Difference between revisions of "On the Prairie of Palo Alto"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Haecker and Mauck begin by providing a foundation for their approach to the battle by analyzing the material culture of the battlefield itself and the insights that it can reveal about the history of warfare and “nineteenth century human behavior and national development.” This approach of course requires more than just the study of documents. Artifacts are a major source of information and the reason for the use of Haecker’s historical archaeology. However, the authors make sure to point out that while historical archaeologists are trained in both history and archaeology most historical archaeology is carried out with an overemphasis on the archeology piece. As a result their approach includes Mauck’s public history and his use of documentary analysis. Thus the authors are able to produce a more complete investigation of not only the battlefield but also the battle within the greater social and cultural context of the Mexican-American War. This multi-disciplinary approach allowed for the investigation to address aspects of the battle that had not been dealt with and historical questions that had not been answered. | Haecker and Mauck begin by providing a foundation for their approach to the battle by analyzing the material culture of the battlefield itself and the insights that it can reveal about the history of warfare and “nineteenth century human behavior and national development.” This approach of course requires more than just the study of documents. Artifacts are a major source of information and the reason for the use of Haecker’s historical archaeology. However, the authors make sure to point out that while historical archaeologists are trained in both history and archaeology most historical archaeology is carried out with an overemphasis on the archeology piece. As a result their approach includes Mauck’s public history and his use of documentary analysis. Thus the authors are able to produce a more complete investigation of not only the battlefield but also the battle within the greater social and cultural context of the Mexican-American War. This multi-disciplinary approach allowed for the investigation to address aspects of the battle that had not been dealt with and historical questions that had not been answered. | ||
| − | The authors also point out that the Battle of Palo Alto should be located within the greater literature of battlefield historiography in order to fully understand both the battle and the war. Paramount to understanding the nature of the battle is knowing that, although only fifteen years removed from the Civil War, it was a product of very different arms technology, namely the smoothbore musket. The rapid technological evolution of guns in the nineteenth century was on the cusp of developing fully rifled firearms in the 1850s, but in 1846 when the war began the arms industry had not quite achieved this end. As a result the battle more closely resembled a slow-moving eighteenth century | + | The authors also point out that the Battle of Palo Alto should be located within the greater literature of battlefield historiography in order to fully understand both the battle and the war. Paramount to understanding the nature of the battle is knowing that, although only fifteen years removed from the Civil War, it was a product of very different arms technology, namely the smoothbore musket. The rapid technological evolution of guns in the nineteenth century was on the cusp of developing fully rifled firearms in the 1850s, but in 1846 when the war began the arms industry had not quite achieved this end. As a result the battle more closely resembled a slow-moving eighteenth century contest than the later devastating battles of the Civil War. Tactics were different under such conditions and the archaeological record on the battlefield reflects these specific tactical formations. Where technology was a step ahead of tactics was in the very recent achievements of artillery. When General Zachary Taylor’s men found themselves outnumbered by a Mexican force at Palo Alto troop count meant next to nothing compared with the American’s Model 1841 6-pounder cannons which allowed for rapid maneuverability on the battlefield and placed the Mexican army at a major disadvantage. The battle ended up being more of an artillery victory for the Americans and secured a momentum in the war that lasted all the way to the Mexican surrender nearly two years later. These tactics of both artillery and smoothbore arms provide very specific artifact pattern signatures that Haecker and Mauck used to investigate the battlefield. The main point that the authors seemed to be making was that knowing the battle ahead of time gave them an idea of what to look for. |
The book then turns to the known history of the events leading up to the war and the battle as it unfolded. The authors lay down a fairly simple and established history of the war, specifically that the war began as a result of the annexation of Texas, that many of the officers that fought alongside each other in the war would years later fight against each other in the Civil War, and that Taylor, the general of the army who directly engaged the Mexican army at Palo Alto, would later become president of the United States. These details outlined the context for which the battle was set and gave more life to the significance of the battlefield and its role in American history. The battle then is narrated as closely as possible to the facts given in eyewitness accounts. Most of the opinions of the soldiers regarding what was happening is obviously from one angle or another and as a result the American and Mexican soldiers have some differing views. The authors make clear that their findings get to the truth about what most likely happened during the battle, and that it was the American accounts of the battle more than the Mexican accounts that are closer to what the archaeological evidence suggests. Eyewitness accounts as is well known can be misleading, mischaracterizing, or completely wrong but some eyewitness accounts can be very telling about what actually happened. The authors seem to acknowledge this and simply feel that artifact patterns and signatures will confirm for them the true nature of the battle and its tactical tendencies. | The book then turns to the known history of the events leading up to the war and the battle as it unfolded. The authors lay down a fairly simple and established history of the war, specifically that the war began as a result of the annexation of Texas, that many of the officers that fought alongside each other in the war would years later fight against each other in the Civil War, and that Taylor, the general of the army who directly engaged the Mexican army at Palo Alto, would later become president of the United States. These details outlined the context for which the battle was set and gave more life to the significance of the battlefield and its role in American history. The battle then is narrated as closely as possible to the facts given in eyewitness accounts. Most of the opinions of the soldiers regarding what was happening is obviously from one angle or another and as a result the American and Mexican soldiers have some differing views. The authors make clear that their findings get to the truth about what most likely happened during the battle, and that it was the American accounts of the battle more than the Mexican accounts that are closer to what the archaeological evidence suggests. Eyewitness accounts as is well known can be misleading, mischaracterizing, or completely wrong but some eyewitness accounts can be very telling about what actually happened. The authors seem to acknowledge this and simply feel that artifact patterns and signatures will confirm for them the true nature of the battle and its tactical tendencies. | ||
Revision as of 20:31, 27 February 2018
Likely one of the least known to the national consciousness of all major wars fought by the United States is the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Apparently lost in time somewhere between the American Revolution and the Civil War the conflict seems to have been dropped from any regular discussion in public circles. Evidence of this is found in the low numbers of memorials and battlefields preserved to remember the event. Reasons for this vary widely but could be anything from the speculation that the war was a direct cause of the Civil War to the number of Americans that tragically died from illnesses indirectly related to the war. This is not to mention the countless Mexican military and civilian casualties. Whatever the reason, the war’s story is tragic and receives little attention. Any attempt at presenting the war as an important conflict in American history or as a social and cultural phenomenon can be met with accusations of crafting celebratory history, glorified at worst and uncritical at best. However, as the authors of On the Prairie of Palo Alto: Historical Archaeology of the U.S.-Mexican War Battlefield would like us to remember, ignoring the uncomfortable moments in history would be a mistake.
Using a multi-disciplinary approach and a single battlefield as the unit of analysis this work combines the fields of history and archaeology to deliver a unique perspective on the Battle of Palo Alto, the first major battle of the Mexican-American War and the only battlefield of the war to be protected by the National Park Service. The authors Charles Haecker, historical archaeologist, and Jeffrey Mauck, public historian, begin by constructing a straightforward narrative of the events leading up to the Mexican-American War, detail the strategic importance and tactical maneuvers of the Mexican and U.S. armies during the battle, and finally make a smooth transition to what the archaeological record has revealed and the battlefield’s subsequent preservation as a national battlefield. Of utmost importance to the authors seems to be what happened to the battlefield after the battle. The archaeological evidence is dependent on what has happened to the battlefield since the last shot was fired. In this way the authors present a battlefield over time that can be viewed as a shifting cultural landscape, moved and directed by ecology, and captive to private land owners and relic hunters.
Haecker and Mauck begin by providing a foundation for their approach to the battle by analyzing the material culture of the battlefield itself and the insights that it can reveal about the history of warfare and “nineteenth century human behavior and national development.” This approach of course requires more than just the study of documents. Artifacts are a major source of information and the reason for the use of Haecker’s historical archaeology. However, the authors make sure to point out that while historical archaeologists are trained in both history and archaeology most historical archaeology is carried out with an overemphasis on the archeology piece. As a result their approach includes Mauck’s public history and his use of documentary analysis. Thus the authors are able to produce a more complete investigation of not only the battlefield but also the battle within the greater social and cultural context of the Mexican-American War. This multi-disciplinary approach allowed for the investigation to address aspects of the battle that had not been dealt with and historical questions that had not been answered.
The authors also point out that the Battle of Palo Alto should be located within the greater literature of battlefield historiography in order to fully understand both the battle and the war. Paramount to understanding the nature of the battle is knowing that, although only fifteen years removed from the Civil War, it was a product of very different arms technology, namely the smoothbore musket. The rapid technological evolution of guns in the nineteenth century was on the cusp of developing fully rifled firearms in the 1850s, but in 1846 when the war began the arms industry had not quite achieved this end. As a result the battle more closely resembled a slow-moving eighteenth century contest than the later devastating battles of the Civil War. Tactics were different under such conditions and the archaeological record on the battlefield reflects these specific tactical formations. Where technology was a step ahead of tactics was in the very recent achievements of artillery. When General Zachary Taylor’s men found themselves outnumbered by a Mexican force at Palo Alto troop count meant next to nothing compared with the American’s Model 1841 6-pounder cannons which allowed for rapid maneuverability on the battlefield and placed the Mexican army at a major disadvantage. The battle ended up being more of an artillery victory for the Americans and secured a momentum in the war that lasted all the way to the Mexican surrender nearly two years later. These tactics of both artillery and smoothbore arms provide very specific artifact pattern signatures that Haecker and Mauck used to investigate the battlefield. The main point that the authors seemed to be making was that knowing the battle ahead of time gave them an idea of what to look for.
The book then turns to the known history of the events leading up to the war and the battle as it unfolded. The authors lay down a fairly simple and established history of the war, specifically that the war began as a result of the annexation of Texas, that many of the officers that fought alongside each other in the war would years later fight against each other in the Civil War, and that Taylor, the general of the army who directly engaged the Mexican army at Palo Alto, would later become president of the United States. These details outlined the context for which the battle was set and gave more life to the significance of the battlefield and its role in American history. The battle then is narrated as closely as possible to the facts given in eyewitness accounts. Most of the opinions of the soldiers regarding what was happening is obviously from one angle or another and as a result the American and Mexican soldiers have some differing views. The authors make clear that their findings get to the truth about what most likely happened during the battle, and that it was the American accounts of the battle more than the Mexican accounts that are closer to what the archaeological evidence suggests. Eyewitness accounts as is well known can be misleading, mischaracterizing, or completely wrong but some eyewitness accounts can be very telling about what actually happened. The authors seem to acknowledge this and simply feel that artifact patterns and signatures will confirm for them the true nature of the battle and its tactical tendencies.
The third half of the book deals directly with the battlefield after the battle ended and how it changed over time. Preservation is a key theme in this section since the significance of the site brought it to the level of a national battlefield protected by the National Park Service. Early preservation efforts began nearly as soon as the war ended but as the war fell from living memory by the beginning of the twentieth century the battlefield was mostly forgotten. Haecker and Mauck establish a preservation history of the battlefield that is equally if not more interesting than the battle itself. Beginning with the immediate aftermath the day after the battle the American soldiers marching through the Mexican positions are struck by how many of the Mexican soldiers fell to the artillery fire, and the impact that their actions had on the opposing force. The Americans attempted to bury many of the dead and were able to provide at least some sort of post-battle grave site. However, the archaeological investigation has yet to discover many of these graves. Not long after the war ended troops continued to be stationed in the area and tended to view the battlefield as a subject of curiosity, ripe with bones and relics on the surface of the prairie. Many of these visible artifacts were taken by either soldiers, land owners, or travelers in the area. This sort of activity continued until the site fell under the protection of the National Park Service in 1978. Surprisingly archaeological work conducted during the authors’ field season in 1992-1993 was able to recover a fairly intact battlefield despite the looting and relic collecting over the years. With some of the battlefield still in private hands much of what could be discovered remains unfound but the authors are excited about what has been uncovered.
Overall this book offered an interesting perspective on the Battle of Palo Alto and the Mexican-American War within the context of American history. Military and warfare history sometimes have the tendency to present straightforward monographs of a single battle or event, but Haecker and Mauck provide new insight into the social and cultural forces that shaped the war effort. As a historical archaeologist Haecker was able to present an anthropological understanding of the battle and give meaning to the cultural pressures behind the war. Possibly one of the most fascinating aspects of the book was the analysis of the battlefield rather than the battle. The urge to preserve the battlefield from the earliest days following the war seemed to be an effort to save something related to the war despite the debate surrounding the war’s legitimacy. Battlefields occupy a special place on the earth and provide a very important source of historical inquiry. Haecker and Mauck did well to face the challenge of constructing a military history without being overly celebratory in nature. Multi-disciplinary in their approach and critical in their narrative the authors have produced good scholarship that has contributed to the preservation of a battlefield. With so few efforts to preserve the history and legacy of the Mexican-American War this work points the public towards a small but highly significant episode in American history and the need to remember our past no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
