|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 17, 2007 2:53:09 GMT -5
Does anyone out there have any specific knowledge as to just when these structures began to be called by these names? I doubt that they were known as such in 1836. Was it Potter that started this terminology? Or Ford? Or someone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 17, 2007 7:00:54 GMT -5
In The Fall of the Alamo (1860), R. M. Potter uses the non-capitalized, singular terms "long barrack" and "low barrack" in his description of the mission-fortress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 13:46:16 GMT -5
In The Fall of the Alamo (1860), R. M. Potter uses the non-capitalized, singular terms "long barrack" and "low barrack" in his description of the mission-fortress. I agree. Potter is the first use I have ever seen. Certainly never in anything contemporary to 1835-36. Another label to be careful of is "galera" for the low barrack. This is what the building was known as in its final years on Alamo Plaza, but I have seen no evidence of this label in primary 1835-36 sources. The word itself is Spanish for "...shed; house of correction for women; extra line of beds in a hospital ward..." (This is from my Spanish-English dictionary which was first copyrighted in 1903 and reprinted through 1953.) I also do not believe it had any prison or jail use until later years. Jameson refers to the western end of the building as the "guard house," but I take that to mean the room next to the gate where the entrance guard would be, as in modern day military installations and controlled communities. Not a jail. Sanchez-Navarro identifies a room in the "long barrack" as the jail. Anybody remember the "low barrack" being referred to as the "south barracks?" Perhaps Frederic Ray? Don't remember. Also, Lon Tinkle called the "long barrack" the "Main Barracks" in 13 Days to Glory. Jameson calls both "soldiers' quarters built of stone." |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 18, 2007 14:00:47 GMT -5
Ray does label the low barracks as "south barracks" in his rendering.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 18, 2007 14:01:48 GMT -5
I also do not believe it had any prison or jail use until later years. Jameson refers to the western end of the building as the "guard house," but I take that to mean the room next to the gate where the entrance guard would be, as in modern day military installations and controlled communities. Not a jail. Sanchez-Navarro identifies a room in the "long barrack" as the jail. I'm by no means, the expert on the compound that you and Mark Lemon are, but I believe you're correct. Guard duty, at least in traditional American Military, is/was a 24 hour duty, pulled in shifts. Guards until more recently, were normally detailed from their units to make up a seperate Guard force (today, preferably a unit is detailed intact). The Guard House in military usage, was where the guards not on duty (ie off shift) stayed where they were available as an immediate response force for the Corporals of Relief, Sergeant of the Guard, or Officer of the Day. BTW, with the Guard House located just west of the Main Gate, probably manned by at least a few alert people, fits in with the possibility of Morales being intially repulsed and reorganizing at the SW stone house. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 18:48:01 GMT -5
In further support for the "guard house" as guard house theory, Edward Everett's most reliable 1848 plat of the remaining Alamo buildings shows doors. On the portion of the low barrack lying east of the porte-cochere, all doors face into the fort on the north wall of the building. On the "guard house" portion west of the porte-cochere, the only door is facing into the passageway, or east.
The 1849 U.S. Army map (possibly derived from Everett's) shows exactly the same door configuration, except that the north portal of the porte-cochere appears to have been walled in with a small doorway placed in the middle.
In the 1844 William Bolleart sketch of the low barrack from the south, there is only a small window in the south wall of the guard house. It must be noted, however, that this drawing does show a door in the south wall just to the east of the gate which is not indicated on the Everett nor the Army plats. So the plats (or the sketch) are not perfect.
If the guard house door is correct, then it seems to me (a non-military person) that the door would serve both as entrance to the room and the check-point for entrance to the fort in the Spanish-Mexican days. The south window could have been the vantage point from which to view the approach to the gate. If this window was somehow not covered or blocked by the lunette, it could also have served as a check on ingress to the tambour.
And another possibility arises. I know Enrique Esparza said his family was adimtted to the church, but could he have been referring to the whole mission complex as a church (accurate or not) and could this window have had, at that point, the cannon he crawled over placed behind it -- for defense reasons?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jul 19, 2007 12:23:57 GMT -5
The interviews with Enrique Esparza published in the newspapers are problematic in that they're more revealing of what the reporters thought than of what Enrique knew. Adina de Zavala knew and interviewed Enrique. Unfortunately, she left no word-for-word interviews that I know of but she did conclude, in her book "The Alamo: Where the Last Man Died" that his family stayed in the low barracks and not in the church.
The cannon his family encountered when they entered the Alamo could have been mounted in a window of the low barracks or he could have been having a confused memory of one of the cannon mounted in the tambour. A frightened boy, sneaking into the Alamo in the middle of the night, can't be expected to be entirely accurate. In one of Jake Ivey's early articles (1981 I believe) about the south gate defenses, he also seemed to believe that the Esparzas were quartered in the low barracks and mentions the possibility of a cannon mounted in one of the windows.
Personally, I think the only non-combatants quartered in the church were from Anglo families -- Susannah Dickenson and Juana Melton. I think the Mexican families (with the exception of Juana Alsbury and her sister) were quartered in the low barracks. Travis probably stationed the heads of the families in the same locations so they could be with their families when they were off duty.
None of Enrique Esparza's accounts jibe with Susannah Dickenson's -- and he sounds like he saw Susannah Dickenson and Juana Melton for the first time after the battle, when all of the non-combatants were gathered in the church baptistry.
Bob Durham
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 19, 2007 12:55:17 GMT -5
That seems a pretty convincing interpetation, given the circumstances. The only gun I know of which was firing through a wall as opposed to over the top, was the gunnade position on the west wall described in Mark's recent article. That's certainly a possible entry point if we're moving away from the idea that Esparza was specifically referring to the church rather than to the Alamo compound generally.
If Mark is right about a door being nearby its quite possible that the Esparzas first tried to gain admittance there, but had to scramble through the gunnade embrasure instead.
On the other hand it might be more logical for them to first go knocking at the main entrance lunette and on the garrison refusing (understandably enough) to open the gate, then having to scramble through an embrasure in the palisade.
It probably depends on whether Esparza really did remember it as a window, or simply called the embrasure in the palisade a window because he didn't know what else to call it.
If he really did mean a window, then my money would be the gunnade embrasure next to Juanna Alsbury's place.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 19, 2007 16:58:06 GMT -5
That seems a pretty convincing interpetation, given the circumstances. The only gun I know of which was firing through a wall as opposed to over the top, was the gunnade position on the west wall described in Mark's recent article. That's certainly a possible entry point if we're moving away from the idea that Esparza was specifically referring to the church rather than to the Alamo compound generally. If Mark is right about a door being nearby its quite possible that the Esparzas first tried to gain admittance there, but had to scramble through the gunnade embrasure instead. On the other hand it might be more logical for them to first go knocking at the main entrance lunette and on the garrison refusing (understandably enough) to open the gate, then having to scramble through an embrasure in the palisade. It probably depends on whether Esparza really did remember it as a window, or simply called the embrasure in the palisade a window because he didn't know what else to call it. If he really did mean a window, then my money would be the gunnade embrasure next to Juanna Alsbury's place. Stuart, There was actually another gun firing through an enclosed embrasure, or window. The two guns towards the middle of the west wall both fired through windows: 1) the gunade (probably)towards the south portion of the wall, firing through the window of one of the ruined adobe houses in this area, and 2) the other gun, possibly a 6-pounder, firing through the northern window of the "southern" Castaneda House, that is, the second house down from the northwest corner. Another possibility is that a small gun, probably a swivel gun, was mounted in the partially blocked up archway in the outer transept opening to the south side of the church. Other than the embrasure in the palisade, this would have been the next opening they would have come to after being rebuked at the lunette's gate. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 20, 2007 2:45:55 GMT -5
[quote author=marklemon board=alamohistory thread=1184658789 post=1184882286Another possibility is that a small gun, probably a swivel gun, was mounted in the partially blocked up archway in the outer transept opening to the south side of the church. Other than the embrasure in the palisade, this would have been the next opening they would have come to after being rebuked at the lunette's gate.
Mark
[/quote]
Is there independent evidence for this swivel gun, or is it just a plausible explanation for Esparza’s recollection of climbing over a gun?
I’m still inclined to go with Tom’s suggestion that his statement as presented is problematic. I’ve no doubt that even after 60-odd years Esparza correctly remembered how the family got into the Alamo. I’m just wary of the where. We’re working off an interview rather than a primary statement and like Tom my feeling is that to that newspaper man in 1900 the Alamo and the church were unique and synonymous, ie; Esparza told him how he got into the Alamo and the newspaperman wrote it down as the church because to him the two were one and the same.
Nor am I really convinced that Mark’s window was the first available entry point after being turned away from the gate. If the gate was barred to them, the next logical step would have been to scramble in by the much more closely adjacent cannon embrasure in the stockade. If Esparza’s terminology was loose enough for the reporter to take this down as a window, that would be a strong contender for the entry point. If however he did literally say and mean a window then the west wall adjacent to the postern makes a lot of sense. Coming late to the Alamo, slipping in by the back door would be rather more natural than coming straight up to the main gate – and so too would entering by the windows/embrasures adjacent, especially if there were other Tejano families already there to invite and guide them.
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 20, 2007 8:05:19 GMT -5
[quote author=marklemon board=alamohistory thread=1184658789 post=1184882286Another possibility is that a small gun, probably a swivel gun, was mounted in the partially blocked up archway in the outer transept opening to the south side of the church. Other than the embrasure in the palisade, this would have been the next opening they would have come to after being rebuked at the lunette's gate. Mark Is there independent evidence for this swivel gun, or is it just a plausible explanation for Esparza’s recollection of climbing over a gun? I’m still inclined to go with Tom’s suggestion that his statement as presented is problematic. I’ve no doubt that even after 60-odd years Esparza correctly remembered how the family got into the Alamo. I’m just wary of the where. We’re working off an interview rather than a primary statement and like Tom my feeling is that to that newspaper man in 1900 the Alamo and the church were unique and synonymous, ie; Esparza told him how he got into the Alamo and the newspaperman wrote it down as the church because to him the two were one and the same. Nor am I really convinced that Mark’s window was the first available entry point after being turned away from the gate. If the gate was barred to them, the next logical step would have been to scramble in by the much more closely adjacent cannon embrasure in the stockade. If Esparza’s terminology was loose enough for the reporter to take this down as a window, that would be a strong contender for the entry point. If however he did literally say and mean a window then the west wall adjacent to the postern makes a lot of sense. Coming late to the Alamo, slipping in by the back door would be rather more natural than coming straight up to the main gate – and so too would entering by the windows/embrasures adjacent, especially if there were other Tejano families already there to invite and guide them. [/quote] According to several local guys I have spoken to, including Rick Range, there used to be a plaque inside the Alamo at the inner face of the southern transepts, at the site of this small arched door, identifying the spot as the site of Gregorio Esparza's "small gun." The speculation is that due to various factors such as the space available in that area when allowing for the Fortin de Cos directly behind, it most likely was a swivel gun. According to your stated options, the palisade embrasure or the small arched entrance makes more sense to me. But certainly they could have reversed course and walked up the west wall. The first embrasure, or window thay would have encountered, though, would not have been the Castaneda gun position, however. It would have been the gunade at the second house up from the southwst corner, actually the ruined west wall of an adobe house, whose west wall and its windows were all that remained. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 21, 2007 2:58:29 GMT -5
After all this, I am inclined to lean ever so delicately toward the arched transept window with the small gun -- if not the "guard house" window.
The palisade gun port would have probably had too many obstacles for them to get to it easily -- if it was worth its salt as a defensive position.
The windows on the west wall were WAYYYYY around there, when approaching from Bexar -- and on the enemy side of the fort. The Esparzas' approach would have been from the footbridge at Potrero St. and through Plaza de Valero. Thinking visually -- and having a sense for the enemy piling into Bexar to my left, I would have led my family directly to the gate. If denied access there, I would have led them to the right, knowing there would be several safe points where we could gain entry.
Something that never occurred to me until mention above, is the tambour. That "gate" would most likely have been closed, so it would have been the point of refusal. If the theory of a formal, strongly built lunette is correct, then the gun ports would certainly have seemed windows to young Enrique. So I think this could be a real possibility.
The reason I still lean toward the transept is based on the flimsy supposition that Gregorio was stationed at the apse battery. Doesn't Enrique say this in one of his interviews? Of course, lousy journalism might have misquoted or misunderstood his statement, as stated above. But if he was stationed there, then the transept window would have been the obvious entrance to Gregorio.
|
|
