|
Post by stuart on Aug 26, 2007 3:34:46 GMT -5
Jim Crisp responds:
Stuart: Jim Boyleston's answer is cogent, but he has confused (as many people do) the two men, father and son, named Francisco Ruiz. The alcalde who identified bodies for Santa Anna was the son, Francisco Antonio Ruiz, who did not die until 1876 -- that is why it is certainly possible that Potter interviewed him, but I still believe that Potter was using the TEXAS ALMANAC account by Ruiz. The father, Jose Francisco Ruiz, was signing the Texas Declaration of Independence in Washington-on-the-Brazos along with his uncle Jose Antonio Navarro during the siege of the Alamo. He's the one who died in 1840. It looks like I need to sign up and register on the Alamo Studies web site. I'll try to do so soon.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 26, 2007 8:32:28 GMT -5
I stand corrected, and happily so, since it looks even more possible that Potter could have actually talked with Ruiz the younger. Jim's right though, that the info contained in the later Potter account could certainly have been taken from the published Ruiz. It could also be that Ruiz's oral account was consistent with the written version.
By the way Jim, we'd welcome your contributions here on the forum, so feel free to climb aboard! Jim B
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 26, 2007 10:44:22 GMT -5
Back in May, Jim and I discussed with Jack Edmondson, the probability of a West Wall location for Crockett's death.
Jack pointed out while on the surface there appears to be a lot of corroboration for locating Crockett, here, with the exception of the unidentified guide (who could possibly have been Ruiz) in the Graham Magazine Account, everything that places Crockett here goes back to Ruiz. Thus, there is no true corroboration.
However, there are two internal corroborations that have to be mentioned, first is the consistency of the various statements, as compared to inconsistency of the Dickinson accounts. The second internal corroboration is the fact, that as far as we know today, Ruiz got the locations of Travis and Bowie correct, which points to a higher degree of probability that he got the location of Crockett correct.
I don't think anybody can say with certainty, where Crockett died. Personally, I feel there is very high probability that it was along the West Wall.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 26, 2007 10:48:51 GMT -5
Jim Crisp responds: It looks like I need to sign up and register on the Alamo Studies web site. I'll try to do so soon. We'd look forward to that!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 26, 2007 11:52:36 GMT -5
Going back to something we touched on earlier, which accounts position Travis on the north battery as opposed to the NW as Potter claims? Ruiz says only "north", but Ruiz only uses general directions ("north", "west" and "south") in his report as written, so that doesn't neccessarily run counter to Potter's position.
Whether or not Potter actually talked to Ruiz is an interesting question, but the fact that Potter quoted him at all leads me to conclude that there was little disagreement with Ruiz among the witnesses to whom Potter did talk. Potter obviously wasn't married to his 1860 account, as he corrected in in 1878, so he clearly wasn't looking to Ruiz for corroboration of any preconceived ideas. I think he would have been open to correction from any of his other sources, so perhaps there was no contradiction of Ruiz among the witnesses or the oral tradition, which Potter also cites as part of his research. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 26, 2007 20:36:33 GMT -5
Perhaps we've tried too hard to interpret "toward the west" as meaning west of Travis. Ruiz doesn't really say that, he tells of Travis's location, then says Crockett was found "toward the west" and "opposite the city". Ruiz could more easily have been referring to the compound's layout rather than positioning Crockett in relation to Travis. Jim Good call, Jim. This does feel like a possibility, particularly since three sentences in a row contain compass directions in relation to the fort. "On the north battery..." for Travis. "Toward the west..." for Crockett. And "...one of the rooms of the south side," for Bowie.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 26, 2007 20:38:41 GMT -5
By the way Jim, we'd welcome your contributions here on the forum, so feel free to climb aboard! Jim B I second that motion, Jim C. Rich Curilla
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 16, 2007 13:11:12 GMT -5
I believe it was three or four pages earlier in this thread that the question came up, was there some precedent or tradition previous to the Battle of the Alamo where armies would have disposed of battlefield dead by throwing them in a handy river? I just chanced on something that suggests a precedent, four months before the Alamo. David L. Kokernot, a veteran of the Battle of Concepción on October 28, 1835, noted in the article "Reminiscences of Early Days in Texas" ( Gonzales Inquirer, Aug. 17, 1878: www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/kokernotmemoirs.htm) that on the day of that battle, "At 3 o'clock the enemy retreated, leaving one hundred and twenty dead on the field, besides many that were thrown into the river." The implication seems to be that Mexicans, not Texans, threw the bodies into the river. The Texans were apparently uninterested in disposing of the remaining bodies on the field by whatever means, since the next day a Mexican priest asked permission to bury the Mexican dead, and the Texans assented.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 16, 2007 14:22:53 GMT -5
I'm not convinced this actually happened. You'll note its alleged by the Texians, rather than recorded by the Mexicans or a disinterested third party.
It could have happened, there may have been the odd drowned man washed downstream, but I have to say its something I've come across very frequently in 18th century battle reports by the winning side.
At Clifton in 1745 for example (a fairly indecisive rearguard action) the Jacobites rather hopefully claimed to have killed 50 or 60 for little or no loss. The local parish register records 10. On the other hand British Army accounts state that five of the enemy were killed on the spot but then at least one newspaper report equally hopefully claimed that another 40 were thrown into the river Lowther.
You'll observe that both here and at Concepcion the retreating army is supposed to have managed to pick up and spirit away a substantial number of their dead, and amidst the usual wreckage of defeat carry all those corpses some distance before callously dumping them in a convenient river.
The reality is that such claims (invariably by the winners) are just a way of accounting for the fact that the actual body count doesn't match their inflated claims of having disposed of biblical numbers of the enemy
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 16, 2007 15:33:52 GMT -5
...and amidst the usual wreckage of defeat carry all those corpses some distance before callously dumping them in a convenient river. The Mexicans wouldn't have had to carried the corpses very far from the battlefield to the river: the equivalent of a few city blocks. In all honesty, I'm not aware of any other accounts that made the bodies-dumped-in-the-river claim, but then there aren't all that many primary accounts of the Battle of Concepción.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 17, 2007 0:21:48 GMT -5
Well, as I say it is a fairly common ploy elsewhere to account for the discrepancy between the casualty claims and the actual bodycount and whether the distance to the possible dumping site is very long or not, it requires us to believe that the retreating army still managed to police up the battlefield and carry off a considerable number of dead before vacating the premises.
The Ruiz story on the other hand claims that he and his people (not the Mexican army) dumped some bodies in the river while policing up the Alamo battlefield afterwards, which is a different matter entirely
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Nov 28, 2007 23:01:00 GMT -5
Returning to the question of the bodies I’m inclined to revisit my earlier scepticism of Ruiz’ statement that bodies were thrown in the river; it comes back to the question of logistics. In the first place I’m still very much inclined to agree with Wolfpack’s suggestion that initially most of the Mexican dead were cremated like the Texians, rather than interred in a mass grave. I cannot say with certainty where or how the Mexican dead were interred. But I don't believe Ruiz tossed any of the Mexican bodies into the San Antonio River for reasons we have already discussed. And I disagree with the idea that the Mexican dead were burned along with the Alamo's defenders. First, I have to ask "why"?? Why would Santa Anna direct or allow his own soldiers to be thrown onto the funeral pyres? He certainly had the manpower to dig the graves or grave. And Texas is without question, spaceous, so it's not like there wasn't enough room. Was Santa Anna in a rush? Aside from the lack of archological evidence to support the "burning" theory, there is no documented or physical evidence I'm aware of that has Santa Anna engaging in this practice prior to his Texas Campaign. So there is little cause to believe he would order or permit this to occur. Then there is the Catholic influence to consider. Keep in mind that Santa Anna needed the backing of the Catholic Church if he wanted to stay in power. Denying his soldiers a christian burial would have been looked upon as a grievous offense by the Church and the local clergy. No doubt Santa Anna would have rejected the idea of burning the bodies of his dead soliders out of fear of losing the support of the Church back in Mexico City. If Santa Anna had actually directed the army's dead to be burned along with the Texans, I believe he would have experienced a wave of angry protests from a horrifed Mexican Army. After the battle, morale within the army was sagging and dissatisfaction with Santa Anna's leadership was rising. Santa Anna could not afford a further drop in morale and throwing his dead soliders onto a funeral pyre with the enemy dead could hardly be considered inspiring. The collective attitude of the army would have been wholly negative. Soldado's, believing that they would be burned in a pile instead of receiving a proper christian burial, would have deserted the army in droves. Adding to the protests from his army, Santa Anna would also have to contend with the the large number of Soldadera's. The Soldadera's were a collection of camp followers which may included a soldado's wife, children, mother, sister, girlfriend or mistress, but also amateur nurses and prostitutes. I feel that the family of a dead soldado would have been granted permission to claim the body of their fallen loved one. The family could then bury the dead wherever or however they wished. And I believe this practice occured to some extent. Even Gregorio Esparza's family was granted the request. It's unlikely that the soldadera's would have quietly stood by and looked on as their loved one was cremated instead of receiving a christian burial. So what happened to the fallen Mexican soldado's? Well, de la Pena does provide us with some information. In his narrative, DLP writes: "The greater part of our dead were buried by their comrades.." (not Ruiz). So it appears that the Mexicans may have indeed intrred many of their own dead... where they were interred is another question. DLP goes on to say: "...but the enemy, who seems to have some respect for the dead, attributed the great pyre of their dead to our hatred." I take this statement to mean that the Mexicans considered the burning of the dead disrespectful, despicable, and insulting. If DLP's statement was reflective of the attitude of the majority of the Mexican Army then it appears unlikely that the Mexicans would have consented to burning their fallen comrades. Lastly, I feel Santa Anna's detractors, and there were many, would not have passed up on an opportunity to pile on the negative criticism had he treated his own battlefield dead so callously. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Dec 8, 2007 22:22:42 GMT -5
Hi y'all, I'm new to the forum but have had "Alamo on the brain" for several years and read your discussions carefully. It seems reasonable to me that most of the dead Mexican soldiers were buried by their comrades as reported by de la Pena. But I'll bet there were probably a few of them who did not have camp followers or didn't form friendships strong enough so that someone would care enough to bury them. It wouldn't be many, just a few. Perhaps these are the soldiers that Ruiz (the son) is talking about putting in the river. Since his father was pro-independence as his son he probably had little love for the Mexican army and the thousands of soldiers waging war in his home town. Why should he bust his chops to bury these guys he doesn't know or care about? In my imagination I see a cart with dead soldiers moving West down Commerce St, apparently on the way to the Campo Santo. For some reason though the driver makes left turn onto either Yturri St or Dwyer Ave where the bodies were put inconspicuously into the river below the dam. Maybe it was even night time. Who knows?
If bodies were put into the river right by the Alamo they would have been caught by the dam just around the bend which provided water for an acequia. How far down stream is the next dam? Two miles away was the next mission. Would any thought be given about the possibility of the bodies drifting down there? Maybe not, "outa sight, outa mind. It ain't MY problem anymore." With hundreds of Mexican soldiers around it would have been done discretely, not just drag 'em to the nearest water and give 'em the old heave-ho.
But the question of WHERE the other soldiers were buried is intriguing. Another Alamo mystery.
Mysteriously yours, Paul M, Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 9, 2007 10:56:37 GMT -5
The answer may lie in the Lorcana account:
"There in front of the fosse (following on from the bit about dealing with the breakout he's clearly talking about the acequia) were gathered the bodies of all who died by the lance, and those killed in the fort, and there they were ordered to be burned, and there being no room in the campo santo or burying-ground, it being all taken up with the bodies of upwards of four hundred Mexicans, who were all killed in the assault."
The body count as I mentioned on the other thread is a touch suspect given the date and provenance (1878) and Tom Kailbourn is promising a thread on Lorcana naxt week, but I'm inclined to wonder given the second or third hand nature of the Ruiz testimony whether in fact the majority of the Mexican dead were placed in the acequia channel/ditch/fosse and covered over as being a whole lot easier and quicker than digging a new trench.
I stand to be corrected on the location/course of the historical acequia but the one presently channelled through the Alamo grounds is a lot closer to the buildings than the one described by Sesma and Lorcana.
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Jan 23, 2008 11:40:23 GMT -5
I get a different impression from Jeff Long's book, Duel of Eagles. On page 263 he states; "While the creaking wood-and-rawhide ox carts slowly trundled bodies downriver to the ford, and through town to mass graves, a company of chasseurs accompanied Alcalde Ruiz to the nearby forest to haul back wood for the funeral pyres. As he crossed the river around three o'clock, he was halted by the horrifying sight of dozens and dozens of Mexican bodies drifting in it. The San Antonio Riv er not only anchored all life in the region, it reached out with its acequias for many miles around. And now the sacred river was polluted with death. Apparently exhausted by the effort of hauling bodies all the way to the cemetery, soldiers had begun dropping corpses into the water. Ruiz immediately ordered the practice stopped. Then he headed to a field southeast of the Alamo and watched the construction of cremation pyres."
Notable points to me are 1) a mass grave located across the river and through town for the dead Mexican soldiers, and 2) there were many dead soldiers thrown in the river and Ruiz did not approve of the practice. There is no foot note to identify where this information came from.
On page 266 is the account from a Mexican teenager from Mission Concepcion, Pablo Diaz. Three days after the battle and after the pyres had burned down he experienced; "I noticed that the air was tainted with a terrible odor of many corpses, an I saw thousands of vultures flying over me. As I reached the ford in the river my gaze encountered a terrible sight. The stream was congested with corpses that had been thrown into it. I halted, horrified, and watched the vultures in their revel and shuddered at the sickening sight. Then involuntarily ... I turned aside and up La Villita Street and went to South Alamo Street. I could not help seeing the corpses which congested the river all around the bend... They stayed there many days and until the alcalde [Francisco Ruiz] got a force sufficient to dislodge them and float them down the river."
This was from the Telegraph and Texas Register. Notable points to me are 1) many corpses were thrown in the river, 2) the bodies stayed in the river for many days and no effort was made to collect them, and 3) ultimately the bodies were dislodged to float them further downstream to become someone else's problem I guess.
|
|