|
Post by TRK on May 1, 2007 14:23:26 GMT -5
Some of you are familiar with Lt. Col. Juan José Holzinger for his role in Gen. Urrea's engagements in Texas in 1836, including the affairs at Regufio and Victoria and the Battle of Coleto. In my Mexican War research I turned up several references to his interactions with the U.S. Army in Veracruz after the U.S. capture of that city in 1847:
The army paid "Juan Holzinger" eight payments totalling $1,131 for services by order of Gen. Worth in the customhouse hospital and services in San Francisco hospital. The nature of those services, which Holzinger rendered between May 31 and June 22, 1847, were not disclosed. (Source: "Expenditures on account of the city of Vera Cruz, made by Capt. F.M. Dimond," Executive Document No. 47, 30th US Congress, 2nd Session, "Military Contributions in Mexico," Jan. 31, 1849, p. 52,
Holzinger lost that position by order of the Veracruz city council by November 12, 1847. On that date a newspaper in that city published the following letter to the editor:
"Messrs. Editors: Allow me, through the medium of your paper, to return my sincere thanks to the city council for the dismissal from office in the United States Service, of Lieut. Col. Holsinger, one of the assistants in the massacre of Fannin's men at Goliad, Texas. Better Late Than Never. "[signed] One of the Few Survivors." (Source: Vera Cruz Genius of Liberty, Nov. 12, 1847, p. 2.)
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 2, 2007 1:03:43 GMT -5
An interesting one that. I wonder who the survivor was. Given that there weren't that many it shouldn't be too difficult to track one down in a US volunteer unit.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 2, 2007 6:55:41 GMT -5
Stuart, it could've been a volunteer, or it equally could have been a camp follower. There were plenty of American merchants, government agents, and hustlers in Veracruz during the occupation. But you're right; the survivor should be traceable.
Also interesting that the "survivor" didn't buy into the school of thought that Holzinger did all he could to aid the surrendered Texians in the 1836 campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 2, 2007 12:24:24 GMT -5
Interesting stuff. The way history is taught we tend to look at wars as seperate events. Where very obviously at least to most Texians and the Mexican army, the events of 1835-1848 were very closely intertwined.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 2, 2007 13:01:55 GMT -5
It's fun when you find some significant figure in history who turns up later in another place and guise. In that file of Veracruz newspapers from the Mexican War, I found a series of ads and notices for Samuel Bangs, who was taking advantage of the booming business in that port by running a saloon there. Years earlier, he had made his mark as the first printer in Texas and the Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and (probably) Tamaulipas. During the Texas Revolution, Bangs was the official state printer of Tamaulipas, and in the capital, Victoria, he printed a number of decrees and proclamations concerning the revolt.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 2, 2007 16:30:35 GMT -5
There's also an interesting connection between James Grant and Samuel Bangs. I don't know if they knew each other personally but in the circumstances its quite likely.
In February 1835 Bangs obtained a land grant in Tamaulipas, and the prominent American abolitionist Benjamin Lundy entered into an agreement with him to introduce some families - presumably free blacks as he was trying to establish a negro colony.
However shortly afterwards he transferred his interest in the land to a Scotsman named James Ogilvie, who started to establish a colony but then in July 1835 very suddenly found it prudent to leave Mexico in a hurry. Funnily enough this was just after James Grant's arrest and the lack of co-incidence is underlined by the fact that he appears to have fled to New Orleans with Grant's brother Hugh and afterwards acted as an agent for both Hugh, and for James Grant's children, in trying to secure his estate.
Bangs himself is probably pretty peripheral to the story, but his connection with Benjamin Lundy and James Ogilvie, inadvertently points to a possible connection through Ogilvie between the abolitionist Lundy (who incidentally was opposed to an American takeover of Texas) and James Grant, who had been raised an ablitionist in the Wilberforce circle
|
|