|
|
Post by Herb on May 10, 2007 11:00:14 GMT -5
On pages 328 - 330, of Alamo Traces Tom Lindley includes an account about beheaded bodies being found at the site of the Post Office.
Basically, a Mr Herff declared that in 1870 Antonio Menchaca and Juan Losoya (defender Toribio Losoya's brother) gave him an account of the battle of the Alamo. According to Herff, they told him in the aftermath of the battle, soldatos were beheading defenders until stopped by their officers. These defenders were not burned but buried near the North Wall, not where they fell, but because the ground was easier for digging in the vicinity of the North Wall. Supposedly 13 or 14 bodies were recovered from the site.
I believe the defenders mentioned were probably the Tejano members of the garrison primarily for two reasons. First beheading and placing the head on a pike/pole was a common punishment for so called traitors in Mexico at the time. Secondly, the bodies were buried not burned. As any burials would have had to been done by the local population it makes sense that the people they'd take the time and effort to bury would be their former neighbors and friends. It is also interesting that the Ruiz account specifies that 182 defenders were burned - not that there were 182 defenders.
While I concur, with Stuart's opinion that these bodies, probably were all or some of the Tejano defenders of the Alamo, I don't necessarily agree that they represent the men in the different execution accounts. It seems odd to me, that Seguin's company would surivie the battle largely intact.
Also of interest to me, is if you add these 13 or 14 bodies, to Ruiz's 182, and add Esparrza's seperate burial, Guerrero's survival, and the reported survivors that reached Nacogdoches, you're right at the 200 defenders reported by Filisola.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 10, 2007 14:26:05 GMT -5
This is a topic with a number of ramifications. In introducing the so-called Lancer story Tom Lindley drew attention to the fact that certain inconsistencies in the execution accounts suggest that there may have been not one but two groups of defenders who survived long enough to be murdered. Essentially, he argues that the initial reports of 7 men being executed came from eyewitnesses who saw something happening outside the Alamo, while later testimony by Mexican officers refers to a group (of 5?) executed inside the Alamo. This suggests that the actual total was at least 12, which corresponds pretty closely to the reported discovery of “13 or 14” decapitated skeletons.
In considering who they were its worth bearing in mind Joe’s testimony which describes in considerable circumstantial detail the execution not of 5, let alone 13 or 14 Americans but just one – “Warner”. The circumstances of his own capture and subsequent treatment indicate that he would have been around when these executions took place, yet there is no mention of them in the various debriefing accounts.
What may also be significant is Filisola’s statement that the garrison comprised 150 volunteers, 32 men from Gonzales and “some twenty people and tradesmen of the City of Bexar itself” (Hansen p393)
Some of those 20 will almost certainly have died in the battle, but were 13 or 14 of them taken prisoner – being ethnic Mexicans – before Santa Anna ordered his men to execute them. Remember he took great pains to emphasise how he was fighting against American filibusters. A group of 13 or 14 Mexican Federalistas would have been an embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 14, 2007 13:15:38 GMT -5
I've long considered that the victims of the executions were the hospitalized defenders, and thought that might explain the revulsion of some of the Mexican officers to the action.
I wonder though, If the summary execution of some of the Tejanos might not have engendered the same response, especially if these victims were known entities.
If they were Tejanos, the numbers make more snese, as Wolfpack noted.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 14, 2007 15:56:05 GMT -5
This is another reason why I think that those who were executed were Tejano Federalistas. A number of people had it in for Santa Anna afterwards and if he really had ordered the execution of sick and helpless men dragged out of a hospital that would have been trumpeted far and wide as absolute proof of his wickness, but there's never a whisper of it in any account and I think they actually died during the clearing of the Long Barracks.
On the other hand the number of beheaded bodies stacks up both with what appears to be two separate groups of executions, with Filisola's estimate that there were 20 Bexarenos amongst the defenders, and with the unhappiness of the officers and soldados concerned.
Afterwards it was no doubt politically convenient to assume that those who were executed were Americans, but I still reckon the evidence points to their being Mexican/Tejano Federalistas
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 14, 2007 16:06:02 GMT -5
Good point, Stuart. It seems it would have been expedient to mention the murders of the infirm had that happened.
I'm leaning more toward the Tejano explanation, but the sticky point for me is still, would the officers have exhibited outrage at these executions if they were indeed Tejanos? Santa Anna certainly had a history of butchery, his officers had seen it before, and wouldn't these Federalistas have been considered traitors deserving of execution?
Do you think the mere fact they were countrymen elicited this response?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 14, 2007 17:00:15 GMT -5
I believe the defenders mentioned were probably the Tejano members of the garrison primarily for two reasons. First beheading and placing the head on a pike/pole was a common punishment for so called traitors in Mexico at the time. I know about the beheadings of Spanish Texas Governors Salcedo and Herrara at the Battle of Rosillo, and Capt. Las Casas in the Casas Revolt, but did this barbaric practice occur anywhere else in Texas history? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 14, 2007 17:05:04 GMT -5
I don't think its quite that straightforward. I think it was more of a two stage process.
I think that in the first instance the Tejanos will have managed to surrender because they were fellow Mexicans. They could communicate. The soldados could see that they were fellow Mexicans rather than Gringros.
That's the critical bit. In combat of that kind soldiers will kill more readily than capture, but, and this is an important bit, once they do capture they can often be very protective of their captives and subsequent executions are rarely carried out by the initial captors.
And this again comes back to my theory that the executed men were Tejanos. In addition to all the points I've already made, they are simply rather more likely to have their surrender accepted in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 18, 2007 8:24:29 GMT -5
I'm becoming more interested all the time in the role of Tejanos and the number of them at the Alamo. This actually has come about from my research into Alamo music, which has led me to inquire about songs that may present the Mexican or Tejano side of the conflict. People rarely write songs celebrating wars that they lose, so there may not be a lot (any?) Mexican songs, but there could be Tejano songs.
But, for this thread, I'm interested in how the Tejano defenders saw themselves in the struggle. Were they always somewhat "squeezed" between their Mexican heritage and their desire to overthrow Santa Anna, and their alliance (uneasy?) with the Americans, who increasingly pushed for complete independence? Stuart's book shows that Houston was opposed to any alliance with other Mexican states or any attempt to keep Texas in the Mexican federation. He also seems to have been at least somewhat racist in his efforts to partition off an all-Anglo (or mostly-Anglo) Texas. I wonder if this is why he was not too interested in defending or bothering with Bexar, a largely Hispanic area, and kept focusing on the need to defend Gulf ports and the areas to the east, adjoining the U.S. I haven't read much of Juan Seguin's writing, but I wonder how he saw all this as it played out, especially when Houston initially told him and his Tejanos to stay out of the San Jacinto fight for fear they'd be confused with the Mexicans and shot by the Texans.
Also, I wonder if there is a way to resolve the question of how many, if any, of the Tejanos were included in troop headcounts by Neill, Bowie, Travis or other Texan leaders at the time. Wolf suggests that some in Bexar may not have formally enlisted and were thus omitted from some roles, but if they took up arms and were in the Alamo, why would Travis have omitted them from his troop numbers except for racial reasons? Travis's letters hint at a suspicion (if not outright hostility) toward the Tejanos.
Another of the less-mentioned events in the Alamo story (which I'm hoping will be included in a new revised account of the siege and battle) is the amnesty that Santa Anna offered to the Tejano defenders, which (apparently) many of them took. I believe that the amnesty was honored and that these Tejanos were not harmed by the Mexicans. This could not have set well with Travis (or the other defenders?).
Susannah Dickinson also alluded to a Tejano woman who betrayed the garrison by spying for the Mexicans, a story that has never seemed persuasive -- I think Santa Anna had plenty of intel on what was going on in the Alamo without this spy "betraying" the garrison.
In addition to the Mexican amnesty, there is probably something to the various stories of Travis offering his men a chance to escape and/or his promise to surrender or attempt a mass escape if no help arrived by a certain date (March 5?).
There doesn't appear to be much info on these points, which may be why they are explored so little.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 18, 2007 9:53:47 GMT -5
Allen, you've raised a lot of interesting questions/points. I'm a little short on time right now, but I suggest if anybody wants to respond, that they start a thread on that particular question/point. Could lead to some interesting discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 12:58:52 GMT -5
After rereading the account in "Alamo Traces", I'm suspicious. Were there any newspaper reports of these bodies having been found during the construction of the post office?
Seems like this would have been a big enough deal that it would have been reported elsewhere.
And where were the bodies reinterred?
I'm skeptical.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 13:12:04 GMT -5
Its something I've wondered about myself, but if everyone knew all the Alamo defenders were cremated rather than buried there might not be any reason to make a connection - or a fuss. Its worth remembering that although some ashes were supposedly gathered up and deposited in that casket in the San Fernando church, the rest were lost by this time through neglect. I forget the details but I think it was the depressingly familiar story of the spot first being covered by a peach orchard and then a rubbish dump.
In short the discovery of those bodies may have been no big deal
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 13:18:13 GMT -5
The question then is when were the bodies discovered? If it was during the construction of the PO, then I would think there would have been mention of it.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 20, 2007 14:07:42 GMT -5
After rereading the account in "Alamo Traces", I'm suspicious. Were there any newspaper reports of these bodies having been found during the construction of the post office? Seems like this would have been a big enough deal that it would have been reported elsewhere. And where were the bodies reinterred? I'm skeptical. Jim Jim, the account is from a 1935 San Antonio Express (page 330), apparently the discovery was fairly recent as the opening sentence is "There is no rest for the numerous skeletons unearthed as the site of the old post office." Later in the account it mentions an earlier unearthing 50 years prior when the basement of the old post office was excavated. Look at pages 6 or the back cover, of the modern Post Office and compare to Page 90 of the old post office, in Nelson's "The Alamo An Illustrated History". On pages 84 and 85 ca 1880s there's a feed store on this site. On page 86 ca 1890 the old post office. On page 104 is a picture from the 1930s showing the new post office with a construction fence around it. From the pictures I'm not sure if the old post office was torn down and rebuilt or just extensively remodeled and expanded. Very clearly there's a problem with provenience, but I still find the account credible. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 14:18:10 GMT -5
I'm not finding it so much so. I'd like to do some more research in San Antonio newspapers and find some corroboration. There are way too many of these accounts in the SA papers, where old timers reflect on events of the siege and battle, and many are problematic and presented with an uncritical eye (Esparza comes immediately to mind). Right now, I think we're assuming too much. We need some more evidence. But let's not open ourselves up to the accusation of being conclusion driven.  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 14:28:32 GMT -5
I think this is referring to the same incident, and the source is citing this discovery as corrobortaion of his recollection. That would have made the discovery sometime in the 1880's.
Surely there was something written about the discovery at the time.
Jim
|
|
