|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 17, 2010 22:52:34 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. Lamar had a meeting with Canales in Austin and I believe he privately sanctioned the rebellion. Well, I guess it depends on whether it was legal or illegal prostitution. Was the Texas Navy really Nevada? ;D I definitely blame Lamar as everyone should. Even if Lamar wasn't the Texas president, didn't promote an anti-Indian policy or authorize the San Antonio peace treaty, he ordered the commissioners and troops to capture the Comanche chiefs. Old Paint Caldwell and anyone accustomed to dealing with armed Comanche would have known how that fiasco was gonna end. Are you sure? I have an awful lot of ammo and James Haley on speed dial.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 18, 2010 10:25:19 GMT -5
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. I cannot believe you're comparing Houston's generalship with Washington. Except for Washington's battles around New York City in 1776, he displayed exceptional generalship throughout the war's eight year length. Even Napoleon considered Washington one of the great generals of history. I said Houston's actions were justifable, that doesn't mean right. Custer's actions were justifiable, Fannin's actions were justifiable, but you can hardly argue that they were right. Whether Houston's actions abandoning the Colorado line were right or wrong are moot, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be examined. IF Houston could have held the Colorado line, there would have not been near total devasation of the colonies and except for Gonzales there would have been no Runaway Scrape. It's not enough to say "all's well that ends well". I think Moore's account in Eighteen Minutes provides the most balanced telling of what happened from all perspectives. I don't think from the conflicting testimony it can be concluded what Sam's intentions were or whether it was Houston or Rusk or the army that decided to go to Harrisburg. When I referred to Houston's actions before and after San Jacinto, I was specifically referring to Houston's inaction on April 20 while portions of his army fought, and Houston's quote before the battle on the 21st of "Attack and be damned." No matter how you cut what took place on April 20th, whether or not the fight should have happened - Houston was quite simply gulity of deriliction of duty. As far as after the battle, when Almonte and his surrendered troops were marched into the POW holding area, do you really think Houston's panic reflects creditably on him? Ref: The Texas Navy, I'll have to do some research to answer some of your questions, but it is a serious mistake to compare the Texas Navy (mostly privateers) of 1836 to the government owned ships and commisioned officers and enlisted sailors of the 1840s organized and operating in accordance with the established laws of navel warfare. I also think the attempt of humor by making the comparison to prostitution is over the top. Such treatys have exsited and will exsist forever. I can fill this page with examples from US military history to include more recently Desert Storm. See above, only civilians operating privately owned vessels required letters of marque. A commisioned officer operating governmentaly owned ships would not have dreamed of carrying letters of marque. In fact it would be a profound insult. The British ships you refer to weren't allied with Mexico, but Mexican flagged ships, bought and paid for by Mexico. That the ships were built in England, largly crewed by British sailors, and included some British officers is totally irrelevant. By the same token, the Texas Navy ships in the 1840s, were for the most part built in the US, crewed by salors mostly from New Orleans, and for the most part officered by former US Navy officers. Again, I'll agree with the different part. But, I'll disagree with the survival part. I believe a second war would have been inconclusive, and another stalemate. Neither Texas or Mexico had the resources or the will to impose its national will on the other country. Besides, had Lamar's Texas taken hold, the British efforts in 1843 would have probably forced Mexico to accept the 1836 peace treaty, and Britian would have probably forged a close alliance with Texas to establish the buffer country that Stuart has talked about.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 20, 2010 22:17:31 GMT -5
Didn't Moore eventually challenge Houston to a duel, but Houston declined the challenged (can one decline a challenge)? Dueling was illegal in the republic and Houston was supposedly challenged by several people in letters, but I cannot find the documents. The Code Duello seems pretty silly and the results tragic by today's standards of honor and fairplay. Apparently the so-called rules allowed someone to decline a challenge if an instigator wasn't a gentleman, didn't follow the recognized rules, or the challenged didn't accept a letter, apologized for the insult, responded with humor and several others or had some moral / religious abhorrence to dueling. Strange system as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 20, 2010 23:28:21 GMT -5
Uh, well, I didn't think I was. All I meant to imply was that novice generals, not eight year veterans are bound to make mistakes. Houston was only commander-in-chief of a rabble army for a month and half, but some people seem to hold his actions to a higher standard than other men of his rank in similar situations.
Just, right or wrong, those are some mighty big IFs in my view and I'm not very good at speculating on things that did not happen. Houston was a fair general, but I just don't think he was good enough to take on Sesma across a swollen Colorado and then Ganoa and Urea. I think Houston would have been devastated with the colonies, never to recover.
I agree. It's a fantastic book, but Moore isn't perfect.
Okay, thanks for the clarification on your before and after comments.
Like I implied, I'm not an expert, but Moore clearly didn't always follow orders, rules and laws, which was my main point.
Well, it was a joke and not meant to be taken seriously. Sorry.
Of course you're correct. I meant authorization to collect prize money.
Maybe you're correct, but somehow I don't think the Brits would find the possible killing of their subjects irrelevant.
I guess we will never know.
Corrections.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 24, 2010 18:50:21 GMT -5
The Walker/Houston "challange" is a variant of the account of the Walker/Houston confrontation which appears on pgs.10-11 of Samuel H. Walker's Account of the Mier Expedition and also, I believe was in Thomas Jefferson Green's Mier book.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 27, 2010 16:09:56 GMT -5
The Walker/Houston "challange" is a variant of the account of the Walker/Houston confrontation which appears on pgs.10-11 of Samuel H. Walker's Account of the Mier Expedition and also, I believe was in Thomas Jefferson Green's Mier book. I don't remember it being a challenge, so much as Walker ignoring Houston.
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Jan 26, 2012 15:56:14 GMT -5
In the period from 2002 through 2005, Tom Lindley and I joined to find both the pro-Houston and the anti-Houston correspondence in the Texas newspapers. I had found numerous abstracted references in the New Orleans and New York City newspapers to those letters, and Tom would find the original articles in the Texas newspapers. In fact, there are almost no pro-Houston letters from the San Jacinto veterans themselves except from Houston himself, with only a single individual on his side of the issues. Unfortunately, Tom's death brought our campaign to a close. Thanks to the man who transcribed the Sherman book, for it is an important work. Tim
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Jan 27, 2012 15:47:06 GMT -5
I add that the Sherman book is like the tip of the iceberg of the anti-Houston letters from the Texas veterans of San Jacinto. However, there is an interesting pro-Houston letter written in response to the report of Col. Perry's lecture in the New York Tribune in 1842. The anonymous author is an eyewitness to the battle but there is some evidence within the text that he is the teenage printer who was captured in the office of the Texas Telegraph by Gen. Santa Anna. This young man escaped from Mexican captivity before the battle of San Jacinto. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 30, 2012 13:58:41 GMT -5
Tim-
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Jan 30, 2012 14:51:45 GMT -5
Kevin, Look for this interesting reply to the Perry Account in the New York Daily Tribune. That newspaper is now digitized at the Library of Congress website. Or go to the microfilm itself. Tim
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Jan 31, 2012 15:54:21 GMT -5
Okay, You pro-Houston folks, lets play a game: Other than the anonomous pro-Houston retort to the Perry Account in the Tribune several days after its publication, name two other San Jacinto veterans who supported Houston's account of that battle. And please do not include Sen. Houston claim in his retort to Col. Perry that Sen. Rusk supported him. Quoting dead people is not allowed in the contest. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 31, 2012 22:33:13 GMT -5
Kevin, Look for this interesting reply to the Perry Account in the New York Daily Tribune. That newspaper is now digitized at the Library of Congress website. Or go to the microfilm itself. Tim Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Feb 16, 2012 17:57:30 GMT -5
Folks, Those eighteen San Jacinto veterans who supported Gen. Sidney Sherman in his pamphlet are beginning to look a bit more impressive now that no one can name more than one San Jacinto veteran who supported Gen. San Houston's version of what happened at that battle. And let us not forget the testimony of Col. Perry and Gen. Lamar. Tim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 25, 2012 11:52:58 GMT -5
I have no brief for Houston who was after all James Grant's "bitter enemy", but I can't help observing that King's Evidence Perry was hardly an unbiased reporter given that he was arrested by Houston before the battle for some very strange behaviour
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 25, 2012 12:00:51 GMT -5
I'm rather reminded of what was said to Moltke as the Austrians collapsed at Sadowa/Konigratz:
"It is a magnificent victory and your excellency is a great man, but if the Crown Prince had been half an hour longer you would be the greatest scoundrel in history"
|
|