JAMES WALKER FANNIN

Male 1805 - 1836  Submit Photo / DocumentSubmit Photo / Document


 

James Walker Fannin, Jr.

The personal history of my cousin, a hero of the struggle for independence in Texas.

JW Fannin.jpgJames Walker Fannin, Jr. was probably born on January 1, 1804, in Georgia, the illegitimate son of a Morgan County plantation owner, Dr. Isham Fannin, and the daughter of an employee on his brother’s plantation. While among the landed Southern gentry in the early 1800s such an event was certainly not unheard of, it did create problems socially. The child was sent away. The Fannin family, although prominent and financially secure in Georgia, had a touch of scandal in its past and just enough skeletons in the family closet to make this illegitimate birth more than embarrassing to Isham Fannin.

The family name had originally been Fanning and Isham’s father, James W., had dropped the “g” to disassociate himself from the clan’s severely tarnished role in pre-revolutionary America. The first Fannings arrived in the colonies in the mid-1600s. By the time of the revolution, the family was well established in colonial society and immediately took a prominent role in the Revolutionary War — although on the British side.

In North Carolina, a lawyer named Edmund Fanning married the daughter of the Tory Governor Tyron, who was particularly hated by the colonists. After the Revolutionary War, Edmund Fanning moved to Canada and for nineteen years was governor of Prince Edward Island and a lieutenant general in the British army.

Edmund’s brother, James W. Fanning, adopted the independence cause and fought on the colonists’ side of the revolution. After the war, he immigrated to Georgia and became a successful and wealthy planter. To disassociate himself from his despised Tory brother, James dropped the “g” from the family name and for the rest of his life identified himself as “Fannin.” In Georgia, he continued to prosper and grow. James Fannin died in 1803, leaving a successful plantation and several children including one son named Isham, who continued using the abbreviated family name “Fannin.” In 1809 he married Margarett Potter and they later had a daughter whom they named Eliza. He would later serve as a major of militia in the War of 1812. But before all of that, in January of 1804, he was the source of scandal for the Fannin family. The woman whom he had an affair with is still unknown. It seems that her name has been expunged from history, which records that her Dad became the solution for Isham's illegitimate child.

The child was adopted by his maternal grandfather, James W. Walker, and brought up on a plantation near Marion, GA, in what later became Twiggs County. Little is known of his early years. Eliza’s mother appears to have encouraged the siblings to maintain contact with each other. In later years, James referred to her in favorable terms. One of his cousins was Samuel F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph. It is also apparent that Isham Fannin maintained at least some relationship with his son, for in later years, James would write favorably of his father, “. . . what he done for me, (which but few fathers would have done).” 

At the age of 14, he entered the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York on July 1, 1819, under the name of James F. Walker. The service records of his father in the War of 1812 and his grandfather in the Revolutionary War may have been a factor in his selection. At the time of his admission, his guardian was listed as Abraham B. Fleming of Savannah, Georgia. A female cousin and contemporary of James during this time, described him as "gallant, handsome, and sensitive." Documents from West Point indicate that Fannin, under the name “Walker,” completed his Fourth Class Year (freshman) ending June 1820. Of eighty-six classmates, he finished sixty-second in mathematics, fifty-seventh in French, and sixtieth in “Order of General Merit.” It was obvious from the beginning of his military career that academics would not be a strength.

By January 21, 1821, he was failing French and had been remanded back to the Fourth Class. By June of 1821 his grades had improved, but he was still struggling. Of seventy-four class members, he ranked twenty-third in mathematics; twenty-eighth in French, and twenty-seventh in Order of General Merit.

By October 29 of that year he was listed as “absent with leave,” and on November 1, 1821, the superintendent of West Point wrote, “I have the honor to enclose the resignation of Cadets James F. Walker of Georgia and Cyrus Canon and recommend that they be accepted to take effect on the 30th of November.” In addition to having an academic problem in French, his conduct record was not the best. He was liberally punished or assigned extra duty for absences or tardiness from roll calls, classes, and formations.

One of the reasons for these unexcused absences may have been to visit his cousin Martha Fannin, who was attending a girls’ school in Philadelphia. Martha Fannin would later marry Dr. Tomlinson Fort after, as she allegedly claimed, being courted by Mirabeau B. Lamar in Columbus. But she was also the same age as her cousin James, and the two appear to have felt close enough to have shared their thoughts during this period.

Exactly what happened to James Fannin between October 29 and November 20 of 1821 will probably never be known, but it effectively put an end to his preparations to become a military officer. The story has been reported in several history books that he got into a fight with another cadet — supposedly over a comment derogatory toward the South. He is listed simply as “Resigned to take effect 20 November 1821,” which was actually ten days before the superintendent’s recommendation.

There are no records to substantiate the theory that he resigned after a fight, or perhaps even a duel, rather than accept punishment by army authorities. In fact, West Point archives contain a document that suggests his departure from the academy was the result of an entirely different personal situation.

That document is a letter from Fannin’s cousin addressed to him at the academy and dated October 3, 1821:

Greenboro, Greens County, Georgia 

Oct 3rd, 1821

Dear Cousin,

By the request of your Grandmother & Mother I forward you this & hope you will not delay in returning home for they are very low indeed & are not expected to survive many months & if you do not come shortly it is probable you will never see them again for your Grandmother has entirely lost the use of one side by the dead Palsey & the old Gentleman as you know has the shaking Palsey & so very bad that he cannot carry anything to his mouth. I presume I need not say anything more at present as you are not ignorant of their extreme old age So be in haste & gratify your relations for they are all very anxious for your return & do not delay as you observed in your last letter until June go immediately on the reception of this to the Superintendent and inform him of these things & I have no doubt but what he will permit you to return. Your Uncle Fannin passed by here a few weeks since on his way to [unintelligible] for his health & he will return to Savannah as soon as the sickly season is over & he recovers his health

With Respect & Great Esteem 

I am your relative,

(DWalker)

For whatever reason he resigned his position at West Point — duel or family emergency — James Fannin Walker wrote the superintendent three weeks after his cousin’s letter:

West Point

Oct 25th, 1821

Sir,

Circumstances not admitting my longer stay at the Milty Acdy I hereby offer this as my resignation of the Appointment of Cadet in the U.S. Army.

I remain Sir

Your Obs.,

James F. Walker

After dropping out of the academy, Fannin returned to Georgia, residing successively in Twiggs and Troup Counties but removed, in 1828, to Columbus, in Muskogee County, where he became a merchant. There he was a master of the local Masonic lodge and began developing an interest in politics. He was reported in a 1988 article by The Victoria Advocate to have been elected as judge of the Muscogee County Court in 1830 only to be disqualified for having fought in a duel. He also later served as a representative to the state convention in 1833 from Troup County, Georgia.

With regards to the disqualification for dueling, there appear to be no records in Georgia of such a legal action taken, and the article did not elaborate on the circumstances of the duel. While in Columbus he also served as secretary of a temperance society and was division inspector for the Georgia militia. On July 17, 1829, he married Minerva Fort, with whom he had two daughters, Missouri Pinckney (1830) and Minerva J. (1832).

He also appears to have maintained some contact with his stepmother and half-sister. After Isham’s death, Margarett married J.H. King, who became Eliza’s stepfather. After Eliza had gone to finishing school in Salem, Margarett wrote her in 1829 that James had sent news of his baby daughter.

During this period it was customary for established and wealthy plantation owners to send daughters to northern “finishing” schools since there were few public education facilities available for girls. After two years of boarding school at Salem, it was determined that Eliza should go to finishing school in Connecticut.

On October 27,1830, James Fannin wrote his half-sister a long and very personal letter. She had at that time returned home from Salem and was preparing for her trip to Connecticut.

He was then twenty-five years of age and eleven years Eliza’s senior, and his letter was filled with brotherly advice. Eliza kept the letters, which were handed down among family members over the years and in 1931 made available to Clarence Wharton, who published excerpts:

James tells Eliza reproachfully that he has heard from others that she is now with her mother and among her former friends, and that he would like to consider himself her “dearest relative.” “We have always been separated from each other, but you will not suspect me of selfishness or the want of that fraternal feeling incident to our relationship.

Little is known about James Fannin during this period of his life, and this letter is significant because, in it, James Fannin reveals a great deal about himself. But even here, historians are robbed of information about a crucial facet of Fannin’s background and thinking during this period.

Wharton continues:

After this passage he begins the discussion of some personal family matter and tells her “you are now of an age to know,” but some careful hand has with knife or scissors neatly cut from the letter what she is now “old enough to know.” After the blank left by the censor’s scissors, the letter continues for four pages and refers to his “long silence and peculiar situation.” “If you can not see this in all its true bearings, ask mother or Mr. King [her stepfather].”

Like Wharton, we can only speculate what matter of importance, or secret, he felt he needed to share with Eliza. Some have speculated the censored passage had to do with the illegitimate circumstances of his birth while others have suggested he may have used the suffering he had endured because of those circumstances to encourage his young sister to not make the same mistake his own mother had.

He may have suggested unknown family circumstances that had resulted in the two of them being separated all their lives. Or he may have confessed personal feelings about being sent away from his father and adopted. It was the first but not the only time he wrote Eliza of his “peculiar situation.” It was something that very obviously weighed heavily upon his mind.

We do not know who the censor was: if Eliza decided to remove it before she saved the letter, or if Margarett intercepted the correspondence and clipped the passage to prevent her daughter from reading it.

At the conclusion of the letter, according to Wharton, Fannin: 

“. . . grows eloquent in the description of his baby daughter, whom Eliza has never seen. “To praise our little daughter would be useless. If you wish to see or know anything of her, come and see her. I can not visit my friends until after the next year, when I hope to save enough money to buy a carriage, as we will then have too many to go any other way, and tho’ we do live down near the Indian border, we still have some pride.”

This passage also reveals something about James Fannin in 1830: He is struggling with finances and self-image problems. In 1830s Georgia plantation society, finances and personal pride no doubt were closely intertwined. While Eliza was living with her mother and a stepfather, who could afford the considerable expense of sending her to a northern finishing school, he was struggling to purchase a carriage for his wife and daughter.

Throughout his life, James Fannin would exhibit love and affection for his immediate family. Later, in a Texas society that included men and leaders whose pasts were certainly suspect with regards to marital relationships and parental responsibilities, James Walker Fannin Jr. would never once be accused of anything but complete devotion to Minerva and his two daughters.

About this time, he writes of his daughter again: 

“She is a real Fannin and I do not say too much when I assert that she is one of the finest children in Georgia. She is all life, never cries, is always laughing.”

Shortly after this letter, Eliza moved to New Haven, Connecticut, and began school. In 1832, while Eliza was still enrolled, James Fannin applied for, and received, lottery lands from the former Cherokee Territory located in northwest Georgia. He was beginning to obtain land in his name, but his quest for financial security continued to elude him. In response, he began to consider alternative, and more risky, business endeavors.

Early in 1832 his second daughter, Minerva, whom he may have nicknamed Eliza, was born — a fact he mentioned in a letter to his sister in April of that year. At the time he wrote the letter, he was in Charleston, South Carolina, preparing to sail for Havana, Cuba, purportedly for a cargo of sugar.

Clarence Wharton again affords us a glimpse into Fannin’s thinking and feelings in this letter to his sister:

He chides her for two pages for not having written often and then such brief letters. “Writing, my own dear but truant sister, is not only a relaxation from severe studies, but an amusement to the tired, worn-out mind—like a mile walk after a day’s ride. It supplies the joints and sinews, makes many things vigorous and elastic. But my dear Eliza will not think that her only paternal brother is one of those crusty, crabbed old crones who wishes to monopolize the whole of her time, etc.”

Wharton records that he then tells her he “left her sister, Minerva, and her nieces, Missouri Pinkney and Eliza [Minerva], quite well, but does not pause to comment on the personality of the little daughters, though we hope he still regarded them the finest in Georgia.”

The reason for this lack of comment may have been by painful design: Baby Minerva had been born severely retarded.

A month later he writes his sister again, this time from Havana where he is lonely and homesick:

“Feelings which seemed quite dormant yesterday are today in their zenith—Nay, as warm as the tropic of Cancer will admit. I love my old friends with a holy love. No wonder then that I love my only sister a little.”

Wharton then reports that Fannin again refers to his “peculiar situation” and describes his final moments with his father:

"Can I (remember my peculiar situation) ever recur to the never to be forgotten April 26, 1817, and see our common parent in the last death struggle, and hear him calling for both of us, and you a helpless infant, unconscious of your loss, held in his dying arms; can I, who known a father’s anxieties and witnessed this scene, remember this and what he done for me (which but few fathers would have done), not feel some solicitude for the object nearest his heart? The full overflowing heart of a true Fannin responds in feelings of deepest gratitude—in love the most lasting and indelible."

He is again vague about the nature of his business—mentioning that he is going for a cargo of sugar and will keep a vessel in the trade. The “cargo of sugar” was, in reality, a cargo of slaves. By mid-1832 James Fannin had become a slave trader. Although U.S. law allowed the practice of slavery, it did ban the importation of new slaves from Africa.

Because of the nature of the business and the penalties for conviction, little is known about his activities during the next two years. By 1834, however, the so-called “no man’s land” on the Sabine Lake between Louisiana and the Mexican province of Texas was quickly becoming an importation point for illegal slaves introduced into the United States.

Texas was also becoming a promising land for American immigrants who wanted free or cheap land and a new start in life. Stephen F. Austin’s small colony near the mouth of the Brazos River was quickly growing, and stories reached the American South of unlimited crop and stock-raising potential there. Although illegal in Mexico too, slaves would be in great demand by the American planters there.

It is not known when Fannin first visited Texas, but on May 26 of 1834 he was back in Havana. There he made a contract with Harvey Kendrick for the purchase, from a man named Thompson, of the schooner Crawford for five thousand dollars, for which he drew a draft on E.W. Gregory of New Orleans.

The manifest of the ship indicated that it was sailing from Havana on June 12 for the Brazos River in Texas with a cargo of sixteen free Negroes. This Fannin swore before the United States consul in Havana and to the fact that the ship would be continuing on to New Orleans where payment for the boat would be made. Because of Mexican laws banning the import of slaves, this oath was necessary for permission to sail to Texas.

In the autumn of 1834, Fannin settled at Velasco in the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas (now Texas), where he owned a plantation and was a managing partner in a slave-trading business, affirmed by his letters. Founded in 1831, Velasco is situated on the east side of the Brazos River in southeast Texas. It is sixteen miles south of Angleton, Texas, and four miles from the Gulf of Mexico, currently annexed by the city of Freeport.

JW Fannin Texas.jpgBy 1835, Fannin was becoming part of the growing Anglo-American resistance to the Mexican government in Texas. Fannin became an agitator for the Texas Revolution on August 20, 1835, when he was appointed by the Committee of Safety and Correspondence of Columbia to use his influence for the calling of the Consultation. On August 27 he wrote to a United States Army officer in Georgia requesting financial aid for the Texas cause and West Point officers to command the Texas army. In September, Fannin became active in the volunteer army and subscribed money to an expedition to capture the Veracruzana, a Mexican ship at Copano; but the expedition did not materialize, and Fannin went to Gonzales, where, as captain of the Brazos Guards, he participated in the battle of Gonzales on October 2, 1835. On October 6th, he was one of a committee urging Stephen F. Austin to bring all possible aid to Gonzales, and when Austin brought up the whole Texas army and moved toward Bexar, James Bowie and Fannin were sent as scouts to determine conditions between Gonzales and Bexar and to secure supplies. On October 27th, Bowie and Fannin selected a campsite near Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción de Acuña Mission and on October 28th, under the command of Bowie, led the Texas forces in the battle of Concepción.

In November 1835, Austin ordered Fannin and William B. Travis and about 150 men to cut off any Mexican supply party. On November 10th, Fannin was ordered to cut a Mexican supply route between Laredo and San Antonio but returned to headquarters when he was not joined by a supporting force. On November 13th, Sam Houston, commander in chief of the regular army, offered Fannin the post of inspector general to the regular army. Fannin wrote back requesting a field appointment of Brigadier General and a "post of danger". On November 22, 1835, Fannin was honorably discharged from the volunteer army by Austin and began campaigning for a larger regular army for Texas. He also went home to spend time with his family.

On December 5th, the General Council, acting on Fannin's advice, established an auxiliary volunteer corps. Sam Houston, supported by Governor Henry Smith, commissioned Fannin as a Colonel in the regular army on December 7th, 1835, and on December 10th, the council ordered him to enlist reinforcements for the army and to contract for war supplies in the campaign against Bexar. Bexar had surrendered on December 9th, so the accumulated supplies were used in the 1836 campaign.

Fannin's appeal for aid drew strong attention. In Macon, Georgia, about thirty men stepped forward to assist "our fellow countrymen of Texas," and more than $3,000 was raised to defray the cost of the trip to Texas. On November 18 the Macon volunteers left for Texas, traveling by way of Columbus, where they were joined by another group of volunteers. Fannin welcomed the Georgia Battalion to Texas on December 20, 1835. He was later elected to command a regiment consisting of the Georgia Battalion and the Lafayette Battalion (composed of men from Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee).

By January 7, 1836, the provisional government had appointed Fannin 'military agent', to answer only to the council and not Houston. Continuing as an agent of the provisional government, Fannin, on January 9, 1836, began recruiting forces and supplies for the forthcoming and confusing Matamoros campaign against the Mexican city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Fannin had difficulty leading the volunteers in his charge. He tried to institute regular army discipline, but his irregular volunteers would not accept it. Many of his men thought he was aloof, and several historians believe that he was an ineffective commander because of it. The majority of the men serving under Fannin had only been in Texas a short time; he was frustrated by this, writing to Lt. Governor James W. Robinson "..among the rise of 400 men at, and near this post, I doubt if 25 citizens of Texas can be mustered in the ranks...".

After Houston withdrew from the expedition, Fannin was elected colonel of the Provisional Regiment of Volunteers at Goliad on February 7th and from February 12th to March 12th acted as commander in chief of the army. He sailed from Velasco and landed at Copano with four companies of the Georgia Battalion, moving to join a small band of Texans at Refugio. When he learned that the Mexicans under José de Urrea had occupied Matamoros, Fannin went no further with plans for the expedition and withdrew 25 miles north to Goliad and quartered his troops at Presidio La Bahia. Made Lt. Colonel of the First Artillery, Fannin began strengthening defenses at Goliad, and sent out his captains to recruit more men for the army. "Enlist all you can.." ..." fill up your companies, and be ready for the field soon".[In early February, Fannin sailed from Velasco and landed at Copano with four companies of the Georgia Battalion, moving to join a small band of Texans at Refugio. Mexican reinforcements, under General Jose Urrea, arrived at Matamoros, complicating the Texan's plans to attack that city. Fannin withdrew 25 miles north to Goliad and quartered his troops at Presidio La Bahia. Made Lt. Colonel of the First Artillery, Fannin began strengthening defenses at Goliad, and sent out his captains to recruit more men for the army. "Enlist all you can.." ..." fill up your companies, and be ready for the field soon".

Appeals from Travis at the Alamo (via James Bonham) prompted Fannin to launch a relief march of over 300 men and four pieces of artillery on 25 February, 1836. After some delay, Fannin and his men moved out on the 28th for the more than 90 miles to San Antonio. The relief mission was a failure. The troops barely had crossed the San Antonio River when wagons broke down, prompting the men to camp within sight of Goliad. They had little or no food, some men were barefooted, and the oxen teams wandered off during the night. On March 6th, 1836, the Battle of the Alamo was fought, with all of the Alamo's defenders (about 187 men) being killed by Mexican forces.

After the Alamo, Santa Anna devised a three-pronged strategy designed to overwhelm what remained of the Texas forces. General José Urrea would drive up from the south with 1400 men; General Antonio Gaona would sweep across the north with a column of 700 men; and Santa Anna and General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma would lead 1200 men through the center of Texas.

Santa Anna sent General José Urrea marching into Texas from Matamoros, to make his way north along the coast of Texas. The Mexican forces under Urrea were now rapidly approaching the Texian stronghold in Goliad. On February 27, 1836, Urrea's advance patrol surprised Frank W. Johnson and about 34 men, initiating the Battle of San Patricio, where they killed about 10 and took 18 prisoners. Johnson and five others had also been captured but escaped and rejoined James Fannin's command at Goliad.

The Battle of Agua Dulce was fought on March 2nd. Dr. James Grant, Robert C. Morris and twelve others were killed, with prisoners taken. Plácido Benavides and six others escaped to notify Fannin of the situation.

On the 12th March, Fannin sent Captain Amon Butler King and about twenty-eight men to take wagons to Refugio to help evacuate the remaining families. King and his men confronted an advance party of General Urrea's cavalry in the Battle of Refugio; his defense failed and he withdrew to the old mission. A local boy managed to get away and alerted Fannin of the skirmish. Fannin sent Lieutenant Colonel William Ward and about 120 men to King's aid. Ward managed to drive the small Mexican forces away and decided to stay the night to rest his men. On March 14th, 1836, Ward and King were attacked by Urrea and over 200 Mexican soldiers as they were about to leave. This detachment was part of Urrea's larger force of nearly 1200 men. The same day, General Houston ordered Fannin to retreat to Victoria. Fannin then sent word to the men at Refugio to rendezvous with his command at Victoria. Other dispatches were intercepted by the Mexican forces, thus informing them of Fannin's plans.

Fannin needed means of transport and had sent Albert C. Horton and his men to Victoria, to bring carts and twenty yokes of oxen from army quartermaster John J. Linn, who did return around March 16th. Horton's men would later form Fannin's advance guard when the retreating to Victoria.

Fannin finally received the alert of King and Ward's defeat from, Hugh McDonald Frazer, on March 17th.

By 9:00AM on March 19th, they began their retreat from Goliad, during a period of heavy fog. The Texan force included the San Antonio Greys, the Red Rovers, the Mustangs commanded by Burr H. Duval, a militia from Refugio commanded by Hugh McDonald Frazer, Texan regular soldiers commanded by Ira Westover, and the Mobile Greys. Nine heavy artillery pieces with different calibers were ordered by Fannin to be taken by the Texans, along with 1000 muskets, but he neglected to ensure that a good amount of food and water was transported. Carts loaded with heavy equipment were being pulled by hungry and tired oxen. Urrea did not realize the Texians had left until 11:00AM. The two hour lead was removed, when a Texan cart crossing the San Antonio River broke, a cannon had to be brought out of the river, and Fannin ordered that the oxen be allowed to graze for a period of time after the Texans had proceeded about a mile past Manahuilla Creek, resulting in the retreat being stopped. John Shackelford, Burr H. Duval, and Ira Westover opposed Fannin's decision to allow the oxen to graze, arguing that they should continue their retreat until they reached the protection of the Coleto Creek timber. Shackelford would state that Fannin argued that the Mexican army against them was poor, and that Urrea would not follow them.

In an effort to catch Fannin's troops Urrea left his artillery, and some of his men, in Goliad. He began his pursuit with, according to Mexican sources, 80 cavalrymen and 360 infantrymen. Mexican mounted scouts determined the location of the Texans, and reported the size of the force, which Urrea concluded was smaller than he originally thought. As a result, he ordered 100 of his soldiers to go back to Goliad to help secure Presidio La Bahía. He also ordered the artillery he left in Goliad to be brought to him, and that the artillery would be escorted by some of the soldiers he was sending back. Meanwhile, Albert C. Horton's 30 cavalrymen were serving as advance guards, and were positioned to cover all sides of the Texan force. The rear guard was not alert, and did not detect the Mexican cavalry that was approaching. Shortly after they resumed their march another Texan cart broke down, and its cargo had to be transferred to another one, delaying the retreat again. Fannin had sent Horton to scout the Coleto Creek timber that was in sight, and while he and his men were away,  the Mexican cavalry overtook Fannin's Texians. As the Texans tried to get to high ground - 400 to 500 yards away from the position they were in when the cavalry overtook them - the ammunition cart broke.

The Texan soldiers formed a square against the Mexicans. The high grass of the prairie meant the Texan view of the Mexicans was impaired. The Texians had little water. Each Texian soldier received three to four muskets. The square was three ranks deep. The front line contained the San Antonio Greys and Red Rovers, whilst Duval's Mustangs and Frazer's Refugio militia formed part of the rear line. The left flank was covered by Westover's regulars, whilst the right was protected by the Mobile Greys. In the corners of the square, the artillery had been positioned. Fannin stood in the rear of the right flank. In addition, a number of sharpshooters were deployed around Abel Morgan's hospital wagon, which could no longer be moved after the ox that was moving it was killed by Mexican fire. 

The Mexican soldiers then attacked the square. The left of the Texian square was confronted by the rifle companies under Morales, and the right was assaulted by the grenadiers and part of the San Luis Battalion. The Mexican formation involved in this attack on the right of the square was under the personal supervision of Urrea. The Jiménez Battalion under Col. Mariano Salas fought the front, and Col. Gabriel Núñez's cavalry was ordered against the rear of the square. By sunset, when Urrea ordered the Mexicans to cease any more major attacks against the square due to a lack of Mexican ammunition, the majority of the action of 19 March was over. The Mexicans had assaulted the square three times. Making effective use of their bayonets, multiple muskets, and nine cannons, the Texians had prevented the Mexicans each time from breaking the square. Urrea said that he was impressed with the fact that the Texians had managed to maintain the square against the three charges, and he was also impressed with the Texian weapon fire. Dr. Joseph H. Barnard, a Texian, recorded that by sunset seven Texians had been killed. He also recorded that sixty Texians, including Fannin, had been wounded. Forty of the sixty had been wounded several times.

After sunset, Urrea ordered Mexican sharpshooters to be positioned in the tall grass around the square, and that they fire at the Texians. Before Texian sharpshooters were able to remove the threat posed by the Mexican sharpshooters, by firing at the flash caused by the Mexican guns, the Mexican sharpshooters were able to inflict more Texian casualties. As a result of all the fighting that occurred on 19 March, the Texians had suffered at least ten dead and sixty wounded, whilst the Mexicans suffered an unspecified high amount of casualties (estimated at 100-200 killed and wounded). The fighting of 19 March had not demoralized the Texian soldiers. They were encouraged by the thought that Horton would succeed in getting Texian reinforcements from Guadalupe Victoria to Fannin. However, Horton had not been able to break through the Mexican defenses. During the day's fighting the Texian soldiers that were retreating to Guadalupe Victoria after the earlier battle of Refugio were close enough to Fannin to hear gunfire. However, they were exhausted and hungry, and did not move to the square. Urrea stationed three detachments of Mexican troops around the square, to prevent the Texians in the square from escaping, and during the night Mexican false bugle calls were sounded to keep the Texians alert.

The Texians' lack of water, and the inability to light fires in the square, meant the wounded Texians could not be treated. The pain being experienced by the wounded resulted in the general decrease in morale amongst the Texian soldiers during the night. The poor weather during the night further lessened the morale of the soldiers. The lack of water also meant that the artillery could not be used effectively the next day, because water was needed to cool and clean the cannons. The fighting of 19 March had also left many Texian artillerists casualties, and ammunition for the cannons was low. All these factors contributed to the conclusion by Fannin and other officers during the night that they could not sustain another day of fighting. An idea for the Texians to escape to a more defendable position under cover of darkness, before Urrea received reinforcements, was rejected because it was decided that those who were too injured to escape, which included friends and relatives of unwounded Texians, should not be left behind. It was therefore decided that the Texians should attempt to make another stand from their current position the next day. As a result, during the night, the Texians dug trenches and erected barricades of carts and dead animals. Urrea, meanwhile, had been reinforced with munitions, fresh troops, and two or three artillery pieces from Goliad. He positioned the Mexican artillery on the slopes overlooking the Texian square.

At 6:15AM on March 20th, the Mexicans were grouped for battle. After one or two rounds were fired by Mexican artillery, Fannin and his officers re-iterated their conclusion that the Texians could not take another day's fighting, and decided to seek honorable terms for surrender. They drafted terms of surrender, which included statements that the Texian wounded would be treated, that they would gain all the protection expected as prisoners of war, and that they would be paroled to the United States of America. However, Santa Anna had stated earlier that any Texian can only be allowed to surrender unconditionally. As a result, Urrea could not guarantee that all the terms would be followed by Santa Anna. He stated that he would talk to Santa Anna on behalf of the terms of surrender presented by the Texians. The document of surrender was signed by Benjamin C. Wallace, Joseph M. Chadwick, and Fannin. As a result of the signing, the battle of Coleto ended.

Albert Clinton Horton and his company, who had been acting as the advance and rear guards for Fannin's company were surprised by an overwhelming Mexican force, and chased off. However 18 of the group were captured.

The Mexicans took the Texians back to Goliad, where they were held as prisoners at Fort Defiance (Presidio La Bahia). The Texans thought they would likely be set free in a few weeks. General Urrea departed Goliad, leaving command to Colonel José Nicolás de la Portilla. Urrea wrote to Santa Anna to ask for clemency for the Texians. Under a decree passed by the Mexican Congress on December 30th of the previous year, armed foreigners taken in combat were to be treated as pirates and executed. Urrea wrote in his diary that he "...wished to elude these orders as far as possible without compromising my personal responsibility." Santa Anna responded to this entreaty by repeatedly ordering Urrea to comply with the law and execute the prisoners. He also had a similar order sent directly to the "Officer Commanding the Post of Goliad". This order was received by Portilla on March 26th, who decided it was his duty to comply despite receiving a countermanding order from Urrea later that same day.

Massacre at Goliad.jpg

The next day, Palm Sunday, March 27th, 1836, Colonel Portilla had the 303 Texians marched out of Fort Defiance into three columns on the Bexar Road, San Patricio Road, and the Victoria Road, between two rows of Mexican soldiers; they were shot point-blank, and any survivors were clubbed and knifed to death.

Goliad Massacre.jpgForty Texians were unable to walk. Thirty nine were killed inside the fort, under the direction of Captain Carolino Huerta of the Tres Villas battalion, with Colonel Garay saving one. Colonel Fannin was the last to be executed, after seeing his men executed. At age 32, he was taken by Mexican soldiers to the courtyard in front of the chapel, blindfolded, and seated in a chair (due to his leg wound from the battle). He made three requests: (1) he asked for his personal possessions to be sent to his family, (2) to be shot in his heart and not his face, and (3) to be given a Christian burial. The soldiers took his belongings, shot him in the face, and burned Fannin's body along with the other Texians who died that day.

The entire Texian force was killed except for twenty-eight men who feigned death and escaped. Among these was Herman Ehrenberg, who later wrote an account of the massacre.

After the executions, the Texians' bodies were piled and burned. Their charred remains were left in the open, unburied, and exposed to vultures and coyotes. Nearly one month later, word reached La Bahia (Goliad) that General Lopez de Santa Anna had been defeated and surrendered. The Mexican soldiers at La Bahia returned to the funeral pyres and gathered up any visible remains of the Texians and re-burned any evidence of the bodies.

The massive number of Texian prisoner-of-war casualties throughout the Goliad Campaign led to Goliad being called a "Massacre" by Texas-American forces and, along with the cry “Remember the Alamo”, fueled the frenzy that defeated Santa Anna.

The site of the massacre is now topped by a large monument containing the names of the victims.

Monument at Goliad.jpgMarker at Goliad.jpg

In the months leading up to the Goliad Massacre, Fannin had shown defects as a commander. Accustomed to the discipline of a regular army, he adapted poorly to his situation as head of volunteers. He scorned the idea of electing officers and was disturbed by the lack of a clearly established hierarchy among his forces. His arrogance and ambition earned him the contempt of many of the men under his command. One private, J. G. Ferguson, wrote in a letter to his brother: "I am sorry to say that the majority of the soldiers don't like [Fannin]. For what cause I don't know whether it is because they think he has not the interest of the country at heart or that he wishes to become great without taking the proper steps to attain greatness." In his final weeks, Fannin wrote repeatedly asking to be relieved of his command. Most historians now agree that Fannin made many serious mistakes as a commander. But despite his reluctance to carry on and his sometimes poor military judgment, he held out bravely until the end.

Fannin County was named in his honor, as were the town of Fannin in Goliad County and Camp Fannin, a United States Army installation. In 1854, Fannin County in north Georgia was named in his honor.

During the Battle of San Jacinto, Fannin's watch was discovered in the possession of a Mexican officer. The officials who found it assumed the Mexican was responsible for Fannin's murder; he thus met death in a like manner as Fannin.

The Battle of San Jacinto, fought on April 21, 1836, in present-day Harris County, Texas, was the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. Led by General Sam Houston, the Texian Army engaged and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna's Mexican army in a fight that lasted just 18 minutes. About 630 of the Mexican soldiers were killed and 730 captured, while only nine Texans died.

Santa Anna disappeared during the battle and evaded discovery by shedding his ornate uniform for that of a common soldier. A search party was sent out the next morning. When surrounded in high grass and compelled to surrender, Santa Anna was initially thought to be a common soldier. However, when saluted as "El Presidente" by other prisoners, his true identity was discovered by the Texans.

“That man may consider himself born to no common destiny who has conquered the Napoleon of the West.” said Santa Anna grandiloquently. “And now it remains for him to be generous to the vanquished.”

“You should have remembered that at the Alamo,” Houston replied.

When Santa Anna offered the excuse that “The usages of war” justified what he had done at the Alamo because the defenders had refused to surrender, Houston grew angry. “You have not the same excuse for the massacre of Colonel Fannin’s command,” he roared. “They had capitulated on terms offered by your General. And yet, after the capitulation, they were all perfidiously massacred!”

Santa Anna, obviously concluding that Houston would exact a like revenge, began to shake with fear. But Houston needed him alive and was already formulating plans around his captive. “My motive in sparing the life of Santa Anna,” he later explained, “was to relieve the country of all hostile enemies without further bloodshed, and secure his acknowledgement of our Independence, which I considered of vastly more importance than the mere gratification of revenge.”

Houston impressed upon the Mexican dictator that, if he wished to live, he must order all his remaining forces out of the country forthwith. Santa Anna prepared the necessary dispatch, ending with the note: “I have agreed with General Houston upon an armistice, which may put an end to the war forever.”

The message was carried to Santa Anna’s men at Fort Bend. On its receipt, 4,000 troops packed up and marched out of Texas, leaving their President a prisoner in Texan hands. To make certain that Mexico did not soon mount another assault, the Texans kept Santa Anna captive until November of that year.


Owner/SourcePreston M. Caudle, Jr.
Date3 Dec 2013
Linked toJAMES WALKER FANNIN