-1Collin Lindo

10/6/09
HI 498
#6 Revolutionary Readings

In Winder’s work, Setting the Stage for Crisis: Colonization and Revolution, the

government organization as well as the actions and movements of the Texan army are

examined in order to better understand Houston’s meeting with Santa Anna at San

Jacinto. It becomes apparent that a great deal of disorganization and mistrust existed

within the new government and military. Houston’s victory would be as much a matter of

chance as careful planning.

Following the success of small skirmishes at Gonzalez and Goliad, many Texans

started to gain confidence in their ability to ward off Mexican forces. Eventually Bexar

was taken and a new government was established with an organized militia. Three

commanders Fannin, Johnson, and Grant are placed in power, but fail to produce any

results as they separate their forces and are plagued by errors such as all out capture by

Urrea’s forces. At the heart of the problem lies the fact that the forces had been made up

of colonists who were successful at mobilizing quickly but not prepared for long term

engagements, as well as the disagreements among them of what actions to be taken.1

After many crushing defeats such as the Alamo, and the loss of many men due to the

Runaway Scrape, Houston is able to gather what’s left of the damaged forces and put

together an offensive against Santa Anna. Santa Anna stretched thin with a smaller

regiment and not expecting an attack, is caught by surprise and attacked. Houston

captures Cos, Altamonte, and Santa Anna in one fail swoop and the rest is history, or so it

seems.

1 David J. Weber, The Mexican Frontier:1821-1846, (University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque,
1982), 20.
 Chapters three and four of Marks’ Turn Your Eyes Toward Texas examine Samuel

Maverick’s role in the Texas Revolution. During the siege of Bexar Maverick was held

under house arrest as Texans battled Mexican forces for control over the Alamo.

Maverick showed great confidence during the battle and after the victory began to

identify himself as a Texan and supported the causes of the revolution. Eventually he

began to buy up land despite Mexican laws invalidating such claims, he planned to live a

long and prosperous life in Texas.

As Mexican forces began a gradual offense to retake the Alamo, Maverick left on

urgent business to attend the convention at Washington on the Brazos. Upon finding his

seat among the delegation, the Alamo had already fallen.2 The convention would

continue for days without news of the disaster.

Maverick eventually fled Texas during the famous Runaway Scrape. Ironically,

shortly thereafter Houston overtook the Mexican army at San Jacinto. Regardless of his

great accomplishments he would be marred for years by his decision to leave at such a

crucial point during the revolution. He had himself passed a law banning those who flee

from land rights and citizenship.3 Eventually he would return but not without much

regret.

Juan Seguin’s memoir as examined by de la Teja reveals Seguin’s great skill as an

intermediary between the Anglo and Tejano settlers during the revolution. While many

historians argue over the number and impact of Tejanos upon the Texas Revolution de la

Teja asserts that “There is considerable evidence that at least part of Juan’s company,

including himself, took part in the storming of San Antonio.”4 Although not present
2Paula Mitchell Marks, Turn Your Eyes Towards Texas: Pioneers Sam and Mary Maverick, (Texas A&M
University Press: United States of America,1989), 58.
3Marks, Turn Your Eyes Towards Texas, 61.
4Jesus F. de la Teja, A Revolution Remembered: The Memoirs and Selected Correspondence of Juan N.
among those who fought at the Alamo, Seguin left his mark elsewhere. In Mexico he was

infamous for his “subversion” but he had his reasons. In his memoirs he recounts how

his father was shamed by the Mexican government and forced to relocate because of his

son’s involvement in the revolution. As Seguin’s family fled they were stricken with

disease and some died as a result. They eventually returned to find their land and homes

laid waste by the war.5 Eventually he would become a respected figure in Texas history,

but suffered from the backlash of the many stereotypes and negative behaviors towards

Tejanos following the war.

Chapters seven and eight of Anderson’s The Conquest of Texas are devoted

primarily to the racial tensions which constantly threatened the success of the revolution.

Of great concern were rumors of Indians joining the fight waged between Texas and

Mexico, on the side of the Mexican centralists. Many were divided on the issue, while

some supported greater ethnic cleansing, others advocated promising land to Indians in

return for assurance of neutrality. Houston himself swung both ways promising land to

Indians, as well as stirring rumors of Indian uprisings in order to gain support of the US

military in invading Texas with hopes of retaining an allied military presence to aide the

republic.6 Prior to Houston’s actions, Gaines had commanded his troops from Louisiana

towards Texas after rumors of Indian uprising had spread only to find them unfounded.

As the Mexican army advanced and many heard of an impending Indian threat, they fled

reducing the Anglo presence, the opposite of what had been intended. As Anderson

describes, “In retrospect, James Gaines realized that rumors had done more harm than

Seguin, (Texas State Historical Association: Austin, 2002), 25.

5 de la Teja, A Revolution Remembered, 88-89.
6 Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820-1875
(University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 2005), 122-123.
good in causing Anglo-Texan civilians to flee.”7

Eventually Houston was elected to the presidency of Texas. He embarked on a

new plan which would ally various Indian tribes against those considered hostile to

Texans. In return they would receive land and stability among other things in a vaguely

worded agreement.8 Still, racial tensions boiled as peace was nothing more than

temporary in the Republic of Texas. Massacres had and would rage on for years to come.

Jordan’s Lone Star Navy examines the establishment of a Texas naval fleet. What

started as a privatized piracy endeavor soon led to a government chartered navy. While

Jordan discusses the history of the fleet and its various engagements, his overarching

theory is that while Sam Houston won the Battle at Jacinto, the Texas Navy weakened the

power of the Mexican military enough to secure independence.

At Matamoros Capt. Jeremiah Brown aboard the Invincible was able to subdue

the Mexican naval ship Bravo and capture Pocket a ship having departed from New

Orleans with supplies for the Mexican Army hidden among civilian goods. Anderson

believes this singular event to be crucial in Texas independence as it left the Mexican

army weak without the resources to maintain a successful campaign.9

Hutton’s The Alamo as Icon examines the historical significance of the Alamo

upon modern day civilians. He postulates that to many the myth has outgrown the reality

of the events that transpired, however he is not quick to judge them for their ignorance.

Many hold onto their notions of the Alamo and heroes such as Davy Crockett because it

is of great importance to them to have such icons. At a certain point the history found a

backseat to folklore but they are both intrinsically tied. Still Hutton has done research
7Anderson, The Conquest of Texas, 116.
8 Anderson, The Conquest of Texas, 123.
9 Jonathan W. Jordan, Lone Star Navy: Texas, The Fight for the Gulf of Mexico, and the Shaping of the
American West, (Potomac Books: Washington,2007), 58.
and is correct and can still look at Davy Crockett as a hero, while others are ignorant and

wrong and can’t see a real hero but prefer the dumbed down Disney version. Anyways,

that’s just my opinion on the matter.

The final reading comes from renowned historian and infamous classroom

tormentor James E. Crisp. Entitled Calculated Victory: Sam Houston’s Campaign to

Rescue the Texas Revolution the reading focuses on the troubles surrounding the Texas

militia leading up to Houston’s victory at San Jacinto. We are given more information as

to why three commanders were assigned to manage the expedition, and Grant’s heavy

stance against independence.10 Eventually we learn of Houston’s attempt to organize an

Indian militia as well Austin’s supposed shift in ideals supporting a separate Northern

Mexican state.11 Houston is able to play all his cards rights and capitalize at San Jacinto.

While many opposed his decisions, he was crucial in securing Texas Independence.

Houston seems to be the only capable leader both behind the scenes and on the

battlefield, Texas certainly could have failed miserably without him.

Overall the readings were good, but with so much information on all the different

readings it was difficult to pull it altogether into a paper which hit on all of the many

relevant issues. I thought Marks and Crisp gave the most new information out of all the

readings. I still want to know more about Houston’s Indian militia he was training and

Austin’s supposed support for a Northern Mexico state. Anderson’s work was fascinating

as always, he is able to really bring it all together to show all the different factors that

play into what was going on. Winders was fairly boring, but good solid history

nonetheless. Seguin’s memoirs were interesting, but seem very impersonal even when

10 James E. Crisp, “Calculated Victory: Sam Houston’s Campaign to rescue the Texas Revolution” IN The
Philosophical Society of Texas, (2004): ncsu electronic e reserve. 32-33
11 Crisp, “Calculated Victory,” 34-35.
describing the tragic circumstances that left his family ill and destitute. I am curious to

learn more about his experiences in the Mexican military thereafter. Now that the major

battle for independence has occurred I am curious to see what happens to Texas.