|
|
Post by cantador4u on Aug 15, 2008 0:29:55 GMT -5
I read in Nelson's book that there was a "presidio" built in Bejar on the West side of the San Antonio River. On page 30 of my soft cover edition is a 1730 map that shows it. And on the following page is a detailed plan of the presidio which shows a four-sided square fortress with bastions sicking out on each corner.
It seems that if such a large fortress was actually built there would be little need to wall in the Valero mission. It makes me think that maybe the presidio was just a plan that never fully materialized. However on page 33 Nelson describes the 1745 attack by Apaches, "During the night of June 30, 1745, about 350 men, women, and children of the Ypandi and Natage Apache tribes attacked the presidio (fort) and town of San Antonio across the river from Mission San Antonio de Valero."
So what's the deal with the presidio? Was it built as the plans show or am I expecting too much of the presidio? I seem to recall someone referred to the Plaza de Armas (the military plaza behind the San Fernando church) as the presidio. Well, that looks nothing like the four-sided structure with bastions at each corner that it was supposed to be. What happened to it?
- Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, WI
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 15, 2008 8:47:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Aug 15, 2008 10:51:58 GMT -5
As it happens, I've been working on an article on the land-use history of the Presidio of Bexar. The original plan for the four-cornered, bastioned star fort for the Presidio of Bexar was laid out in 1722 on the site that became known as the Plaza de Armas, present Military Plaza. Construction of the adobe brick fortifications began that year, but various things messed up its progress, and we don't know (yet, at least) how far the construction went.
We have plans of the building in 1764 and 1767, Nelson's 2nd Revised edition pages 36 and 37, but those are misleading. At that time, and so far as I can tell, for most of the time from 1722 to 1836, only the long building along the north side of the plaza was actually a Presidio building. I know, the Urrutia map of 1767 says that the other little buildings in the plaza belonged to the presidio, but they didn't -- they were houses built by individual soldiers with permission from the presidial commander, and were not state-owned military structures ... well, they were technically owned by the military, but ...
I'll argue with myself about this off-line. Getting back to the point, we have a detailed discussion of the presidio structures in the 1780s that was supposed to have a map, but the map has gotten separated from the report, and we don't know where it is now. The summary of that report (all I've seen so far, haven't had a chance to track down the original) seems to describe some sort of enclosure around the town, but not the old star-fort design.
In other words, the Presidio of Bexar was not an enclosed fort, but an open post through virtually all of its history. You can get some idea of the relationship between the plan of the town and the presidio by looking at my article in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly, “A Reconsideration of the Survey of the Villa de San Fernando in 1731,” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 111 (January 2008), no. 1.
Jake
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 15, 2008 11:45:59 GMT -5
Welcome back, Jake, you've been missed!
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Aug 21, 2008 22:47:26 GMT -5
Thanks guys.
Following up on the documents Allen sited I found a different map of San Antonio and its caption read Fig 1.7ab San Antonio, plan c. 1777 from Fray Juan Augustin Morfi's manuscript "Historia de Texas"
It's 47 years later and doesn't show anything that looks like the presidio plan of 1730.
Looking at some of the other presidios in Allen's 2nd document "The Presidio", It appears that an enclosed fortress was not very common.
I guess the mystery has been solved at least in my mind.
- Paul Meske
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 3, 2008 12:58:04 GMT -5
Jake, doesn't the Menchaca Plat of 1764 (more of a drawn aerial view than a plat) reveal much about the "presidio" at that time?
I see what I take to be a palisade fence around most or all of the town -- complete with drawn gaurds standing at shoulder-arms at the two northern entrances.
If I may be allowed to conjecture freely, the presidio plan on paper (like so many other such plans) never got beyond (as you say), but the town still had to have some sort of a defensive posture, hence palisades, guards, etc. But the actual structures were never built beyond the need to house soldiers.
Are we not assuming that the modern "Governor's Palace" was indeed the original Casa de Capitan as designated by Urrutia? Same at Presidio del Rio Grande. That Casa de Capitan still exists.
The presidio barracks (the two-story structure) along the north side of the Plaza de Armas seems to have existed well into the 19th. Century, long past the Texas War of Independence. It is (probably) indicated on the LaBastida map and makes an appearance on Samuel's 1849 painting of the west side of Plaza de las Islas as well as on the Pentenrieder lithograph of Main Plaza, which must have been done then or later (since the Alamo in another lithograph on the letter paper has its hump).
This all causes me to wonder why there wouldn't be a Seth Eastman, William Bollaert or James Gilchrist Benton or that guy who did the mid-19th. Century sketches of the Veramendi Palace and La Quinta floating around in some archive.
Is it possible that the building that appears to be a two-story prison in the walled back yard of the "bat cave" building might be the original presidio building -- or part of it -- and was finally torn down with the bat cave in the 1890's? This building (clearly seen in the rear aerial photo of the bat cave) appears to be of an earlier Spanish military architecture. Perhaps they re-roofed it, built the wall around it and the bat cave in front of it.
Just throwing these observations at you in case you haven't already thought about them. (HIGHLY UNLIKELY!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 3, 2008 13:16:26 GMT -5
By the way, being basically a visual person, I am of the opinion that the Menchaca map/drawing should be given a lot more consideration than it has in the past. The artist clearly is "visual" himself and is trying to chronicalize architecture and *the look* of San Antonio de Bexar as it was in 1764.
I have a copy (poorly re-drawn) of the whole map covering the river all the way to Mission Espada, and even on that less detailed re-do, it is evident that he took care to depict each of the missions with their peculiar layout and design rather than just symbolize them, as per the 1730 Aguayo map.
If (as with the LaBastida Plat) this is more reliable than the average Bexar map, then I would turn that around and be more willing to accept details as possibilities rather than errors.
My favorite detail on the Menchaca map is the Alamo. I believe it is not an error that his south wall of the mission is in line with the south wall of the convento.
He also shows what appears to be a tower across the road to the south of the Alamo. Could this not be the remains of the tower at the second location of the mission?
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 3, 2008 13:34:37 GMT -5
This all causes me to wonder why there wouldn't be a Seth Eastman, William Bollaert or James Gilchrist Benton or that guy who did the mid-19th. Century sketches of the Veramendi Palace and La Quinta floating around in some archive. That just reminded me of an obscure Seth Eastman sketch that was published in a book (the title escapes me: I'll have to go digging deep in my longterm memory) in, IIRC, the 1980s, maybe a collection of art from the Witte Museum, or such. The sketch was taken from outside and to the west of the western side of Military Plaza, facing east. It's unusual for the time (late 1840s) because it shows a side of the plaza you don't usually see. I don't have a copy of the book or the drawing, but my impression is a semi-dilapidated jumble of buildings, stock fences, etc. As far as I know, that Eastman drawing hasn't been reproduced in any other publication, on on the 'net. I'll post more information on the book if I figure it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 3, 2008 17:06:01 GMT -5
Wow! I'd love to see that sketch, Tom. It certainly ain't in the Seth Eastman Sketchbook (which I have). Are you sure you aren't remembering the James Gilchrist Benton watercolor from the west side looking toward the rear of San Fernando. It has, in the foreground, a rickety foot-ramp rising right to left to the second story of the Bat Cave with, yes, Mexicans mixing concrete and carrying it up the ramp.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 3, 2008 17:40:51 GMT -5
Rich:
It's definitely by Eastman, not James G. Benton. It's a pencil drawing, and it's "from the outside looking in"; i.e., looking at the outer walls of the buildings on the west side of Military Plaza.
I've started searching through the lengthy bibliography in Sam Ratcliffe's Painting Texas History looking for the title; I'll recognize it when I see it, and report back.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Sept 3, 2008 17:57:07 GMT -5
OK, think I got it: I'm 99.99 percent sure this is the book where I spotted the Eastman drawing: search.barnesandnoble.com/Art-for-Historys-Sake/Cecilia-Steinfeldt/e/9780876111161Cecilia Steinfeldt, Art for History's Sake: The Texas Collection of the Witte MuseumThe following link, I believe, is the catalog entry for the drawing in question, "San Antonio de Bexar, Texas, from West Side." It (mistakenly) states that it's a "Pencil sketch of the back of the Alamo with San Fernando Cathedral in the distance, Mexican jacales in the foreground" although how could it be taken from the "back of the Alamo" and still be a sketch of the town from the west side? collections.wittemuseum.org/WitteArt/default.asp?IDCFile=DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=16833,NEXTRECORDS=11,PREVRECORDS=0,DATABASE=64327138,LISTIDC=PAGE.IDC,RECORDMAX=10,RECNO=5,WORDS=eastman++OR+seth Some of the Witte Museum's art is viewable online, but, unfortunately, not this drawing. |
|
