|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 8, 2012 23:25:12 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 I've also heard the story that President Burnet promoted Perry to colonel as a reward for his services, but I've never seen any documentation to indicate this jump in rank.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 9, 2012 11:06:32 GMT -5
Its slightly complicated, so bear with me.
When it was casting about for who to blame for what went wrong after Grant lit out for the Rio Grande taking most of the army with him, the General Council noted that Ed Burleson had appointed "Dr. Grant, his aide de camp, who was thereby entitled to rank as Colonel." (Gammel:766) The point they were making at the time was that this occurred as a direct result of Governor Smith appointing Burleson as general and thereby giving him the authority to make Grant a colonel and therefore it was really Smith's fault that Grant was a colonel and therefore able to hijack the army.
Anyway... the point of this example is that the appointment was a formal process carried out with due authority. There's evidence that Grant had been acting as a staff officer before Burleson's formal appointment by the governor and that while Burleson was elected to lead the army after Austin's departure in the second half of November, it was only after this was formally endorsed by Smith that he in turn was able to confirm Grant's appointment as an officer in the Army of Texas.
Now if we turn to back Perry. If Houston had indeed appointed Perry as his aide de camp, then Perry would indeed have been entitled to rank as a colonel. However the crucial point here is the reference to him as a "volunteer aide"; that is he wasn't holding a formal appointment on Houston's staff, but was rather a hanger-on, volunteering to carry messages, make the coffee and generally be useful.
In the British Army for example a Major General - say the equivalent of Houston - was entitled to have just one Aide de Camp (ADC) "at public expense", but perfectly free to take on "Extra" ADCs who enjoyed no official status and were not entitled to the pay and allowances of a regularly appointed ADC. As a "volunteer aide de camp" the same obviously applied to Perry; and since he wasn't a properly appointed officer entitled to act and speak in Houston's name he therefore wasn't officially entitled to rank as a colonel.
Usage of the term was a touch free and easy insofar as it wasn't a definite hierarchical rank but rather denoted someone who enjoyed a degree of authority (providing he didn't push his luck too far) beyond that of a company commander or captain. Its possible therefore that Perry enjoyed the title as a courtesy or abrogated it to himself, but that's not the same thing at all as being a regularly appointed ADC and Colonel.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 9, 2012 19:49:51 GMT -5
Well, he did seem to hold an elevated command at San Jacinto, according to this source: General Houston, Thomas Rusk, Sidney Sherman and the majority of San Jacinto veterans would certainly emphatically state that volunteer aid James Perry didn't hold any command during the battle. Although the fourth paragraph of Perry's obituary in the July 17, 1862, Brooklyn News (see link below) says that Perry took over command of the left wing from Gen. Rusk, there's no evidence for this wild claim. I'm surprised that real left wing commander Sherman didn't fire off a defense pamplet at the deseased Colonel Perry for this Houstonesque slander. www.nytimes.com/1862/07/17/news/brooklyn-news-funeral-of-con-james-h-perry.html
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 9, 2012 21:04:56 GMT -5
Its slightly complicated, so bear with me. When it was casting about for who to blame for what went wrong after Grant lit out for the Rio Grande taking most of the army with him, the General Council noted that Ed Burleson had appointed "Dr. Grant, his aide de camp, who was thereby entitled to rank as Colonel." (Gammel:766) The point they were making at the time was that this occurred as a direct result of Governor Smith appointing Burleson as general and thereby giving him the authority to make Grant a colonel and therefore it was really Smith's fault that Grant was a colonel and therefore able to hijack the army. Anyway... the point of this example is that the appointment was a formal process carried out with due authority. There's evidence that Grant had been acting as a staff officer before Burleson's formal appointment by the governor and that while Burleson was elected to lead the army after Austin's departure in the second half of November, it was only after this was formally endorsed by Smith that he in turn was able to confirm Grant's appointment as an officer in the Army of Texas. Now if we turn to back Perry. If Houston had indeed appointed Perry as his aide de camp, then Perry would indeed have been entitled to rank as a colonel. However the crucial point here is the reference to him as a "volunteer aide"; that is he wasn't holding a formal appointment on Houston's staff, but was rather a hanger-on, volunteering to carry messages, make the coffee and generally be useful. In the British Army for example a Major General - say the equivalent of Houston - was entitled to have just one Aide de Camp (ADC) "at public expense", but perfectly free to take on "Extra" ADCs who enjoyed no official status and were not entitled to the pay and allowances of a regularly appointed ADC. As a "volunteer aide de camp" the same obviously applied to Perry; and since he wasn't a properly appointed officer entitled to act and speak in Houston's name he therefore wasn't officially entitled to rank as a colonel. Usage of the term was a touch free and easy insofar as it wasn't a definite hierarchical rank but rather denoted someone who enjoyed a degree of authority (providing he didn't push his luck too far) beyond that of a company commander or captain. Its possible therefore that Perry enjoyed the title as a courtesy or abrogated it to himself, but that's not the same thing at all as being a regularly appointed ADC and Colonel. That's pretty much what I thought Stuart, but thanks for clarifying this antiquated military ranking and position system for me. I always wondered (several years ago) why I could locate so few contemporary military records on this supposed aid-de-camp, colonel and officer during the Texas Revolution. We know Perry's movements from the time of his arrival in Texas, but there is little to denote him as anything more than a volunteer aid. Documentarily Perry was an extremely minor character, who rarely appeared in history books on the conflict until he was made more important by his opinions on Gen. Sam Houston. Perry came from humble, sometimes less than honorable beginnings, but he sure gained a lot of love and respect in the Methodist Church and from his troops during his brief service in the Civil War. Addendum: Sen. Houston made it sound like Perry was a civilian when he joined the Texas Army in April 1836 as he said Perry: "....would do very well for a soldier or officer......" Although this statement might have been a biased comment by Houston on Perry's status or late arrival to the rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 11, 2012 23:48:02 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 I told someone a few months ago that I wasn't going to respond to this old argument and type of post because it sounds like a prejudicial numbers game and I didn't think it would go beyond a few posts. Recently, someone else told me that I shouldn't let biased and inaccurate statements stand without a response. I don't consider history a game, but a passion. What was Lindley or your motivation for excluding Rusk, when he was Houston's biggest supporter in 1836? Does Rusk really hurt your conclusions that much? You've quoted dead people so why can't others? And it's really no contest at all. I'll pick the Houston opinion of one of the state's greatest fighting men in Gen. Ben McCulloch. San Jacinto veteran Capt. James Tarlton was also pretty supportive of Houston, so he'll be the other. That was easy. * Corrected spelling
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 14, 2012 10:29:07 GMT -5
By the way. I'm not pro-Houston, just pro-facts.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 4, 2012 19:22:48 GMT -5
Perry didn't even receive a donation land grant for his service at San Jacinto when he applied. Peculiar!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 25, 2012 23:39:17 GMT -5
IAll 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 I've no doubt that Houston's version of events was different from that presented by Sherman, but did all of those 18 veterans insist that Houston shot himself in the foot at the rear rather than leading from the front? There are many charges that rightly can be laid against Houston but I don't ever recall that one of them was cowardice. While engaged with research for someone else, I stumbled across some 1841 letters from Col. James C. Neill in the Austin City Gazette. Col. Neill says that while he is no longer a friend to Gen. Sam Houston, he takes issue with the unknown authors of the Houston Displayed and the June 17th Texas Sentinel articles, which use Col.. Neill's name to denounce Gen. Houston as a coward. He states that they have not been friendly for years due to "several sore and bitter quarrels" of a "personal nature." Col. Neill goes on to say the following about Gen. Houston's courage and actions at the battles of Horshoe Bend and San Jacinto: "Maj. Montgomery and Lt. Sam Houston of the U.S. army were amongst the first who scaled the breast-work (at Horseshoe Bend) of the Indians. Maj. Montgomery fell dead on the spot and Lt. Sam Houston was sorely wounded in the shoulder, of which he has not recovered to this day. If Lt. Sam Houston acted cowardly or in any other manner than as a brave soldier on that occasion, I have never seen it." In response to the Sentinel author stating that Houston received a scratch at the battle of San Jacinto, Col. Neill says: "A pretty scratch, from which twenty pieces of bone came from the wound....." "Sam Houston's personal courage I have never doubted." "....... I have seen Sam Houston in very critical situations and under very embarrassing circumstances, but never yet have seen him when he was not himself, a man, a soldier and an officer." "Throughout the revolution of Texas, or from the time Sam Houston took command of the army up to the battle of San Jacinto, I was a great deal with him and never for a moment believed that he was actuated by cowardice in any single movement he made. An acquaintance of thirty years, and active and dangerous service with him, had satisfied me that he did not know what fear was." ".... I do not believe that any other at that time attached to the army, could have controlled and kept down disaffection as well as Houston did." "Sam Houston since I have known him, has always had his own policy, both in a military and civil capacity, from which it is well known, he will not swerve, and cannot be driven; whether judicious or not, we must refer to the final result of the revolution, and to the history of his late administration. Houston seldom, if ever communicated freely to the army, but kept his own counsel, until the order was given." "I freely admit that I imbibed some of the prejudices of others, and was hot for a fight on the Colorado, and everywhere that a fight could be had; but taking at this day a cool and dispationate view, without prejudice for or against, of all matters connected with Houston's command, I am satisfied of the correctness of his policy: the result I think should satisfy every reasonable man. At the Colorado, we might or might not have succeeded.......... at San Jacinto we certainly did; and as to his having been made to fight, I was in the army, and knew not of it. We marched, halted and fought by his order." "As to Sam Houston's habits, he then, as he does now, occasionally indulged; but I have never yet seen him when he was not fully competent to all his duties, when business required his attention." * Spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 27, 2012 16:56:29 GMT -5
When did Col. Neill die? I've found three different death years (1845, 1848 and 1856) for him in different publications and on the internet, but no actual newspaper obituary. Strange for a noted Texas revolutionary veteran.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Nov 28, 2012 1:08:24 GMT -5
"I freely admit that I imbibed some of the prejudices of others, and was hot for a fight on the Colorado, and everywhere that a fight could be had; but taking at this day a cool and dispationate view, without prejudice for or against, of all matters connected with Houston's command, I am satisfied of the correctness of his policy: the result I think should satisfy every reasonable man. At the Colorado, we might or might not have succeeded.......... at San Jacinto we certainly did; and as to his having been made to fight, I was in the army, and knew not of it. We marched, halted and fought by his order."
God bless J.C. Neill. Unlike other obvious examples, he was a man with no political axe to grind. Note his regret at having "imbibed some of the prejudices of others." Could that have been a deliberate choice of words? Everyone knew Houston imbibed liquor. Was he implying that Sherman et al were prejudiced by years of imbibing in the intoxicant of resentment simply because a drunk Houston had made better decisions in 1836 that a sober Sherman?
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Nov 28, 2012 16:47:01 GMT -5
My take on Neill using the word "imbibe" is thus: not necessarily a reference to Houston and his alleged drunkenness during the San Jac campaign, but a reference to the parable of drinking from the poisoned well.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 28, 2012 22:36:35 GMT -5
I think you guys might be taking Col. Neill's use of the word "imbibe" too literally and it has nothing to do with Houston's alleged drunken dissipation on the San Jacinto campaign. Col. Neill seems to say that he "drank in" the prejudices of others and was hot for a fight anywhere after the Alamo fall (Who can blame him?), but this fire was extinguished. He later came to think the retreat to San Jacinto was the best course of action under the circumstances. Col. Neill also stated that Gen. Houston "occasionally indulged" as almost everybody did back then (many like Houston to excess), but he doesn't specifically imply that Gen. Houston was ripped during the march east. I'm sure Ol' Sam amd Col. Neill threw back some brew with Branch Archer and others to keep their courage up.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 29, 2012 12:03:35 GMT -5
There's no question that Houston liked to pull a cork, but so did U.S. Grant. When someone complained to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, Lincoln purportedly asked what Grant liked to drink so that he could send some of it to his other generals!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 29, 2012 13:48:41 GMT -5
I'm very pleased to read this letter segment from Neill. An officer and a gentleman sticking up for what he clearly saw as truth. Funny, when I hear rampant criticisms of Houston on the San Jacinto trail, I simply file them as the typical "loose cannon" reactions and accusations that always accompany extreme actions and deep decisions. The truth, IMO, is always much deeper and what you least hear it to be.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 29, 2012 13:54:50 GMT -5
There's no question that Houston liked to pull a cork, but so did U.S. Grant. When someone complained to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, Lincoln purportedly asked what Grant liked to drink so that he could send some of it to his other generals! Love this! I can actually see Daniel Day-Lewis's wry smile. (Awesome film!)
|
|