|
Post by Herb on May 20, 2007 14:48:18 GMT -5
No, the way I read it, it's two very separate occasion one in 1935 during the current construction/remodeling (which?) and one during the original construction 50 years earlier. Herff is very clearly telling the story about the 1880s/1890s discovery, but it's the 1935 discovery that has prompted him to come forward. I will agree with you further collaboration is needed before we set this in stone. But, I find the mention of Losoya and Menchaca, two historically minor characters and relatively unknown (what no Crockett, Travis or Bowie?) compelling, as I do the numbers, and identification by Tejanos. I'm accepting it, as of right now!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 15:00:18 GMT -5
Okay, I;ve just read the account again in "Traces", and I don't see anywhere the executed are referred to as Tejanos...only as Texans. What am I missing? To me, it still sounds as if this is all one account being discussed. Herff, the gentleman relating the story, claims he got the information secondhand, from Menchaca. Losoya, Candelaria, and Gallagher in 1870. At the bottom of page 329, after relating that the soldiers felt remorse after the mutilations, the bodies were buried "where the post office now stands". Further, "Those particular bodies were not burned. They were not buried where they fell, but were buried at the post office where there is a gravel formation which made the burials much easier. I can recall when the basement of the post office was excavated over 50 years ago, that 13 or 14 headless bodies were found at that time, which would confirm the statements made to me". (italics mine) Herff is citing these later excavations as proof that the stories he heard from his sources were true. Same bodies, different time. The preface to the article makes it sound as if the bones were unearthed again in 1935, and Herff is claiming they are the same bones unearthed earlier. Seems to me we should be able to locate a stand-alone1935 account of bones being found at the excavation site. The Herff interview seems almost like a follow up to an earlier mystery story. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 20, 2007 15:14:37 GMT -5
Okay, I;ve just read the account again in "Traces", and I don't see anywhere the executed are referred to as Tejanos...only as Texans. What am I missing? Jim My bad, I typed, as, instead of, by, in my last post, since corrected. You're right they are not listed as Tejanos only as defenders. I think they were Tejanos, just by the fact they were buried and not burned (see the opening post for this topic) and the beheadings.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 15:26:42 GMT -5
Here's something else to chew on. Arocha's report claimed she saw some executions which, from her position, could have only occured outside the compound. Did she, in fact, witness these executions, or is this more hearsay? In Hansen, p. 509, in yet another interview with Barsena and Bergara, they mention Antonio Peres returning to the ranch of Arocha on Sunday evening with reports of the Alamo's fall. Again, we have a B&B connection. Hmmm.... Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 20, 2007 16:23:48 GMT -5
My mind on this one is actually fairly open. I have some reservations which Jim has articulated, but on the whole I still think that my scenario is the one which best fits the various clues.
It appears to be the case that the number of defenders executed could easily have been in the region of 13 or 14 rather than 5 to 7.
Cutting the heads off would have been consistent with Mexican practice in dealing with traitors.
13-14 Federalists is consistent with Filisola's statement that there were 20 Bexarenos in the garrison
The explanation that the soldiers buried the bodies because they were ashamed of having mutilated them doesn't make any sense. Far worse was happening to the other bodies.
Those men (assuming of course they existed) were separated for a far more substantial reason and the logical one is that they were executed and then beheaded because they were (Mexican) rebels - the Americans were filibusters
I don't think its significant that they weren't identified in the story as Tejanos. To Menchaca and Loyosa, they were defenders, but Herff and anyone else at that time will have automatically assumed that defenders= Americans. Its only now, here at the outset of the 21st century that we're really getting to grips with the Mexican Federalist angle on this.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 20, 2007 18:05:16 GMT -5
I don't have a huge problem believing that this could have been the scenario, but I'd like some additional evidence that these headless bodies were really found and this isn't just another tall tale. When you add a B&B connection into the Arocha mix, things look suspicious, and as far as I recall, Arocha is the only person who claims to have seen executions, presumably outside the compound. I wonder if she really saw them or if it's another case of the B&B account being embellished. I think when trk returns he may be able to add some things pertaining to the veracity of Arocha. The whole problem is interesting, and definitely needs to be researched more. Jim
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 22, 2007 10:59:03 GMT -5
The post office building (more precisely, the federal building) that predated the current one opened on July 21, 1890, according to the story "Postal History" in the San Antonio Express of July 20, 1890. According to the book San Antonio Was, by Cecilia Steinfeldt, construction on the "1890" post office commenced in 1887; the "new" post office was built in 1937.
FWIW, the post office that immediately preceded the 1890 building was also located on Alamo Plaza, although on the southern end, at Blum Street, on the first floor of the Gallagher Building. That building was some distance south of the southern limits of the 1836 Alamo compound. The p.o. in that building opened December 22, 1877, and closed at the time of the opening of the 1890 p.o. on the northern end of the plaza.
(By the way, San Antonio Was is a crucial book to have if you're interested in the 19th century development of San Antonio. It's packed with vintage photos and has a very useful and detailed text.)
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 22, 2007 19:13:20 GMT -5
Jim wrote: "I think when trk returns he may be able to add some things pertaining to the veracity of Arocha."
I haven't looked deeply into the veracity of this account (Hansen, 521-22). (The Buquor account is the one I dug into in some detail.) The available material on what Sra. Cruz y Arocha supposedly saw is pretty vague. Her husband's claim to have assisted Juan Seguin carry messages from the Alamo is credible; Seguin himself said that he rode with him on this mission. I seriously doubt that Sra. Cruz would have been holed up in a very exposed jacal outside of the Alamo compound's walls during the siege, and wonder if she saw the events she claimed to have witnessed from a room within the compound.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 22, 2007 22:03:14 GMT -5
Oops! My mistake, Tom. I forgot it was the Buquor account we talked about some time ago, not Arocha. That's what I get for posting without consulting my notes! Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 23, 2007 1:20:19 GMT -5
I seriously doubt that Sra. Cruz would have been holed up in a very exposed jacal outside of the Alamo compound's walls during the siege, and wonder if she saw the events she claimed to have witnessed from a room within the compound. It could well be down to human psychology. Once again this is an account of what she supposedly said rather than her own words. Did she know of the executions from others and then when asked if she was absolutely sure say that she saw them herself rather than admit she was only retelling something she had heard - and to be fair probably had every reason to believe was true
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 23, 2007 10:34:55 GMT -5
Whether any formal executions happened outside the Alamo Walls is an interesting debate in itself, but it doesn't bear on whether the Herff account about the beheaded bodies is valid or not.
It may bear on Stuart's theory, that these beheaded bodies, were the formally executed men and that those executed were Tejanos and beheaded after the fact, and as such should be debated. Otherwise, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any relationship between where executions occurred and Herff. (?)
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 23, 2007 10:51:47 GMT -5
Wolfpack, the connection is the body count. We were counting the 7 or so reportedly executed inside the compound, then another possible group executed outside and witnessed by others (rather than the DLP group), thus rasing the body count to around 14. Without the second group, we're back to 5 to 7 defenders executed. I'm still skeptical about this newspaper report. I'd sure like to see some corroboration that these bodies were unearthed rather than a 50 year old recollection from someone who had a lot of his facts wrong. As I read his remarks, he also seems to be claiming that little or no fighting occured in the long barracks. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 23, 2007 11:56:49 GMT -5
Jim, there is no direct connection between the executions and the reported beheaded bodies. That is merely a theory by Stuart, one that maybe plausible, but not one connected by any evidence in the article to the reported bodies. Proving the number of people executed does not prove or disprove the exsistence of the bodies, nor who the bodies were. Nor even if the bodies did in fact exsist, if Herff's story is true or not.
If we can establish bodies were in fact unearthed at the site, all we've established is Herff's story maybe true. The other side is if we can establish there were no bodies unearthed then the story is probably not true. Proving who the bodies were - any one group specifically (ie those executed, or even Tejano) - is an entirly different matter and, imo, virtually impossible without some sort of forsenic examination of the bodies.
The starting point, imo, is verifying the exsistence or not of the bodies. As the Herff story was originally printed in the San Antonio Express on September 1, 1935, it would seem the place to start would be in that edition and shortly before, to see if there are other mentions of bodies. IF other evidence of the unearthing is found, we've at least established that Herff's story is possibly true .... Establishing who they were or even if they were indeed defenders is a totally different matter.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 23, 2007 12:18:16 GMT -5
The starting point, imo, is verifying the exsistence or not of the bodies. As the Herff story was originally printed in the San Antonio Express on September 1, 1935, it would seem the place to start would be in that edition and shortly before, to see if there are other mentions of bodies. Let me pile on here by also suggesting that you'd need to look at San Antonio newspapers from 1887 to 1890 for accounts of the construction of the "old" post office on the north side of Alamo Plaza; according to Herff, 13 or 14 headless bodies were found buried at that site during the excavation for that project.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 23, 2007 13:10:23 GMT -5
I look forward with interest as they say… however I also think its worth looking again at the report we do have.
As Wolf earlier pointed out there clearly had been some kind of a discovery, because the September 1 1935 article is headed “Pioneer Says Bones were Texas Heroes” and then first refers to “the numerous skeletons unearthed at the site of the old post office!” before going on to say that Herff has come forward to claim that they were Alamo defenders, and then launching into his tale.
Its pretty obvious therefore that some kind of discovery had recently been made and was common knowledge at that time.
It doesn’t follow however that the initial discovery was reported in the newspapers. Herff speaks of 13 or 14 headless bodies being found when the basement was originally excavated over 50 years before. If the ground was heavily disturbed at that time it is likely that what was being turned up in 1935 was not complete bodies but a rather less newsworthy scatter of bones.
Moreover, it’s a bit hard to avoid the impression from the way the article is introduced that most people in San Antonio were totally underwhelmed by the finding of some old bones on a building site and that Herff may not have been taken too seriously at the time. It reads more like a human interest story than a bit of ground-breaking news.
Now to us its tremendously interesting and there are a number of clues in the story which lead us to take it with a certain degree of seriousness, but I wouldn’t read any significance into a lack of contemporary reportage.
|
|