Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
San jacinto
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 24th January 2009
would it be simplistic to say that the battle of San Jacinto hinged on the fact that the Mexicans didnt post sentries and lookouts
surely if the mexicans were prepared the main texican attack - over open ground would have been cut to pieces and destroyed by the volley fire of the mexicans fighting in the european style
it didnt matter that the us cavalry was doing a flank attack the battle would have been over ?
st
how would that have changed history??if -
Message 2
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 3
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
st
"US cavalry"? Surely you're not suggesting the United States were covertly sending elements of the US Army to aid the Texas rebels???
More seriously, a Texan defeat wouldn't have changed the ultimate course of history, except for those Texans directly involved, whose history would have been shorter. Texas would have been annexed in the same way as the other bits of Mexico that were absorbed a decade later. The American-Mexican war might have happened a bit earlier.
Texas would still be the Lone Star State within the USA today. -
Message 4
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 30th January 2009
lw
oops - freudian slip
texican cavalry
st -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
Would the result have been different, if instead of wasting time attacking the Alamo, the Mexican army had simply bypassed it, leaving just enough troops to contain the garrison, and marched upon a Texan army still in no way fit enough to fight.
-
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
GF
I believe so - the Mexicans could have disrupted Houston's attempts to bring his forces together.
On the other hand, it would have left the Alamo in his rear to threaten his lines of communication.
The other option would have been to mount an assault sooner, without giving the garrison so much time in which to surrender, which would have allowed him to continue without a threat in his rear. Ironically, given his reputation, Santa Anna played by the book.
Ultimately though, the economic-strategic realities would still have caused the annexation of Texas, and other Mexican territory, by the USA.
LW -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
But would they? The Mexican Army had spent most of its time putting down one revolt after another. They where well trained and armed. If they had beaten the Texans, they would have been fighting on home turf, where as a U S Army would be at the end of a long supply line. The local Mexicans would (Having seen Santa Anna beaten the fledgling Texans) be more inclined to support him, rather than throw their lot in with the U S. Oh, one story suggests that the British sold a lot of Brown Bess muskets to Santa Anna. Another great What if? The Mexican Empire still holding the whole of the south/southeast/west coast. Perhaps the Czar refusing to sell Alaska. (Did he? an article suggests that he only leased it to the U S)
-
Message 9
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
GF
The same factors applied in 1846, and the US Army roundly defeated the Mexican Army then. Texas was not really home ground for the Mexican Army - it was a long way from Mexico City, which was a significant factor in why they gave up after San Jacinto, rather than plotting their revenge (once they got El Presidente back, of course).
Sobering thought on the "what-if" front. If Texas had stayed in Mexico, and Yankee thoughts had turned away from expansion (which I don't think at all realistic), then the Union would have remained more evenly balanced between slave and free States. This suggests that the slavery issue could have been resolved without recourse to Civil War (many contemporary commentators saw the acquisition of Mexican territory as the catalyst of the eventual Secession Crisis). No 500,000 dead, no Shiloh, no Gettysburg, no Antietam, no Appomattox Courthouse, no good names for ships. But no Emancipation Declaration, and the process takes rather longer.
So it was not Harriet Beecher Stow who started "this big war", but Travis, Bowie and Crockett?
Hmmm, think I'll stick to my original thesis - whatever happened in 1836, Texas would still have ended up as one of the stars on Ol'Glory. (Yes, I know, strictly speaking Ol' Glory is the original revolutionary flag with only the 13 on it.....)
LW -
Message 10
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Hmmm, think I'll stick to my original thesis - whatever happened in 1836, Texas would still have ended up as one of the stars on Ol'Glory. (Yes, I know, strictly speaking Ol' Glory is the original revolutionary flag with only the 13 on it.....)Β
Quite possible, but it would probably be later and certainly in different circumstances.
If the 1836 revolt collapses, then unless Andrew Jackson is willing and able (would Congress go along?) to force an immediate war before his term ends in March 1837, it is likely to be a while before anyone else does. Van Buren certainly won't, Tyler is almost certainly too weak politically, and Polk, in this situation, is unlikely to be elected or even nominated. Without the Texas issue, in 1844 it is likely to be either Henry Clay or you get Van Buren back.
So there seems little likelihood of anything moving before at least 1849, and quite possibly later. And by the 1850s, arguments about slavery are starting to heat up. Presumably the Kansas question will flare up at about the same time, whether Texas has been annexed or not. It is my impression that Northern opinion was getting steadily more resistant to the admission of new slave states, which will make annexation harder to sell as time goes on.
Indeed, if Santa Anna has any political nous at all, his first act post-victory will be to abolish slavery in Texas. After all, under the Mexican Constitution it has always, in theory, been illegal. How will the South feel about annexing Texas without slavery, and how will Northerners feel about bringing slavery back to a place where it has been ended? This has the makings of an almighty row.
Nor, of course, is there such a ready pretext for war. In 1846, the disputed area betwen the Neuces and the Rio Grande provided one, but if Texas is stil Mexican, there is no such dispute. Everyone knows the Sabine River ie the border.
All in all, annexation, while still possible, could be quite a long way off. 1898 maybe? -
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Mikestone8
Interesting suggestion, but I still feel the expansionist imperatives would have prevailed, whoever was in the White House.
The slavery issue was already part of the reason the Anglo rebelled; they wanted to be able to bring their slaves in from the Land of the Free without risk of losing them. as things stood, the Mexican authorities would not allow the return of runaways. The new nation of Texas in effect re-established slavery (uniquely in modern history). I don't think a re-affirmation of Mexican law, or its firmer enforcement, would have changed the balance of views in the USA at the time.
As a parrallel situation where an abortive rebellion and intervention did not change the economic imperatives and led to a later war and annexation, you might care to consider the events in Southern Africa some sixty years later. -
Message 12
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Both the US North and South had their respective expansion plans, as much as to advance their economic interests as to keep the balance within the US Senate. While the push into Mexico benefited the South more directly, the North was eyeballing the Oregon Country which they claimed extended to 54-40 North latitude - i.e., all of modern British Columbia. "54-40 or Fight" was the catchphrase in the Northern newspapers of the time. That the NC-born, TN-raised PotUS James Polk resolved the Oregon dispute without war marks him as a rare bird of statecraft.
-
Message 13
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Interesting suggestion, but I still feel the expansionist imperatives would have prevailed, whoever was in the White House.Β
Perfectly possible, bur not certain. After all, in the same era it was widely expected that Cuba would eventually become US territory. Indeed, from a geographical standpoint its acquisition probably made more sense than Alaska's. Yet it never happened.
And while expansionist sentiment certainly existed, there was quite a bit of opposition too. After all, the Resolution to annex Texas squeaked through the Senate by a bare 27-25, though both President Tyler and President-elect Polk were strongly in favour. And once Mr Polk started his war, voters expressed their doubts by returning the Whig opposition to control of Congress in 1846, and rejecting the strong expansionist Lewis Cass in 1848. Expansionist sentiment was indeed powerful, but not overwhelmingly so.
An interesting point is what happens about Oregon in this situation. Presumably, Americans don't stop migrating there just because the Texas rebellion has failed. Indeed, it may gain some Southerners who might otherwise have gone to Texas (even as was, its Senator Joseph Lane was a transplanted Virginian). So the US probably still acquires it at about the same time. How does this affect attitudes in the North? Having got most of the expansion which they wanted, would they feel any interest in promoting Southern claims against Mexico? Does the sectional crisis perhaps start another way, with Southerners threatening secession if the US doesn't attack Mexico?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.