Origins: General Taylor - who was he?

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 07:15 PM

Since Santy Anna is in the refrain, it was easy for him to "win the day," particularly among British and other singers who had no idea who General Taylor was, no reason to care, and no pedantic motive to keep his name in the song.

While there was no slavery in Mexico, Santa Anna was a dictator widely loathed by the Mexican public. The idea that replacing Taylor with Santa Anna in the shanty was some kind of "political statement" strikes me as wildly improbable - especially since a *politically minded* innovator would have known that Taylor won.

And no collected verses refer to slavery in Mexico or the U.S.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:18 PM

Marc,

That was clear to me. It doesn't give me any more or less faith in Hugill's theories, however! :0 We simply have more information now, when it comes to history, than Hugill had at the time. And we have had more eyes, with different perspectives, looking at that information. I LOVE Hugill's work, but when I'm searching for historical understanding, it is among the last sources I turn to.
***

I happen to believe that that Hugill wrote the Bible of shanty singers - but just like its better known namesake it is full of inaccuracies and downright lies.

I can agree with this 100%! :D

Since Santy Anna is in the refrain, it was easy for him to "win the day,"...

I have thought the same. This is what I would call something like "internal logic" (though that might be an inaccurate way of saying it). I think there is a lot of internal logic to chanties that people overlook in favor of "external" logic.

External logic (again, just my term) drives the method of picking on certain words in shanties and looking for their etymology, looking for historical events to attach them to, etc. It's what folklorists often seem to have done, and it is the method of a lot of "origins" threads on Mudcat. It is also the method often used by Hugill in his writing. A song is presented, which contains some notable or unfamiliar word/name in that particular version, and then the presenter goes along trying to explain the word and find a story to why it appears in the song. In fact, Hugill's whole SfSS is constructed out of clusters of shanties linked, often haphazardly, by some shared word.

I will not at all say that this method is useless; it is often very insightful. But the narratives of the songs are often non-existent or much less coherent than presenters to modern audiences would (understandably) have us believe. My feeling is that the audience/readers are expected to want these narratives because it is a way they connect with and feel like they can understand the song. It needs to make literal sense, or that which doesn't needs to be explained.

I don't believe, however, that that literal sense was necessarily present in chanties, since rhythm, sound, sing-ability, and non-literal meaning were so important.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:20 PM

Hmm?

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:48 PM

Oh! Merry Christmas Folks

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 12:18 AM

Since Taylor was president of the US in 1850 and was a slave holder from Baton Rouge (just up river from New Orleans) the assumption that sailors in the Gulf Ports hadnt heard of him holds no ice with me.
Just because he has almost vanished into obscurity nowadays doesnt mean he wasnt a legend when this shanty first came to notice.
So why do you think there were two versions, one pro and the other anti?
The coloured workers would have been more likely to sing the pro version, surely? Certainly within earshot of their white 'masters' at any rate. At sea it would be a diferent story, especially when among non-Yankee sailors.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 01:22 PM

Sorry, DH. As Gibb suggests, logic (and 21st century sensibilities about what 19th century seamen would have wanted to sing about in shanties) has little to do with it.

Not to mention that there's absolutely no evidence that Taylor's position on slavery had anything to do with the song. If it had, the words would say so, and they don't. The simplest explanation is that "Santy Anna" is already in the song and is more fun to pronounce than "General Taylor."

We have no idea when SA replaced GT anyway. It could have been long after the Mexican War - or the Civil War for that matter.

But who am I to let facts get in the way of a good story, dreamed up 150 years later, about enslaved crews singing shanties in code to fool their masters - and everybody else for the next century and a half.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 25 Dec 12 - 10:25 AM

"But who am I to let facts get in the way of a good story, dreamed up 150 years later, about enslaved crews singing shanties in code to fool their masters - and everybody else for the next century and a half."

Who the hell suggested that?
As for what 'they wanted to sing about' its more to do with what they DID sing about.
You will have them singing about Boney crossing the Alps wiv elefunts next ;-)

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 08:03 AM

re

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 26 Dec 12 - 01:33 PM

So why do you think there were two versions, one pro and the other anti?
There weren't! :)

There are multiple renditions ("versions," if you like?) on record. (Most if not all of these, that I believe anyone is aware of, appear in the "Advent and Development of Chanties" thread. One can open the thread and do a search / Command-F on "SANTIANA" to locate them.)

Some renditions say "Santa Anna won/gained the day", some others say "Santa Anna ran away", and yet others say other things. The quasi-real events in all these renditions do not match up. They talk about battles of Monterrey (1846), and Molino del Rey (1847) -- two different battles, the former in which the U.S. was victorious, the latter in which the U.S. basically lost. And IIRC, Taylor and Santa Anna were not directly involved in either battle (but rather overseeing the whole conflict). Then there is the battle of Buena Vista, in which the two *were* engaged. Hugill incorrectly mashes up all three of these battles as if they were the same.

My point is that there is a lot of "stuff" there, some clearly inspired by current events, other surely mixed up after the fact by chantymen. These don't cohere into two coherent versions. That would be a construct of later collectors (most notably, Hugill) and, I guess, later 20th c. singers.

I find it rather frustrating to have to de-construct the narratives of recent presenters of songs like this before discussing their origins. It is much easier just to start from scratch with no theories in mind. Otherwise it's like trying to re-coil a rope that someone has tied in knots.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: GUEST,Treason?
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:33 AM

Someone posed that the song doesn't make sense because Taylor
wasn't a traitor - but from the point of view of a the Rebublic of Texas,
he was, for making Texas so beholden to the USA. Maybe the song
was wishful thinking on the part of someone who wished Texas had stayed
independent.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: GUEST,Vince
Date: 21 Oct 21 - 01:37 PM

Santa Anna did actually win the day at Angostura or Buena Vista as the Yankees called it.

He fought Taylor to a standstill and, his army being re-assembled on the following day, had he again attacked would have smashed to U.S. ranks. Instead, much to the annoyance of his troops, he withdrew to face the threat imposed by Scott's landing at Vera Cruz.

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Oct 21 - 05:53 PM

STAN said this Stan said that, Stan said the other, it might make a new shanty , most of them are work songs and a load of old cobblers anyway

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Oct 22 - 09:49 PM

Boston Evening Transcript (Apr. 13, 1892):

" 'Carry him to his long home, carry him along, boys, carry him along' and many others will occur to the memories of ancient mariners."

Subject: RE: Origins: General Taylor - who was he?
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 22 Oct 22 - 12:42 AM

In the Battle of Monterrey (September 21–24, 1846) during the Mexican–American War, General Pedro de Ampudia and the Mexican Army of the North was defeated by the Army of Occupation, a force of United States Regulars, Volunteers and Texas Rangers under the command of General Zachary Taylor. The hard-fought urban combat led to heavy casualties on both sides. The battle ended with both sides negotiating a two-month armistice and the Mexican forces being allowed to make an orderly evacuation in return for the surrender of the city. Wikipedia

Not to be confused with the Battle of Monterey; Early on 7 July 1846, the frigate USS Savannah and the two sloops, USS Cyane and USS Levant of the United States Navy, captured Monterey and raised the flag of the United States. The only shots fired were a 21-gun salute to the new U.S. flag fired by each of the U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Wikipedia

From: GUEST,Vince Date: 21 Oct 21 - 01:37 PM Santa Anna did actually win the day at Angostura or Buena Vista as the Yankees called it. He fought Taylor to a standstill and, his army being re-assembled on the following day, had he again attacked would have smashed to U.S. ranks. Instead, much to the annoyance of his troops, he withdrew to face the threat imposed by Scott's landing at Vera Cruz.

Library of Congress www.loc.gov tells a different story; Battle of Buena Vista
United States General Zachary Taylor was victorious over Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in the Battle of Buena Vista on February 23, 1847. Named for a nearby hacienda, the Battle of Buena Vista was fought near Monterrey in northern Mexico. On the evening of February 21, General Taylor received a message from General Santa Anna offering to accept an American surrender and be spared the battle. Taylor reportedly replied: “I decline accepting your request.” For the next two days, the Mexican army of over 15,000 troops assaulted the smaller U.S. force of only 5,000 men. The agile field artillery and advantageous battle position, however, favored General Taylor against overwhelming odds. By nightfall of February 23, the exhausted and dispirited Mexican army retreated; Taylor elected not to pursue the troops and remained to secure the region.

General Winfield Scott landed at Veracruz in March and headed west toward Mexico City. At the Battle of Cerro Gordo in April, he defeated the Mexican army; Santa Anna again escaped capture. Despite strong resistance, Scott pressed forward and captured the Mexican capital in September, securing U.S. victory in the Mexican American War.

Taylor’s victories at the Battle of Buena Vista and the 1846 Battle of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, won him national fame that contributed greatly to his election as president in 1848. Scott, too, ran for president but was defeated in 1852 by another veteran of the Mexican American War, Franklin Pierce.

Warfare History Network The Battle of Buena Vista
Although Santa Anna displayed the artillery pieces O’Brien had lost at Buena Vista and falsely claimed that his troops had won a victory, seven months later soldiers of the U.S. Army would march victoriously through the plaza of Mexico City. In August, during the Battle of Padierna, the two lost guns were recaptured by the 4th U.S. Artillery. Transferred to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, they were placed on exhibit beneath a plaque reading simply, “Lost without dishonor, recovered with glory.”