|
Post by bmoses on Jan 29, 2010 22:54:46 GMT -5
While the artifacts in Steve Ash's possession are questionable, the location of his place in relation to Jose Antonio Navarro's and Agua Negra Road, and the location of the Gallinas Creek on a pre-1839 map of Bexar County, does make me wonder if they mistook the Gallinas for the Medina, at a location where it has long since dried up. And then there's that oak tree with the nails in it. And my dowsing rod that reacted near the tree. But I arrived on the scene with no real knowledge of the battle, no pre-conceived ideas of what the experts say, just me, my old maps, my dowsing rods, and my fascination with Centennial markers. I still can't figure out why the call came when I was sitting in the GLO, where I had no intention of being that day. Sure I may be proven dead wrong, it won't be the first time! I understand Mr. Ash’s desire for his site to be the lost battlefield, unfortunately the data just doesn’t add up. The artifacts post-date the battle by more than a half century and there are no military-related items. As you stated, the property is located adjacent to the Agua Negro Road which ran to the Navarro Ranch on the Atascosa. This road was principally used as José Antonio Navarro’s private ranch road, although it did intersect with the Camino de en Medio near modern Poteet. Mr. Ash’s property is over 12 miles northwest of the Spanish encampment of August 17th and more than 7 miles west of el Carmen church where Arredondo’s army buried their dead after the battle. It is also about the same distance from Toledo’s ambush spot on the Laredo Road. A diversion this far west over sandy terrain (where no roads ran) just isn’t logical. In order to better understand his site, Mr. Ash should investigate the early owner of his land. Virtually all of the artifacts that he has dug up ( cringe) represent mid- to late-nineteenth century residential debris. Records available online through the General Land Office ( www.glo.state.tx.us/) show that the original grantee of this property was a man named John Wilson. John Wilson immigrated to Texas in 1835 and received certificate #289 in Liberty County for 1/3 of a league of land in the year 1838. There was a John Wilson who was a defender in the Alamo, but I'm not certain if this would have been the same man. Wilson's grant was apparently applied to the tract below the Medina River in the year 1854 by his assignee William M. Logan. John Wilson’s tract is recorded as Survey #265 in Section 5 of Bexar County. It is very likely that everything Mr. Ash has found, including the metal that you’ve detected in the tree, can be traced back either to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Logan, or one of their heirs.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 24, 2010 20:42:28 GMT -5
What about the finding, in 1925, of the remains of the murdered Royalist officers, inside San Fernando?
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Feb 27, 2010 10:50:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Mar 14, 2010 23:26:40 GMT -5
The human remains recovered near the alter at San Fernando Cathedral during the 1936 restoration project came from the same general area that Governor Manuel Salcedo and his subordinates were thought to have been interred after their deaths in 1813.
An acquaintance of mine who is a Mason here in San Antonio says that he is in possession of a diary written by the Master Mason who oversaw the 1936 renovation work at San Fernando Cathedral. According to him, the Master Mason was certain that the remains were those of the earlier Spaniards and not of those of the Alamo defenders. I have been told that there were buttons which appeared to be the kind worn by Spanish Royalist officers during the 1813 period - not like those that one would expect to find on Alamo defenders. Also, there is some question as to whether the bones were charred. Since the remains were re-interred, I'm not sure how one would go about trying to verify anything definitive on this topic short of exhuming the bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 14, 2010 23:54:43 GMT -5
I was also told that the buttons were clearly those of Spanish Royalists officers from the 1813 period, not the kind that would have been found with the later Alamo defenders. Since the bodies were re-interred, I'm not sure how one would go about trying to verify anything definitive on this topic. I confess to having a problem understanding how folks in the 1920s & 1930s would have the knowledge and expertise to differentiate buttons which had been interred for more than 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Mar 15, 2010 7:11:16 GMT -5
I confess to having a problem understanding how folks in the 1920s & 1930s would have the knowledge and expertise to differentiate buttons which had been interred for more than 100 years. Good point. Without having seen the diary myself, I'm not positive why the Master Mason (sorry, I don't recall his name) felt so certain that these were the remains of earlier Spanish officers. The burials were recovered during the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Alamo, and I was told that the Master Mason believed that Archbishop Drossaertsat wanted them to be the remains of the Alamo defenders because the church stood to gain financially at the time of the centennial. I couldn't verify whether any of this is true, but it sure seems that it would be worthwhile to have the contents of the sarcophagus scientifically examined. DNA testing could also be done on the remains which could potentially link them with their modern descendants.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2010 9:30:22 GMT -5
San Antonio Express article dated August 18, 1936 is a response by Rev. D. Zaidivar CME rector to E.R. Dabney regarding the possibility that the remains found in San Fernando were in fact those of the Royalist officers murdered/executed following the battle of the Rosillo:
Zaidivar stated that the churches built by the Spaniards in olden time in Texas generally consisted of three parts; namely the sanctuary, the transept, and the nave. The nave was conisdered divided by "tramos" that is, a space between two arches or two piers. The old San Fernando Church, as it may be seen in old pictures, consisted of three "tramos" or divisions. Of the old San Fernando Church, only the sanctuary which is used at present as the sacristy, the transept where the main altar stands , the third tramo or division and part of the second tramo remain.
According to Rev. Eugene Sugranes's artcile quoted by Mr. Dabney, the remains of the officers and men who fell at El Rosillo were unearthed in 1925 and were found in the second tramo or division while laborors were excavating that part of the church preparatory to laying the foundation fro a new marble communion railing and the location coincides with he data contained in an old document found by Rev. Camilo Torrents CMF in San Fernando Archives.
The remains of the victims of El Rosillo when they were unearthered in 1925 from the second tramo according to medical testimony quoted by Rev. Eugene Sugranes CMF evined their age. The vertebrae of the spinal columns were found all closed and clogged, which would inidcate that they already had passed the century mark. The bones, however, showed no lesion or injuries except those received when they were dug up by the working men. Futhermore the medical examination discovered the fact that the heads of the victims had been severed from the torso.
The victims of El Rosillo, notwithstands the fact that they were officers of ranks and of the Catholic faith were buried in a tramo of the nave of the church, whereas the heroes of the Alamo were buried in the sanctuary.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 15, 2010 11:44:39 GMT -5
On the question of the buttons its impossible to say one way or the other without sight of them, but an obvious interpretation might be that they were brass military buttons stamped with an Imperial (Spanish) device of some kind, while Alamo defenders' buttons will have been civilian ones
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 16, 2010 12:13:18 GMT -5
An August 16, 1836 SA Express article says that eleven of the Royalist officers and one Royalist civilan were buried in the second tramo of San Fernando, while Salcedo and Herrera were buried in the first tramo. Two enlisted men were buried in the 'old graveyards adjoining the church."
The list of those Royalists buried are (newspaper spelling and ID)
Manuel de Salcedo-Governor Simon de Herrera-General Command of the Four Provinces of the Orient Lt. Col. Jeronimo de Herrera-militia of New Santander Lt. Col. Jose Goseascoechea-New Santander Capt. Francisco Pieria-retired militia Capt. Joaquin Hugarte-Veteran Company of Agua Verde Capt. Andres Marcos-Compania Bahia del Espirito Santo Capt. Ignacio Arambides-Compania Alamo de Parras Lt. Gregorio Amador-Militia New Santander Lt. Juan Caso-Militia Sion 2nd Lt. Francisco de Arcos-Militia New Santander Antonio Lopez-Civilan Corporal Manuel de Lara Private Jose Ignacio Rodrigo
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Feb 21, 2011 13:30:18 GMT -5
I wanted to announce that I am in the initial phase of writing and publishing a book on this topic and I would greatly appreciate input from anyone interested in this period. It will be a comprehensive history of events leading up to the Battle of Medina and should correct a number of historical inaccuracies that have existed in the recent past.
My co-author, Dave Nickels, and I have a lot on our plate over the next year as August 18, 2013 will be the 200 year anniversary of the Battle of Medina and this manuscript should be at the presses before that date.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 21, 2011 13:42:53 GMT -5
Bruce - I've only read about it in passing in general histories & background in books on the Texas Rev. (Davis, H.W. Brands). Very interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 21, 2011 14:02:20 GMT -5
I wanted to announce that I am in the initial phase of writing and publishing a book on this topic and I would greatly appreciate input from anyone interested in this period. It will be a comprehensive history of events leading up to the Battle of Medina and should correct a number of historical inaccuracies that have existed in the recent past. My co-author, Dave Nickels, and I have a lot on our plate over the next year as August 18, 2013 will be the 200 year anniversary of the Battle of Medina and this manuscript should be at the presses before that date. Fantastic!
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Feb 23, 2011 1:33:59 GMT -5
I wanted to announce that I am in the initial phase of writing and publishing a book on this topic and I would greatly appreciate input from anyone interested in this period. It will be a comprehensive history of events leading up to the Battle of Medina and should correct a number of historical inaccuracies that have existed in the recent past. My co-author, Dave Nickels, and I have a lot on our plate over the next year as August 18, 2013 will be the 200 year anniversary of the Battle of Medina and this manuscript should be at the presses before that date. The Battle of Medina was not only the largest military engagement ever to occur on Texas soil, but also the first time Tejanos, Anglos, and Native Americans fought side by side for independence from tyrants like Arredondo and Santa Anna. It is worthy of remembrance. It's why Diez y Seis is a proper Texas holiday.
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Feb 23, 2011 9:57:26 GMT -5
Your are precisely correct, and these are all important reasons that such a book is long overdue for Texas, as well as American and Mexican History. I'm not sure why this period has been so grossly neglected, the events foreshadowed much of what was to come - it is a critical part of the larger continuum that eventually became Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 23, 2011 10:34:38 GMT -5
You're right, Bruce and I'm as guilty as anyone. I've only stumbled upon it in passing here and there, in general histories of the Republic, like Davis and H.W. Brands. I look forward to this.
|
|