|
Bexar
Jun 12, 2007 15:51:30 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 12, 2007 15:51:30 GMT -5
When posting the picture of Cos' house in La Villita I was struck by the very fact that he chose to make his headquarters there rather than in the Alamo.
Clearly the house was much more spacious and more comfortable and a convenient point from which to command the various contingents spread between Bexar, La Villita itself and the Alamo.
How about the Texians who came after him?
Thanks to film and legend we think of them sitting up in the Alamo from the go get, but in reality it was indeed a crumbling mission station with cramped, uncomfortable and probably insanitary rooms. To what extent were they actually quartered in Bexar and La Villita until Santa Anna turned up like the Devil at prayers and forced them to take to the Alamo like a leaky lifeboat?
If the Texians were indeed in Bexar rather than the Alamo - except for a caretaker garrison looking after the guns and the powder, it will have been all the more difficult to persuade anyone to get up there and work on the fortifications, while conversely once they did have to go up there, just how crowded and uncomfortable were they?
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 12, 2007 21:15:26 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 12, 2007 21:15:26 GMT -5
When posting the picture of Cos' house in La Villita I was struck by the very fact that he chose to make his headquarters there rather than in the Alamo. Clearly the house was much more spacious and more comfortable and a convenient point from which to command the various contingents spread between Bexar, La Villita itself and the Alamo. I'm reaching back here, but I believe "the Cos house" is simply the place where they met to sign the surrender. I don't think it was Cos' H.Q. He was in the Alamo, as you thought. If this all isn't so, then I have been under a gross misunderstanding for many years. How about the Texians who came after him? Thanks to film and legend we think of them sitting up in the Alamo from the go get, but in reality it was indeed a crumbling mission station with cramped, uncomfortable and probably insanitary rooms. To what extent were they actually quartered in Bexar and La Villita until Santa Anna turned up like the Devil at prayers and forced them to take to the Alamo like a leaky lifeboat? If the Texians were indeed in Bexar rather than the Alamo - except for a caretaker garrison looking after the guns and the powder, it will have been all the more difficult to persuade anyone to get up there and work on the fortifications, while conversely once they did have to go up there, just how crowded and uncomfortable were they? On January 18, 1836, Major Jameson wrote to Sam Houston, "We now have 114 men counting officers, the sick and wounded which leaves us about 80 efficient men. 40 in the Alamo and 40 in Town..." Relative to work ethics, he says in the same letter, "We have had loose discipline untill [sic] lately. Since we heard of 1000 to 1500 men of the enemy being on their march to this place duty is being done well and punctually in case of an attack we will move all into the Alamo and whip 10 to1 with our artillery." Confusing, because in the paragraph above, he says, "The men here will not labour and I cannot ask it of them untill they are better clad and fed."
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 0:46:26 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Jun 13, 2007 0:46:26 GMT -5
My impression was that he was headquartered in La Villita because that's where most of his cavalry were and was only forced into the Alamo during the last 24 hours of the siege, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 12:19:42 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 13, 2007 12:19:42 GMT -5
My impression was that he was headquartered in La Villita because that's where most of his cavalry were and was only forced into the Alamo during the last 24 hours of the siege, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Stuart, you may be completely right. I'm serious when I say that I'm reaching back on this one. It is just something that I have always believed, and, at this moment, I am not sure why. So my approach will be to accept your belief until I come across primary information to support my memory -- ever-so-quickly fading into the sunset! I've got the full set of Papers of the Texas Revolution by Jenkins, and most of the Siege of Bexar correspondence is in it. I'll make it one of my R&R projects (although not much R&R time exists at the moment). I like the Cos House, and I'd enjoy making the history clear, so it continues to be more than just a party venue on the River Walk during Fiesta.
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 12:29:12 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2007 12:29:12 GMT -5
Rich, I have the same impression as you, but don't have any idea where it came from, I'll do some checking, too.
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 13:14:08 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2007 13:14:08 GMT -5
I've only been able to find one comment on the location, from New Orleans and the Texas Revolution page 116, "On December 9 Cos sent a subordinate to negotiate a peace. William G. Cooke was the first to meet the Mexican officer and escorted him to Johnson. On the night of December 10, at a small house in Pueblo de Valero, a village south of the Alamo Compound, a capitulation agreement was concluded at 3:00 AM, and made official on December 11." The original source is Jenkins Vol 3 pp 156-58 or possibly Jenkins 3: p 186. (both are footnoted).
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 20:40:23 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 13, 2007 20:40:23 GMT -5
Wolfpack, I have just checked both primary sources in Jenkins. The first is simply the actual Cos capitulation agreement and gives no description of locale. The second is a letter from Burleson to Gov. Smith with lots of description of the battle, but when he gets to the surrender, here is what he says:
"On the morning of the 9th, in consequence of advice from Col. Johnson of a flag of truce having been sent in, to intimate a desire to capitulate, I proceeded to town, and by two o'clock a. m. of the 10th, a treaty was finally concluded by the commissioners appointed, to which I acceded immediately..." etc. etc. No mention of locale.
So it would seem that the author's footnoting is faulty or that he/she has added description based on other unnoted sources -- or hearsay -- or fabrication.
Pueblo de Valero is not La Villita. His description of its locale as "a village south of the Alamo Compound" is correct. La Villita is beyond and around the river bend and to the west. But allowance could be made for this. Even Travis referred to Plaza de Valero as La Villita, so it must have been muddled even then.
In short, I have never even seen primary evidence (although I have not looked) that makes me sure that even the capitulation was signed in the "Cos House" let alone it being Cos's H.Q. during the siege. Although that would make sense. So, lets keep digging.
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 13, 2007 20:45:32 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2007 20:45:32 GMT -5
Thanks, Rich, I wish I had Jenkins! If you want to give me your set, I'll save you the research time the next occasion!
|
|
|
Bexar
Jun 19, 2007 20:22:01 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 19, 2007 20:22:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Rich, I wish I had Jenkins! If you want to give me your set, I'll save you the research time the next occasion! Don't mind looking, when I have the time. DO mind giving you my set! ;D
|
|