|
Post by stuart on Oct 23, 2007 7:35:46 GMT -5
On the subject of Ben Milam, what do we really know about him? I mean in terms of documented facts rather than anecdotes from the likes of Noah Smithwick and the writings of later (much later) journalists
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 23, 2007 8:07:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 23, 2007 16:30:27 GMT -5
Interesting thanks, as you say very dated and some interesting ommissions, but probably as well documented as we're likely to get
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 31, 2007 2:57:10 GMT -5
Ben Milam is called a captain, a colonel and a general during his short service in the Texas Revolution, but there seems to be little documentation that he was actually commisioned into the Texas Army. Milam doesn't even appear in the known muster rolls. Was he a real officer/soldier or just a hard-fighting civilian?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 31, 2007 7:19:14 GMT -5
Depends how you define the Texas Army. James Grant was seemingly appointed a colonel by Burleson and confirmed as such by election just before the assault on Bexar, but although the provisional government acknowledged he was acting as such then and when he led his men down across the Rio Grande, they didn't actually officially recognise him as such.
The same probably goes for Milam, but there is an interesting wrinkle to all of this...
Grant was also a "Jefe de Armas" (Colonel?) in the Coahuila Militia and acting as an officer in the Federal service of Mexico. Milam, who arguably was working for Grant, also derived his title as Colonel from the Mexican service.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 31, 2007 8:27:20 GMT -5
Grant was also a "Jefe de Armas" (Colonel?) in the Coahuila Militia and acting as an officer in the Federal service of Mexico. A jefe de armas could be a generic term meaning a military chief or commander, but the more specific usage in the 19th century (and, no doubt, the Grant example) was for an appointed military commander with jurisdiction over a certain locality or territory. You'll see jefes de armas for military posts, cities, districts, provinces, etc. I believe it was a title, not a rank. [Edited Nov. 1, 2007, to say:] The discussion of Grant and his Mexican military title continues in the thread titled "James Grant, "jefe de armas"/"jefe de milicia" at this link: alamostudies.proboards58.com/index.cgi?board=texasrev&action=display&thread=1193927073
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Oct 31, 2007 11:38:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the information and interpretation, but Milam's military service and rank still seems so vague when compared to most of the Texas revolutionaries. I guess it is because Milam was killed so early in the conflict and few thought to ratify his service with official reports. He supposedly served in the company of Captain George M. Collinsworth at the Oct. 9, 1835 Battle of Goliad, but I don't believe there is a muster roll to prove it. A few days later on Oct. 14th, Adjutant and Inspector General Warren D. C. Hall made Milam a captain of a spy or ranger company to scout the area around San Antonio (S. F. Austin's Order Book), although I wonder if the Adjutant had this appointment authority. Like Col. James Grant, Milam was supposedly made a colonel, but he was certainly given command of a Texan army division for the Battle of Bexar. It's too bad that there arn't more records. However, I believe it fits more into his persona as a rough and tough Texas frontiersman.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 31, 2007 15:41:02 GMT -5
I believe it fits more into his persona as a rough and tough Texas frontiersman. I suppose it depends how you define frontiersman. Milam was a filibuster, slightly (?) dodgy businessman, empressario and a couple of other things besides, but I've never thought of him as a frontiersman
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 1, 2007 2:33:59 GMT -5
I suppose it depends how you define frontiersman. Milam was a filibuster, slightly (?) dodgy businessman, empressario and a couple of other things besides, but I've never thought of him as a frontiersman Maybe I should have said adventurer. I only meant to imply that Milam was a non-conformist who worked in the far reaches of the Texas and Mexico frontiers. The ranks or titles he was given didn't seem to mean much to Milam or influence his actions. Many officers get stuck on their lofty rank instead of sticking to leadership principles. Milam supposedly asked " Who'll follow Old Ben Milam into San Antone? " He didn't order Texas troops to march behind a recently elected division commander, who was once a colonel in the Mexican army. Of course a commander couldn't get away with this sort of "non-order" these days.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 1, 2007 9:00:59 GMT -5
[quote author=rangerrod board=texasrev thread=1193142946 post=1193902439 The ranks or titles he was given didn't seem to mean much to Milam or influence his actions... He didn't order Texas troops to march behind a recently elected division commander, who was once a colonel in the Mexican army. [/quote]
I'm not so sure. He seems to have been pretty consistently referred to as Colonel Milam before and during the revolution, long before Grant pushed him out of the tent and got him to turn on the homely "Old Ben Milam" bit.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 1, 2007 20:34:10 GMT -5
Just because people refer to someone as having a fancy military title doesn't mean that the title has actually been bestowed on them and sanctioned by a governing body. My whole point is that there doesn't appear to be a lot legality to Ben Milam's appointments as captain of scouts, colonel and especially general in the Mexican or Texas military. Some of these appellations may have simply been ranks of honor for being a veteran of the War of 1812 and later revolutionary service. Milam may have used titles at times, but I don't know that he ever added "colonel" to his signature or donned the appropriate uniform. He seems to have been more laid-back than the other Texas military types of this time period. This is merely an opinion and I may be completely off my rocker in thinking so. Dr. Grant may have pulled the strings and forced Ol' Ben to play his part in the grand drama that was the Battle of Bexar, but Milam allegedly uttered the famous words to those 300 Spartans, not James Grant. I'm no expert on Col. Milam, but in reading his bio, I've come to the conclusion that he led from the front and did so without a big plumed hat. I find that interesting and admirable in a leader.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 2, 2007 1:47:50 GMT -5
Don't actually disagree with that, but the fact remains that he was widely known before the storming of Bexar as Colonel Milam and his appeal succeeded at least in part because he had a reputation as a leader symbolised by that title however legitimate or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 2, 2007 10:36:50 GMT -5
It's very disapointing that Col. Ben Milam was so well-known as a colonel and adventurer, but there are so few documented facts. There's alot of anecdotes although they may not be totally true. The State Archives has several republic claims for Milam, but most are the result of Texas soldiers stating that they served with Colonel or sometimes General Milam at the Battle of Bexar. Sadly there are no contemporary republic claims for Milam other than the donation of his mule to the army on Dec. 1, 1835. There is also a later claim ( below ) that points out the total lack of documentation for Ben Milam's service at the TX Adjutant General's Office, but states it's a "historical fact" that he was killed in the assault on Bexar. It's too bad that they didn't keep better records in those early days. tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/173/17300473.pdf
|
|