chief. I think the Scorn note was made on April 13th at Harrisburg after Burnet's slightly critical April 12th letter to Rusk and Houston. Burnet had to make tracks because the Mexicans were coming, which explains the uncharacteristic brevity, urgency and lack of a full date. My point is how can one get a complete image of Houston, Crockett or I guess any historical figure when they are obscured by a fog of legend, misinformation or literary prose that seems to have an agenda? So far Daniel Day-Lewis. If any actor can nail an ambiguous Houston, it's probably him. He's a monumental talent.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 17, 2013 20:18:03 GMT -5
As I informed a member in PM recently, Gen. Houston had the almost complete support of his military staff before, during and after the battle of San Jacinto, which may shock some people. His support was historically lessened by his enemies and detractors for political gain and literary purposes in the months and years after the battle. James H. Perry and Dick the Drummer may have been the only participants that beat the drum of discord against Houston's leadship upon the surprising victory. A few years ago I found a statement by Houston's S. J. aid-de-camp Alexander Horton. He said that the general was his "best friend through life and his glorious old chief." Last week, I discovered a June 23, 1841 Austin City Gazette, where former assistant inspector general William G. Cooke is quoted as stating that Houston was "cool, deliberate and brave" at San Jacinto. Also a "good general" if you can believe that. The hastily organized artillery corp was full of Gen. Houston friends like Isaac N. Moreland, Richardson Scurry, George W. Poe and Ben McCulloch, so I suspect I will find more supportive quotes among them if I have time to look.
* Spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 18, 2013 19:57:57 GMT -5
Even Robert M. Coleman was a one-time Houston friend. He sent a respectful July 30, 1836 letter of support for Houston's presidential bid. Once elected Houston started promoting all the insane peace and money-saving policies that alienated some of his suppoprters. David G. Burnet, Lamar and their war party clearly wanted to derail Houston's U.S. annexation talks and incite further conflict with the enemies (Mexico, Texas Indians, etc.) of the new republic. Coleman may have quickly fallen under Burnet's spell, but I've yet to find proof that he actually wrote Houston Displayed shortly before his 1837 death.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 24, 2013 18:06:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bill Yowell on Apr 29, 2013 8:07:22 GMT -5
Reading in my local newspaper this morning, that archeologists HRA Gray and Pape or scouring the 98 acre field where they believe the Texan charge took place at San Jacinto 177 years ago. Once they have completed their survey and search in late May, they will then replant with the type of prairie vegetation that was present at the time of the battle. Here's hoping that they will find helpful artifacts to further our understanding of this important battle in Texas history,
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 5, 2013 11:02:02 GMT -5
Bill: That's really good news. These and other forensic anthropologists and archaeologists have added huge amounts of to our knowledge of what really happened on some of the famous battlefields of the world. The Custer dig and some of the work done at Gettysburg are fascinating. I'm sure many other battle sites are going to be explored with forensic protocols. Who knows what they will unearth in places like Cowpens, Yorktown, Chancellorsville, Belleau Wood or the Bulge. By the way, of all the charges I've seen levied about Houston, "coward" is the one I would least likely to consider credible. Like many 19th Century leaders whose careers galvanized on the battlefield, Houston attracts criticism and praise. He deserves far more of the latter.
|
|