|
|
Post by silverwolf on Jul 8, 2011 20:02:41 GMT -5
Hello Again, For the life of me, I was sure I had read maybe a year or more back, that they found what was likely one of the funeral pyres outside of the Alamo walls, not near but not far exactly from the Alamo itself.  I was wondering if anybody recalled it. I'm certain it was nearby and I think the grounds today may be a cemetery as I seem to remember either a marker or cross on the spot with a caption explaining that cremated human remains had been found there. I'm certain I'm not confusing the Sequin accounts because I do remember haunting photos and this was one of them. And as regards Sequins burial of the ashes. Does that box contain some of the defenders ashes, or is it happenstance that Sequin first said he brought it to the Church for last rites as it were, and later reburied them at the pyre sights vowing to build a memorial there and never did. I think younger Juan said that and that older Juan years later said the box had been put in the Church period without mention of reburial. Do the posters here believe that those are the Alamo defenders remains or of those found in later excavations? The Cathedral will be a one block walk from the Hotel and I would be more inclined to prayer at the sarcophagus urn if I was more certain then not that I am praying over the actual remains of the departed that I have come to love respect long after they are gone. I am religious in that way and the holy land had more then enough "Jesus slept here" sites that I would be great to know this is the real deal here in blessed state of Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 8, 2011 22:15:50 GMT -5
Are you thinking of the site that was over on the Alameda (now Commerce Street)? I think we disucssed this and the San Fernando info on another thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 8, 2011 22:52:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silverwolf on Jul 9, 2011 19:11:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silverwolf on Jul 9, 2011 19:48:32 GMT -5
Allen Hello and Thank You. The thread is very rich in information but here is a link which basically addresses what I maybe was not articulate enough put in words. So I really do wish to know what others here think. Are any ashes of the defenders truly in the S.F. Church, or is it others remains dug up elsewhere, later on during restoration and interned there while Sequin reburied the original urn elsewhere near where he found them, or is it was Seguin confused between a funeral he held in one place and a burial he held at another. I also read that the Alamo descendants asked for DNA testing from the church remains about 1995 or about. I havent found any info as too whether or not it has been done. Thank You Much S. Wolf www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained3.htm"ON FEBRUARY 23RD AFTER MASS, WE WILL PAY FINAL RESPECTS TO OUR FRIENDS WHO DIED AT THE ALAMO. JUAN SEGUIN, COMMANDER LT. COL. As well as could be done, Seguin had the bones and ashes placed in a large coffin. With an eulogy that began, "These remains, which we have had the honor to carry on our shoulders, are the remains of those valiant heroes who died at the Alamo...," he laid the bodies to rest with full military honors. Supposedly, the site chosen for interment was a beautiful patch of earth in a nearby peach orchard outside the village and only a few hundred yards from the Chapel. But with the passage of time and without any marker on the burial site, the location of the grave became lost. It’s completely hidden by the city of San Antonio, which totally surrounds the Alamo compound, and irrecoverably lost to history. But, is this peach orchard theory really the way Colonel Seguin conducted the burial? Or is it a description of the burial conducted by the Rangers, Big Foot Wallace, or Francisco Ruiz? Or by someone else as yet unidentified? One of the most asked questions is how did Colonel Seguin manage to find the ashes after they reposed on the Texas prairie for a few days short of one year? Were the remains, as some claim, already collected and preserved by some good Samaritan just waiting for an authority like Colonel Seguin to come along and formalize the ceremony? Incredibly, no one knows. That fact is that although Colonel Seguin respectfully buried his fallen friends while Antonio Oroche softly whistled the tune, Will You Come to My Bower?, he did not adequately mark the ultimate grave site. He even complicated the issue shortly before his death when he responded to an inquiry about the burial site. He wrote that the ashes were found in three places and that the two smallest piles were placed in a coffin with the names of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett carved inside the lid. This would also lend credence to the Big Foot Wallace account of finding a pile of the remains when he visited the city in 1838. Seguin further wrote that ‘I placed them in an urn and buried it in the Cathedral of San Fernando immediately in front of the alter---that is in front of the railing near the steps.’ At the time, Seguin’s version of the interment was largely dismissed as the ramblings of an old man with a frail memory, especially since it was known that he had the funeral ceremony conducted in the Cathedral. Everyone suspected that he had confused the funeral ceremony with the burial ceremony. But then in July 1936, a coffin was unearthed in the Cathedral at the exact same spot that Sequin had suggested! Inside the rotting old casket were charred remains, some bones, and even uniform fragments. In the excitement that followed, many thought that the remains of the Alamo defenders had finally been located---until astute historians pointed out that the men of the Alamo did not wear uniforms. Although a burial certainly took place in the Cathedral and Sequin was aware of it, the identity of the person or persons who were buried remains a mystery." |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 9, 2011 20:45:04 GMT -5
I am very much aware of the location you are talking about--I was involved with the effort to stop the removal of the remains of Capt. Samuel Hamilton Walker at that location. Here is the short version: after the Mexican War, Walker and R.A.Gillespie (Walker had been buried at Perote following his death at Huamantla in 1847 while Gillespie had been buried in Monterrey following his death in 1846 at the Bishop's Palace--both men were KIA) were brought back to San Antonio and buried on Commerce Street not to far from where St. Joseph's would be built. Original location of the graves is marked on a couple of early city maps. There was an idea to bring over Ben Milam's remains as well and create a Texas heroes cemetery. Why this spot? Because it is where one of the Alamo funeral pyres was at. By the1850's, Commerce Street area had expanded and site was threatened. So, the Odd Fellows had Walker and Gillespie moved to their cemetery up on East Commerce near Powder House Hill. According to one source, when this was done, burnt bones and ashes were found and they were transfered up to the new gravesites at the Odd Fellows. So, up at the Odd Fellows we have two Mexican War heroes and maybe some of the Alamo remains. The Alamo Defender Descendants put up the marker after the "remove Walker" deal and when the gravesites were restored.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 11, 2011 1:18:55 GMT -5
Kevin and I have batted this subject back and forth in the past. It is common practice to dismiss the remains found in 1936 beneath the alter of San Fernando because of the eyewitness accounts of "uniform fragments" found among the charred remains. The point I make is in the form of a question...who in fact is declaring the presence of "uniform fragments?" It is, the resident "experts" of determining whether charred fabrics are civilian or military, those "experts" being the current mayor of San Antonio, the presiding archbishop, and the leader of the York Rite Knights Templar.
The point being, these men are far from experts, and are far from being objective. What better way to ensure huge crowds to the Cathedral during the Centennial than declaring that the remains uncovered were indeed those of the Alamo heroes? And what better way to confirm those remains than by declaring that the charred fabric found was in fact "uniform fragments?" It was not common knowledge in 1936 that the Alamo garrison was devoid of uniforms; perusing the paintings commissioned by the Fiesta San Jacinto Association will confirm that. On the contrary, it was commonly believed that more than a few of the Alamo defenders were decked out in uniforms.
If the remains uncovered in San Fernando are to be dismissed, so be it; but do not dismiss them based on the observations of enthusiastic amateurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 11, 2011 10:49:07 GMT -5
Kevin and I have batted this subject back and forth in the past. It is common practice to dismiss the remains found in 1936 beneath the alter of San Fernando because of the eyewitness accounts of "uniform fragments" found among the charred remains. The point I make is in the form of a question...who in fact is declaring the presence of "uniform fragments?" It is, the resident "experts" of determining whether charred fabrics are civilian or military, those "experts" being the current mayor of San Antonio, the presiding archbishop, and the leader of the York Rite Knights Templar.
The point being, these men are far from experts, and are far from being objective. What better way to ensure huge crowds to the Cathedral during the Centennial than declaring that the remains uncovered were indeed those of the Alamo heroes? And what better way to confirm those remains than by declaring that the charred fabric found was in fact "uniform fragments?" It was not common knowledge in 1936 that the Alamo garrison was devoid of uniforms; perusing the paintings commissioned by the Fiesta San Jacinto Association will confirm that. On the contrary, it was commonly believed that more than a few of the Alamo defenders were decked out in uniforms.
If the remains uncovered in San Fernando are to be dismissed, so be it; but do not dismiss them based on the observations of enthusiastic amateurs. and somewhere we listed the names of those Spanish officers murdered after the Rosillio who were buried in San Fernando.... |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 11, 2011 13:40:45 GMT -5
and somewhere we listed the names of those Spanish officers murdered after the Rosillio who were buried in San Fernando....
When Hamilton Bee wrote Seguin asking him the location of the Alamo remains, Seguin clearly and succinctly describes the exact spot in which the remains were found in 1936. I find it interesting that we are always looking for solid contemporary evidence, and yet when that evidence contradicts what we believe, we simply dismiss it as improbable or incorrect. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 11, 2011 14:44:32 GMT -5
I never heard before that Seguin gave that clear a description of the burial spot. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 11, 2011 15:56:33 GMT -5
I never heard before that Seguin gave that clear a description of the burial spot. Interesting. March 28, 1889: I collected the fragments, placed them in an urn and buried it in the Cathedral of San Fernando, immediatley in front of the altar--that is in front of the railing and near the steps.Seguin to Hamilton Bee |
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Jul 11, 2011 20:42:03 GMT -5
I never heard before that Seguin gave that clear a description of the burial spot. Interesting. March 28, 1889: I collected the fragments, placed them in an urn and buried it in the Cathedral of San Fernando, immediatley in front of the altar--that is in front of the railing and near the steps.Seguin to Hamilton BeeUnfortunately, it does´nt match with Seguin´s letter to Gen. Johnston of March, 13, 1837, in which he writes: ...The ashes were found in three heaps. I caused a coffin to be prepared neatly covered with black, the ashes from the two smallest heaps were placed therein and with a view to attach additional solemnity to the occasion were carried to the Parish Church in Bexar whence it moved with the procession at 4 o´clock on the afternoon of the day above mentioned (Feb. 25). The procession passed through the principal street of the city, crossed the river and passing through the principal avenue arrived at the spot whence part of the ashes had been collected, the procession halted, the coffin was placed upon the spot, and three volleys of musquetry were discharged over it by one of the companies, proceeding onwards to the second spot from whence the ashes were taken where the same honors were done and thence to the principal spot and place of interment, the coffin was then placed upon the large heap of ashes...the coffin and all the ashes were then interred and three volleys of musquetry were fired over the grave by the whole battalion...We then marched back to quarter in the city with music and colors flying... So, which explanation is one to believe? The one from 1837 to Gen. Johnston, or the one from 1889? |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 11, 2011 21:39:47 GMT -5
The differing accounts given by Juan Seguin can be rectified by accepting each account on its own merits and realizing that there were two separate burials; a small "private" ceremony in 1836 with the remains placed in an urn and buried beneath the alter, and a public ceremony with full honors almost a full year later.
It always seemed odd to me that the charred remains of Alamo defenders would be left untouched for 11 months, subjected to the buzzards and the elements, and that it would take an order issued from Felix Huston to get Juan Seguin to inter the remains of his fallen men; Juan Abamillo, Juan Badillo, Antonio Fuentes, Andres Nava, Damacio Jimenez, and possibly Gregorio Esparza.
|
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Jul 11, 2011 21:41:50 GMT -5
So, which explanation is one to believe? The one from 1837 to Gen. Johnston, or the one from 1889?
I think assuming that the accounts are mutually exclusive is what's sometimes called the either/or fallacy. It's oversimplifying the issue by assuming that both accounts are absolutely accurate translations of what Seguin said.
Is Seguin's memory unreliable near the end of his life, or is the problem that the translation of what he said on one or both occasions is unreliable? Both accounts are in correspondence that is a translation into English by someone taking dictation or working from Seguin's draft in Spanish, and the 1837 account of the ceremonies sent to Albert Sidney Johnston seems both awkward and confusing to me--not wholly clear on what was done where, as though Seguin overloaded the translator with information. There's no mention of a peach orchard there, and Seguin says the "coffin" was buried on the site of the third and largest pile of ashes. Was that pile in a peach orchard to start with?
And I think the possibility for confusion between "coffin" and "urn" ought to speak for itself--it's a coffin in 1837, a coffin is found in 1936, Seguin's son (probably) writes "urn" in 1889. Seguin's graveside (?) speech mentions "These remains which we have the honor of carrying on our shoulders." Carry an urn on your shoulders? But half a century later, maybe a translator who wasn't there thinks ashes = urn.
Notice that the 1889 letter says "the remains of those who died in the Alamo" [my emphasis] were interred in the church, as opposed to 1837's "the remains of the Heroes of Alamo" [sic] apparently buried at the site of the third and largest pile. In 1889, was Seguin distinguishing between compound and breakout victims and saying the compound ashes went in the church? Where were the two smaller piles that supposedly filled the 1837 coffin that others said was engraved with the icons' names--didn't the icons die within the compound? Was the biggest pile closest or farthest from the compound, or from the city?
I think the 1837 account is so long and involved that there's plenty of room for it to have been garbled in translation. Yet there seem to be corroborating accounts of the outdoor services. The 1889 account is terse but still shows room for confusion, yet corroborating physical evidence was found in 1936. Due to the translation issue, I'm wondering if the two accounts are mutually exclusive, or in fact are complementary somehow. It is hard to talk about Seguin's 1837 account without conflating it with others' accounts--I kept doing that above.
I'm not sure the 1837 translator wasn't getting tired of all that repetitive rigamarole and accidentally or intentionally buried the coffin at the biggest ash pile instead of bearing it back to the church for interment with flags flying after the biggest ash pile was buried. And if they left the church at 4 o'clock on February 25, did they really have time to do everything listed before it got dark? Digging a six-foot-deep grave by hand usually isn't a quick process, more so if you've got to police up an ash pile respectfully and bury that too.
Another point: So the site of the putative peach orchard got forgotten quickly--was that because everyone remembered the coffin interred in the church as a fixed landmark instead? Even if the coffin was forgotten over time too? Newspapers reported a Seguin visit to San Antonio in 1882--did he realize then that the peach orchard was lost and so only told an 1889 inquirer about the church coffin instead, because the church could still be located?
Seguin just knew what he said, he didn't know what got written in English and sent off. To me it seems faulty logic to assume that one account or the other reached us in 100% accurate form. I'm assuming, on my part, that Kevin and Hiram's ongoing discussion indicates that the external evidence doesn't conclusively exclude either account; I'm nowhere near familiar enough with that evidence to apply it well.
Edit: Say, complementary true-enough accounts in the manner Hiram proposes, for example--
Stephen Schneider
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jul 11, 2011 23:56:53 GMT -5
The basis for the discussion between Hiram and I was over the San Fernando burial and "whose" remains were found in 1936. Part of the discusion centered on if the remains could have been the Spanish officers killed in 1813 and the somewhat flawed expert identification done in 1936. For me, the jury is still out on if the remains of those found in 1836 were Alamo defenders.
The Peach Orchard is interesting because Sutherland, in his 1860 account says that:On the twenty-fifty day of February, 1837, they were collected by Colonel Juan N. Seguin and command, and placed in a rude but substantial coffin, and interred with military honors, in what was then a peach orchard near the scene of the last struggle. The place is now an enclosed lot. Nothing remains to designate the exact spot where they lay, though there are persons yet living (in 1860) who might find it
Yet, in the DeShields version of the Sutherland account(Dallas News February 12, 1911) it is stated that Sometime after the battle of San Jacinto, a company of Rangers, under Captain Byrd Lockhart, passed through Bexar, and halting at the dismanttled fortress of the Alamo, searched and found the the ashes of thebrave men who died there. These remains they gathered into a substanial coffin and interred them withmilitary honors at a spot, then a peach orchard, not far from the scene of the last charge and struggle. This quote can also be found in Amelia Williams work. How much Sutherland and how much DeShields?
Several vague descriptions of where this peach orchard may have been--Mary Maverick says between Crockett and Houston or Blum and Crockett.
Yes-translations can be tricky--the correspondence between Seguin and Johnston is at Tulane, and in English (aide translating for Seguin). But we do have the response to Hamilton Bee in 1881 in the original Spanish--los restos de los que murieron en el Alamo fueron mandos quemar por order del Gral. Santa -an y las pequenas fracciones las mande depositar en una urna; mande abrir un sepulcro en la catedral de San Antonio in mediato al Presviterio, esto es frente a las do Barandillas; pero muy serca de las gradas.
|
|
