|
Post by jamesg on Apr 4, 2012 13:37:58 GMT -5
a Remarkable thing about Human Perception is how we view something to match our personality. in many military engagements soldiers fighting in the same Battle preceived it differently tho fighting side by side... and it occurs in todays firefights in Afganistan. Todays Intelligence Officer who does the interviews often gets various views of the same engagement!! He must Piece together what happened. For the Historian to piece together what happened over a hundred years ago again Perception, and he will have his perception guiding him as well. we see this in our blogs.. and Oh Boy do we see it inTodays' Politics Republican and Democrat over any Topic... just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 4, 2012 18:18:03 GMT -5
The main source of the 1859 article is a statement by Major Benjamin McCullough. This man was one of the leaders of the Houston's proposed filibuster expedition into Northern Mexico in 1859 and 1860. Therefore, can this Texas ranger be trusted to tell the truth about his close ally and prominent supporter of the filibuster expedition that he was about to lead? If the private letter existed, why was it not quoted? Does it still exist? Say what you want about Sam Houston, but I don't believe I've ever heard anyone question the honor and honesty of Ben McCulloch. The men that did so during McCulloch's lifetime certainly regretted the statement afterwards. Even today, I know a few guys, who would take one to task for the odd accusation that Old Ben could be a liar. A lot of historians recognize Houston's proposed Mexico filibuster expedition as a political feint to keep Texas out of a suicidal war with the Union, not as a way to bring Mexico into the United States. Houston opposed earlier filibuster expeditions into Mexican territory and didn't he disband the K.G.C., when they tried to invade this country in 1860? McCulloch was a long-time friend and protege of Houston, who would later split with the general over the secession issue. I don't see any logical reason to doubt his honesty or opinions on Houston or any other issue. Are you less trust-worthy because you were a friend to the departed Tom Lindley? I don't know that Perry's dropping out of West Point, his leading a filibuster expedition to Texas or even to his being a colonel prior to 1861 to be actual facts. I've seen a lot of information, which conflicts with your statements on him, but I appreciate your allusion to a source for your beliefs. Where is this letter located? *spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 4, 2012 19:14:44 GMT -5
I'd go a step further, Houston's proposed invasion of Mexico wasn't just designed to keep Texas out of the Civil War, but to prevent the Civil War entirely. Whatever else Houston may or may not have been, he was a union man to his core. However, immoral seeking a war with Mexico may seem today, Houston saw disunion and Civil War as a greater evil.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 4, 2012 19:32:21 GMT -5
Of all the things Houston achieved, many people regard his efforts to keep Texas in the union, and to avoid a civil war, as perhaps his most admirable.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 4, 2012 19:36:16 GMT -5
I admit that my recollections of the Perry information is a bit hazy too, but did Perry himself actually claim that he was a graduate of West Point? That other people stated that as fact is not a reflection upon his own veracity. My vague reference to the digital age was my lack of subscriptions to digitized newspaper collections. And Jim it was not you but rather Stuart who asserted on the old Alamo movie forum that the Lancer account of Crockett's death was a lie stated by Col. Perry. Your rebuttal to TRL's article simply stated that it was inaccurate and false. All we now know that it is 18 San Jacinto veterans plus Sherman, Perry, and Lamar against Houston plus three other San Jacinto veterans if we include the account in the New York Tribune in rebuttal to Perry's account there. Still long odds against Houston's version of the events there. Tim That's the fog of war and memories for you, but thankfully I have my notes from our old discussions on James H. Perry. As with many former soldiers, I think it's clear that Perry told several stories about his West Point departure, Texas expedition, revolutionary service and other adventures. I can usually tell when one has padded his resume a little. As judge Judy often says: "If it doesn't make sense, it didn't happen!!!" I would add a "probably" to her statement because sometimes you just can't make sense with the haze of brief, missing and inaccurate records. I'm sure Perry told the rowdies in Col. E. H. Stanley's New York Volunteers that he was booted out of West Point for striking an upper classman or something. Perry possibly informed Houston political ememy Robert Potter that he was a graduate/ trained spy, then Gen. Houston that he was a dropout in need of a good position and some military rank. Over the years, Perry may have revealed the truth or weaved other tales to suit different situations. It's telling that one of Perry's minister friends, who was also a Civil War, 48th New York Regiment (Perry's Saints) comrade wrote that his old commander was courtmartialled for fighting at West Point, but his sentence was suspended by Pres. Andrew Jackson. PS. Now, I understand. Welcome to the digital newspaper age.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 4, 2012 19:43:26 GMT -5
I'd go a step further, Houston's proposed invasion of Mexico wasn't just designed to keep Texas out of the Civil War, but to prevent the Civil War entirely. Whatever else Houston may or may not have been, he was a union man to his core. However, immoral seeking a war with Mexico may seem today, Houston saw disunion and Civil War as a greater evil. That's what I thought I remembered reading somewhere, but I didn't want to stick my neck out on Houston without reading it. That old fox Juan Cortina was also an issue as I recall and I think Ben McCulloch wanted to hunt him down like a dog.
|
|
|
Post by timniesen on Apr 5, 2012 12:07:45 GMT -5
I agree with Herb on Houston's motivation for the proposed filibuster expedition into Northern Mexico. Certainly, Houston's purpose was to distract the secessionists from the issue of disunion by the fruits of the annexation of Northern Mexico. (Note that the McClane-Ocampo Treaty, which would have authorized an American protectorate over Sonora, was still stalled in the Senate.) As for the West Point issue, Stuart and skr certainly know more than I about Perry's career there. However, when did Perry himself ever assert that he had graduated from that institution? That contemporaries and subsequent writers about him have stated that he was a graduate of West Point is not an indication of his own veracity. There is no doubt that Perry had strong motivation to lie about Houston, but where is his motivation to lie about the death of Crockett? The report of the 1847 lecture does not mention Crockett, although the non-surrender of Crockett and the killing of the other Texans around him in the 1842 account may or may not be reflected in the 1847 lecture's mention of a massacre there. The anti-Houston accounts of San Jacinto has numerous supporters: The Sherman pamphlet and its 18 other veterans of San Jacinto. In a newspaper debate with Houston in the 1850s, Gen Lamar also supports the Sherman-Perry position. In fact, Houston supporters about his actions at San Jacinto are few and far between. That Ben McCulloch agrees with Houston is not a trump card. Tim Tim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 5, 2012 12:50:50 GMT -5
Tim,
Perry didn't "lie" about Crockett's death. He recounted the fall of the Alamo as written by Newell and then added to it what he freely reffered to as an "anecdote". It was simply a story he'd heard somewhere. He made no claim as to its veracity, nor identified the source or the authority of that source and cited no evidence to support it. He did not for example claim to have heard it from a Mexican prisoner, or from the lips of Emily whatzername.
He simply recounted an unattributable anecdote of the kind common to any saloon or coffee house which is why its useless as evidence and why TRL and yourself were never justified in holding it up as a true and authentic account of Crockett's death.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 5, 2012 23:29:34 GMT -5
I agree with Herb on Houston's motivation for the proposed filibuster expedition into Northern Mexico. Certainly, Houston's purpose was to distract the secessionists from the issue of disunion by the fruits of the annexation of Northern Mexico. So, why not agree with me too for first educating you on this well-known political feint? Apparently so, but how is it that we know more about James H. Perry than you? You've been studying him for 10 years, discussed him with Perry researcher Tom Lindley, wrote about him in the Alamo Journal, found the Lancer Account, researched the N.Y. newspaper archives, where he is often mentioned, etc, etc. All of my casual research on Perry has been done on the internet in the space of a few months with a 4 year break. I've given you my theory on Perry's ambiguous departure from West Point. You seem to want us to dig up this specific information for you. Perry's veracity has been questioned from 1836 to the present for good reason. I addressed this issue when I created this thread and nothing seems to have changed. You, Lindley and I think others frequently stated in the Old Alamo Film Forum that the Defence of Gen. Sidney Sherman pamplet listed 35 San Jacinto veterans that denounced Gen. Sam Houston as bad leader. In reality Gen. Sherman could only muster 19 San Jacinto veterans for this document and as you know the number of former comrades that had derogatory comments about Gen. Houston was about a half dozen. You two seem to have misrepresented this document for some reason. This fact doesn't help your position. So, now he's not a liar? *Spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 6, 2012 10:37:51 GMT -5
As for the West Point issue, Stuart and skr certainly know more than I about Perry's career there. However, when did Perry himself ever assert that he had graduated from that institution? That contemporaries and subsequent writers about him have stated that he was a graduate of West Point is not an indication of his own veracity. Tim There are two simple ways of looking at this question. Either Perry himself put it about that he graduated with or without honours, and although I've not seen anything in his own fair hand asserting that, such a claim would certainly be consistent with his free and easy approach to recounting events. Or alternatively for some unknown reason third parties leapt to the unsubstantiated conclusion that he had graduated from the academy with or without honours and wrote him up accordingly - without any known effort by Perry to put the record straight. Whether he actually claimed to have graduated or merely allowed people to think he had graduated is a very fine distinction indeed and still comes back to the indisputable fact that Perry is not and never was a credible source.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 6, 2012 17:50:57 GMT -5
Perry claimed to be a lot of things while in Texas. He stated he was an aid-de-camp to Houston and major in the army, but where's the contemporary evidence for these statements?
Oops! spelled "and" wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 6, 2012 19:35:55 GMT -5
Perry claimed to be a lot of things while in Texas. He stated he was an aid-de-camp to Houston nd a major in the army, but where's the contemporary evidence for these statements? I found this clipping from a May 8, 1836, National Banner and Nashville Whig, which lists Perry as one of Houston's volunteer aides. Also of interest is the mention of J.C. Neil, wounded on the 20th. Jim Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 7, 2012 16:46:52 GMT -5
Perry claimed to be a lot of things while in Texas. He stated he was an aid-de-camp to Houston nd a major in the army, but where's the contemporary evidence for these statements? I found this clipping from a May 8, 1836, National Banner and Nashville Whig, which lists Perry as one of Houston's volunteer aide. Thanks for posting that Jim. Houston's aid-de-camps are well-known. James Perry is often called an aid-de-camp in published accounts, but not in any of the 1836 sources I've seen. Was "volunteer aid" normally a rank or position in the Texas Army? I wonder if Perry was even an officer while in Texas. Is there any proof that he officially joined the army or served as anything, but a volunteer aid and later as an assistent quartermaster general brfore he departed in the fall? *Spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 7, 2012 16:55:52 GMT -5
Well, he did seem to hold an elevated command at San Jacinto, according to this source:
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 7, 2012 17:35:31 GMT -5
I don't really know. I haven't done a lot of research into Perry's personal history, only his reporting on the account of Crockett's demise. Jim
|
|