Subject: Santa Anna at the Alamo
From: Emerson Basil
Date: 01/ 20/00

I am 14 years old and I am participating in a mock trial. In this I am a prosecutor. I am supposed to be prosecuting Santa Anna on account of whether or not he is guilty of war crimes [of] having Davy Crockett and William Travis executed. I'm not sure whether he committed any crime or not at the Alamo. I read your War Room thing about [it], but I['m] still a little unclear. I would really appreciate your opinion on the matter.

Emerson Basil
Dallas, Texas

See:December 1999 WAR ROOM: Should [Santa Anna] have been tried and executed at San Jacinto?

If you read the War Room on this subject, you know the opinions differ as much as the people who wrote them. In a real trial, the judge would admonish the jury to set aside their personal feelings and determine if any laws were broken. Your job as a prosecutor is to prove the guilt, in this case, of General Santa Anna.

First you must establish under which laws you will be trying him. Pre-independance or post-independance. What laws were in effect?

Before independence, Texas was still part of Mexico, so Mexican law prevailed. Let's remember that one of the reasons that the revolution happened in the first place was because Santa Anna set aside the Mexican Constitution of 1824 , thus making himself the absolute ruler of Mexico.

That constitution held certain guarantees of freedom and of representation. Without these, Texas colonists were little more than prisoners in their own land. So, before Texas independence, Santa Anna made the rules. I doubt that you could have gotten a conviction.

Furthermore, his defense attorney would have argued that Santa Anna's actions were to protect his country from revolutionaries and invaders and that the atrocities committed at the Alamo and at Goliad were no worse than those in any other war. They will say that the casualties at the Alamo were by military standards insignificant. In fact, Santa Anna himself referred to this action as "a small affair."

But let's say you did try him under the laws of the new Republic. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas came into effect on 17th of March 1836. Article IV, Section 13 states:

"The congress shall, as early as practicable, introduce, by statute, the common law of England, with such modifications as our circumstances, in their judgment, may require; and in all criminal cases the common law shall be the rule of decision."
Ah!...Established law. This gives you something to work with. So, after the Texians' victory at San Jacinto, did Mexican law became null and void in Texas?

Section 1 of theConstitution's Schedule it states:

"That no inconvenience may arise from the adoption of this constitution, it is declared by this convention that all laws now in force in Texas, and not inconsistent with this constitution, shall remain in full force until declared void, repealed, altered, or expire by their own limitation."
The Texians would have been well within their rights to try Santa Anna for war crimes, but as it was pointed out in the War Room:
"If Houston had allowed Santa Anna's execution, a new president/dictator would have arisen in Mexico many hundreds of miles away and not under the control of the foundling government in Texas. By keeping Santa Anna alive, many concessions were made by him that would not have been possible if Texas had been dealing with another person in power who was also giving orders to the armies present in Texas."
If we judge Santa Anna by the rules of basic humanity he is most certainly guilty. Your job as prosecutor is to prove that Santa Anna's actions disregarded basic human rights and exceeded those required to legally quell a revolution.

--The Editor

2nd Response --Read On


This sounds like an interesting project and I wish you luck with it. One element of the Santa Anna on Trial debate that seems to be missing is the simple fact that Mexico had passed legislation in December, 1835 to stop any foreign involvement in its internal affairs. Referred to in Texas history as the Tornel Decree after Mexican Secretary of Defense and Marine José María Tornel. This December 30, 1835 decrees was in response to the attempt by American and European Volunteers from New Orleans invasion attempt of Tampico. That invasion, launched under the banner of uniting Mexican Federalists, met with total disaster, and those who were captured pleaded that they had been misled and thought they were heading to Texas (little matter, since both Tampico and Texas were part of Mexico anyway). The prisoners were tried and executed, despite much protest from American and English charge de affairs. That event, coupled with the large number of American citizens marching off to assist Texas, set up the mechanical means for the Tornel Decree to be issued.

The basics of the document are simple: if you are not a Mexican citizen, and you get caught under arms fighting against the Mexican Government on Mexican soil, you will be treated like a pirate and adventurer under the discretion of the Mexican Republic.

The Tornel Decree gave the Mexican Army marching back into Texas in February, 1836 the force to deal with what the national government now considered foreign rebels. Right or wrong, Mexico felt it could take what means it needed to stop a revolt in its own territory that was being supported by armed American citizens who were not colonists of Texas. At the Alamo, Santa Anna offered surrender at discretion or no quarter. At Goliad, there is a heck of a lot of confusion as to what Urrea and Fannin agreed to at the Texian surrender following the battle of the Coleto. However, Santa Anna did use the Tornel Decree to order the execution of Texian prisoners.

Of course, the argument can be made and should be made just how legal and moral was the Tornel Decree. Most of those who died due to its enforcement did not have any idea it had been issued. Urrea may have informed Fannin of this at the Coleto.

When you try to paper trail the publication of the Decree since its date of issue on December 30, 1835, you find that the frontier of Mexico had received copies of the decree within a couple of weeks. An imprint of it, dated January 14, 1836 from Nuevo Leon can be found in the Streeter Collection at Yale. It first appeared in American newspapers by 2/13/1836. The New Orleans Bee ran it, as part of an advisory from the Mexican consul there on that date. It ran for some 3 weeks. A March 9, 1836 edition of the Bee still carried it under the Consul issue date of 2/13/1836. The Texian papers apparently picked it up from the New Orleans Papers. The Brazoria Courier ran an identical version of the Bee notice on 3/9/1836. Of course, by then, all blazes were breaking out in Texas!

A side note. The Mexican Congress, despite being caught up in pro-Santa Anna victory fever, repealed the decree on April 14, 1836. Of course, it would have taken weeks for word to arrive to Mexican troops in the field. Perhaps the outcry from the Goliad Massacre may have caused this reversal.

In a final note, the anti-Santa Anna press in Mexico raised such an uproar over the Goliad Massacre that of 5/13/1837 Santa Anna himself requested an inquiry on what happened in regard to the executions there. The inquiry, which pulled in most of the players on the Mexican side, lasted from May 31-August 23, 1837. There was no final judgement in the inquiry, probably because it was more of a fact finding mission and that Santa Anna himself had requested it.

Kevin R. Young
READ NEXT COMMENT IN THREAD


Subject: The Alamo's Importance
Date: 01/23/00
From: Pat Schantz

What was the importance of the Alamo and its role in ending the war with Mexico and [in] Texas getting its freedom?

Pat Schantz
Pittsburgh, PA

This is a question that brings up various opinions and interpretations. I hope you are separating the Texas War for Independence from the US-Mexican War of 1846-1848. While related, they are two different historical events. However, most Mexican historians attempt to link the entire US, Spanish and Mexican contest for the Southwest into one long event.

I am a firm believer in time and place. I also believe that history is like a piece of fabric: you rip it on one end and the threads follow. Rip it another way and the threads go a whole different route. So, I feel that the Alamo is a significant part of the Texas War for Independence as an event. Without it and Goliad there would have been no fire in spirits of the men who fought San Jacinto. Fresh on their minds, the memories of both the Alamo and Goliad were key to the Texian's explosive resolve when they charged at San Jacinto.

I don't believe, because the documentation strongly suggests otherwise, that the Alamo garrison bought badly needed time for the rest of Texas to organize. Texian forces didn't really organize until the Texian Secretary of War, Tom Rusk, arrived at Houston's camp at Groce's Ferry. This was well after the Alamo had fallen and the Mexican Army's advance into the Texian colonies.

However, the impact of the Alamo and Goliad on popular opinion in the United States was most important. For even the strongest critic of Texas' move for independence felt compelled to support it following news of these two events. Nothing like a massacre excited the American public of the mid 19th century!

Of all the battles, I have personally felt that the Battle of Refugio was the battle that could have made a real difference in the conduct of the Texas. Refugio was fought after the Alamo and before the Coleto. Texian forces could have significantly spoiled the operation plan of the Mexican Army and seriously stopped General José Urrea's advance up the Texian Coastal Bend. Unfortunately, they didn't, and Refugio has become a side note in the overall Goliad Campaign. Although the Campaign was a political nightmare for the Mexican government, it was disastrous to the Texian cause.

Popular history and culture have made the men of the Alamo garrison the true heroes of Texas Independence. Of course they should be high on the list, for they, as individuals, were the first group of Texians to fight and die for the cause of political separation from Mexico. Despite all the claims that they died fighting for their rights as Mexican citizens, the majority of them were firmly committed to total independence (just read their letters).

It was the combination of the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto that lead to Texas Independence; at least from the Texian's, United States' and select European countries' perspective. For despite the Treaty of Velasco, Mexico did not recognize Texas as an independent nation.

Kevin R. Young

Previous Page | Main Menu | Next Page