|
Typhoid
Sept 5, 2007 14:26:22 GMT -5
Post by highplainsman on Sept 5, 2007 14:26:22 GMT -5
Another question that I have been mulling over! We know that Bowies illness has been dignosed by some as typhoid and that he was probably more or less quarintined to keep from spreading the infection. Is their any indication that others of the garrison may have been infected? After all they had all been in contact, been eating the same food and drinking the same water for awhile. How many were to sick to go to their posts on March 6th? Was this one reason for burning the bodies?
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 5, 2007 15:44:35 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 5, 2007 15:44:35 GMT -5
I can't think of any eyewitnesses who ever said so. In fact, I believe there is eyewitness testimony that Bowie was isolated in order to reduce the chances of him infecting others. I'm not sure how many were in the hospital with other illnesses or wounds, how many left over from the battle of Bexar in 1835, etc. Similarly, there is no evidence that the burning of bodies was motivated by any health concerns. It was, as I recall, a sign of disrespect for the defenders, who were not to be honored with a "decent burial."
AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 5, 2007 21:12:22 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Sept 5, 2007 21:12:22 GMT -5
I've heard of pestilent ships being quarantined way back, but not people before 1840. Most folks didn't even know that disease was spread from person to person by germs and viruses. It seems like common sense to quarantine Typhoid Bowie now, but would the available Texas doctors have been that knowlegeable about infectious diseases in 1836?
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 6, 2007 8:23:08 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 6, 2007 8:23:08 GMT -5
Good question, and that also was my understanding of the state of medicine at that time. However (although I can't recall source - maybe Juana Alsbury), someone later said that Bowie was isolated for that reason.
AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 6, 2007 10:55:08 GMT -5
Post by highplainsman on Sept 6, 2007 10:55:08 GMT -5
My point exactly! Saying that Bowie drank infected water maybe, how long would it have taken for him to come down with the disease and were there maybe others that were in earlier stages. My recollection is that typhoid very often came in epidemics. Good question, and that also was my understanding of the state of medicine at that time. However (although I can't recall source - maybe Juana Alsbury), someone later said that Bowie was isolated for that reason. AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 6, 2007 17:37:51 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 6, 2007 17:37:51 GMT -5
It seems like common sense to quarantine Typhoid Bowie now, but would the available Texas doctors have been that knowlegeable about infectious diseases in 1836? Good question. Particularly since Dr. Sutherland said that Bowie's disease "did not respond to ordinary treatment," or words to that effect.
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 6, 2007 17:38:51 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 6, 2007 17:38:51 GMT -5
However (although I can't recall source - maybe Juana Alsbury), someone later said that Bowie was isolated for that reason. It was Juana.
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 6, 2007 19:36:50 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 6, 2007 19:36:50 GMT -5
I don't think Bowie's illness was ever identified. No one seemed to know what he had, but there is no record of it being caused by bad water or even being contageous. No record of others coming down with a similar illness. Bowie had been on a real bender or two, which may have been related to the illness or hastened its advent. I believe he never fully recovered from the sword wound he suffered in the Sand Bar fight. Who knows?
AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 7, 2007 1:34:55 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Sept 7, 2007 1:34:55 GMT -5
I can't lay my hands on an electronic copy at the moment but those of you who are Alamo Society members will recall I posted an article in the journal last year discussing Bowie's illness at some length.
The typhoid bit seems to have come from Amelia Williams, who described his illness as Typhoid-Pneumonia, which is basically a form of Pneumonia with some of the outward symptoms of Typhoid. I quoted an extensive description of the symptoms from a guy who had it and survived and its possible that this was what Bowie had although I couldn't find any contemporary reference to him having it. Everybody at the time seemed to call it Pneumonia although the Typhoid-Pneumonia variant would fit Sutherland's account better.
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 7, 2007 8:44:17 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 7, 2007 8:44:17 GMT -5
The word "pneumonia" is usually included in any description of Bowie's illness and that's what made me think of the lung injury from the Sand Bar fight. I recall your article, Stuart, and will try to locate it.
AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 7, 2007 9:02:06 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 7, 2007 9:02:06 GMT -5
OK - Stuart's article, "What Ails You Jim, Exactly?," is in the Dec. 2006 issue of Alamo Journal (#143). I think this is a thorough discussion of the issue and suggests that Bowie might well have eventually recovered from the illness. Stuart also mentions testimony from Joe that Bowie was actually buried, not burned with the others.
There's no indication that this disease was at all contagious, despite the fact that Bowie was isolated. That may have been precautionary, as Juana Alsbury seems to suggest, or simply a case of rank having privileges -- Bowie was, after all, co-commander of the Alamo.
AW
|
|
|
Typhoid
Sept 7, 2007 22:54:26 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 7, 2007 22:54:26 GMT -5
The typhoid bit seems to have come from Amelia Williams, who described his illness as Typhoid-Pneumonia... Stuart, John S. Ford's memoirs predate Amelia Williams' dissertation. His section on Juana Navarro Alsbury says, "Col. Bowie was very sick of typhoid fever. For this reason he thought it prudent to be removed from the part of the building occupied by Mrs. Alsbury." So it either came from Juana, or Ford added it from heresay.
|
|