Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [MexicanRevolution] Thanks for the info.

Expand Messages
  • Bob Gato
    There were several wooden legs that Santa Ana used. One was captured by the Indiana Volunteers in the wMexican-American War at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, and
    Message 1 of 37 , Sep 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      There were several wooden legs that Santa Ana used. One was captured by the Indiana Volunteers in the wMexican-American War at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, and was on display at the Indiana State Museum for a long time. Others were captured by different units at different times, including one that was captured in Texas at San Jacinto. Santa Ana's real leg is buried in the Basilica of Guadalupe along with his body. I thought it was the Cathedral, but he is in the Basilica. I went & looked. He leg used to have it's own shrine in the church of San Pedro. After all, he was Bienmerito de la Patria, and President 13 times.
      Douglas Nance
      Universidad Panamericana
      Mixcoac, Mexico

      lizandro lopez <lizandro101@...> wrote:
      It is my undesrtanding that the leg of Santana and with this i am refering to his wooden leg which he lost in the battle in the state of Veracruz. The leg is considered a priceless trophies to the MARINE'S headquarters and after the so called Mexican American war it was asked to be returned to MEXICO but they refused therefore is not in Mexico and again i am talking about a wooden leg


      kenneth simon <fpo09501@...> wrote:
      I had seen the jar in "Historia Grafica de la RM." as
      well as the ropas...sorry for the incorrect
      information.
      Atto Y SSS QBLM

      Ken "el Simon" Simom



      --- Bob Gato <biggato9@...> wrote:
      >
      > Obregon's arm was buried quite a while ago. It used
      > to be in a jar at his monument on Ave. Insurgentes
      > in Mexico City, but it now sleeps with the rest of
      > his body. Santa Ana's leg is also buried with the
      > rest of him, in the Cathedral. It used to have a
      > seperate monument, but that was destroyed long ago.
      > Madero & Pino Suarez's bloody clothes are the
      > property of their families. They were definetly NOT
      > in the museum.
      >
      > Prof. Douglas Nance
      >
      > Universidad Panamericana
      >
      > Mixcoac, Mexico
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
      > design software


      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
      http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      MexicanRevolution-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      MexicanRevolution-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

    • lpangeles2003
      Did Felipe Angeles ever meet with Woodrow Wilson personally to try and resolve this? Linda ... Angeles was during the battles of El Bajío as well as the
      Message 37 of 37 , Sep 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Did Felipe Angeles ever meet with Woodrow Wilson personally to try
        and resolve this? Linda


        --- In MexicanRevolution@yahoogroups.com, EFRAIN DOMINGUEZ
        <efdominguez@p...> wrote:
        > In the books of Calzadiaz Barrera, you may find where General
        Angeles was during the battles of "El Bajío" as well as the advise he
        gave Villa all along. These books are a compilation of interviews
        with the survivors of "La Division del Norte" and in my opinion the
        most accurate books about Villa and "La división del Norte".
        > Angeles was not present in the first battle.He was in Monterrey.
        > He was present in the second battle, his post was in front
        of "Santa Ana del Conde", later in "Otates".
        > In the 3rd battle (Aguascalientes) he arrived before Villa to the
        city and starts preparing to wait for Obregon's Army. This is where
        Angeles wanted to fight Obregón's army since the begining.
        > Villa arrives on the 11 of June, and they all learn of the
        declaration of Woodrow Wilson.
        > On the 13th there was a meeting:Villa, DuVal West, George C.
        Carothers (Both representing W. Wilson), Enrique Llorente (Villa's
        interpreter) and Felipe Angeles.
        > After the meeting, Villa and his Generals make the decision to send
        Angeles to interview with W. Wilson. He arrived to El Paso on the
        16th of June 1915, in transit to Washington where he was
        received "unoficially" by Hugh Lenox Scott.
        > Obregón defeated Villa in July 1915 (Aguascalientes).
        > Angeles will not return to Mexico until December of 1918. So missed
        the 3rd battle.
        >
        > In my opinion, at this time, Villa had lost confidence in Angeles.
        He was very upset that Angeles had not been capable to resolve the
        military situation in Monterrey by himself. Villa had to stop his
        fight with Diéguez and Murguía in Jalisco in order to "help" Angeles
        in Monterrey. Those 2 Generals would become the most ferocious
        enemies of "la División del Norte".
        > They both led the attacks in the 3 battles of the Bajío and Murguía
        will continue fighting Villa almost until he surrendered.
        >
        > Efrain
        >
        > Bryant <bryanth@p...> wrote:
        > Thank you for the clarification. I assumed he was there because he
        > was communicating his advice to Villa by some method that would
        imply
        > that he was within range, at least, according to the fact checking
        > that I did in the book "Villa and Zapata", by Frank McLynn. All of
        my
        > other Pancho Villa books are over at my location on the Mexican
        side
        > of the border, so I could not look this up in Katz. McLynn mentions
        > Angeles advising Villa on several accasions throughout the
        > engagement, so it is likely, then, that he was doing so by
        telegraph
        > or some other medium of that sort. Clearly, however, he could not
        > have been in New York.
        >
        > Katz's comment is one of seveal such comments where he pleads lack
        of
        > evidence in order to draw clear conclusions, and he states clearly
        in
        > his book, in another chapter about the period wherein the Villistas
        > ruled the state of Chihuahua, that there was a near total lack of
        > records from the period. This is consistent with the way that
        > archival material authored by Villistas and giving their versions
        of
        > events are scarce. The reason for this was the systematic
        destruction
        > of such records in order to make the versions of events that
        Obregon
        > and his heirs wished to he perpetrated into an set of unchallenged
        > maxims that historians would take for granted.
        >
        > At the same time, McLynn does not seem to indicate that there was
        any
        > break in the advice giving that Angeles was providing to Villa
        > throughout the series of engagements. On the other hand, Katz does
        > not, as you mention, make any unequivocal declarations, stating,
        > instead, that is was "unclear". So he does not say that Angeles did
        > not advise him on that phase, exactly, and if this were so, it
        would
        > inconsistent with the fact that his advice was available for prior
        > and subsequent actions.
        >
        > Thanks again for the clarification.
        >
        > Bryant
        >
        > --- In MexicanRevolution@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Acosta"
        <ramon4@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > Ángeles's biographer, Matthew Slattery, in `Felipe Ángeles
        > and the
        > > Mexican Revolution' 1982, on page 138, says that Ángeles was not
        > > with Villa at Celaya. Ángeles was in Monterrey since March
        > 1915,
        > > and it was while Villa was visiting him in Monterrey that
        > Ángeles
        > > advised Villa. Slattery says, "But Villa went south and shortly
        > > thereafter ordered Ángeles to join him. Ángeles reluctantly
        > left
        > > Monterrey. Then, on April 2 in Torreón, a horse fell on
        > Ángeles so
        > > severely injuring his foot that he was unable to either walk or
        > > mount. Villa came to visit him and he again pleaded delay, now
        > > using his own incapacitation as a further reason."
        > >
        > > Slattery further says that after the battle of Celaya, Villa
        > > regrouped his forces, and called in his generals who were not at
        > > Celaya. He says, on page 146, "Villa also rebuilt for the
        clash.
        > > He felt that he had lost at Celaya because of the thinness of
        > > veterans in his ranks. Now he brought Fierro and Contreras from
        > > Jalisco. He broke off the siege at El Ebano and added Chao with
        > > 8,000 of the 10,000 engaged there to his army gathering at
        > > Aguascalientes. And this time he wanted Ángeles at his side as
        > well
        > > as 4,000 of his well-disciplined troops from Monterrey."
        > >
        > > Friedrich Katz, in `The Life and Times of Pancho Villa' says on
        > page
        > > 493-494, "It is not clear why Villa repeated the errors of his
        > first
        > > battle at Celaya in the second one. Ángeles's absence certainly
        > > contributed to the disaster."
        > >
        > > Cheers
        > >
        > > Ramon
        > > --- In MexicanRevolution@yahoogroups.com, "E Bryant Holman"
        > > <bryanth@p...> wrote:
        > > > I really think that your personal attacks do nothing to further
        > > the discussion here. I do not have any axe to grind, and you have
        > no
        > > reason to accuse me of that publicly like this, and therefore I
        > > think it is incumbent on you to offer and apology now.
        > > >
        > > > And now, for the sake of the rest of the group who might be
        > > interested in this discussion, I will offer the source material I
        > > was referring to:
        > > >
        > > > This is an article from the journal _Military History of the
        > West_
        > > Vol. 26, Spring 1996, #1: "Pancho Villa Rides into Mexican
        Legend;
        > > Or, The Cavalry Myth and Military Tactics in the Mexican
        > Revolution"
        > > by Jeffrey M. Pilcher. Its a good read that challenges the
        popular
        > > notion that Villa lost Celaya due to the Villistas charging the
        > > defenses on horseback. In effect, he states that this did not
        take
        > > place, and that the reports that it did are false.
        > > >
        > > > I had my librarian get me a copy that was sent to her from the
        > San
        > > Antonio Public Library, and having read it carefully, I am
        conviced
        > > that the author succesfully overturned the popular myths created
        > > about Villa's supposed use of cavalry charges at the battles of
        > > Celaya and other battles. I have already listed the reasons that
        I
        > > believe this to be the truth, and I got those reasons from this
        > > book, and also from personal conversations that I have had in the
        > > past on this topic with Dr. Osorio. Osorio, in turn, referred me
        > to,
        > > among other things, personal conversations that he had with
        Womack,
        > > Katz, and other colleagues of his, whose opinions support this
        > > thesis and who were instrumental in his arriving at these
        > > conclusions. However, for a written account that anyone can
        access,
        > > I recommend that any interested parties read this article, as it
        > can
        > > be gotten at no charge by your local librarian.
        > > >
        > > > I also checked in one of the volumes I have here about Villa,
        > this
        > > being "Villa and Zapata", by Frank McLynn, who says in the
        > beginning
        > > of his book that his work is simply a condensation of the works
        of
        > > Katz and Womack, in the main, such that he will not have much in
        > the
        > > way of disagreement with either of those officers, and his
        account
        > > states unequivocably that Angeles advised Villa on the course of
        > the
        > > Battles of Celaya, throughout several phases of the engagement.
        It
        > > does not say anywhere that he was not present. Since my copy of
        > > Katz's book is somewhere else right now, I can't just look that
        > item
        > > up right at the moment, but I trust that McLynn is right about
        this.
        > > >
        > > > Now, I would suggest that you follow the protocol here of
        leaving
        > > out personal attacks when it comes to serious discussion here. It
        > is
        > > one thing when it is a matter of senseless flaming on the part of
        > > persons who don't make any pretentions of having any saving
        graces
        > > like education or manners. But I am going to expect better of
        that
        > > from you, or I will simply invite you to leave this group. There
        > are
        > > likely other groups out there where this sort of petty behavior
        is
        > > allowed, but this is not one of them.
        > > >
        > > > Bryant
        > > >
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: Bob Gato
        > > > To: MexicanRevolution@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:34 PM
        > > > Subject: Re: [MexicanRevolution] Thanks for the info.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > You know, in the field of history we refer to a General's
        > post
        > > battle report as "primary source material". Next we'll be hearing
        > > that Villa really won at Celaya, but it was all hushed up
        > afterwards
        > > due to a plot.
        > > > It's obvious that Mr. Holman has an axe to grind about
        Villa.
        > > Fine. But stubborness is something else. By the way, Felipe
        Angeles
        > > was in New York during the Battle of Celaya.
        > > > Douglas Nance
        > > >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > MexicanRevolution-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.