1) The guy dilly daddles for 2-3 days waiting on a party to arrrive when he was given strict orders to vacate to Victoria
2) He finally pulls out at the pace of a snail
3) Along the way stops to rest for an hour when they were only about 5 miles from a wooden area and relative safety
4) When confronted by the enemy instead of making a mad dash to safety which is in full view he decides to round everyone up and fight it out in the open

Granted, at this point he showed great valor. But man before that the guy was an absolute dunce. It was as if he wanted to lose.

[This message has been edited by ce1994 (edited 5/29/2013 9:54a).]

Well Urrea had him shot in the face, so there's that.

No, just an indecisive idiot. History is full of them. Usually someone better dies at their hands.

The mad dash gets everybody killed in the open by the Mexican cavalry, who were quite formidable throughout the war----except when they dismounted and watered their horses in Buffalo Bayou.

The mad dash would be over open country and would require leaving their cannon, which they prized. They did not know how many Mexicans were around when they stopped.

He had scouts out on horseback but they failed miserably, mistaking the distant, flanking Mexican cavalry for wild horses.

I've spent a good amount of time in and around Coleto Creek and I don't know that getting there would have changed anything. They are in the woods, which was a good place to be but they still have no place to go. If they try to sneak off they get killed getting away.

He was a disaster as a commander, as were most of the rebel leaders, Houston excepted.

I am reading a book by Stephen Hardin and people back then did not hold Houston in such high regard. Many thought he was a coward and also let those men die at the Alamo to strengthen his political position. Houston reportedly even went so far as to state that he felt Travis and Fannin were not telling the truth and there were no Mexican forces in Texas at the time.

One thing I did not know. After surrendering Fannin actually was allowed to go to port and seek passage on a ship to New Orleans. But yes, ending up getting shot in the face with your watch stolen and burned would not rank high on my to do list.

Ce, I've found Hardin to be pretty anti-Houston in my readings. Other historians I've read seem to have a more favorable view of him.

Hardin is decidedly anti-Houston and it almost makes me question anything he writes, even though I believe his research to be good.

From the limited reading I have had of Hardin he takes direct quotes from people of that time that did not think highly of Houston. Maybe he is taking only the negative snippets and leaving out anything positive. But from some of the quotes I have read in Texas Illiad people did not think much of Houston. He was big and he was a close associate of Andrew Jackson which back then meant a ton. But he was a notorious drunk and as a military strategist was sorely lacking in imagination. It took Santa Anna making a foolish mistake for him to even attack.

Frankly I am in no scholastic position to have an educated opinion on Houston. I am just an enthusiast that likes to read while riding a stationary bike. With that, my strong opinion is there was no reason for Houston to burn down Gonzales and in doing so made him little better than Santa Anna. IMO Houston had every intention to cross the Sabine into Louisiana without ever engaging the Mexican forces. Of course that was probably a smart move in that Urrea was lurking out there in the coastal prairies and was ready to pincer the Texians.

I am enjoying the discussion lads. There are some highly learned people on this board and thank goodness we do not resort to mud slinging like they do on the politics board.

Waiting for your opponent to make a foolish mistake can be one sign of a good tactician. The people who bad mouthed him all wanted to rush into the maws of Santa Anna's army immediately. IN retrospect, that does not seem such a good idea.

Houston was cautious, which is often a good tactic. Travis and FAnnin were not cautious.

Fannin was not cautious? Fannin was afraid of his own shadow.

There were two Fannins. There was strategic Fannin, who advocated bold attacks and hopeless campaigns into Mexican territory. Then there was the tactical and operational Fannin who couldn't really control his men, didn't train them, and didn't deploy them well. This Fannin comes across as incompetent and cowardly. In his defense, Houston was telling him to retreat closer to the main army. Against that, however, was Fannin's poor grasp of the Mexican deployments in his area and his trepidation to move in any decisive direction.

ce, I could be way off here, but it seems to me that your opinion of Houston is being heavily influenced by a book, written by a man who is decidedly anti-Houston.

quote:

---

there was no reason for Houston to burn down Gonzales

---

Denying your enemey the benefit of anything left behind is a pretty good reason, ask Napoleon about that.

Son of 73:

I do not have a negative opinion of Houston. I think he was human and therefore prone to mistakes and hubirs. But he was a hero of Texas and deserves the praise he receives. If Fannin had made it out of Goliad I think Houston would have stood his ground then and there. But Fannin did not and Houston rightly decided not to sacrifice everything. One battle did ultimately win the war but that was only because he captured the supreme commander. If not for that the Mexicans would have whipped our hides. Houston without question made the right call. It just appears from Hardin's perspective he had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

I compare Houston favorable with Washington. Washington was a fool as a general but got dang lucky. Same with Houston. But their respective strengths lay in their leadership. They kept the ship afloat.

Again, that is only my amatuer assessment. I just like reading.

I would disagree with your assessment of Washington, but that's for another topic.

Houston, like most American generals prior to WWI, was thrown from small commands and insignificant posts (many, many years before) into an extremely difficult and fluid situation. Just as Grant, Washington, Sherman, and other great American leaders made a series of early mistakes or miscalculations, it took Houston time to understand his army and his subordinates. Neither of which were of much value. In truth, Houston was probably not cautious enough given the absolutely atrocious nature of discipline and martial knowledge in his army. He needed time for a Valley Forge and he didn't have it. He did get very lucky at San Jacinto, but good generals have ways of creating those lucky scenarios. Houston played his cards close, thought strategically rather than tactically, and took advantage of his enemy's mistakes. All while leading a significantly inferior force. I'd say that makes him a pretty damn good general.

If you want to read about Houston from someone who is decidedly anti-Houston, read the diary of Anson Jones. Loathe is not a strong enough word for his hatred.

I don't think any of us can quite comprehend what Houston was up against. He left Gonzales with 370 men, and as he moved East only then did his ranks begin to swell to 600 at the Colorado, and ultimately a little over 1,000 at the Brazos. ALL for the most part were mere volunteers with no experience as a fighting force. Meanwhile, Santa Anna has designed a pretty sound plan to go after Houston dividing his force into 3 columns...all equipped with artillery and cavalry, and any one of them was larger than Houston's command. Just what was he supposed to do? Even if he turned to face his foe, Houston had NO artillery and NO trained cavalry.....it would have been an attack or defense made by undisciplined light infantry....Santa Anna could quickly close in and finish him off! Houston, despite many critics, none harsher than Pres. Burnet who referred to him as a "coward" , an "imbecile" and a "fop" did the only thing he could do under the circumstances....run! And run until he could get his men some sense of training, and draw Santa Amna's supply lines thin enough to snap, and wait to turn the tables! I admire him for keeping it together under the circumstances despite the criticism (from even his own officers)....until he got a window of opportunity.....was he lucky? You better believe it, but I think he handled it well under the circumstances!!

[This message has been edited by Bighunter43 (edited 5/30/2013 11:01p).]

I do not question Houston was up against it. If he had went after it at any time prior to when he didnit would have been game, set and match. But just for discussion did he really want to fight or did his men drag him to the battlefield.

I spent most of the night reading more Hardin. Yes, he is decidedly anti-Houston. I am going to balance my reading with some pro-Houston reading to get a balanced view.

With any military leader, your going to get conflicting views. Much of what was written during the time by his critics was extremely "biased". Burnet, Jones, Lamar, Baker, etc. Much of it would later be written for political reasons. I dont think there is any doubt that Houston wanted to fight. (Although, I have read that at the crossroads of going further East towards Nacogdoches or South towards Harrisburg and Santa Anna, that it wasn't Houston who pointed towards Harrisburg, but his men who were out front who turned that way without his acknowledgement, leaving him no choice but to fight.) Is that what your are referring to? Do you think he was a coward? You ought to read about the Battle of Horshoe Bend against the Red Stick Indians in the War of 1812. Houston led Andrew Jackson's direct assault on their breastworks and was shot 4 times. I don't think his bravery comes into question. During the Battle of San Jacinto he was definetly out front and very involved in the final assault...and of course, the rest is History!!

CE, if I sounded critical, that was not my intent. As a history teacher, I am glad to see people reading history on their own for enjoyment!

Most of the founders of Texas were vain, petty men with self aggrandizing agendas. Houston was not petty.

If you want to read a good pro Houston book published recently, try James Haley's.

The best American biography ever written in my not humble opinion was about Houston and it won a pulitzer decades ago. The Raven by Marquis James has been in print since it was published in 1929. James wanted to write a bio of Andrew Jackson, which he did, but fell in love with Houston.

His life of Jackson also won a Pulitzer..

The Raven also has the best written closing of any book Ihave ever read, even better than Lonesome Dove.



Re Washington: he won by not losing. The Brits could never trap him and Burke and the anti war faction in the Parliament and the extremely high cost of fighting a long distance war finally won the war for the colonies.

Houston was also the sane fellow who prevented the idiots from killing Santa Anna. That seems the obvious sane thing now but at the time he was widely denounced for it.

He also opposed secession and told the idiots what was going to happen. To reward him for his prescience they removed him from office and proceeded on their grand adventure and ultimate destruction.

Son of 73:

I like this board and everyone on here has a more than average opinion on things. I want to know what others think and feel. I enjoy the discourse. We are all friends here IMO. Absolutely no ill feelings toward your post my friend.

I do not think Houston was a coward. At San Jacinto he had more than one horse shot out from under him. Houston had huge balls. But yes I am referencing his intent not to turn toward Harrisburg but rather toward safety. Again I am in no real position to argue anyone on this board because I have frankly not read enough on the matter. My son is out of school next week and we are going on a Texas Independence jaunt before it gets too hot and I am educating myself to impart some knowledge his way. He is still young enough to think I am the greatest.

Back to Houston. It is easy for me right now to place my life on the line. But it would be hard for me to place others in danger. That is why I am not cut out to give orders but I can sure take them and administer them effectively. It takes a special man to order men to their deaths.

Again, I am more pro Houston than anti. But IMO Hardin does bring up some good points. One thing he does write about in some words but never actually says it is that he feels Houston was drunk at San Jacinto and was sleeping off a heavy dose of drinking. Of course back then that was par for the course I suppose but it quite damaging today.

quote:

---

Re Washington: he won by not losing. The Brits could never trap him and Burke and the anti war faction in the Parliament and the extremely high cost of fighting a long distance war finally won the war for the colonies.

---

Again, really made for another topic, but I had to address this. Look at his campaign plans and tell me he merely won by not losing. His campaigns in New Jersey, particularly the Trenton/Princeton campaign and the Monmouth Campaign, were very well executed and very daring moves. Yes, his early campaigns in 1775 and 1776 were disasters. Yes, he did not risk his army in battle after 1777, but he directed the overall American strategy and made sure that Greene became the Southern Department commander after Gates had his ass handed to him. It was fashionable to call him a military genius in the 19th century. It's become fashionable to call him a lucky idiot since WWII. He was neither, but he was an extremely effective general and certainly not a pushover.

SapperAg:

Sorry but it is not revisionist history IMO to view Washington in a bad light as far as his military prowess. Granted, he did not have the overall firepower of his opponent but he almost on more than one occasion lost the whole thing. The best that could be said for him is he knew how to retreat in an orderly fashion. Getting out of New York was brilliant but the campaign prior to that was just asking to get smoked. And yes the New Jersey campaign was effective.

I used the comparison of Washington v. Houston in that both were "fathers" of countries but their contribution was more inspiration than military know how. Just my two cents and they are not even worth that.

sapper: I should have said he won the war by not losing his army. I did not mean to suggest he was not an adroit commander.

Houston whether he knew it or not was following Sun Tzu's The Art of War theory.

Your men will fight to the death if their backs are to the wall !

Houston 's army had the bayou to their rear making retreat out of the question as I remember.

Attacking the Mexicans was really the only course of action !

Well then Santa Anna was in the same boat except he did not blow the only bridge out of there up.

Houston knew he had only one shot to take on Santa Anna for obvious reasons. Had he engaged Santa Anna earlier and failed, he and his entire army would have been put to the sword. Houston would have drug Santa Anna all the way to Louisiana in order to get him where he wanted. He just happen to get put into the position earlier than he intended.

Fannin and his army was a victim of his own doing. His demise, as already described, pretty much answers the inital question

[This message has been edited by Rabid Cougar (edited 5/31/2013 9:25p).]

Giap won by not losing, too. As warfare evolves this is becoming a more pervasive strategy.

quote:

---

Most of the founders of Texas were vain, petty men with self aggrandizing agendas. Houston was not petty.

If you want to read a good pro Houston book published recently, try James Haley's.

The best American biography ever written in my not humble opinion was about Houston and it won a pulitzer decades ago. The Raven by Marquis James has been in print since it was published in 1929. James wanted to write a bio of Andrew Jackson, which he did, but fell in love with Houston.

His life of Jackson also won a Pulitzer..

The Raven also has the best written closing of any book Ihave ever read, even better than Lonesome Dove.



Re Washington: he won by not losing. The Brits could never trap him and Burke and the anti war faction in the Parliament and the extremely high cost of fighting a long distance war finally won the war for the colonies.

Houston was also the sane fellow who prevented the idiots from killing Santa Anna. That seems the obvious sane thing now but at the time he was widely denounced for it.

He also opposed secession and told the idiots what was going to happen. To reward him for his prescience they removed him from office and proceeded on their grand adventure and ultimate destruction.

---

Good points Huisache

Fanin was no dunce. He was the only soldier in the Texas Revolution who attended West Point.

He was in an impossible position for a number of reasons. The "rabble" mentality of the Texas armies meant that the leader never really could lead on his own. He was always being pulled by or appeasing his own army.

His force was in a good decision, but the cries from the Alamo were hard to ignore. They made the decision, and probably Fannin, like Houston, didn't march with a lot of haste because he feared getting caught in the Alamo trap.

quote:

---

Fanin was no dunce. He was the only soldier in the Texas Revolution who attended West Point.

---

So you're saying he drove a cool car as a butter bar, was socially awkward, delegated real work and had no common sense?

At least he had an awesome ring with magic powers!

In Fannin's case then why not follow the direct order from Houston and get the heck out of there as quickly as possible?