|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 15, 2007 17:12:23 GMT -5
This is a very interesting take on the change of command in Bexar and how it could relate to the power struggle between Travis and Bowie. If Neill really didn't turn over command of the garrison to Travis then that might explain why Bowie decided he was within his rights to challenge Travis for leadership of the post.
I think Stuart may be on to something, here. Although Neill probably did leave Travis in temporary command (he would have to leave someone in charge), it's worth a closer look. I just assumed, like so many others, that Neill temporally relinquished command and turned it over to Travis because both he and Travis were "regulars" and Neill felt he had no choice. Is there any documentation supporting the transfer of command from Neill to Travis??
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Dec 15, 2007 18:25:30 GMT -5
I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying this site with all of you, there is really a lot of great input here. This thread is a great example.
Whether we talk about the break out, Travis, or anything with the Alamo, we can't get around 1) the belligerent arrogance of the Texians that ultimately spelled their doom, 2) How many attorneys were in the ranks of the Texian Army (and the problems that caused), and 3) How sleep deprivation played a HUGE role in the siege and final assault. The most important, imo, is the lack of sleep. Mark and I talked about this when we were photographing his Alamo and Mark shared his personal military experience with sleeplessness....perhaps he'll discuss it in this thread. Scott also brought up the hopelessness of the Alamo's structural limitations and the poor planning for Santa Anna's return. The real problem we face as 21st century people is that we're so disconnected to the realities of those who lived almost two centuries before us. For a great majority of us, we are no longer connected to our planet---whether this be our natural materials, animals, etc. We are soft and whiney. We cannot relate because our technology and conveniences make it almost impossible for us to sense what they experienced. One question all of us can ask right now is: how long have we ever gone without sleep? Once we contemplate that a little, we slowly begin to understand some of the issues that surrounded the defenders. On volunteer behavior, I suggest you read Washington Irving's A TOUR OF THE PRAIRIES (1834) which deals with the rag-tag Mounted Ranger Battalion of 1833 and the psyche of these men. Bottom line: it was rare for officers not to have major problems with American militia/volunteers...too independent to be real team players.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Dec 16, 2007 11:14:54 GMT -5
Just how many horses did Travis have with him... something right around 30? What shape were these horses in prior to and during the siege with the scant forage that was available for them? Travis may have had ample mounted men to patrol, I won't argue that but what I will question is how effective they could have been and for how long? Travis did make a serious error in not listening to the intelligence brought in by locals and had he taken heed this may have helped the garrison to some small degree but I doubt it would have much affected the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 16, 2007 12:28:56 GMT -5
The problem for the whole Texian army at this time was keeping their horses fit, and if you've read my book you'll find more than you want to know on the subject.
So far as Bexar was concerned, Travis was forced to pasture his animals out at one of the de la Garza ranches. If you recall on the morning of February 23 he requisitioned one of Sutherland's two horses in order to send a man out to fetch them, and earlier there are complaints about the impossibility of getting enough horses together to send out a scout.
While I agree that Neill, Travis and Bowie should therefore have paid more attention to the Federalista reports coming their way, they were disregarding them and in particular that very explicit warning from Benavides, because they assumed it was Grant playing games; or to paraphrase Sam Houston:
"that he believed it to be a d**n lie, & that all those reports from Travis and Fannin were lies, for there were no Mexican forces there and that he believed it was only electioneering schemes on Travis & Fannin to sustain their own popularity."
In short Travis and Bowie allowed their own political prejudices to blind them to the danger they were being warned of.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 16, 2007 12:32:36 GMT -5
This ranks as one of those interesting "intangibles" thats good to look at from time to time.
I think there was a few more then thirty horses on hand after Neill departed the garrison. Travis, as you correctly pointed out, had his initial thirty. The horses Crockett and his companions rode in on would have added to the mix. And Juan Seguin and his fellow tejano's most likely had access to their own horses. So I think fifty horses would be a safe estimate.
I feel the horses being utilized were most likely in good shape. Horses of that day were accustomed to being worked hard and were generally tough, resilient and reliable. They were not the long distance runners of the famed "Pony Express" but they weren't plow horses either.
I'm not sure of the forage situation other then what I have read. My understanding is there was an adequate supply in the surrounding area but not much stored up in the Alamo. Just another one of those things the Texans overlooked.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Dec 16, 2007 22:34:45 GMT -5
Stuart,
I have not yet read your book but will try and obtain a copy soon, I wasn't aware of your coverage of the mounted arm/troops and am happy to hear of it! I am fully aware of what it takes to maintain a horse in the field and how effective or ineffective one can be depending on the amount and quality of forage available.
Were the complaints about not having enough horses for a scout clearly defined? What I'm getting at is were there just flat out not enough horses or not enough healthy horses? I know in the end and from Travis' viewpoint one is much the same as the other but I am curious as to whether or not there were inadequate numbers period or jus tnot enough healthy animals. Do we have a solid count on the horses in Texian hands prior to and during the siege?
Glenn,
Many of the horses ridden by Anglos(not so sure about Tejanos and Mexicans) of the period were grain fed while the horses ridden by Indians were usually(for obvious reasons) free ranging on the native grasses. While a pasture fed horse is of benefit when on the trail a grain fed horse if properly(and this is usually the catch)maintained can be a better mount for short scouts and patrols.
It is true that the horses ridden by the old time Texians were of a hardy breed by nature the grain fed horse was very dependant on having a steady source of grain to maintain it's health. It is likely that the horses being pastured around Bexar were not in the best health because of available grass during that time of year and the fact that constant use really breaks down a horse physically. If it's any indicator remember the Grass Fight... the Mexican horses were short of grass even prior to the time we are discussing and this should tell us something about the available fodder just prior to and during the siege.
It is my guess that the horses in the Texian forces were not in the best of health and were of little use for effective patrols or scouts outside of the general viciinty of Bexar though this is based on what I know of horses today, the natural forage available here during that particular time of year and how horses were maintained and used during the period.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 17, 2007 1:34:28 GMT -5
Scott
I don't specifically address the technicalities of mounted troops as you've done so succinctly above, but rather stressed how reliant the Texians were on grass-fed horses; how they kept running out of horses; were frequently immobilised by a lack of horses and generally how central finding enough horses was to what was going on in the south.
At Bexar as I've mentioned there appear to have been a couple of grain-fed horses owned by private individuals in town, while the rest had to be pastured some distance out. A letter sent from San Patricio back to Refugio at about this period contains a note apologising for borrowing a horse to mount the messenger.
Its not really something that has been gone into properly before but both instances seem to point to a couple of strong grain-fed horses being carefully looked after to be availabe for messengers, while the rest were barely being kept alive out on the nearest bit of pasture.
Another point on horse-care, which Harbert Davenport pointed out a long time ago was that although the Texians are popularly seen as capable frontiersmen, most of those coming from the States were nothing of the sort and lacked the animal husbandry skills to look after horses (and oxen) properly - which wandering off thread slightly is ultimately why Fannin and his men got themselves caught out on the open prairie.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 17, 2007 10:01:18 GMT -5
Scott There appears to have been a more then adequate number of horses available in Bexar prior to the siege. I forgot to factor in the horses Bowie brought with him. Possibly thirty or more. So the garrison would have at least eighty or more to use for scouting and sending dispatches. I don't recall reading any references in any of the correspondence from Bexar in regards to "unhealthy horses." And the flow of dispatches that were being sent by the defenders to Gov. Smith, Col Fannin, Gen Houston, etc. didn't appear to be hampered by "unhealthy horses." I do not doubt there were some unfit animals in the herd but I find it difficult to believe that Travis and Bowie couldn't find at least a dozen or more horses to use for scouting. Healthy horses or not, as co-commanders, Travis and Bowie were responsible for gathering intelligence. Much was at stake. And sometimes you have to make do with what's on hand...regardless. I do know a little about horses but I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of "horse health-care" is fairly limited. Your points in regards to "grain fed" and "grass fed" are well taken, Scott. And I happily yield to your expertise. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 17, 2007 14:25:49 GMT -5
There appears to have been a more then adequate number of horses available in Bexar prior to the siege. I forgot to factor in the horses Bowie brought with him. Possibly thirty or more. So the garrison would have at least eighty or more to use for scouting and sending dispatches. I don't recall reading any references in any of the correspondence from Bexar in regards to "unhealthy horses." And the flow of dispatches that were being sent by the defenders to Gov. Smith, Col Fannin, Gen Houston, etc. didn't appear to be hampered by "unhealthy horses." Glenn On the contrary at Bexar we have Jameson's letter of January 18 (Hansen 571) in which he complains that the patrol duty has "to be done by officers and which for want of horses has to be performed on foot." Things probably didn't improve much after Bowie's arrival because in his letter of February 2 (Hansen 20) he says that a "detachment of active volunteers under my command have been sent out to the Rio Frio; they returned yesterday without information" so clearly they didn't go far. Then as I mentioned earlier we have Sutherland's statement (Hansen 143) confirmed by his audited accounts that on the morning of February 23 Travis "wished to borrow a horse of me to send out to the Salado for his caballado that he might start a scout through the country." In other words there were one or two horses which were available for couriers but the rest were being pastured way out of town. As for Fannin not being hampered by a shortage of horses that simply isn't true. He was totally imobilised by the want of them. Grant took most of those available down to the Rio Grande numbering something over 60 and even then he had to split his force at Santa Rosa and leave half of them behind there because their horses had broken down. There was even a shortage of horses for couriers, hence my reference to that dispatch from Cooke, apologising to Fannin for borrowing his horse to mount the messenger. The big unrealised story of the Revolution is just how crippled first the Texians were (and later the Mexicans too) by an appalling mortality amongst their horses. Returning to the thread, Travis and Bowie can be defended on the charge of not sending out enough scouts due to this lack of horses. The real charge against them is that they didn't, probably for political reasons, take proper heed of the warnings reaching them from other sources.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 17, 2007 17:05:30 GMT -5
No argument here, Stuart. My assertions were based on the size of the herd (caballado) after Travis and later, Bowie, assumed command. That the horses were being pastured outside of town doesn't mean, IMHO, there were few, or no horses available for patrols. However, I acknowledge that relatively few horses were maintained in San Antonio or the Alamo and therefore not on-hand.
If this is true, then the question I have is "why?" Why didn't Travis and Bowie maintain a number of mounts within the town or the Alamo? Certainly they were aware that Santa Anna was on the march and was rumored to be heading toward San Antonio. Wouldn't it have been prudent to have kept a sufficient number of horses in town...on-hand?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 17, 2007 17:22:42 GMT -5
I think its probably down to the nature of the beasts. Those little Indian ponies may have been acceptable for transporting volunteers from A to B, but they may not have been reckoned good enough for a scout; while the big American corn-fed ones were being reserved for couriers.
I agree that in retrospect more of an effort should have been made to keep up patrols, but if Travis and the others were discounting the intelligence warnings they may have been reluctant to break their horses down through fruitless hard work. as I mentioned above that patrol which Bowie sent down towards the Rio Frio diesn't sound as if it was pushed very hard.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 17, 2007 22:25:03 GMT -5
I was wondering about the type of grain available - corn. I use to feed oats to the horses I cared for, which is pretty common today. Back then, was corn the primary grain that was used? I know the defenders were able to find some corn in the nearby jacales and add it to their meager supply. But could their supply have been adequate enough to sustain both the garrison and the few horses they maintained?? Also, what was the corn supply in Bexar at the time? It was one of the main staples, wasn't it?
Your premise that Travis and Bowie didn't send out patrols due to their disregard of intelligence reports sounds reasonable. Since they obviously convinced themselves that Santa Anna couldn't arrive on scene until mid-March, their reluctance to dispatch scouts (and horses) makes sense. Thanks Stuart.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Dec 17, 2007 22:37:50 GMT -5
Corn was commonly used to feed livestock such as horses and mules as well as being the main staple of the Texian diet. Oxen tended to be fed on what forage they could come up with in the open grasslands which is one of the probelms with Fannin's oxen alluded to earlier by Stuart.
Since this has come up(we keep finding new twists to this thread!) I remember seeing a receipt in Spanish to a Flores from Travis for corn and beef dated just prior to the siege. This receipt was auctioned off probably around '98-'99. Does anyone else remember seeing this neat little piece of paperlitter? I had always imagined Travis scrounging up what supplies he could find in his mad dash into the Alamo but if this receipt was authentic it would seem he had planned ahead for some things...
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 17, 2007 23:12:08 GMT -5
Well, this is the first time I find myself answering my own question...I must be getting old (CRS) . I've read Travis' letters numerous times and should have remembered. In his 12 Feb. letter to Gov. Smith he writes: " In consequence of the sickness of his family, Lt. Col Neill has left this Post, to visit home for a short time, and has requested me to take the Command of the Post." Then again, on the 13th of Feb. he writes to Gov. Smith: "... Col Neill left me in the command..." and: "...as Col Neill has applied to the Commander in chief to be relieved & is anxious for me to take command..." So it would appear that Neill did leave Travis in command during his absence. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 17, 2007 23:53:32 GMT -5
There is an indication that at least some scouts went a little further then the Rio Frio. In Travis' letter dated the 13th of Feb. (Hansen 23) he writes: "Our spies have just returned from Rio Grande - The enemy is there one thousand strong & is making every preparation to invade us."
So it would appear that a few patrols were dispatched to look for Santa Anna. But how hard could that have been, wasn't he marching straight up the Camino Real?
Glenn
|
|