|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 27, 2010 9:02:45 GMT -5
...which is the reason why the Spanish started concentrating troops in San Antonio (the Flying Company of Alamo de Parrars are among them) and started repair work at the Alamo and La Bahia. They feared that the American free agents were going to come...and they were right-just took longer than expected....
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 28, 2010 2:10:04 GMT -5
It is interesting to consider some of the history involving Texas, going back to the first Spanish settlements. Spain wanted to occupy the area as a buffer against possible French expansion west of the Mississippi and sought to do it by a combination of military installations and evangelical missionaries, whose job it was to pacify the Indians. Later, Mexico sought to populate it with American immigrants as a way to control Indians. When the Revolution began, Mexico saw clear American designs behind it, just as many colonists saw the Revolution as merely a step toward annexation. Allen Its worth pointing out that the business of the Mexican government inviting in American settlers to defend the northern frontier is one of the more enduring myths propagated by Henderson Yoakum - along with pushing the line that the French got there first and therefore it was legitimately part of the Louisiana Purchase. Texas had its problems, but the Comanche weren't one of them until the Revolution screwed a lot of things up - see De Lay's book. Mexico certainly did want settlers in Texas, but wanted European settlers for Austin's colony, who were to be found - along with financial backing - by Wavell. Instead, as soon as Wavell went to London, Austin double-crossed him and got his money and settlers from the US. Later on Wavell (and that curiously enigmatic character Ben Milam), with the backing of the Mexican government, did plan a barrier colony along the US border, but this was frustrated by a very foreceful American claim to the Red River country - its all in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 29, 2010 17:28:22 GMT -5
Back to filibusters-you Crockett guys will find this kind of funny: In the Rules, Regulations and Priniciples of the K.G.C. (Knights of the Golden Circle), Military Maxims, Number 13 on page 45 can be found The maxim of our countryman, Col. Crockett, "Be sure you're right, then go ahead," is one that should never be forgotten by a commander. And even though wrong, after an army has once assumed the offensive, let it cling to its policy to the death.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 29, 2010 19:23:32 GMT -5
Brilliant! I don't know if Crockett would have gone along with the entire thought. Keep going, even though you realize you've made a mistake -- maybe an awful mistake? Don't think so.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 29, 2010 20:55:39 GMT -5
Brilliant! I don't know if Crockett would have gone along with the entire thought. Keep going, even though you realize you've made a mistake -- maybe an awful mistake? Don't think so. Allen Thought you would like the usage of the Crockett quote-olde George Bickley borrowed from everyone-the rules and regs for the KGC's three levels (Military, Political, Financial) make for some interesting reading! The KGC never got its filibustering off the ground, but the Texas branch came in real handy at secession time!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 29, 2010 23:43:15 GMT -5
Crockett continues to be used for this sort of propaganda, the most notable example being the oft-used "Not Yours to Give" fiction; as bogus as "Exploits & Adventures in Texas." Some political groups seem very fond of citing that to support their views, despite conclusive evidence proving it bogus. Maybe they got the idea from the KGC!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 1, 2010 0:15:16 GMT -5
By Spring, 1836, couldn't Houston's intent have been ultimately to pry Texas from Mexico for the U.S.? Consider that Santa Anna had bragged about marching all the way to Washington, D.C. I know some of y'all will posit that Houstin was a rank coward who was simply afraid to turn and fight, but might not his falling back eastward have been intended to lure the Mexicans into either crossing over or coming so close to the Sabine that American troops would officially respond (i.e. attacking under their commanders' orders and with their insignia still on their uniforms, rather than sneaking into Texas without either) and either claim Texas for the U.S or at least "move" the U.S./Mexico border west? Couldn't that make him a filibuster by that date, if not when he entered Texas? Gen. Houston's post Alamo strategy has little to do with filibustering and his supposed plan to retreat to the Sabine has been discussed on other threads. Actually it wasn't just Houston's plan. Key members of the Texas government were suggesting a move to the border with the U.S. and I believe at least one official ordered Houston to retreat to this river and hook up with Gen. Gaines' forces. I don't understand how anyone can honestly consider Gen. Houston a rank coward on here. He charged the enemy with a mere sword at Horseshoe Bend and San Jacinto, stood on the dueling field with a crippled right pistol arm and took unpopular politcal/social stands on issues that have gotten men drummed out of office and others killed. So far as Houston's hundred mile retreat east, I don't blame any general w/ a small, cannonless army for advancing in the opposite direction and looking for a opportunity to defeat the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 1, 2010 11:22:37 GMT -5
Oddly enough, General Gaines was absent from the Texas/Louisiana frontier. The War Department had ordered Gaines to remain in New Orleans while ordering Winfield Scott to Florida to deal with the Seminoles, but the orders, issued in late January, missed Gaines. Gaines arrived in Tampa on February 10th and was the officer who buried Dade's command. The conflict over command was settled quickly, and Gaines was back in New Orleans by March 28th. By that time, as we know, the Alamo and Goliad had fallen, Santa Anna was marching on San Felipe and the Runaway Scrape had begun. Gaines moved to Natchitoches on April 4th. He ordered the commanders at Forts Towson and Gibson to prevent both sides from crossing the boundary in arms and to keep US citizens out of the conflict. At the same time he requested the governors of several southern states to raise a brigade of lounted volunteers to protect US neutrality and to prevent Indians from raiding across the border. Along with this, he started to concertrate US regulars on the border at Camp Sabine and Fort Towson. Texan officalls echoed the fear that the hundreds of settlers, now seeking the safety of the Red/Sabine watersheds were in danger of falling victims to Indian attacks from both inside and outside of Texas. Gaines got confirmed notification of San Jacinto on May 2nd, which for the moment, eased things on the frontier. That would change quickly changed. The Indian raids into Roberston's colony allowed him to go ahead and move the regulars concetrated at Fort Towson into Texas and occupy Nacogdoches from July 1836 until December.
It is pretty well noted where Gaines' personal loyalities laid and who he was in sympathy with. Yet, he did send both Houston and Santa Anna identical letters where he explained US neutrality and that he would not tolerate either side encouraging Indians to cross the borders.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 3, 2010 19:11:19 GMT -5
Sometimes, what politicians, generals and ordinary people write and what they actually do are two different things. We'll probably never know exactly what was going on behind the scenes. A lot can happen between letters, especially during those confusing times.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 13, 2010 3:31:27 GMT -5
There are two "must reads" on this subject. First, is Filibusters and Expansionists, Frank Owsley and Gene Lawrence, and then the seminal volume which preceded it, The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution, Harris Gaylord Warren.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 13, 2010 3:43:39 GMT -5
To quote the Online Etymology Dictionary...
filibuster (n.) 1580s, flibutor "pirate," probably ultimately from Du. vrijbuiter "freebooter," used of pirates in the West Indies as Sp. filibustero and Fr. flibustier, either or both of which gave the word to Amer.Eng. (see freebooter). Used 1850s and '60s of lawless adventurers from the U.S. who tried to overthrow Central American countries. The legislative sense is first recorded c.1851, probably because obstructionist legislators "pirated" debate. Not technically restricted to U.S. Senate, but that's where the strategy works best. Related: Filibustered; filibustering.
freebooter (n.) 1570, from Du. vrijbuiter, from vrijbuiten "to rob, plunder," from vrijbuit "plunder," lit. "free booty," from vrij "free" + buit "booty," from buiten "to exchange or plunder," from M.Du. buten.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 13, 2010 17:12:12 GMT -5
There are two "must reads" on this subject. First, is Filibusters and Expansionists, Frank Owsley and Gene Lawrence, and then the seminal volume which preceded it, The Sword Was Their Passport: A History of American Filibustering in the Mexican Revolution, Harris Gaylord Warren. I would add Manifest Destiny's Underworld: Filibustering in Antebellum America and The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861 by Robert E. May
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Feb 14, 2010 3:19:10 GMT -5
I don't understand how anyone can honestly consider Gen. Houston a rank coward on here...So far as Houston's hundred mile retreat east, I don't blame any general w/a small, cannonless army for advancing in the opposite direction and looking for a opportunity to defeat the enemy. I agree, but I've read stuff clearly intended to portray the retreat as evidence of Houston's cowardice. I see the retreat as analogous to Russia letting Napoleon and Hitler extend, and thereby weaken, their armies. Or, in modern terms, Ali using the rope-a-dope to negate Foreman's offensive advantage. Houston knew two things: First, he was only managing a loose band, not commanding an army. Second, his best chance was to hold off fighting to see if SA would do something that lessened SA's advantages. When the Texians came to the fork in the road, I think Houstin thought it smarter to go left to Nacodoches, but he knew his soldiers would ignore that order and take a right to San Jacinto, so he simply let that happen. SA then put himself in a weak position and the rest is history. In the end, there's nothing wrong with Houston having Texas' largest city named after him.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Feb 14, 2010 21:00:21 GMT -5
Yea GB, for some odd reason many Americans seem to hold Houston to a higher standard than Generals Washington, Jackson and Lee (all retreaters) due to his actions during the Runaway Scrape. Perhaps it was the horror of the big defeats at the Alamo and Goliad or the oddity that Houston's only retreat was given a catchy name.
Houston was actually preparing to do battle with Santa Anna while camped at Groce's and was desperately trying to locate sufficient artillery for the action. I also believe that Houston decided to turn down the right road toward San Jacinto the day before he reached the fork. I think that whole Whichaway story is just a tall tree tale, which I discussed briefly in a thread on this old oak last year.
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Feb 27, 2010 12:12:13 GMT -5
Houston was no more a filibuster than legal (or illegal) Mexican immigrants in Texas today. Texas, as was the entire Americas, was settled and civilization established, with aboriginal peoples to the extent they would assimilate, by European immigrants, mostly second or third generation Creoles, with the "American" colonial experience behind them. They were invited by early visionary Mexican revolutionaries themselves similar Creoles and a few Peninsulares, under a highly organized and innovative system of milestones and reward (The Empresario System). The chaos, corruption and pure incompetence of the largely Centralist Mexican post-revolution leadership failed to protect, accommodate and live up to the contracts and the Constitution with its invited immigrants as well as its native born Texans in respect to principles of freedom of its own Constitution. The Texans necessarily resisted and rebeled and gladly accepted the aid of those who sympathized with their cause and particularly who would die for it with them (no different than today). Houston was a pompous narcissistic lucky buffoon and bully (like most politicians) with a sense of adventure (unlike most modern politicians) stacking up considerable experience in real world life, politics and the military (unlike most modern politicians). He seized the moment by following the people--the men--and went with the flow to his great personal benefit and full subsequent exploitation.
|
|