(A repost from 2012, from my author blog – for the anniversary of Texas independence.)
The Texas Revolution and War for Independence from Mexico initially rather resembled the American Revolution, some sixty years before— a resemblance not lost on the American settlers in Texas. At the very beginning, both the Colonies and the Anglo-Texans were far-distant communities with a self-sufficient tradition, who had been accustomed to manage their own affairs with a bare minimum of interference from the central governing authority. Colonists and Anglo-Texans started off by standing on their rights as citizens, but a heavy-handed response by the central government provoked a response that spiraled into open revolt. ‘Since they’re trying to squash us like bugs for being rebellious, we might as give them a real rebellion and put up a fight,’ summed up the attitude.
The Mexican government, beset with factionalism and seeing revolt against its authority everywhere, sent an army to remind the Anglo-Texan settlers of who was really in charge. The rumor that among the baggage carried along in General Martin Cos’ train were 800 pairs of iron hobbles, with which to march selected Texas rebels back to Mexico, did not win any friends, nor did the general’s widely reported remarks that it was time to break up the foreign settlements in Texas. Cos’ army, which was supposed to re-establish and ensure Mexican authority, was ignominiously beaten and sent packing.
Over the winter of 1835-36 a scratch Texan army of volunteers held two presidios guarding the southern approaches from another attack, while representatives of the various communities met to sort out what to do next. First, they formed a shaky provisional government, and appointed Sam Houston to command the Army. Then, in scattershot fashion, they appointed three more officers to high command; it would have been farcical, if the consequences hadn’t been so dire. With no clear command, with military companies and commanders pursuing their own various plans and strategies, the Texas settlers and companies of volunteers were not much fitted to face the terrible wrath of the Napoleon of the West and President of Mexico, strongman, caudillo and professional soldier, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He did not wait for spring, or the grass to grow tall enough, or the deep mud to dry out: he intended to punish this rebellious province with the utmost severity. Under his personal command, his army reached the Rio Grande at Laredo in mid-February, and laid siege to a tumbledown former mission garrisoned by a scratch force of volunteers – San Antonio de Valero, called simply the Alamo. But this story is about the other presidio, and another garrison of Texans and volunteers: Bahia del Espiritu Santo, or Goliad.
Santa Anna had detached General Don Jose Urrea, with a force of about a thousand soldiers, a third of them heavy cavalry, to guard his eastern flank along the rivers and lowlands of the Gulf coast, and to mop up the Anglo-Texan garrisons at San Patricio and Goliad. A small force at San Patricio, which had embarked on an expedition to raid Matamoros— a scheme which can only and with charity described as half-assed— was surrounded and wiped out. Then it was the turn of Colonel James Fannin with 500 Texian and American volunteers at the presidio in Goliad. Three times couriers arrived from William Travis’ tiny garrison in the Alamo, begging for help and reinforcements from Fannin. The kindest thing one can say about Fannin is that he dithered indecisively. He was battered from each direction with bad news and the consequences of bad decisions, or even worse, decisions not made until they were forced upon him. He made an abortive attempt to march to San Antonio, to come to Travis’ aid – but turned back after a few miles, assuming that relief of the Alamo was just not possible. In the mean time, spurred by the knowledge that they must either fight, or go under to death or exile, a new convention of settlers met at Washington-on-the-Brazos, and declared independence on March 2. In short time they had drafted a constitution, elected an interim government, and commissioned Sam Houston as commander of what army was left.
Houston went to Gonzalez, intending to rally the settlers’ militia there and lift the siege of the Alamo. He arrived there on the very same day that news came that Santa Anna’s army had finally broken through the walls. Travis’ rag-tag collection of volunteers had held for fourteen days. They had bought time with their blood. Houston sent word to Fannin, still holed up in the old La Bahia presidio, ordering him to retreat north. But Fannin had sent out a small force to protect Anglo-Texan settlers in a nearby town, and refused to leave until he heard from them. When he finally decided to fall back, and join up with Houston, it was already too late. Urrea’s column had already made contact. Fannin and his men moved out of Goliad on March 19th, temporarily shielded by fog, but they were caught in the open, a little short of Coleto Creek. They fought in a classic hollow square, three ranks deep for a day and a night, tormented by lack of water, and the cries of the wounded. By daylight the next morning, Urrea had brought up field guns, and raked the square with grapeshot. Fannin signaled for a parley, and surrendered; he and his men believing they would be permitted honorable terms. They were brought back to Goliad and held under guard in the presidio for a week, along with some stragglers who had been rounded up in the neighborhood, and a party of volunteers newly arrived from the States.
Fannin and his men all assumed they would be disarmed, and sent back to the United States. Three English-speaking professional soldiers among Urreas’ officers assumed the same, and were appalled when Santa Anna sent orders that all the prisoners were to be executed. Urrea himself had asked for leniency and Colonel Portillo, the commander left in charge of Goliad was personally horrified at this development – but he obeyed orders. On Palm Sunday, March 27, 1836, those of Fannin’s garrison able to walk— about three hundred of them– were divided into three groups, and marched out of town in three different directions, before being shot down by their guards. Forty wounded were dragged into the courtyard in front of the chapel doors and executed as they lay on the ground. Fannin himself was shot last of all, knowing what had happened to his men. Reportedly he asked only that he not be shot in the face, that his personal belongings be sent to his family, and that he be given decent burial. He was executed at point blank range with a shot in the face, his belongings were looted and his body was dumped into a trench with those of others, and burnt, although many were left where they lay. A handful survived by escaping into the brush and down to the nearby river, during all the confusion. Another handful of prisoners were kept out of the columns, concealed in the Presidio by one of Portillo’s officers, or rescued by Francita Alavez, later called the Angel of Goliad, the common-law wife of Captain Telesforo Alavez.
Santa Anna, who until then had been thought of as a competent soldier and a more than usually slippery politician was thereafter branded a brute and — as he was decoyed farther and farther into Texas in pursuit of Sam Houston —an overreaching and arrogant fool. A month later, when Houston had finished falling back, and back and back, and training all the men who had gathered to him, he turned and fought and Santa Anna’s grand army disintegrated, as Houston’s men shouted “Remember the Alamo!” – and “Remember Goliad!”
(Presidio La Bahia’s Loreto Chapel stood for many years, although the citadel’s walls and barracks disintegrated over time. They were reconstructed, beginning in the 1960s. Today, it is the only significant location from the Texas War of Independence to still appear much as it did in 1836. My novel Adelsverein-The Gathering begins with a young Texan soldier escaping from that massacre. Daughter of Texas outlines the background to the Texan rebellion and the aftermath of the Alamo, and the Goliad Massacre.)
And the tiny canon? “Come and Take it.” I forget, but I appreciate the bumper stickers, patches, flags, etc. Saw one yesterday on a pickup’s rear window, “Come and take it, Joe”. I don’t think I could have tolerated “Come and take it, Word Salad”
Thanks for the recap, Happy Birthday Texas! “I wasn’t born here, but I got here as soon as I could” (another classic bumper sticker ’round here).
Death6
Thanks, Sgt. Mom, for sharing these inspiring tales of Texas history! I am happy to report that, just as it did when I was in 7th grade 56 years ago, Texas still requires a short course in Texas History in the 7th grade. My grandson recently finished his course and it was his favorite class.
T Migratorious,
Hard to believe the “professional” “educators” haven’t managed to ruin it. There may be hope after all.
Texas History was for a whole year for my 7th grade experience. The Texas Revolution was its centerpiece, although I also remember a long unit on Texas livestock, where we all wrote to Austin to get sets of huge color posters of various Texas cows mailed to our homes. Any Texan knows which one was featured.
Been to Goliad, seen the cannon. It’s dinky for something that deserves such reverence. And the story of its loss and rediscover is a hoot!
A heroic story. However, Santa Anna was in the right. Imagine the reverse. Say a large group of Mexican settlers came to the Indian Territories (Oklahoma) and settled upon agreement with the American authorities, who had “rightful” claim to the land. The agreement stipulated that the settlers swear allegiance to the American Constitution and the laws in effect. Imagine more and more Mexicans settling in this new territory that the settlers renamed “New Mexico” and soon outnumbered the Indian/American settlers. They start ignoring the American Constitution and instead develop their own laws, in effect, ruling the territory as an extension of Mexico. A new president takes office and declares he will reinstitute American laws and control on “New Mexico.” The New Mexicans revolt. Would not the American authorities have the right to to retake the territory with force?? Same story with Texas.
You left one thing out of your analogy. Suppose, in addition, the USA abandoned the US Constitution (as Santa Anna did the Constitution of 1824) and became a lawless dictatorship.
Fannin was an idiot. The Goliad monument is impressive but located next to a bunch of derelict trailers, it can be depressing.
Love your post. Especially since I am a direct descendant of the Angel of Goliad. I’ve heard the story since I was a child and when I took Texas History in seventh grade (about 45 years ago) was disappointed the book didn’t mention her. Check out the web page
https://angelofgoliad.org/?page_id=75
They have a reenactment of the massacre every spring now.
the Alamo was about – it was about a bunch of Democrats, a bunch of illegal alien immigrants – fighting to keep slavery alive in Texas. Why? Because that’s what Democrats always do, and that’s what they were doing at the Alamo, that’s what they were doing in the entire fight for Texas independence. They were fighting for the right to be Democrat slaveholders, and everyone at the time knew it.
“The prime cause, and the real objects of this war [the Texas Revolution], are not distinctly understood by a large portion of the honest, disinterested, and well-meaning citizens of the United States…. They have been induced to believe that the inhabitants of Texas were engaged in a legitimate contest for the maintenance of the sacred principles of Liberty, and the natural, inalienable Rights of Man: –whereas, the motives of its instigators, and their chief incentives to action, have been, from the commencement, of a directly opposite character and tendency…to wrest the large and valuable territory of Texas from the Mexican Republic, in order to re-establish the SYSTEM OF SLAVERY; to open a vast and profitable SLAVE-MARKET therein; and, ultimately, to annex it to the United States…. The Slaveholding Interest is now paramount in the Executive branch of our national government….” Benjamin Lundy, 1836
John Quincy Adams testified in the House of Representatives (Dec 1835) that Lundy was absolutely correct:
“And this is the nation with which, at the instigation of your Executive Government, you are now rushing into war, into a war of conquest; commenced by aggression on your part and for the re-establishment of slavery, where it has been abolished, throughout the Mexican Republic. For your war will be with Mexico—with a Republic of twenty four States, and a population of eight or nine millions of souls….
And again I ask, what will be your cause in such a war! Aggression, conquest, and the re-establishment of slavery where it has been abolished. In that war, sir, the banner of freedom will be the banners of Mexico; and your banners, I blush to speak the word, will be the banners of slavery.”
Every abolitionist of the age said the same thing:
“It is impossible for any honest man to wish success to Texas. All who sympathize with that pseudo republic hate liberty and would dethrone God.”
—abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, editor of The Liberator
In early 1836, the largest Texas force in the field, commanded by Colonel James Walker Fannin, was composed of over ninety percent of United States citizens. Even many of the Northerners in the US saw the danger Catholic freedom posed for the Protestant slaveholders. They saw Santa Ana’s insistence on freeing slaves as a direct threat to Southern and Western slave-holding states. The existence of a free Catholic Texas was an incitement to slave revolts throughout the South. The Texans at the Alamo were not freedom fighters, they were slavery fighters, as Democrats always are. When you put a halo around the Alamo, you defend illegal immigration, you defend slavers, you defend the use of violence in the name of, in the support of, illegal immigration and slavery.
I’m still furious over the Norman Conquest.
Santa Ana was most definitely NOT in the right. He was akin to Joachim Pieper at the Malmedy Massacre in 1944. Neither received the Execution by hanging they had earned. Santa Ana went on to a long life hawking Chickel/Chewing Gum in the US.
The Texan revolutionaries were the “Anglo-Texans”? Someone doesn’t know their Texas history at all!
Who defeated Cos and kicked him out of San Antonio (provoking Santa Anna to march north)? Juan Seguin (who was a legitimate bad-ass) and his Tejano troops. Who was the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas? Lorenzo de Zavala. Then look up Antonio Navarro, and explain the long list of Hispanic names on the lists of the Texan dead at the Alamo and Goliad.
The fact is that the Hispanic landowners in Texas hated the Mexican government’s despotism as much as the more recently-arrived Anglo settlers, and were a key part of the Texas Revolution. Now, what happened to the Tejanos (especially Juan Seguin) in the decades after the revolution (typically at the hands of Anglo-Americans who came to Texas after annexation) was despicable, and that history must be recognized. But to pretend that it was only “Anglo-Texans” who revolted is historically illiterate, as well as demeans the sacrifices and contributions of the Tejanos in the Texas Revolution.
(For the record, my family has been in Texas since before the revolution, and one member died at the Alamo.)
Well if there had been another war the us might well have taken northern mexico he was so inept and brutal as spelled out
Its a similar dynamic to what israel faced re the arab armies except israel gave up the sinai and parts of the west bank (foolishly imho)
Several commentators above have obviously confused Goliad, site of the massacre, and Gonzales, where the gun and the “Come and take it” flag were brandished. They are two separate places and incidents.
Cardano’s comment has elements of truth. Slavery was a factor in the motivation of some Texians in 1835-36. But not all, and probably not a majority. Many of the original settlers just wanted land, land that the former Spanish granted because of their desire to use the “Anglos” as a shield against brutal Comanche raids into Northern Mexico. Many if not most of the newly arrived Americans in 1836 were motivated by both a chance for land, a new life and were aware of the threat to liberty posed by Santa Ana and his supporters. For one small example, I’ve seen no evidence that Davy Crockett and his band were pro-slavery.
As has been pointed out, many Tejanos joined the new Texas Republic in their opposition to the illegitimate, reactionary Mexican constitution of 1835. Indeed, not only Texas revolted against the new constitution, but also the states of Alta California, Nuevo México, Tabasco, Sonora, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. (Wikipedia-Santa Ana). Just before marching his army to San Antonio, Santa Ana brutally put down the revolt in Zacatecas, a foreshadowing of no-quarter at the Alamo and the massacre at Goliad.
One thing I do disagree with the slavery is the sole motivation for the revolt in Texas theory is the direct or indirect claim that Santa Ana was some liberal, compassionate figure, a liberator of slaves. Yes, he and his wealthy backers opposed chattel slavery. Instead they held to the quasi-feudal hacienda system in which Europeans lorded over poor mestizo and Native American peasants. The peasants, tied to the land and kept uneducated and poor, were slaves in all but name, and remained so into the early 20th Century. Santa Ana was a corrupt, vengeful dictator whose policies ossified the Mexican economy and kept it poor for the next 180 years plus.
Clarification. Davy Crockett opposed slavery in the United States but did own slaves. He didn’t take any slaves to Texas.
Not one of America’s better diplomatic endeavors but Scott’s march from Vera Cruz to Mexico City–and R. E. Lee’s contribution–was a military masterpiece. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s expolits at Chapultepec are the stuff of legends.
Three years ago I took some of my grandkids to see the Battleship Texas on the last weekend before it was unmoored from the San Jacinto Battlefield/Monument site. Unknown to me the oldest had just been through 7th grade in El Campo, Tx. When we got to the battlefield with all the markers he knew every name and story of them all. I was so impressed as I had forgotten so much.
When I was young I listened to old man sitting on his porch in a small settlement on the west bank of the Brazos now called Thompsons. The name came from Thompson’s Ferry that was used by Sam Houston to make his run out east of Rosenberg to San Jacinto. That old dude would recite history like he was there when it occurred. Our family owned 75 acres on the other side of the river where Oyster Creek cut through and our dad took us to Thompson’s Ferry to let us hear him tell his tales.
So glad to have stumbled into this site. Thanks for hosting.
Thanks for the reminder!