Post by davidpenrod on Aug 22, 2011 11:43:49 GMT -5
Hello everyone. I am a first time poster here but a lifelong (52 years) Alamo enthusiast.
I have a question for the forum about the east side of the Long Barracks. Here is some background to help eliminate most clarifying questions:
A well-known consensus view exists today of what the Long Barracks looked like in Feb/Mar 1836. This generally accepted interpretation has been established by Feely, Hansen, Hardin, Ivey, Lemon, Lord, Nelson, Waters, Zaboly, and others. The commonly recognized features of the Long Barracks as they existed in 1836 are:
1. It comprised two rows of one and two story rooms running south to north.
2. The west side row consisted of a convento on the south (consisting of a series of one and two story rooms) and a granary on the north (an extended single story, but very tall, building).
3. The east side row consisted of a two story structure on the south, a one story room on the north, and the remnants of a cloister (a single span of arcade) between them.
My research cannot corroborate the generally accepted interpretation of the east side row. My interpretation of the limited amount of evidence available to me, which I will describe below, is this:
1. No rooms of any kind existed on the east side at the time of the siege in 1836.
2. The only structure on the east side was the remnants of a one- and possibly two-story cloister spanning nearly the entire length of the convento.
3. Running south to north, it ended in a solid wall that attached to the convento approximately 11 feet short of where the convento and granary joined.
4. This solid wall extended eastward several yards. It probably extended the full width of the convento courtyard before the siege. However, by the time of the siege it was just a stub, having been knocked down by the Mexicans for use as fill in the Fortin de Cos.
5. This stub wall did not form the north wall of the convento courtyard. This feature was located further north, attaching to the granary approximately 17 feet north of the granary/convento junction and extending eastward therefrom.
I have reviewed every sketch, drawing, painting, diagram, map, city plat, and early photographs that have been posted and discussed on this and other Alamo forums and websites.
Here are the sources:
1. Diagrams, Plan and Plats: La Batista, Sanchez-Navarro, Jameson (various second hand renderings), Fulton, Sutherland, Potter, U.S. Army (Everett in 1846 and 1848 and F.E.B. in 1849), City Plats (Giraud and others), and the Registry Historical American Buildings.
2. Sketches, Drawings and Paintings: Maverick, Moore, Bissett, Fulton, Sanchez-Navarro, Falconer, Bolleart, Blake, Lee, Gentilz, and Benton.
3. I have only reviewed excerpts of written material quoted on this and other forums and websites. In other words, I have not reviewed all the material available to Messrs Hansen, Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson, etc.
My interpretation, therefore, may be completely wrong. Therefore, my questions for the forum are:
1. Given that my interpretation is so different from the consensus view and that the consensus view has been established by professional, educated and highly regarded researchers who have had access to more information than me, what evidence in their possession or reviewed by them contradicts my interpretation and substantiates theirs?
2. If this material does not contain contraindicative evidence, what is there in it that inspired their interpretation?
3. In other words, what am I missing?
Thanks!
I have a question for the forum about the east side of the Long Barracks. Here is some background to help eliminate most clarifying questions:
A well-known consensus view exists today of what the Long Barracks looked like in Feb/Mar 1836. This generally accepted interpretation has been established by Feely, Hansen, Hardin, Ivey, Lemon, Lord, Nelson, Waters, Zaboly, and others. The commonly recognized features of the Long Barracks as they existed in 1836 are:
1. It comprised two rows of one and two story rooms running south to north.
2. The west side row consisted of a convento on the south (consisting of a series of one and two story rooms) and a granary on the north (an extended single story, but very tall, building).
3. The east side row consisted of a two story structure on the south, a one story room on the north, and the remnants of a cloister (a single span of arcade) between them.
My research cannot corroborate the generally accepted interpretation of the east side row. My interpretation of the limited amount of evidence available to me, which I will describe below, is this:
1. No rooms of any kind existed on the east side at the time of the siege in 1836.
2. The only structure on the east side was the remnants of a one- and possibly two-story cloister spanning nearly the entire length of the convento.
3. Running south to north, it ended in a solid wall that attached to the convento approximately 11 feet short of where the convento and granary joined.
4. This solid wall extended eastward several yards. It probably extended the full width of the convento courtyard before the siege. However, by the time of the siege it was just a stub, having been knocked down by the Mexicans for use as fill in the Fortin de Cos.
5. This stub wall did not form the north wall of the convento courtyard. This feature was located further north, attaching to the granary approximately 17 feet north of the granary/convento junction and extending eastward therefrom.
I have reviewed every sketch, drawing, painting, diagram, map, city plat, and early photographs that have been posted and discussed on this and other Alamo forums and websites.
Here are the sources:
1. Diagrams, Plan and Plats: La Batista, Sanchez-Navarro, Jameson (various second hand renderings), Fulton, Sutherland, Potter, U.S. Army (Everett in 1846 and 1848 and F.E.B. in 1849), City Plats (Giraud and others), and the Registry Historical American Buildings.
2. Sketches, Drawings and Paintings: Maverick, Moore, Bissett, Fulton, Sanchez-Navarro, Falconer, Bolleart, Blake, Lee, Gentilz, and Benton.
3. I have only reviewed excerpts of written material quoted on this and other forums and websites. In other words, I have not reviewed all the material available to Messrs Hansen, Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson, etc.
My interpretation, therefore, may be completely wrong. Therefore, my questions for the forum are:
1. Given that my interpretation is so different from the consensus view and that the consensus view has been established by professional, educated and highly regarded researchers who have had access to more information than me, what evidence in their possession or reviewed by them contradicts my interpretation and substantiates theirs?
2. If this material does not contain contraindicative evidence, what is there in it that inspired their interpretation?
3. In other words, what am I missing?
Thanks!
