|
Post by edward on May 13, 2014 9:03:50 GMT -5
Edward, dare we think that ALL the rest were thrown in the river? I doubt it. Most likely, only a few were recorded or acknowledged. Of course, as you brought to my attention, the Campo Santo was quite small -- and active (!!!) since 1808. How much room could there have been? Rich,
This is what Juan Ogden Leal wrote in his transcriptions of the SF Burial records (Camposanto -1836 burials). Santa Ana ordered that his men who died at the battle of the Alamo, be given a burial and not burned like the men in the Alamo. Many of Santa Ana's men killed then were taken to the old cemetery on the side of the Medina river, by the Somerset road, south of the city. The site was called 'el paso de las Garza's.
He does not give any source. He also mentions that some were thrown in the SA river citing Ruiz.
To me this makes more sense but I have not found the source from where he obtained this information about the burials being south of the city.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 13, 2014 12:18:32 GMT -5
That sounds... absurd. lol. That's some trek. And why?
|
|
|
Post by edward on May 18, 2014 22:32:17 GMT -5
I thought the same thing Rich. I talked to a person who went with Leal (decd) to survey that cemetery south of town and they found nothing. He said that he concluded that some or most of the Mexican soldiers were buried at the Camposanto with the rest going into the river. I assume it was a mass grave at camposanto and only the officers were recorded in the church records.
This is a report on the graves found in 1997 at Santa Rosa Hosp. car.utsa.edu/CARResearch/Publications/ASRFiles/201-300/ASR%20No.%20276.pdf
|
|