|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 15, 2010 8:40:02 GMT -5
Here is another Houston Speach, This one about the Confederacy (since it was brought up) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 15, 2010 9:01:11 GMT -5
I was working on some material yesterday and came across this card. It was in some Texas Centennial Materials and may date to that period. Here is the transcription of it. SAN JACINTO The San Jacinto Campaign was begun at Gonzales, with fear and trepidation. The Alamo had fallen and the forces of Santa Anna numbering several thousand were now committed to a policy of extermination. While the Texan Army under the command of General Sam Houston, was composed in the greater part, of poorly armed, untrained men but who had stout hearts and an undying determination, that Texas should be freed from Mexican tyranny. During the retreat eastward, the men of Houston’s little army, were given all the lessons in warfare and army dicipline that was possible, under the trying conditions of wretched weather and continued pursuit of the enemy. Santa Anna made the colossal error of dividing his forces into several units and taking unto himself the task of capturing the independent government in the person of President Burnet and his cabinet. Therefore, he left the Brazos on April 14th with only 800 vetern troops, regulars and dragoons picked from the regiments of Matamoras, Aldamá, Guerrero and Guadalajara, determined to overtake the government at Harrisburg. However, when he reached this point he found the government had moved to New Washington on Galveston Bay for the purpose of taking ship for Galveston. Exasperated at finding Burnet had escaped, he ordered the town burned. He then marched to the bay in the hopes of overtaking and capturing the President and his Cabinet. When Santa Anna reached New Washington at noon of the 18th he saw the little sail boat, out of reach of his guns, bearing its precious cargo to Galveston. After burning New Washington he took up the march for Lynch’s Ferry, not knowing that the Texas Army was under a forced march to reach the same point. Santa Anna’s objective then being Anahuac. On the morning of April 20th the Mexican Army had reached a point about one mile and a half from the ferry, when he found that Houston’s army was camped in the woods and heavy underbrush along Buffalo Bayou and that at last the tables were turned, the hunter was being hunted, In fact had been treed. On the afternoon of that memorable day, Col. Sidney Sherman asked permission of the General, to call for volunteers and take a cannon that was well in advance of Santa Anna’s camp and which had been firing on the Texans. Sherman did not take the gun but he succeeded in having it withdrawn from its position. Tense excitement prevailed in the camps that night. The men of both armies realized that at last, the final conflict of the campaign was to be waged. The Texans were determined to avenge the massacres of the Alamo and Goliad, and to drive forever, the enemy from their territory. General Cos. had reinforced Santa Anna on the morning of the 21st, with some 500 vetern troops. Some time between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, the Mexican forces were taking their siesta. Santa Anna was asleep under a large oak behind his tent. Col. Sherman leading the left wing of the army, composed of the Second Regiment, under cover of a sharp bank, dense with small trees and underbrush, was enabled to reach the grove wherein was camped the right wing of Santa Anna’s troops. Col. Sherman reached within gunshot before the Mexicans were aware of his presence. When he realized he had been discovered, Sherman began the charge with that famous cry which he gave to his soldiers, “Remember the Alamo, Goliad, and the Alamo.” A general engagement was begun. The startled Mexicans taken by such complete surprise, were unable to rally to a military formation. After eighteen minutes of terrific fighting, the victory for Texas was won and the Mexicans were in a precipitous rout. The enemy lost 630 killed, 780 taken prisoner. Santa Anna captured as a fugitive the next day and the Republic of Texas was in the ascendancy. COMPLIMENTS OF __ Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 15, 2010 10:31:34 GMT -5
Wow RR... you might wanna wipe some of that Houston brown off of your nose! Sam wasn't the God folks today tend to make him out to be... he wasn't universally popular during the ROT era either. Personally I don't care much for the way he played politic and seemingly ignored how the fate of his "lessers" would be affected by his actions. Concerned about Mexican attacks by sea... let's do away with the navy, that oughtta do the trick! Let's retaliate against the Mexican invasion of '42 by putting the expedition under the command of a man who most recognized would never follow through with the intended plan! And no dueling down hill... I seem to recall Burnet was also president of the republic, the first one in fact. Seems he was thought more of than ol' Sham when the convention was looking for a man to fill the post. Yes, it is true, I'm not a fan of Houston... I think he gets too much positive press in history books(sort of like Fannin gets too much negative press!). But we all know about opinions... Now back to the dueling question from a year or so ago... you mentioned one duel with a White, beating a would be assassin doesn't count as an affair of honour and any supposed fights he may or may not have had doesn't count either. Do you know anything about a supposed challenge from Sam Walker upon his return from Perote? My coworker says she read something about this but can't find it(don't you hate it when that happens?). I'd love to know more about this episode if it ever took place! I'm glad we can discuss this stuff here without worrying about being challenged to a duel... you aren't going to challenge me to a duel are you RR? ;D
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 15, 2010 22:19:11 GMT -5
Wow RR... you might wanna wipe some of that Houston brown off of your nose! Sam wasn't the God folks today tend to make him out to be... he wasn't universally popular during the ROT era either. Personally I don't care much for the way he played politic and seemingly ignored how the fate of his "lessers" would be affected by his actions. Crap! That was a crude mental picture that I didn't need and is just plain inaccurate. I never implied Houston was a God or anything remotely close to a devine figure. I also don't think he was the cowardly depraved devil that his enemies and some Alamo worshippers need him to be. Houston didn't kill the Holy Trinity of Crocket, Travis and Bowie, but he certainly made mistakes during rough times. If I were to bestow some kind of supernatural analogy on his persona it would probably be that of a fallen angel. Houston rose up from the ashes of poverty, little education, awful war wounds, failed marriages, political failures and personal vices to heights greater than most of his contempoaries with fewer obstacles. It is amazing that he picked himself up each time and went as far as he did despite his many detractors. I guess having President Andy Jackson as role model was an asset, but sometimes a burden. How many rich, sober, college graduates does anyone here know that went on to become a president of a country or even a governor of a state? I'm guessing none. When a country has money in the treasury, a navy is a great thing to have. When the treasury doesn't, it can bleed the country dry and get it into a lot of trouble. What was the so-called intended plan of the Somervell Expedition? Was it to penetrate 60 miles beyond the disputed border ( Nueces River ) and take a town in retaliation with sufficient men and supplies as the Mexican Army had done or go off on a wild goose chase with a handful of hotheaded troops bent on getting revenge and plunder? The Mier Expedition was doomed from the start and not logistically sensible, but makes a great story. Uh, that would be interim president for 7 months and he was never considered popular. He sort of snuck in the back door at the convention because the other possible canidates were not available and Burnet only won by a few votes. I believe Houston may have thought Burnet was a troublesome filibuster pirate, land swindler and debtor, which wasn't far from the truth, but primarily they just didn't like each other. Houston had no respect for Burnet, so he wouldn't be likely to except a challenge or challenge Burnet under the Code Deguello, especially when Houston was president. Really, you seemed pretty awed by Ol' Sam in the Capt. Jack Hays documentary. Don't tell me that was good acting! He only gets most of the good press because Burnet and Lamar were so bad. Houston deserves credit for keeping Texas afloat, while the undynamic dou nearly sunk us. Houston shot and wounded General White. He confronted Stanberry on Pennsylvania Avenue when the congressman refused to answer responses to Stanberry's accusations that Houston was a crook. Stanberry pulled a pistol, which misfired. Being a little unarmed, Houston, then beat Stanberry into submission with a cane, Old Hickory style. No, I never heard of the Walker challenge and it seems unlikely. I don't think Walker was that mad at another Sam. Well, I would if I hadn't torn my right rotator cuff last year and screwed up a right finger in a fight with a neighbor's pitbull. You're safe for now, but you should read more contemporary stuff on Houston or check out Haley's book. He was a pretty interesting guy in age of colorful characters. Later. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 16, 2010 10:31:01 GMT -5
All I can say is... it WAS wonderful acting, thanks! ;D
I do need to check out more on Sam, and I know very little about Burnet but I think you're being a bit harsh on Lamar. Lamar had a vision and was doing his best to make Texas a grand republic.
You get all healed up and we'll square off, since I'm the challenged I choose the weapons right? How about Lonestars at dawn on 3/6/11???
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 16, 2010 10:31:06 GMT -5
Mustang
You forget that the only version of Texas history is that Stephen Austin stamped his foot on the ground and up came Sam Houston on his horse with the San Jacinto Battle Plan in his hand and Texas was saved.... ;D
To THYNE Houston be always true ;D
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 16, 2010 10:56:09 GMT -5
Got to weigh in.
To be honest, I don't know what to believe about ol' Sam.
His decision to retreat from the Colorado upon learning of Fannin's defeat may or may not have been right, but it was justifiable.
His training of the army at Groce's was critical to its ultimate success.
What his intentions were at the "which way" tree, I don't know, but on the plains of San Jacinto, both prior to and after the battle do not reflect creditably on him at all. Though his personal bravery during the battle cannot be disputed, and we are lucky that it was he and not others that controlled the immediate situation with Santa Anna when he was captured.
The fact that he consistently lied, about the Texas Navy and Commodore Moore's actions in 1842 cannot be disputed, and that Houston tried to have Moore tried for piracy is nothing but totally despicable. As indeed were his actions in the Somerville Expedition. Houston very clearly set Somerville up in an impossible situation and even Somerville's selection to command hints broadly that he was chosen as a scapegoat from the start.
Whether Houston is to be praised from averting a general war in 1842 or damned for failing to protect Texas is I think very moot.
As for as Houston's senate speech on his role in Texas its full of deliberate inaccuracies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, etc. Maybe typical speech for a politician, but what more normal people would call lies,
I'm also not too sure that Lamar is truly such an incompetent spindthrift/villian as the Houston camp painted him. They simply had two very different agendas. Houston wanted annexation, and Lamar an independent Texas. There was no possible reconciliation - their very ideals were in total conflict. To expect either sides writing/statements to not being political and slanted is just not realistic, and they all must be taken with a grain of salt.
The only thing I think that can be stated for certain, is that without Houston, Texas' path would have been considerably different.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 16, 2010 11:12:43 GMT -5
Oh, one other point about the Texas Navy, the "supposed" high cost of the Texas Navy operations were being paid by the Mexican state of the Yucatan which was in rebellion at the time, and had a treaty of alliance with Texas. Some historians of the Texas Navy would go so far as to state that it was Moore's actions in defeating the Mexican Navy that prevented a general invasion of Texas In 1842. While Moore's actions have largely been forgotten today, Sam Colt at least commenorated them with the famous battle scene engraved on the Colt "Navy".
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 16, 2010 12:15:40 GMT -5
Wolfpack,
Looks like you and I have read some of the same books!
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 16, 2010 12:16:37 GMT -5
Kevin,
I like that... I'd forgotten about Steve stomping his foot and giving birth to the Hero of San Jacinto!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 16, 2010 22:31:56 GMT -5
All I can say is... it WAS wonderful acting, thanks! ;D. You're welcome. It was a good film for a shoe-string budget. Hey, I don't know if I told you, but I gave a copy of the Hays Documentary to Texas Ranger Ray Martinez and he said he enjoyed it. Other rangers were not as receptive as the director may have told you, but that's okay. It's their loss. Lamar was certainly a visionary spirit in early Texas, but wasn't very realistic about molding the clay for his Grand Republic and expanding it to the Pacific. In my view he waisted a lot of time, money and lives in picking unecessary fights or making trouble (Santa Fe Expedition, Republic of the Rio Grande, Council House Fight, Indian deportations, Yucatan Rebellion, etc.), when he didn't always have the money and support for his policies or see the long term effect of these actions. Most seem to have ended in failure and probably precipitated further conflict with our obstinate Indian and Mexican neighbors for many years. Of course our history would be a lot more boring without Mirabeau Lamar and tough Texans with feminine first names would have had a harder time standing up to the burly nickname crowd like the original Mustang Gray. Well, it better be Lonestars! I've got an assortment of antique bayonets and a few thousand year old tomahawk heads in my Austin arsenal, but they're too valuable to trade blows over silly arguments as to who was the better Texas president. As Ol' Chief Dan George might say: "They're just fer lookin at."
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 17, 2010 10:43:03 GMT -5
I don't want to get too carried away with Houston bashing, but one more incident between Houston and Commodore Moore came to mind after I posted yesterday that I think reflects greatly on Houston's character at the time.
The Texas Congress overrode President Houston's veto and appropriated funding for the Texas Navy. President Houston, quietly refused to release the appropriated funds from the Republic of Texas treasury (and never did). When the trouble between him and Moore erupted after the latter's successful expedition against the Mexican Navy. President Houston tried to have Moore prosecuted for embezzling the appropriated but never released funds!
This Lone Star duel is starting to sound serious, Scott (or for that matter, RangerRod), do you need a second? With any luck the seconds could become involved like at the Sandbar Fight!
|
|
|
Post by greatbigmike on Jun 17, 2010 10:47:34 GMT -5
Didn't Moore eventually challenge Houston to a duel, but Houston declined the challenged (can one decline a challenge)?
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 17, 2010 14:48:52 GMT -5
To what extent was Lamar really involved in the Republic of the Rio Grande? It's been a while since I've read anything about that but I don't recall Lamar really being a player in that episode. So far as the Yucatan goes... it was making us money unless I've completely missed the mark. Least ways it was helping to support the Navy! And you're blaming the Council House Fight on Lamar? Sure he was president and there was a council with ROT representatives and the Comanche... but it was the Comanche who loosed the first arrow in that fray was it not? I don't recall ever seeing anyone else blame that incident on Lamar. Maybe we should start a new thread since we're straying from the topic of Houston's tricky attacks on the character of Sherman! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 17, 2010 21:39:04 GMT -5
His decision to retreat from the Colorado upon learning of Fannin's defeat may or may not have been right, but it was justifiable. His training of the army at Groce's was critical to its ultimate success. I guess in war opposing armies do what's required to win from lowly untrained soldiers to novice generals. In the end victory for one side or the other is the manner in which most commanding generals are weighed in history. It seems to me that few people care about the minor mistakes on the road to the defeat of an enemy in battle. How many blunders did Washington and others make before countless battles when they got their boots wet, then their war footing? Some commanders never received a second chance. The whole Which Way Tree story has always seemed a bit odd to me for a well-travelled road and fork with a distinctive landmark. I've been unable to locate a contemporary source, but have found a few reasons why it probably was not the great Houston confusion that some authors have tried to make it. Putting the Texas army infront of Gen. Santa Ana with command of Lynch's Ferry and Vince's Bridge seems to reflect pretty well on Houston. After the fight despite a shattered ankle Houston seems to have set the stage for Santa Anna's safety and the end of hostilities. Which Way Tree Thread alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=texasrev&action=display&thread=598I'm not very knowledgeable on the Texas Navy or this controversial issue, but do little white lies really equate to the possible legal aspects of this conflict? Wasn't the navy virulently anti-Houston from its inception with the appointment of rogue Bobby Potter? Upon Houston's taking office in '41 were he and Congress seeking continued war with Mexico or peace? As commander -in-chief of the navy I don't think Houston authorized the deployment of the fleet and tried recalling it. I also wonder whether Moore had letters of marque for Mexican ships and especially for British allied ships. Did Moore even have actual congressional approval to receive emolument from a foriegn country? Lots of questions I know, but I don't have my library with me right now. He gave what he got, especially when retaliating against Perry, Sherman, Burnet, Lamar, Labadie, etc., etc. Night and day, but Houston seems more politcally consistant. He was always a unionist and usually a Democrat. Completely different. I don't think Lamar's Texas Republic would have survived a second war with Mexico in 1846 without the United States.
|
|