|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 16, 2007 18:09:52 GMT -5
Rings a bell with me. One would think a mass grave would have been mentioned somewhere too. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 17, 2007 0:59:53 GMT -5
Not necessarily. By definition bodies going into a mass grave are anonymous and perhaps therefore forgettable. There are no recorded mass graves for any British battles. A number have been found and others are referred to in historical records while some have local traditions saying that the dead were buried in such and such a field, but that's all. A few mediaeval battlefields have chapels on or near the site originally endowed to provided masses for the dead, but these are rare and still don't actually record the number or burial place(s).
So no, I don't read any significance at all into the absence of any record of burials in the campo santo. There would of course be a local oral tradition that they were buried in a certain part of it or more likely just outside it, but no more than that. Ruiz will certainly have known but I'd reckon that his otherwise strange claim that the bodies were thrown in the river was made to avoid revealing the location in case patriotic Americanos were minded to desecrate it
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Aug 17, 2007 6:24:22 GMT -5
A further thought occurs to me on this one. If we accept the blindingly simple proposition that Ruiz falsely claimed the bodies of the soldados were thrown in the river by way of deflecting questions as to where they were really buried; do we actually have any evidence that they were carted right across town to be interred in or near the municipal campo santo in the first place – particularly as the priority would have been to use the available transport to recover the wounded. I would be much more inclined to look for a burial place somewhere close to the Alamo itself. While the original campo santo in front of the church wouldn’t have been suitable, the Catholic tradition of burying the dead as close to an altar as possible might suggest somewhere outside the church building, although on balance I’d be inclined to look somewhere near the north wall, as being the most convenient place.
That old story about the headless bodies on the post office site might be a pointer. The fact that they had been decapitated points to their being execution victims rather than battle casualties, but if graves were being dug in that area anyway it would be logical enough to dig an extra one for them. As I recall the wording of those reports from the 1930s also suggested that the foundation works were turning up more bones than might be accounted for by the 12 originally found.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Aug 17, 2007 9:57:32 GMT -5
There is no pattern when it comes to mass graves, especially in the American Revolution. Old Milford Cemetery in Connecticut contains the remains of nearly four dozen colonials who had died from smallpox and were dumped there from a British ship; the remains of hundreds, perhaps thousands, are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Revolutionary War Soldier in Philadelphia. And in a pre-war mass grave are the remains of a half dozen men who died at the Battle of Alamance in North Carolina 1771.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 17, 2007 10:26:35 GMT -5
My apologies, this is off topic, but back in 87, our British Friends put a bunch of us up at their major military base in Germany. Right outside the British Camp was the former site of the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, my driver and I slipped over there one day. It was one of the most somberly awesome things, I've ever witnessed. Bergen-Belsen was one of the "good" concentration camps and not technically a death camp. Yet over 50,000 victims are buried in an area probably about the size of two football fields. British Engineers, buried them when the camp was overrun at the end of WWII. You walk by a grave mound and its simply marked 5,000; 2,000; 10,000; the number of victims buried there. I swear it is the quietest place on earth, not even the birds sing.
On the backside of the camp is a sign that points the way to a former Russian POW Camp, we followed the sign down a little used dirt trail, about a 1/4 mile and came to a little shaded immaculate park about 50 yards square, where the former POW camp had been. The horror is that this little 50 yard square also is nothing, but mass grave mounds, coincidentally, holding the remains of 50,000 Russian Soldiers that died in captivity at that camp.
The numbers are mind boggling, even when staring at the graves. The experience was searing. Uncovering and securing mass grave sites and witnessing the decomposing bodies in Bosnia while horrible, still shrinks in the sheer magnitude of what I witnessed in Germany 42 years after the event.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 17, 2007 11:35:27 GMT -5
Had the Mexican dead been buried in a mass grave, I would expect at least an oral record of the event in SA history. Strange that there is so little evidence as to their whereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 17, 2007 11:58:01 GMT -5
Wolf, I had a similar experiance on visiting the death camp at Dachau, near Munich. A great sadness hung in the air like a pall that can never be removed. San Antonio has had wars and strife, but thankfully is not so cursed by them. Stuart, is it possible that the dozen beheaded bodies found at the post office were those of the twelve Army of the North officers, who lost their heads after the nearby battle of Rosillo on March 29, 1813?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 17, 2007 13:05:48 GMT -5
There's a couple of accounts that talk about the bodies being thrown in the river, so I wouldn't totally discount that as a possibility.
What I think is a distinct possibility, is that an arroyo/gully/wash might have been used as a pre-made grave, and the banks pushed in over them. Heavy rains (weren't some mentioned by Bernard?) could then have washed some of the bodies into the river.
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Aug 17, 2007 17:55:14 GMT -5
i wouldnt bet on it but if santanna being a catholic type had 2400 troops they could bury 300 or the 70 which i dont believe yet. i cant picture ruiz throwing bodies in the river . he probably wasnt digging as alcalde, make others
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 17, 2007 19:32:15 GMT -5
This is a possibility I hadn't really considered, but it's logical and would have been expedient. Mark might have some input on the terrain and the feasibility of this scenario. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 17, 2007 21:54:31 GMT -5
Yeah, that's my point, there's more than just Ruiz that said there were bodies in the river, and I find it hard to believe that the Army would have allowed them to be dumped there (unless they did the dumping).
Something like using a gully as a mass grave site and having some bodies wash out into the river seems to make some sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 17, 2007 22:11:14 GMT -5
The question is "where?" Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 17, 2007 22:19:10 GMT -5
I don't know I just looked at LaBastida in The Texans and nothing really shows up except a possible gully west of the Jacales and north of the SW corner. But, that does tie in with the bodies being caught in the river bend.
|
|
homer
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by homer on Aug 17, 2007 22:26:50 GMT -5
i was just implying ruiz wouldnt dare thro mex troops in river. no expert here
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 17, 2007 22:35:52 GMT -5
Where, other than Ruiz, is there mention of bodies being thrown in the river? Offhand, I can't remember. Since many of us have problems with this story, can anyone site a corroborative source?
|
|