Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Important Primary Source for the Texas Revolution, August 1, 2009
This review is from: General Vicente Filisola's Analysis of Jose Urrea's Military Diary: A Forgotten 1838 Publication by an Eyewitness to the Texas Revolution (Hardcover)
This is perhaps the most biased book I have ever read (except for one by Al Franken), but this one is historically important and actually adds significantly to our knowledge of the Texas War for Independence. General Jose Urrea was a native Mexican in command of the forces that captured the inept Fannin and his three hundred and eighty-four men near Goliad plus the hundred under Ward at Refugio. He was also the one who had the Texas prisoners summarily executed. General Vincente Filisola was an Italian who moved to Spain at an early age, entered the Spanish army at the age of fifteen in 1799, and came to Mexico in 1811. In 1821 he was a Colonel and supported Iturbide during the Mexican War for Independence. He was made a Division General in 1833, and after Santa Anna's defeat at San Jacinto was the senior Mexican general in Texas.
Following San Jacinto and the consolidation of the remaining Mexican detachments, Filisola made the decision to retreat south to Matamoros. The reasons for this decision, made in an unhurried fashion, were several: the Texas Navy had captured Filisola's supplies coming from New Orleans (of all places) that he needed, the Texans had employed a policy of "scorched earth" that left him dependent on his long supply line, his army was in need of rest and refurbishment, there was concern over the fate of Santa Anna and the San Jacinto prisoners if the Mexicans pressed onwards (it was assumed the Texans would pay the Mexicans back for Goliad and the Alamo), and the unstable political situation in Mexico City. Urrea later said he opposed the retreat, but nonetheless, his division outraced all others in reaching Matamoros.
What makes this book important is that Urrea attacked Filisola in a letter to the Mexican Government and later published a diary highly critical of Filisola and his actions. Urrea became the darling of the hotheads that wanted to wreak revenge on the Texans for the insult of San Jacinto, and with his record of murdering Texans he was their logical choice. Filisola rose to the challenge against his honor, defended himself successfully at an inquiry, and wrote this rebuttal of Urrea's diary. Instead of the Mexican Army preparing itself for a second Texas campaign, it became totally absorbed in the war of words between the two generals and effectively paralyzed. The two generals came to hate each other, but the feud was a boon to historians since the actions were debated in great detail. In this work Filisola quotes long passages from Urrea's diary and refutes them point by point. Many times, of course, invective takes over, but Filisola makes many telling points and excellent analyses. It is for the reader, therefore, to separate the wheat from the chaff -- which is not difficult with the aid of notes by editor Dimmick.
It is also important to understand that the Mexican Army tended to support the Centralist faction in Mexican politics (Santa Anna's party), and Santa Anna's defeat threatened to plunge Mexico again into chaos if the Federalist areas seized the opportunity to revolt or challange the Centralist power. Urrea clearly exhibited Federalist leanings and later fought hard for them politically. Although Filisola never actually aligned himself with the Centralists, he was a Scottish Rite Mason, and the Scottish Rite Masons supported the Centralists while the more liberal York Rite Masons supported the Federalists. Ah, such is politics.
Another important factor was that the senior officers of the army tended to support Filisola in the feud while the younger officers supported Urrea. Filisola was exonerated for his actions in ordering the retreat, and was restored to his command of the Mexican Army of the North to prepare for a second campaign in Texas. Fortunately for the Texans, the feud with Urrea prevented him from directing his attention to his job rather than defending his honor. In the final analysis, the Texans received this book rather than a second invasion.
A careful reading of Filisola's polemic reveals not only flaws in Urrea's tactics and actions, but also Filisola's when he skates over some of the charges by Urrea. The Editor's Conclusions are important to add context and even some conspiracy theory making the book more enjoyable. It is almost as if Ann Coulter was dissecting Al Franken and unable to control herself when opportunities for outrageous rants presented themselves. Still, there was much to learn and even enjoy.
I recommend this work to all historians interested in Mexican and Texan history. It goes far to explain why Texas was able to survive -- the Mexican Army was tied up in an internal feud that kept them from mounting a second campaign. Texas was perhaps more fortunate than it deserved. It was the same as if the Howe brothers had became so embroiled in a feud with Clinton, Cornwallis and Burgoyne that the British never were able to come back to American after being expelled from Boston. Sometimes history truly does turn on personalities.
Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Loaded with Texas Revolution History, June 8, 2010
I first became aware of Gregg Dimmick's "General Vicente Filisola's Analysis of Jose Urrea's Military Diary" (2007 328 page paperback) at a San Jacinto Symposium in the University of Houston. That annual meeting, on the Saturday before April 21st, gathers scholars to talk Texas history and, in 2009, hear Dimmick's lecture on the book's composition. His edit (first time in English) of General Filisola's blistering argument with General Urrea is destined to be a Texas Revolution classic.
Filisola's diary is the intimate portrayal of the routed Mexican army's miserable withdrawal from Texas during the weeks after Santa Anna's San Jacinto defeat. With Sam Houston's capture of the Generalissimo, second-in-command Filisola was left to direct the troops remaining in Texas. His commanding general's journal, here, is an intimate review of the people of, movements in, and decisions for Mexico's reluctant departure from the Texas Revolution.
This Mexican, of Italian descent, general's chief aim is to refute the various claims, charges, and accusations made by one of his under-generals, Jose Urrea, upon the army's arrival back below the Rio Grande. Filisola goes to great length to defend his actions through the months of retreat (from April 25th to June 12th, 1836). By the end, their feud thankfully produced loads of Texas revolutionary war history.
Dimmick's is a brilliant editing effort with this complex and lengthy diary. Filisola tends to be verbose, petulant, and arrogant. He refutes Urrea's claims and insinuations (General Urrea had reported Filisola to the Mexican Ministry of War with an agenda for assuming command with his superior's dismissal) with excruciating detail. His concern with the most minimal argument will irritate even the patient reader (in the end, at his court martial, Filisola was exonerated but Urrea received the command).
The text is well researched with over 220 footnotes, 40 pages of appendixes (these interesting documents include Filisola's military record, treasury records for the Mexican army's operations in Texas, and various letters between the arguing generals. Particularly outstanding are Dimmick's footnotes. Through these he tells history, identifies 21st century locations from the 19th century locales, and reflects on the generals' quarrel. This book is recommended to all students of Texas history, to Texas Revolution buffs, and to those with an interest in 19th century primary source research.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1.0 out of 5 stars
PR for Filisola, July 3, 2011
This text has been out for awhile, however, its translation into English has bought nothing to the scholarship of the Texas War of 1836. The Mexicans withdrew back to Matamoros after San Jacinto, when there was no real need to do so, because of Filisola's order to withdraw, at the orders of a captured general, Santa Anna. Hence, Filisola was court martialed in February of 1837 for his rash orders to withdraw from Texas. This text adds nothing new, and one could have gotten all the basic elements of the case by reading Filisola's 1837 Manifesto, which was filled with his excuses on why he had Texas abandoned by Mexican forces. Remember, ONLY the Mexican vanguard was destroyed at San Jacinto, and NOT the Mexican army. And now Houston was burdened with over 500 prisoners, the only military action the 3,200 man Mexican main force had to do, since they were only 40 miles away from SJ, was to attack Houston camp. Instead, Filisola grew fearful, and ordered the army back to Matamoros at the orders of a captured general! It was Filisola's fault that Texas was lost. Most of the Mexican commanders wanted to advance, now that Houston was located, and guarding those prisoners, but as General Urrea wrote in his own 1837 Manifesto, Filisola, "became fearful and saw things that weren't there." The rest is history folks.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
|
