|
Post by stuart on Aug 6, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -5
There may not in fact be any significance at all to the placement of the three pyres; but rather finding suitable sites, bearing in mind the real practicalities.
In order to stack the bodies properly and interlace them with wood they'yre going to have to be laid side by side in no more than two layers, which in effect means long and low rather than high and compact and to do that you really are going to have to create a number of pyres rather than one big one.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 6, 2007 18:02:06 GMT -5
True. The Ruiz account was an interview and the original was written in Spanish. However, the account is written in first person and signed by Ruiz indicating that Ruiz gave his approval to the wording. Ruiz then initialed the P.S. at the bottom. So I think the words are definitely that of Ruiz and not of the interviewer. The interviewer (Quintero?) confirms that it is a correct translation of the original document.
My intentions are not to beat-up on Ruiz, but I do want to flesh-out his story a bit and challenge the statements that are odd or incomplete. Trust me, guys...I'm only interested in finding the truth or getting as close to it as possible...so please bare with me.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 8, 2007 13:30:17 GMT -5
Where Crockett was assigned is almost as debatable as to the location of his body. Potter does not exactly state that David was positioned at the West wall as a sharpshooter but rather makes a guess or as Potter says, "we may infer." The truth is...Potter wouldn't have known any more about Crockett's assigned post or purpose then we do.
Aside from Sutherland's assertion that Crockett was assigned to the palisade...the South wall seems to me the most logical place for a skilled marksmen like David.
The defenders perceived that the greatest threat to the Alamo would most likely come from the South...and with good reason. The Alamo's main gate, which could be viewed as an attractive target to an attacker, was along the South wall and heavily fortified. The defenders placed their most powerful gun, the 18 pounder, at the Southwest corner in order to respond to an attack from the South. Access to and from San Antonio, via the river ford and bridge, lay to the South. The greatest amount of soldado activity was to the South. If someone was wanting to snipe at the Mexicans, their best chance for finding a target of opportunity would have been in the vicinity of the river crossings, the Plaza de Valero, and La Villita. When, on Feb 25, the third day of the siege, Santa Anna made his attack on the Southern defenses of the Alamo, Crockett was there. Crockett, as Travis pointed out, "was seen at all points" along the South wall. This attack more then likely validated their belief that the biggest threat to the Alamo lay to the South. And since the Texans had no way of knowing if or when the Mexicans would repeat their attack on the South wall, moving their best marksmen (Crockett) away to the West wall or any where else just wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Up to, and until March 6, the West wall was never engaged or threatened. Likewise, the Northern and Eastern defenses, with the exception of long range cannon fire from a battery or two, were not attacked or even seriously threatened. In other words, if you are going to employ Crockett as a sharpshooter, his best chance for success would be somewhere along the South wall.
Another thing to consider in regards to Crockett's assigned post is a statement made by Mrs. Dickinson. She claims to have heard Crockett express himself "several times" about dying out it the open. It would appear that she saw a lot of Crockett and that could be viewed as an indication that Crockett was posted in close proximity to where she was quartered in the Sacristy.
In truth, I don't think we'll ever know conclusively where Crockett was assigned or killed, so until we do...we'll keep debating it.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by highplainsman on Aug 8, 2007 13:57:08 GMT -5
Sounds like pretty good reasoning Glenn however as has already been pointed out, when the attack came it's also possible in fact likely, that he would rush to the point of the most immediate danger which it seems was the northern area of the compound. Having said that, there was an attempt on the south that coincided with the attacks on the north and that possibility might have kept him in that area if that was indeed where he was stationed. As you say, we most likely will never know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 8, 2007 14:37:50 GMT -5
Rather more to the point, although Potter does indeed say "we may infer" that he he was posted on the west wall as a sharpshooter; he was't offering a suggestion as to where he died but telling us his body was there and suggesting an explanation for the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 8, 2007 16:40:25 GMT -5
I don't want to take this too far afield, but I think Mrs. D attributed this "die in the open" comment to defenders other than Crockett as well. I'll check the source when I get home. While this may mean that more than one person made the comment, it may also be another example of Mrs. D's faulty recollection or prompting by an interviewer. Personally I put very little confidence in her interviews. We've discussed the veracity of the Dickinson accounts in the past, but it always makes for interesting reading. If anyone would like to discuss the Mrs. D accounts in more depth we should open another thread. Sorry to move off topic. Jim
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 8, 2007 19:57:57 GMT -5
Yes Jim, you're correct. According to Mrs. Dickinson, it was Henry Wornell who made a very similar comment.
As to my previous post, the point I was making was that if Travis wanted to employ Crockett as a sharpshooter the best place for him would have been on the South wall.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 8, 2007 20:26:17 GMT -5
True, initially, but by the 6th, the North Wall had been under intense bombardment from the recently erected Mexican North Battery. Every indication was that an attack would be made from this direction.
But, based on Joe's accounts, I'm beginning to believe, that where defenders went on the morning of the 6th, probably had more to do with where they were sleeping, then any assigned "stand to" type positions. In other words people reacted to their nearest threat, when they woke.
To me, with the accounts we currently posses, I just don't think we can conclude anything about where people actually were assigned or supposed to be.
Again, to me it comes down to who do you want to believe, Ruiz or Dickinson. Despite the obvious errors in the Ruiz account, he got where Travis and Bowie fell, right. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean that he got Crockett's location right, but it adds weight to his veracity on at least this one point.
Dickinson (or at least her recorders), however, is remarkably inconsistent on where she places Crockett. And in her one official recorded statement, does not mention even seeing Crockett's body. To me this makes her a less credible witness in this one particular case.
Can we say conclusively where Crockett was? No. But, it seems to me the best evidence points to him being found along the northern part of the West Wall.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Aug 8, 2007 22:07:09 GMT -5
I would like to get a little more insight on the disposition the Mexican dead and wounded, myself. Unfortunately, we were not left with much information to go on. Even DLP, who seems to be everywhere and have a comment on most everything, has little to say. Basically, we have Santa Anna, who, according to Ruiz, tasked him with the removal of the Mexican dead. The slain soldados were to be interred in the Campo Santo on the West side of town. When you take everything into careful consideration, it becomes clear that this was a huge undertaking for just a few local boys to complete.
First, Ruiz is directed by Santa Anna to go into town and recruit some local men and also procure some carts for the purpose of transporting the dead to the cemetery. This task alone must have been time consuming. A question I have here is: Who or what is pulling the carts? From my understanding, Bexar was a bit "short" on horses and draft animals at that time. Certainly, Santa Anna's army had the resources to spare but Ruiz doesn't mention using them or even having access to them.
Another question I have is: How long (realistically) would it take to gather all the dead Mexicans, load them up on carts, and then transport them to the Campo Santo. I don't know the exact distance from the Alamo to the cemetery but looking on a map it appears to be a long ways off. Even with the aid of animals pulling the carts, this too, must have been very time consuming. I wonder (given the limited man power, number of Mexican dead, distance to the cemetery, number of carts, trips to and from the cemetery) just how long it took to get all of the slain soldados to the Campo Santo??
And then there is the grave digging. Who's doing that? How many graves. Were they buried individually or was it one mass grave? How much time would this involve? Did the Mexicans really let Ruiz get away with tossing there dead friends and comrades into the river? And what of the families of the dead...did they get involved? Anyone have some thoughts or insight?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 8, 2007 23:10:41 GMT -5
The answers to some of these questions may lie in the size of the carts and whether Santa Anna detailed any (and how many) soldados to help with the hauling and burying. Does anyone know what the standard practice was for burying the dead? Was it standard practice to simply assemble a funeral detail to take care of it? Apparently, there were less than 100 Mexican dead and perhaps as few as 60.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 9, 2007 1:03:01 GMT -5
Worth remembering that point about the numbers; but as for the carts you also have to avoid being fixated on horses. Riding horses were certainly in short supply, but people in those parts were more used to using oxen for heavy loads, and burros for lighter ones.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 15, 2007 23:14:52 GMT -5
Glenn wrote:
Since the Mexican dead weren't cremated, presumably because the majority of them were Catholic, this raises the question of funeral Masses and when and how they were conducted. And are mass graves permissable in such a case? Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 16, 2007 0:52:51 GMT -5
Since the Mexican dead weren't cremated, presumably because the majority of them were Catholic, this raises the question of funeral Masses and when and how they were conducted. And are mass graves permissable in such a case? Jim I'm not a Catholic but the obvious answer has to be yes, battlefields in Europe saw thousands of Catholics buried in mass graves on hundreds of battlefields throughout Christian history. Masses tended to be conducted later, like memorial services.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 16, 2007 9:31:20 GMT -5
The removal and burial of the Mexican dead might not have been as big a logistical problem as it appears if we consider the actual numbers involved immediately following the battle. There would have been far more wounded than dead. I would expect too, that the soldados would have gathered their own before dealing with the bodies of the defenders.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 16, 2007 17:45:26 GMT -5
Even the official number of 70 dead is a sizable number for a small town to handle.
I can't recall exactly what was said, but I seem to remember TRL saying something about no burial records for the Campo Santo.
|
|