Date: 14 Dec 1997
Although I admit to having studied the Battle of Bexar more as a prelude or scene setter for the coming conflicts than a conflict of it's own, I will take a stab at this subject to perhaps stir up some goodhearted (or is that heated?) Debate.
I think that the two main points that can be made about the Texican campaign on Bexar and attack of its government garrison are that:
1) The attack got Santa Annaâs attention at a time when he was in the business of putting down insurrection and killing rebels. He had an army in the field doing just that and if the insolents up in Texas wanted a piece of that, why not.
2) This next point coincided with the first in a dangerous way. The Battle of Bexar was all too easy for the rebels. And because of that a false sense of Yankee superiority in things manly was perpetuated. This easiness was manifested not only in the physical outcome of the battle but in the fielding of the rebel army as well. Volunteers were numerous and highly motivated. Leaders were popular and seemed to want to work together. Unfortunately this charmed state wouldnât last.
Jeff Pendleton
From: Ronnie Garcia
Date: January 6, 1998
That unfortunately it created a permanent division between two peoples. It brings to mind, when NAFTA was signed. Why at the old German school, why not the Alamo... let's mend the fences.
Ronnie Garcia
From: Wallace L. McKeehan
Date: January 25, 1998 at 12:24:08
"Remember Bexar" should be an equally strong symbolic cry against corruption,
greed, dictatorship and for self-determination as "Remember La Bahia",
"Remember the Alamo."
This writer agrees with Alwyn Barr in Texans in Revolt: The Battle for San Antonio 1835, who contends that the significance of the struggle for Bexar (Concepcion, Grass Fight and Siege and Battle of Bexar combined) is equal to or greater to that of the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto whose glamour and myths have shadowed it. The taking of Bexar shaped the future course of the Texas Revolution.
The struggle for San Antonio:
1. demonstrated that Texian volunteers and minutemen could come together with elected leaders and battle plans in successful common cause against racist militaristic dictatorship, oppression and despotism.
2. showed that Texian patriots were not alone in their struggle and could rely on response and performance of volunteers from the United States. This, of course, contributed to Mexican government officials? paranoia that the Texas rebellion was due to outside influences, an ancient and current political ploy by despots to justify "deguello."
3. demonstrated unity between Tejano patriots (distinguished them from Tories), Anglo-Mexican Texian colonists and U.S. volunteers (many who would become Texans forever) in concept and on the battlefield. Having held back from active participation in the Texas Consultations of 1832 and 1833 along with the majority of loyal Anglo-Mexican DeWitt Colonists, Sons of DeWitt , Bexarenos and Tejanos became active participants, e.g. the Capts. Juan Seguin and Placido Benevides and their men. Loyalty or neutrality based on birthright and race rather than principles was challenged more than ever before. Unnoticed by most historians is also the unity and contribution exhibited by black Texians Hendrick Arnold and Greenberry Logan and probably others unnamed, both free and bonded.
4. demonstrated the vulnerability of a well-trained professional and potentially honorable Mexican army when they are in support of despotic goals, do not have the support of the local population and are far from their supply sources. Mexican army desertions not to mention effect on morale of sympathizers to the Federalist cause played no small part. Jose Maria Gonzales? appeal to Federalist sentiments among the Mexican troops is thought to have had impact.
In specifics the struggle:
1. was a training exercise, test of motive and predictor of performance for militiamen and junior officers like Bowie, Travis and Fannin that became later commanders with varying degrees of success. Fannin and Travis were around, but did they really actively participate or have any impact? Fannin and Travis were not there with Old Ben Milam at the final assault. Barr argues that only Bowie showed leadership potential worthy of promotion at Bexar, e.g. organization of defense at Concepcion and cavalry action at the Grass Fight. Over 80 at Bexar died with the above three and all achieved heroic martyr status for the cause independent of the debatable strategic correctness of their commands. The action was also a training ground for future successful military and political leaders, always colorful and controversial, examples like Ed Burleson, William Cooke, Frank Johnson, Juan Seguin and Thomas Ward (lost a leg in the battle).
2. was an addition to the evidence that empresario Don Esteban (Stephen) Austin stands head and shoulders above any other individual in Texas history as truly the "father of Texas" who charted it?s citizens transition from colonial Mexican to independent Republicans, always with the welfare of Texans in mind. In six weeks, Austin put together a successful fighting force beginning in Gonzales despite his poor health after imprisonment in Mexico. Pressed harder and harder by hawk extremists Austin "had only limited military experience, like Abraham Lincoln a generation later the Texan leader quickly came to understand the need to defeat the opposing army" to save the Texas "union" (quotes from Barr). Austin realized the importance of removal of the enemies base from the historic capital of Texas.
3. showed the toll taken on local citizens (Bexarenos), both stress on loyalties and daily life, when their homes are the actual battleground. DeWitt Colony leaders were "happy," after confrontation over the cannon, to see the field move from Gonzales to Bexar (Gonzales was burned by Houston's army after the Alamo defeat).
As pointed out by another contributor on this issue, there is evidence that the successes of Anahuac, Velasco, Nacogdoches (Sons of DeWitt, Gonzales and now Bexar caused an underestimation of the Mexican army and its resolve despite its misguided leadership.) One of Fannin's men after capture at Goliad is quoted as admitting that his former experience in fighting Mexicans had led him to "contempt for them as soldiers, and led him to neglect to take precautionary measures as were requisite." Barr remarks "perhaps Fannin should have stayed through the attack on Bexar, he might have gained a more realistic assessment of his adversaries." He may have been riding on the coattails of Bowie in the action at Bexar. Barr points out that Cos conducted a careful defense of Bexar doing his best to conserve minimal supplies and support. Ugartechea and Navarro peformed an unbelievable forced march to bring replacements with their untrained troops. Commander Nicolas Condelle of the Morelos Battalion led the most tenacious defense and argued against surrender to the last.
An interesting question related to "How would you evaluate Sam Houston as a military commander?" is where was Sam Houston during the struggle for Bexar? He is known to have visited the volunteer army at Salado Creek in late October. Why did Houston overall have such an aversion to Bexar to the extent that he hardly ever appears there in his career from beginning to end? Theories are (a) that Houston sought command and political glory from the beginning and the Bexar troops did not turn to him for leadership. Early on he saw himself in competition with Austin for leadership and power and Austin clearly was the chosen leader of the struggle for Bexar; (b) he was doubtful of the value of the campaign as he was with defense of the Alamo. Houston cronies at Bexar appear to be those opposed to the battle plans of Austin and Burleson; or (c) at that time in 1835 Houston was simply not interested in the history or future of Texas relative to advancing his personal fortune in the Texas land of opportunity.
According to Francis R. Lubbock in Six Decades in Texas the Battle of Bexar was "the most glorious feat of arms of the Texas Revolution." Richard Santos in Six Flags of Texas says "the departure of the forces under Cos was the turning point in the struggle for Texas independence. Hereafter, all Mexican troops in Texas would be invaders, not defenders, and Texas was destined to remain Texan evermore." Mexican officer Sanchez Navarro who later fought at the Alamo may have been referring to more than the immediate battle of Bexar when he commented "All has been lost save honor!"
Wallace L. McKeehan
Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas