|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 20, 2011 16:51:26 GMT -5
If Santa Anna did not want to degrade his enemy, he could have arranged an honorable surrender of the Alamo garrison. There is evidence to suggest that Travis might have surrendered to save the lives of his men. And, Santa Anna could have waited a day or two for the 12 pound cannons to arrive and make a pitched battle unnecessary. Yet, he chose the most dramatic course of action possible. In my opinion, he continued the dramatics with the Texan pyres and nailed it with his order to take no prisoners at Goliad. It had to be his intention to spread as much fear as possible to the Anglo-Texans. I know how hard it is to seperate historical fact from propaganda. I think that is one of the best things about this Forum is that we get to do it on a daily basis. But, to me, Santa Anna earned most of the negative propaganda to which he is credited. I'd be glad to see evidence to the contrary, but virtually all of the dozens of books and other sources I've read portray him as a real stinker.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 20, 2011 17:16:51 GMT -5
There was a bigger picture here than we may be seeing. Revolts and unrest were nothing new in Mexico, including Texas. For a long time, Mexico worried about immigration from the U.S. and the increasing influence of the American colonists in the region. Fact finding missions had already warned of this. The ongoing battles for power in Mexico did not help to stabalize things and Santa Anna faced uprisings in Zacetecas and Texas. Filibustering was nothing new in Texas, nor calls for revolution and/or independence (Fredonia, for example). There was real fear of losing Texas and perhaps more to the expansionist United States and, IIRC, Jackson may already have made at least one offer to buy Texas from Mexico.
There is no question that Santa Anna was determined to stamp this out and had no qualms about brutality. He was hardly a humanitarian and wanted to emphasize that the Texian rebels were not soldiers or citizens seeking political change within Mexico, but outside agitators and separatists, who threatened Mexican authority. Taking no prisoners and insisting on brutal warfare were consistent with this pattern.
The flip side of the coin is that Mexico had never been able to bring these outer provinces under control and found its own internal politics frequently in crisis. The power vaccum that Mexico created in its northern provinces was bound to be filled by the United States, sooner or later.
It almost plays out as a dress rehearsal for the U.S.-Mexico War, which came about when these very fears became reality and Mexico would, indeed, lose vast amounts of land to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 20, 2011 18:59:07 GMT -5
...consider that the actual decree that "allowed" these events to happen was the Tornel Decree of 30 December 1835, which I think we have discussed before...it was a response to the Mexican Federalists in exile back Mejia Expedition-recruited and launched out of New Orleans. While the desired effect was to let folks know that Mexico was having a zero tolarance to havvng non-Mexicans invade their territories under arms, the outcry after Goliad was enough for them to repeal it on 14 April 1836.
Allen is on the right track-you have to consider the Texas revolution as a Latin American war...or at least how the Mexican Government reacted to it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 20, 2011 18:59:50 GMT -5
Lou -- calling Santy Anny a "real stinker" is an understatement, and brought quite a smile to my face. This is getting way off target, here, but I find it interesting how he did a grand tour of the U.S. after his defeat. I imagine he would have been a huge hit in places like Tennessee, where so many defenders hailed from.
But, yes, it appears he wanted to send as strong a message as possible in Bexar and a couple of weeks later at Goliad -- hence his being adamant about no prisoners at Goliad, after Fannin supposedly surrendered under a promise of safe-keeping. Had I been around back then. I would have been scared you-know-what-less if I new Santa Anna was in the 'hood. It was not a good time to ba an Anglo in Tejas, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 21, 2011 11:09:22 GMT -5
If Santa Anna did not want to degrade his enemy .... . Lou, not saying that at all, as you say he was a real stinker. I'm just saying the funeral pyres were not part of deliberate "degradation" as has been popularly claimed. Rather it was simply the easiest way to dispose of the dead, and something that was not unusual at all, but instead a rather common practice.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 21, 2011 16:03:22 GMT -5
Herb, I'm not questioning the practicality of funeral pyres after a battle. I think it makes complete sense. It's just my reading of the testimony of Pablo Diaz who claimed to witness the creamations. He said the pyres were spectacular and burned for two whole days and nights and left an odor more sickening then that of the corpses that were thrown in the river.
Common practice or not, it sickened and appalled me and I just can't help but project that Santa Anna had that purpose somewhere in his mind when he gave those brutal orders.
Revolutions are a messy business. But the real trouble starts with the counter-revolution. We don't often see a counter-revolution that does not resort to extreme levels of violence and brutality. Look at what's happening in Libya and Syria. Yet, Egypt and Tunesia may escape a violent counter-revolution. As President Eisenhower accidently mispoke, "Things are more like they are today, then ever before."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 21, 2011 16:19:12 GMT -5
One message I think Santa Anna didn't mind making clear was the price of rebellion, and the pyres' remnants were a serendipitous, long-lasting way to advertise that while sparing the town the health hazards of leaving the bodies to rot close by. I hear the arguments for the the cremations being routine in the armies of the world, but I think estebans provided the key here. Everything Santa Anna did had the dramatics of conveying a "message." Why would the cremations be an exception? My goodness, he literally established a *gateway* on the Gonzales Road as the principal message -- a major pile of bones and ashes on both sides as Anglos and Tejanos alike approached Bexar from the eastern settlements! The third pyre, IMO (since no literal location has come down to us as with the other two) was right where the breakout attempt ended. Somewhere to the east of the fort. They were just gathered to the middle and burned. The emphasis after the battle on the part of Santa Anna was to take over the fortifications and improve them, not tear them apart to use for pyre fire. Nor would the soldados and their officers have been happy to have the men burned in the plaza of their newly acquired barracks. It is clear from several primary sources that there were forested areas within 1/4 mile of the Alamo. Several accounts (not just one) indicate local Bexarenos and their carretas were enlisted to gather the firewood. I see no reason to include this detail in the realm of legend or myth. By crossing at the Potrero Street footbridge, it was 8/10 of a mile to the Campo Santo from the Alamo gate, and a lot farther by way of the wagon ford beyond La Villita. I agree with Kevin about the "I'm tired" factor and add to that the stress of time and command pushing the body-bearers and carreteros to extreme and erratic choices. These aren't facts we know, just human nature. SOME VAGRANT THOUGHTS: Another interesting thought about the bodies dumped in the river. IF this was done from the Potrero St. Bridge or some section of the river bank right below the Alamo (don't do Happy Hour at Jim Cullum's Landing!), then it was done with the realization that there was a dam just around the bend below La Villita. NONE of those bodies were going to pass on downstream. This problem certainly could have been aleviated by dumping them off carretas at the ford (where the Navarro St. Bridge is today) since that was below the dam, but eyewitness Bexarenos have indicated that the snag of bodies was about where the bend was (Arneson River Theater today) -- and that was above the dam. Thus, if someone as *official* as Ruiz (the alcalde) did indeed "authorize" this, then it must have been due to the great pressure being placed upon him by Santa Anna. Remember, Ruiz' dad had just signed the Declaration of Independence! The guy had to have been paranoid out the kazoo.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 21, 2011 16:24:48 GMT -5
Another possible indicator as to the "why" of the funeral pyres is that one of the reports of the battle in a newspaper (I think in the east or at least New Orleans) commented rather routinely that the bodies were burned "to prevent their putrification." Sure, burial would have succeeded in doing that far better, but my point is that the article doesn't even bring this issue up, as if it were no big deal. The only issue seems to be that they didn't leave them to rot -- as the Texians did at San Jacinto later.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 22, 2011 12:37:21 GMT -5
A thing to remember, is the policing of the battlefield was done by the local citizens (surely not with much enthusaism) and the cavalry as punishment directed by Santa Anna. The Infantry were marched off right after Santa Anna's "victory speech" in the Alamo, paraded through Bexar, and then returned to their camps. This is a critical point, for neither one of the two groups was policing the battlefield were going to be too concerned with much - other than getting the job over with as soon as possible. There was no comrade of arms stuff, the dead soldatos comrades were parading in town or later sleeping back in their camps. In fact combat soldiers are rather known for being callous toward the dead they don't personally know. One of the accounts mentions how the cavalry dragged the bodies to the pyre sites, mounted, using ropes tied off to their saddles, while the civilians gathered the wood and stacked the pyres. The Dam problem ( sorry) with dumping the bodies in the river, as led me to question these accounts. As far as I know there are only two, Ruiz who claims 1600 Mexican losses as the reason, and Pablo Diaz given in 1906 some 40 years after Ruiz was published, and claiming 6000 Mexican losses. Did Diaz incorporate Ruiz or in fact witness what he claimed? If true, the hauling of bodies past he dam, seems to be more work even than a quick mass burial. Interestingly, there is another Diaz account, Juan Diaz, given in 1907 (I think this is the boy depicted watching the battle from the roof in the 2004 movie). He states "that the Texas and Mexican soldiers were all piled in a heap and burned together." (Hansen, p535). I don't know of any other account that collaborates this. But, as I said earlier the math seems too coincidental to be anythng else - unless you believe the 60 man second reinforcement theory.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 22, 2011 13:48:06 GMT -5
Thanks Herb for providing some question about the Juan Diaz account. The fact that it wasn't recorded until 1906 leaves some room to question its accuracy. Time does tend to color one's recollection of things. On the other hand, there are incidents in my own childhood that are as vivid today at age 63 as when they happened. Something as dramatic as the funeral pyres on the Alameda in 1836 might well have remained quite vivid to the then teenage Diaz for the rest of his life. We're seeing evidence of that now in the recollections of the survivors of WWII, both military and civilian. Again, like all things "Alamo" we just don't know. That's why I love it!
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jun 22, 2011 19:05:55 GMT -5
One thing that has not been considered are the "Soldaderas", the wives of the Mexican Soldiers who accompanied their men on the campaign. I would think that they would want to see that their husbands received a dignified burial. But they were only "women", so who cares what they want?
Do we know ANYTHING about these women? What did they do if their man was killed? What happened to them?
How many soldiers were usually accompanied? Was it worse for a soldier if they didn't have a wife to tend possible wounds? Were the Mexican soldiers expected to find their own food?
- Paul Meske, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Jun 23, 2011 4:10:52 GMT -5
Quote:- The Dam problem ( sorry) with dumping the bodies in the river, as led me to question these accounts. As far as I know there are only two, Ruiz who claims 1600 Mexican losses as the reason, and Pablo Diaz given in 1906 some 40 years after Ruiz was published, and claiming 6000 Mexican losses. Did Diaz incorporate Ruiz or in fact witness what he claimed? If true, the hauling of bodies past he dam, seems to be more work even than a quick mass burial. I'm familiar with these accounts, but have been under the impression that in reality only about 60 of Santa Anna's men were killed, and am wondering if someone can direct me to a thread elsewhere on the Forum where this issue is discussed. I don't have as many free hours to explore the various threads as I did a few months ago when our earthquake brought everything here to a standstill, although most days I get the chance to check out the latest posts.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 23, 2011 9:15:34 GMT -5
I'm familiar with these accounts, but have been under the impression that in reality only about 60 of Santa Anna's men were killed, and am wondering if someone can direct me to a thread elsewhere on the Forum where this issue is discussed. Start here (from our FAQ): alamostudies.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=questions&action=display&thread=1033The estimate of 60 Mexican dead is generally viewed as accurate, with more dying from wounds later on.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 23, 2011 13:42:08 GMT -5
Lou -- calling Santy Anny a "real stinker" is an understatement, and brought quite a smile to my face. This is getting way off target, here, but I find it interesting how he did a grand tour of the U.S. after his defeat. I imagine he would have been a huge hit in places like Tennessee, where so many defenders hailed from. But, yes, it appears he wanted to send as strong a message as possible in Bexar and a couple of weeks later at Goliad -- hence his being adamant about no prisoners at Goliad, after Fannin supposedly surrendered under a promise of safe-keeping. Had I been around back then. I would have been scared you-know-what-less if I new Santa Anna was in the 'hood. It was not a good time to ba an Anglo in Tejas, for sure. Take a look at Margaret Swett Henson's article Politics and the Treatment of the Mexican Prisoners after the Battle of San Jacinto: SWHQ Volume 94, July 1990-April. (The SWHQ is available on line at the Texas State Historical Association site). She includes an appendix of Almonte's Travel Diaryfor 26 November 1836 to 31 January 1837.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 23, 2011 13:46:12 GMT -5
One thing that has not been considered are the "Soldaderas", the wives of the Mexican Soldiers who accompanied their men on the campaign. I would think that they would want to see that their husbands received a dignified burial. But they were only "women", so who cares what they want? Do we know ANYTHING about these women? What did they do if their man was killed? What happened to them? How many soldiers were usually accompanied? Was it worse for a soldier if they didn't have a wife to tend possible wounds? Were the Mexican soldiers expected to find their own food? - Paul Meske, Wisconsin Very little...on occassional references such as the one John Forbes killed at San Jacinto. As far as I have seen neither side recorded them in any offical reports, although there is reference to some being with the Mexican prisoners after San Jacinto.
|
|