The Mexican American War

Possibly, history could have panned out differently if the Mexican gov't didn't invite americans to texas to help settle the land. That policy led to the rebellion, and led the way to war with the united states. They could have been in a much stronger position if conflict erupted between the mexico and the US decades later.

Mkloby. according to my readings and study about Texas in particular Santa Anna who proclaimed himself President of Mexico wasn't above a bit of graft and corruption himself and had suppressed for 3 to 5 years rebellions in other Mexican Provinces before attacking the Alamo and his eventual defeat at San Jacinta and after the Texans had defeated his army he buggered off disguised as a common soldier and was captured and signed away a peace agreement saving himself from being hung that some Texans wanted to do. 8 to 12 years later he repudiated those peace agreements with Texas and the USA and tried to distance himself. as he did with the original documents and agreements signed with the Texans prior to Texan Mexican War. If I recall properly Santa Anna called himself the Napoleon of the West or the New World

Emac44, As a native Texan and so old that I took lots of Texas History in grade school, ( they don't require much of it today,) I salute you. You are right on about your remarks about events during the Texas Revolution and that blackguard Santa Anna. In fact, my great grandfather's brother fought at the San Jacinto on that glorious day of Aril 21, 1836.

renrich said:

Emac44, As a native Texan and so old that I took lots of Texas History in grade school, ( they don't require much of it today,) I salute you. You are right on about your remarks about events during the Texas Revolution and that blackguard Santa Anna. In fact, my great grandfather's brother fought at the San Jacinto on that glorious day of Aril 21, 1836.

Click to expand...

Why Thank you Renrich. I read very extensively about historical events that interests me or stimulates my mind. I try and get a handle on most things and read about history from other countries including my own. You might say I am a historical book junkie and since the invent of the Internet my thirst for knowledge knows no bounds. I despise being ignorant in myself if I don't try and understand the history of others and other countries. I have an interest in such dictators like Santa Anna because they make interesting reading. But so does Stalin Hitler Mussolini Idi Amin Pol Pot Sun Yhet San and many others. They show the black side to human events and history and how and when good men conspired to defeat them. But thanks for your comments. By the way salute to your great grand uncle. I can appreciate that. My own family fought the English as Jacobites in Scotland. So from one descendants of rebels to another decendants of rebels. doesn't it make your blood heated and proud to be of rebel blood hahaha

By the way Renrich. I am a firm believer the more you understand others from other countries the better the dialogue between countries. The firmer friendships come about if you know a little about each other and whence a person comes from in their heritiage and beliefs

Emac44 said:

Mkloby. according to my readings and study about Texas in particular Santa Anna who proclaimed himself President of Mexico wasn't above a bit of graft and corruption himself and had suppressed for 3 to 5 years rebellions in other Mexican Provinces before attacking the Alamo and his eventual defeat at San Jacinta and after the Texans had defeated his army he buggered off disguised as a common soldier and was captured and signed away a peace agreement saving himself from being hung that some Texans wanted to do. 8 to 12 years later he repudiated those peace agreements with Texas and the USA and tried to distance himself. as he did with the original documents and agreements signed with the Texans prior to Texan Mexican War. If I recall properly Santa Anna called himself the Napoleon of the West or the New World

Click to expand...

Yeah - he is notorious for his own over-inflated ego. San Jacinto, you would think, should have deflated that. He was crushed, only shortly after the Alamo, where he enjoyed a 20:1 manpower advantage I think it was. Mexico's central gov't had serious issues, and true it was facing potential rebellions in several provinces. The fact that Texas was filled with many Americans didn't help his prospects of diplomatically diffuse the situation.

mkloby said:

He was crushed, only shortly after the Alamo, where he enjoyed a 20:1 manpower advantage I think it was. Mexico's central gov't had serious issues, and true it was facing potential rebellions in several provinces.

Click to expand...

The American "Flying Artillery" was a great equilizer. Innovative use of a centuries old weapon.

Over inflated self ego and splitting his forces didn't help. Plus allowing the enemy to choose the ground not a good combination by any means. Definitely as Napoleon would have said. Santa Anna was definitely not a student of Caesar.


And the Texans released at San Jacinto something that is common to the Anglo Saxon Trait and I read some where. Releasing the Dogs of War, what come may

Emac44, you are most welcome and you bring up an interesting point. Many of the men in Houston's army( by the way he was outnumbered by Santa Anna 1300 or so to 800 or so) were what we call ScotsIrish or in the vernaculer ScotchIrish. Between 1700 and 1775 there were about 75000 immigrants from Northern Ireland and Scotland mostly Protestant who relocated to America. Many of these men had fought the English themselves and most had ancestors who had had a bone to pick with the English for centuries. Houston was ScotsIrish as well as Crockett and my great grand uncle. They comprised the cutting edge and back bone of the Texas army as well as the backbone and cutting edge of the Confederate army in 1861-1865. In fact one of the men who fought at San Jacinto, Ben McCulloch, fought Mexicans. Indians and bandits from 1836 until the War of Northern Aggression and was finally killed fighting for the Confederacy. Needless to say, he was ScotsIrish. I too enjoy catching up on other country's history. Read a book a number of years ago, I believe called THE FAR SHORE, about how Australia was forcibly settled by England. Rather grim.

A well regarded historian by the name of T R Fehrenbach, in his famous booK, LONE STAR, called the settlers who migrated west across the Appalachains and eventually into Texas Trans-Appalachain Anglo-Celts. He also called them the deadliest predators that ever walked the face of the earth.

Renrich
Not hard to understand the reasoning behind the Celts and their attitude to conquer new lands so to speak but I agree. As for The Far Shore have not read that book in many years. However in its context that Australia had an early history of convicts settlers is true. Forced here and transported here. Australia's origins was to be a Penal Settlement. But was soon discovered to be much more than that. Free Settlers did accompany the Convicts and Royal Marines here in the 1st Fleet to enter Botany Bay (Syndey) in 1788. Convicts depending on what skill they had or for what reason they were sent here and depending on many factors were assigned to duties. This maybe anything from milling timber or building roads and bridges accordingly or even positions of trust like food stores etc etc. There was also what was called the Woman's Factory at Parramatta, Female Convicts etc. Harsher Penal Colonies did exsist rather than Botany Bay. Later areas were Port Arthur Tasmania, Norfolk Island and the worse of the worse Moreton Bay (Brisbane). The last convicts sent from England occurred in the late 1850s being sent to Perth in Western Australia. But after the establishments of the various areas expansionism did take place. More free settlers similar to your own country came here. Gold Rushes in Victoria New South Wales and Queensland being the catalyst to bring people here. Yes Scots and Irish did come as well. Many towns and geographic areas bear the name of places in Scotland and Ireland etc in Australia. but so did English Settlers as well. And the decendants of such became known as Aussies generally. It also gave us a mixed passions as well. Our home was Australia but our blood was SCOT IRISH WELSH ENGLISH etc etc. The birth of the Digger (MINER) and later ANZAC (SOLDIER) mixed together Digger and ANZAC made a lethal mixture on the Battle Field or fighting the ravages of nature. I suppose Renrich. when it comes to war we would perfer not to but get us pissed off then its on with vengence. We have a saying here. We might not start a fight but we ****ing know how to finish one.

By the way at this very moment I am about 2 miles away from what was known as the Limestone District of Moreton Bay. Convicts were flogged and according to further crimes could and would be hanged or further transported to places like Northfolk Island or confined to isolation cells. parts of these Isolation Cells were later formed into a prison for the Insane Prisoner or Convict. Later same place became on institution for intellectually disabled patient. You can imagine it has a very lurid past. Place still operates under Queensland Health Dept but has been wound down in recent years as better facilities have opened

Read a book about your Civil War Renrich called Killer Angels and other books as well. Have read John Jakes Historical Fiction Novels North and South Trilogy Kent Family Chronicles California Gold and with the basis being Historical Fiction lead me onto why actual historical characters mentioned in Jakes novels were so bloody interesting and also eventsmentioned in his novels. You might say it was for a light read ended up being a passion to find out exactly who Jakes was mentioning in his novels and background information was sought

renrich said:

A well regarded historian by the name of T R Fehrenbach, in his famous booK, LONE STAR, called the settlers who migrated west across the Appalachains and eventually into Texas Trans-Appalachain Anglo-Celts. He also called them the deadliest predators that ever walked the face of the earth.

Click to expand...

It's often forgotton that many tribes of North, Central and South America were in constant conflict with each other centuries before whitey arrived. Many practiced slavery too!

Not all indiginious peoples are pious, peaceful stewards of the environment. They are human animals with the same bloodlust and need for expansion that infect all humans. Early Americans had a tons of elbow room that reduced the need for conflict.

If the native Americans had the technology and diseases to secure watering holes, hunting grounds and settling blood fueds, you know they would have used them. Lets not for get that their were exponentialy more "indians" killed by disease than bullets.

As far as artillery at the San Jacinto the Texans had only 2 6 pdrs. called the Twin Sisters donated by the citizens of Cinncinati. The flying artillery mentioned did play a large part in the later Mexican War of 1846-48. That war to me is most interesting because of the herculean efforts of the small US armies under Taylor and Scott and their success against much larger armies of Mexico and on their ground. Incidently the Mexican War was the deadliest in American history proportionately and because of the high disease rate. THE KILLER ANGELS is a great book. Of course it is historical fiction but still well researched and quite authentic. The movie GETTYSBURG was made from it and was well done except for the miscreant who played Lee. That insulted me and all Southrons. I often think that the population mix of anglos in America in the early days is almost identical to that of early day Australia. There was a fine book entitled ALBION'S SEED by David Fischer that examined how the immigrants from 4 different areas of Britain established distinctive regional cultures that remain central to the nations fabric even today.

renrich said:

herculean efforts of the small US armies under Taylor and Scott and their success against much larger armies of Mexico and on their ground.

Click to expand...

Well Scott must have learnt something because he didn't do very well when he had all the advantages (more guys on the high ground with surprise) in the War of 1812 or maybe his opposition was lame

pbfoot said:

Well Scott must have learnt something because he didn't do very well when he had all the advantages (more guys on the high ground with surprise) in the War of 1812 or maybe his opposition was lame

Click to expand...

He did perform well in the Battle of Chippewa. American fighting forces were in sad shape during that conflict. Thank the Almighty (for us) the British were engaged in conflict throughout the globe!

Seems as if Scott did pretty well at Lundy's Lane also. Regardless he emerged from the War of 1812 as probably the most professional and effective general officer of the US Army. If you study the Mexican War, his handling of his troops from Vera Cruz to Mexico City was masterful. Of couse he had a lot of help in that campaign from the likes of Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, James Longstreet, the Texas Rangers, not to mention a fellow named Grant.

renrich said:

Seems as if Scott did pretty well at Lundy's Lane also. Regardless he emerged from the War of 1812 as probably the most professional and effective general officer of the US Army. If you study the Mexican War, his handling of his troops from Vera Cruz to Mexico City was masterful. Of couse he had a lot of help in that campaign from the likes of Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, James Longstreet, the Texas Rangers, not to mention a fellow named Grant.

Click to expand...

Queenston Heights was where Scott didn't produce Lundy's lane was a draw and Chippawa was a win

renrich said:

Seems as if Scott did pretty well at Lundy's Lane also. Regardless he emerged from the War of 1812 as probably the most professional and effective general officer of the US Army. If you study the Mexican War, his handling of his troops from Vera Cruz to Mexico City was masterful. Of couse he had a lot of help in that campaign from the likes of Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, James Longstreet, the Texas Rangers, not to mention a fellow named Grant.

Click to expand...

Renrich didn't most of those gentlemen graduate from West Point virtually in a few years of each other Lee ,Longstreet ,Jackson, and Grant? And Lee I believe was a great military trained engineer. Didn't he design the levee banks around New Orleans and was at one time prior to your Civil War became head of West Point and his nephew Fitzhugh caused some problems at West Point at the time?

But as for the British in Canada. yes they were a bit pressed with the War in Spain and Portugal against the French and Royal Navy having several engagements with the French at various places from the Battle of the Nile to Battle of Tragflagar and Camperdown plus having to blockade the Continent at various places over a number of years

Emac44 said:

Renrich didn't most of those gentlemen graduate from West Point virtually in a few years of each other Lee ,Longstreet ,Jackson, and Grant? And Lee I believe was a great military trained engineer. Didn't he design the levee banks around New Orleans and was at one time prior to your Civil War became head of West Point and his nephew Fitzhugh caused some problems at West Point at the time?

But as for the British in Canada. yes they were a bit pressed with the War in Spain and Portugal against the French and Royal Navy having several engagements with the French at various places from the Battle of the Nile to Battle of Tragflagar and Camperdown plus having to blockade the Continent at various places over a number of years

Click to expand...

West Point until after the war of the 1812 debacle was a more of a boarding school for the rich bad boys it was totally revamped after the war of 1812 to become the place it is today

Many of the generals during the War Of Northern Aggression went to West Point together. Longstreet and Grant were there at the same time and were close friends. Lee was somewhat older than most of the other better known ones but was the super. there when for instance, Hood was a student. Interesting about Lee's description of Hood, "very industrious on the battlefield, careless off of it." I believe that at that time all students at WP were trained as engineers. As pbfoot says, early on WP was not near what it later became. A fellow named Thayer reformed it. Incidently Lee was one of the few graduates of WP to never get a demerit. He was known as the Marble Man when he went there. Lee was in his 50s during the war, Jackson was 38 when he died. Hood was 28 and already a general. To show what dire straits our boys were in, when Jackson went down under "friendly fire" one reason they knew who had done it was that he was shot by smooth bore musket balls not Minie balls. This was the spring of 1863, two years after the war had begun and some of our units were still using relics from the War of 1812. Those confounded British were not sending us enough Enfields! Just kidding.