The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, if I may say so, absolutely excellent research and constructive support as well as defining modifications to observations! Thank you, and I very much appreciate the itemized attention to particular details.

This is exactly the kind of interaction that is so helpful in discussions and helps so much in developing threads. I think that often people misperceive varying kinds of modifications as corrections but in fact they are essential additions in true fact finding discourse and not personally oriented.

Actually your additions are entirely helpful in adding important dimension to my findings, and key information I may have overlooked or inadvertently omitted.
Thank you so much, really learning far more than I had thought.....the material is so much deeper than I have realized, and your insights outstanding.

Teamwork in investigative research and discussion. Excellente' !!!

[Jim McDougall]

Moving on, I think I have found some interesting perspective on the situation with back powder and the supply to the Mexican army in this time.
Apparently at the time of the 'Texas Revolution', the United States was actually in a pretty much 'business as usual' state as far as commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. This appears to have included supplies to the Mexican army of Santa Anna and through his appointed agents in New Orleans.
The Texians had a small navy of several ships that were patrolling and blockading movement of such supplies in the gulf, and it appears that Yucatan and Maramoros were key port locations for the Mexican trade.

One ship that was captured was Mexican, but owned by Americans (the Pelicano) and apparently had supplies including 300 barrels of powder mingled in with flour and other commodities. Two other American ships were taken also carrying arms, ammunition and powder for the Mexican Army. One ship, a brig from Boston, also had a contract to transport Mexican soldiers to Texas.

While this sounds provocative, it must be remembered that the United States was not at war with Mexico, it was a revolt of the Texians against Mexico. In fact there was considerable uproar of the 'commerce' in the Gulf being disturbed by these nautical situations, and the Texians even accused of piracy!

It would seem that the campaigns in Texas had Santa Anna with a notable shortage of supplies, which apparently included powder. That being the case, perhaps the powder on hand was 'cut' or altered to go farther?
Had the powder being used by Mexico been supplied through New Orleans?, as noted that regular commerce through that major port had been well established.

It would seem that Mexico may have been obtaining powder through New Orleans with Santa Anna through a firm he had business with, and through purchase orders via his worldwide agent for provisions and materials such as ammunition etc.

[fernando]

Still some missing links may be found out there, to be brought in for connection or, if preferred, a consolidation of all loose episodes in a solid timeline. Poor gunpowder, yes but, basically due to weak components, lack of know how, or adulterated by one of two reasons; economic interests based on bad faith, or 'cut' to extend its stocks due to contextual shortage ... hardly a measure, due to its technical naivety. And then, which of those motives motivated Mexicans to acquire extra gunpowder from abroad ? And from when have they realized they needed such supplements ? Why thinking that the Pelicano was the first ship to transport gunpowder for Santa Ana forces? I wouldn't call it contraband, as that would be one sided point of view. Wouldn't it be interesting to spot a publication narrating the gunpowder saga, viewed from inside by a Mexican (documented) author ? Forgetting that is the historian that makes the history, as real or according to his taste. No, just a politically naked synopsis on the subject.


.

[yulzari]

This all reinforces the idea that Mexican powder was not of a firearm quality and they sought to remedy that by imports as the Mexican producers were unwilling or unable to source and suitably process the necessary quality of ingredients for firearm quality powder. All gun powder uses the same basic ingredients but there are major differences in the purity of them, type of wood and charring processes and how they are incorporated and then processed. There is little that can be done to bring firework powder up to firearm standards . I could go into tedious detail but gun powder making is far more complex than just chucking together the 3 basic ingredients and making the best of it is a very subtle affair which is, even now, not fully understood.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for the responses guys!!!
Fernando, as always very well observed. There are indeed many missing links, but after lengthy research trying to find more after the Pelicano matter was brought in, what I found was under a very different heading than specifically gun powder.
The information I found had to do with espionage which was also carried out via these 'trade' arrangements, and the mention of powder was almost an aside included with descriptions of materials and commodities being carried.

The point is that there does not seem to have been more than casual mention of Mexican gun powder aside from that kind of cursory reference or the derisive regard toward its quality and inefficiency. What I wonder is, if the Mexican powder was so poor and ineffective...….then why was it so?
Its poor character is mentioned repeatedly in historical works and accounts of the Alamo and other campaigns.

It is mentioned that in the departure of the expedition of Texians who left the Alamo prior to the siege (the Matamoros expedition) they 'took most of the good powder'. That would have been the Dupont that apparently was the premium powder brought in by the volunteers.
That left the defenders with the amount of powder which was left behind by the Mexicans in the Alamo along with the cannons after General Cos surrendered to the Texians in December.
Narratives record that Cos, allowed to leave to return to Mexico with a limited supply of powder and arms (for protection) took , again, the 'good' powder, leaving that deemed inadequate.

We know he spiked cannon, as may be expected not wishing materials to fall into the hands of his enemies. Could he have somehow adulterated the powder in deliberate sabotage?
If the powder being used by the Mexicans was already poor as per the accounts of other battles, then why worry about it?
Susanna Dickinson, wife of one of the gunners at the Alamo who was there and survived spoke of the 'damaged' powder held in the magazine there.
I suppose her husband, artillery being his specialty, may have grumbled about it to her.

Returning to the Pelicano, and the associated captures mentioned, 'contraband' was the term used in the material I read, and while not regarded as such to the trading companies involved from the US, it certainly was deemed as such by the Texian vessels 'interfering' with its transport to their enemies, the Mexican army.

In all the material and bibliographies I have researched through (over many years and numerous visits to the Alamo and resources there) I have never found any specific reference focused on Mexican gunpowder. That is NOT to say it does not exist, but that I, personally, have not found it. Hence, the reason for this thread.

It is very true that these matters and topics as dealt with by each historian or narrator reflect their own views and perspective. That is why it is incumbent on researchers to always dig deeper, corroborate and cross reference all available material. Only then can a reasonably plausible outcome or resolution be determined, based on the preponderance of evidence which favors a specific result.

As Yulzari has well noted, the ingredients for the varying grades of powder (black powder) are gauged according to the intended use. The powder for firearms is of finer grained, while that for artillery is 'corned' or much coarser, these variables tuned for the explosive or 'burn' properties required.
Fireworks would seem to be more for pyrotechnic effect of visual character rather than for propelling projectiles, so clearly with much different mixture.

In analogy, toward the producing of gun powder, it does seem to require a certain measure of adept ability, and I think of the situation in the Sudan prior to Omdurman (1898). Khartoum had been taken by Mahdist forces, and the arsenal and the abundant materials were being put to use to supply the building forces of the Caliph. While, as at the Alamo, there were many arms on hand, but as always, the difficulty was powder.

In similar character as the ranks of peasant soldiers in the Mexican army, relatively untrained, the Ansar warriors fired 'from the hip', and again, their powder (produced ineffectively in the arsenal at Omdurman) was poor in quality. There were accounts of British soldiers hit numerous times by Sudanese bullets which only superficially wounded them, if at all.
The same description came from Texians in confrontations with Mexican forces.

It seems I had read of the difficulty in transporting powder with Santa Annas forces in their long march through inclement weather to get to the Alamo. The powder I believe had to be stabilized (?) and did that entail either dampening it, or making it less volatile? Perhaps ineffective adjustment of its properties by that or weather itself rendered it less effective?

As a matter of note, the kegs of gunpowder on the Pelican were found 'mingled' with bags of flour, and this was presented as if the powder (contraband) was intended hidden? Could this have been meant to somehow preserve or stabilize the powder? unconventional though it seems...or was the agent (Zacharie) indeed unaware of the powder hidden away in the flour?

[David R]

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David R

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

Thanks David! Interesting notes on firing from the hip to speed up volleys.
It does seem like the dynamics of the ignition of the powder would have pretty negative possibility to a persons face. While not having much (any) experience in firing these kinds of guns, I did once fire a muzzle loader, and smoke and sparks were pretty disconcerting.

The smoke alone made me wonder, in the discharge of a single gun, the acrid smoke was unbelievable. Multiply by hundreds, even thousands and 'fog' would be an understatement.

With the Mexican forces, I think the big problem was firing in total darkness and with the low elevation of guns actually shooting into the forward ranks instead of over them.