Talk:Battle of the Alamo/Fowler, Santa Anna of Mexico

Chapter 8 The Warrior President 1835-1837 (pp 158-183)
I now have the book in my hand, the first hardcover edition. First glance, I was looking for the Tornel Decree, which in the Footnotes says it's provided in an Appendex. There is no Appendex in this book. The Tornel Decree is not in this book, except mentioned as "the so-called Tornel Decree". It appears Fowler did a great deal of research, but the sources are mostly in the Spanish language and mostly in Mexico - meaning, I'll never be able to check that. It comes down to whether or not you believe the author did his job as he says he did.

I am now making this a subpage of the Battle of the Alamo talk page to more thoroughly examine this chapter of the book, and make notes accordingly. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the full text of the Tornel Decree in another book that I have at home, if that is needed. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pp 158-161
March-April 1835, Zacatecas governor Francisco Garcia authorized state-level militia to resist centralist aggression. Santa Anna leaves his retreat at Manga de Clavo and takes charge of the military to quash the rebellion. Afterwards, Santa Anna loots Zacatecas, and silver bars from the mine are moved to Manga de Clavo. By October, the 1824 Constitution was revoked. - Notes has a variety of sourcing, including Santa Anna and Tornel.

MiztuhX
p.158: "Santa Anna remained an absentee president following the demise of the 1833-34 radical administration...At the end of January 1835 he turned his back on politics to tend to his hacienda...He was uncomfortable with the centralist's antics...For the next two years (1835-37), he spent hardly any time in the capital and was in fact absent when the 6th Constitutional Congress brought an end to the 1824 Constitution. Although he has been blamed for the change to centralism, he was not actually present during any of the deliberations that led to the abolition of the federalist charter or the elaboration of the 1836 Constitution." (Notes: Costeloe, Michael, P. The Central Republic, 1835-1846: Hombres de Bien in the Age of Santa Anna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.)

My Comment: This passage marks subtle distinctions that debunk the standard background paragraphs inserted into many WP Texas history articles that state:  "Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited many federalists to revolt." MiztuhX (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

p.158: Having returned only 3 months earlier to Manga de Clavo, SA made his way back to the capitol on 9 April on hearing news of the pronunciamiento (Zacatecas). He did not return to Mexico City to preside over the Republic (my note - reveals that his tendencies were not to be a dictator), but to only quell the rebellion.

p.159: Apart from public statements about law and order, there is little to understand his motivation (to crush rebellion in ZAC). As a professional soldier, he did not want the regular army weakened. Now as president (albeit an absentee one), he did not want his government's authority challenged by subversive state militias (my note - this could be a rational for heading to Texas to crush rebellion, not "to defend Mexico's honor" which is not factual, just romanticizes things). However, more to the point, SA did not forgive disloyalty. He expected his allies to be faithful even if he changed sides (italics are Fowler's). He would punish ZAC, like he did Arista in 1833, Mejía in 1839, for not following the new order he created following the Plan of Cuernavaca.

My Comment: Fowler posits that SA's use of military force were reactions against threats to his authority and his use of violence was based on his unwillingness to forgive disloyalty. Due to personal foibles, and not delusions of being a dictator.

p.160: The rebels had been routed. SA noted that 150 officers had been taken prisoner. The 2,443 zacatecanos who surrendered were allowed to go free (my note - important stat to compare with treatment of Texians in battles in TX campaign, esp re: SA's offer of surrender at Alamo). Following SA's victory in ZAC he went on a tour of celebration and was hailed as a hero in Aguascalientes, Guadalajara, and Morelia (my note: positive Mexican view of suppression of ZAC rebellion provides counterbalance to Texian alarmed perspective in WP TX articles). The government named him Benemérito de la patria. He returned to México City on 21 June but did not stay long. When forced to choose b/w presiding over the country and looking after his hacienda, SA chose the latter.

p.160-161: For many Mexicans, it had become obvious that the experience of First Federal Republic had been a failure. Since 1828 revolution had followed revolution and it was clear that the 1824 Constitution had failed to establish a political system suited to the needs and customs of the Mexican people. Santanistas like Tornel and Bocanegra (my note: not SA who was at Manga de Clavo) arrived at the conclusion that Mexico needed a new constitution and stated so in the pronunciamiento of Orizaba (19 May 1835). It was essential that they terminate the federalist system adopting another form of government more in tune with the needs of the Mexican people (customs, independence, peace, and Catholic religion).

p.161: Tornel, the minister of war (1835-37) became a committed centralist who concluded that Federalism weakened the nation. By 1835 many had reached the same conclusion and the change to centralism really did reflect Mexican public opinion. Over four hundred pronunciamientos were written between May and October 1835. Congress pushed forward the resolutions whereby the federal Constitution was abolished and a centralist Constitution was approved.

"SA was not lying when he stated in 1837 that the 'abolition of the old system [the 1824 Constitution] was not an endeavor I influenced.'" He was ambivalent about the entire issue. Here was an instance of policy being determined by the legislative branch, in which SA did not play a noticeable role. He never took to the centralist 1836 with its novel Supreme Conservative Power.

My comment: Great section providing the Mexican context, reasons, and need for centralism. It totally disavows SA from centralism, once and for all, and places that distinction at the feet of Tornel and Bocanegra. Great counterbalance to Texians who viewed it in a starkly opposite manner (because they did not consider themselves Mexican citizens, although living in Mexico, thus they were out of touch with Mexican concerns! Texians had a whole different agenda). They viewed it as: anathema, betrayal, threatening to their "American" way of life... which just lends credence to the view that Texians were just looking for a pretext to steal what they wanted all along - land, while the Mexicans were genuinely searching for--and experimenting with--a style of government that would best fit their needs, culture, and history... I think Zoraida Vásquez might confirm this, too). MiztuhX (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

--More notes to come later today... (CONT. SEE BELOW P.162)... MiztuhX (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pp 162-164
Varied sources in Notes

P162 - Background on colonization of Texas, mentions Law of April 6, 1830

MiztuhX p. 162
p.161-162: SA quote from his Communication from the General Benemerito, where he comments on the political and social climate re: Centralism:  it "was not the one the pronunciamientos of that period were calling for, nor was it certainly that which the country needed at the time."

p.162: My comment:  Nonetheless, whoever was responsible for the change to Centralism, Fowler notes:  "The change to Centralism was the spark that ignited the province of Texas."

p.162: Fowler's view re: the causes of the Texan Revolution 1835-36 is "not the popular Texan historiographical standpoint interpreting U.S. expansionism in Texas in terms of 'settlements' established in an empty wilderness by freedom-loving and self-reliant pioneers who moved into a 'frontier' that was there for the taking. Nor do I endorse the view that these U.S. immigrants brought with them 'Anglo-American democracy...in triumph over inferior races.' The more scholarly interpretation of New Western Historiography, which in recent years has moved toward depicting this 'settlement' as a 'conquest,' the pioneers as 'profit-driven entrepreneurs,' and the 'wilderness' as a 'land already occupied by indigenous peoples with cultures of their own," or, for that matter, the Mexican nation, is more in line with the interpretation reprsented here." (Citation: Cantrell, Stephen F. Austin, 6-7.)

p.162: I think this comment by Fowler is especially important in terms of balance and understanding the context of the times:  "Given that this is a biography of Santa Anna it is important, whether we agree with him or not, to appreciate his understanding of the conflict, in order to come to grips with the choices he made and the actions he took. Therefore, what follows is an interpretation of the Texan Revolution that, inevitably, privileges the Mexican point of view and, in particular, Santa Anna's own standpoint." (Fowler cites a long list to support this view on p.423, some of which are included in the article's present bibliography: "Vito Alesio Robles, Julia Kathryn Garrett, William C. Binkley, Margaret Swett Henson, Alwyn Barr, Stephen L. Hardin, Paul D. Lack, Sam W. Haynes, Jaime E. Rodriguez O. and Kathryn Vincent, Gregg Cantrell, Andres Resendez, Josefina Zoraida Vasquez, and Richard Bruce Winders." Full details in his bibliography starting on p.449.

More to come... MiztuhX (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

P163 - Santa Anna's government declared void a decree passed on 14 March 1835 by the state of Texas and Coahuila, legalizing the colonization of uncultivated land in the province. (the transposing of Coahuila and Texas to Texas and Coahuila is the author's doing, not mine.) This was the law of April 4, 1835, although the author does not name it. The decree of March 14, 1835 → § 326. Law of Coahuila and Texas.—The decree cited in article 1 of the foregoing law is as follows: "Supreme government of the free state of Coahuila and Texas. The provisional governor of the state of Coahuila and Texas, in the exercise of supreme executive power, to all the inhabitants thereof. Know ye: That the congress of said state have decreed as follows: The constitutional congress of the free, sovereign, and independent state of Coahuila and Texas have thought proper to decree: 1. The government may dispose to the extent of four hundred sitios of land, of the vacant lands of the state, in order to meet the urgent wants of the public, which are actually existing. 2. The colonization of said lands shall be regulated on the bases and conditions which may be considered expedient, without being subject to the provisions of the law of the twenty sixth of March of last year. 3. The government will direct the measures necessary for the collection of the amounts due the state, whatever their sources and origin. The provisional constitutional governor will cause the same to be complied with, and to be printed, published, and circulated. Jose Antonio Tejerina, president. Andres de la Vicsca y Montes, deputy secretary. Diego, grand deputy secretary. Monclava, March 14, 1835."Google books Laws of Mexico - my sourcing

Pp.163-164 - Santa Anna steps down as president to take charge of the military.

P. 164 regarding José Antonio Mexía and the Tampico expedition: Mejia's action was consistent with that of other Federalists such as Gómez Farías, who supported the Texas uprising in its initial stages from his exile in New Orleans. Both Mejia and Gómez Farías saw the imposition of a centralist political system as unacceptable. Nevertheless, once they became aware that the Texan revolt had independence as its main aim, both men withdrew their support. Sourcing on this is the 1964 Wilfrid Hardy Callcott's book Santa Anna: The Story of an Enigma Who Once was Mexico.

This is pretty standard stuff that is in the other major works. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Karanacs

Pp 165-169, everything sourced to Santa Anna himself

 * states that Santa did not want to bother with the Alamo but felt the defenders could "cut off his Army's retreat"
 * Santa Anna sent Almonte ...with his offer of allowing the men at the Alamo to walk away free as long as they promised never again to take up arms against the Mexican nation. A refusal of this generous offer would be equivalent to passing their own death sentence. Colonel William Barret Travis replied by opening fire on the Mexican forces and, to quote Santa Anna, in so doing, sealed the fate of those obstinate men.
 * Texian survivor count - The only people whose lives were spared were three women, two children and a Negro slave.
 * Mexican loses - The Mexican forces probably suffered far more casualties than the seventy dead and three hundred wounded Santa Anna reported having lost in the battle.
 * Clearing his name - Santa Anna called for an inquiry in 1837 on the Goliad Massacre to clear his name re Fannin's fate -...he demanded that Urrea, Colonels Juan Morales and Mariano Salas, and Lieutenant Colonel Juan Jose Holsingen declare whether they had agreed to spare the prosoners' lives, and if so, whether Santa Anna had been informed of this. In the inquiry that was subsequently held, Urrea's statement cleared Santa Anna of applyng the Tornel Decree with the knowledge that Fannin's men had surrendered believing they would not face the firing squad. However, he made it known that he had suggested their lives be spared and that Santa Anna would have none of it. Santa Anna thus cleared his name to the extent that the mass execution of Texans was consistent with the supreme government's decree of 30 December 1835, and there was no evidence that Urrea had agreed to spare the Texans' lives when they surrendered.

So far, this is all I've looked at. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Karanacs
 * Hardin, Scott, and Davis all say that Santa Anna intended to take and occupy Bexar. This may not conflict with this statement - the Texians were holed up in the Alamo and didn't exactly stop the Mexican army from occupying the town.
 * We've gone over this before - most of the other scholarly works say only an unconditional surrender was offered
 * The survivor count is wrong unless it is qualified as saying that Santa Anna only mentions those survivors. At a guess, this would be Joe, Susanna Dickinson and her daughter Angelina, and Juana Navarro Alsbury with her sister and young son.   These three are known to have met personally with Santa Anna.  There were other survivors, though, including Enrique Esparza and his family (mother and 4 other siblings), Senora Loyosa and her son,  Victoriana de Salina and her children, and, according to Thomas Ricks Lindley, probably several slaves or servants.
 * True that there is no evidence left that Urrea had told the Texians something else. This is discussed in Stuart's book also. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pp 169-173
Mostly Santa Anna is the source on this:

At San Felipe on April 7, Santa Anna was informed Houston was camped at "Gross's Pass" (Groce's Landing) and wanted to cross the Brazos to catch him. Unable to cross, Santa Anna arrived at Thompson's Pass (Ferry), attacking a "rebel stronghold" seizing two canoes and a barge. He wanted to capture the Texian government at Harrisburg and arrived there on April 15. Santa Anna claimed Harrisburg was already burning when he arrived, and that it was the fleeing government who did it.

Informed by Almonte that Houston was headed for Lynchburg, Santa Anna followed. Told by Captain Marcos Barragan on April 19 that Houston was close to Lynchburg, Santa Anna's delight could not be contained. The Mexican army arrived at Lynchburg on April 20. After a couple of skirmishes, the Mexican army was on high alert all night.

Cos arrived on April 21, and Santa Anna honored his request to give his men a rest. Santa Anna rode out with his men to explore Houston's position and decided by Noon that Houston was not going to attack soon. He calculated that Houston was afraid, so Santa Anna took a nap beneath a tree. Once the Texians attacked, Santa Anna felt there was nothing he could do but ride for help to Filisola at Thompson's Pass. His escape cut off, Santa Anna fled through the woods until he came across an abandoned farm house, with some dry clothing he could use. Santa Anna spent the night there. He was caught the next day. Not recognizing him, they asked if he had seen Santa Anna and he replied that Santa Anna was farther ahead. Nevertheless, they took him prisoner.

(NOTE: Santa Anna did not speak English, and the scouts who captured him did not speak Spanish. This account says Santa Anna was dressed in a private's uniform. And while I don't have Moore's book or others with me, I believe that account is that they found (or Santa Anna showed them) some official paperwork he carried on his person, and they knew they had someone important on their hands, just did not know it was Santa Anna. That account says that he kept repeating Houston's name and indicating with hand gestures that he wanted to be taken to Houston.)

Pp173 - 183
Pp. 173-174 Santa Anna's assessment of what went wrong, is that he blamed everybody but himself. Tornel's 1837 assessment was that the United States was behind the revolt

Pp. 174-175 the author agrees with Tornel and throws in the slavery issue

Pp. 175-176 Santa Anna is taken to Houston. Urrea is not allowed to visit Santa Anna, but Adrian Woll is. Santa Anna believes all is lost.

Pp. 176-178 Treaties of Velasco. Author says Santa Anna did not recognize independence of Texas. Santa Anna ordered Filisola and troops south of the Rio Grande.

P. 179 - 183 Santa Anna is incarcerated. A mob shows up in New Orleans demanding his head. Santa Anna complains about his treatment. At the urging of Stephen F. Austin, Santa Anna writes a letter to President Andrew Jackson, who invites him to Washington D. C. and has dinner with him.