Alamo neglect

[Blacksmith John]

Greetings all!

I am curious, and perhaps my question is ignorant, but here goes anyway...Why was the Alamo so neglected in the years following the battle and prior to the U.S. Army renovations? I understand the concept of battlefield conservation did not really catch on until after the Civil War, but the neglect shown towards the Alamo still baffles me. Did the place not hold at least a little value for the Texians after their independence had been won? I'm currently reading a biography of Juan Seguin, mainly comprised of his letters, and he makes little or no mention of the place in the years directly following the battle, though his doings in Bexar are recorded. I wondered if perhaps, given the Mexican religious/superstitious culture of the time, the Alamo post-battle was viewed as a place of bad luck and negative spiritual energy. Don't know, but the question has always bugged me.

[Kevin Young]

A series of reasons exist to explain why the Alamo did not become a shrine in the 1836-1845 period. First, the families who own the property/buildings on the west side returned. Second, there was an unstable frontier and San Antonio was subject to Indian raids and of course, two occupatons by the Mexican Army. If you want to get an idea of the extent of activity in San Antonio during this period, take a look at Gerald S. Pierce's Texas Under Arms (1969, Austin Encino Press) pgs 125-148.

At one point, during the fear of a Mexican invasion in the winter of 1836-1837, General Felix Huston, then commanding the Texas Army, ordered Juan Seguin to depopulate San Antonio and then destroy the town. These orders were not carried out of course.

In 1839, two companies of Texas regulars occupied what was termed "Alamo barracks" (could be the Long Barrack).

In 1841 the Republic of Texas recognized the titles to certain Roman Catholic Church properties, which may or may not have included the Alamo church and barracks (this would cause the long debate between the city and the Roman Catholic Church over Alamo ownership during the period that the US Army rented the property(the US Army never owned the Alamo).

San Antonio did not have any real financial growth until after the US Mexican War--and having the US Army in town certainly helped. In addition Samuel Maverick started aquiring property on Alamo Plaza and started the commercial development of the area around the Alamo.

Texas also had no financial growth during the Republic years, and it was not until statehood and the end of the Mexican War that things started to move forward. Then came 1861.

[Blacksmith John]

Excellent. Thanks much.

[Rich Curilla]

Great summary, Kevin. I would add perhaps that, for the Bexarenos, the place was simply the last in a series of sites around their community that had seen blood in the past three decades. I would think they had more reason to enshrine La Quinta than El Alamo since so many of their kin had died within its walls.

[Hiram]

Kudos to Kevin for the excellent summary of San Antonio in the early 1840's. To put the enshrinement of the Alamo in perspective, the Alamo church was purchased by the State of Texas in 1883 for the sum of $20,000. The outlaw Sam Bass died five years earlier in Round Rock, Texas after a bank holdup.

So what is my point? It is this. The West is still being settled during the 1880s and yet we find a building west of the Mississippi being preserved for it's historic significance. Was any building west of the Mississippi preserved at an earlier date? The West was about a lot of things, preservation was not one of them. As a native San Antonian, I can safely state that my fair city has done less than nothing for the Alamo in the last 175 years or so, give or take a decade. It is remarkable that a building 80 years old in 1836, located in the largest (or second largest depending on the year) town in Texas was still standing in 1883, and was able to be preserved for the generations which followed.

[Kevin Young]

...and that the Alamo was the first historic building west of the Mississippi actually purchased for preservation.

[Paul Sylvain]

Nice summaries. Bexar was in a near constant state of turmoil, with Anglo, Mexican, Commanche forces or war parties targeting the town for one reason or another. I don't think the locals really saw beyond "today" to see a site like El Alamo as historically significant "tomorrow". They had other things to worry about in those early years.

[Wade Dillon]

When visitors to the Alamo ask me about the remaining Spanish Colonial architecture in San Antonio, its always sad to point out the few remaining places and areas but ever so enlightening as to why these place must be preserved.

[jenny]

I remember being horrified, soon after seeing The Alamo in 1960 and developing a strong interest in it and feeling for it, to hear there was actually a proposal (from whom I don't recall) to raze the building and make the land around it into a shopping center.

[Rich Curilla]

Commercialism has plagued the Alamo and its structures almost since the smoke over the battle had blown away. Living day to day was what was on the mind of most Béxareños, not preserving historical landmarks. It is understandable that they pilfered stone and bought up properties including parts of the west wall. But the big business of the Anglo Americans starting in the 1840's and the continued use and restructuring of the Long Barrack and Low Barrack by the U.S. military is when the real disregard took hold. San Antonio experienced a major building boom in the early 1870's, and this virtually obliterated any remaining portions of the fort other than the army redo of the Long Barrack and Alamo Church. At the beginning of the 20th. century, it got worse. Commercialism really began to rule, and it took the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to stand in its path -- effectively -- and retain what was left. Fortunately, they remained in the saddle until the needs outgrew their organization's ability to handle them well. Meanwhile, the plaza took on its current carnival atmosphere with tasteless and irreverant commercialism in the form of Ripley's organization. Hopefully, this is all about to change, and some of it perhaps be reversed by the General Land Office and Phil Collins. We shall see.

[silverwolf]

Sept 6, 2015 13:00:59 GMT -5 Rich Curilla said:

Commercialism has plagued the Alamo and its structures almost since the smoke over the battle had blown away. Living day to day was what was on the mind of most Béxareños, not preserving historical landmarks. It is understandable that they pilfered stone and bought up properties including parts of the west wall. But the big business of the Anglo Americans starting in the 1840's and the continued use and restructuring of the Long Barrack and Low Barrack by the U.S. military is when the real disregard took hold. San Antonio experienced a major building boom in the early 1870's, and this virtually obliterated any remaining portions of the fort other than the army redo of the Long Barrack and Alamo Church. At the beginning of the 20th. century, it got worse. Commercialism really began to rule, and it took the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to stand in its path -- effectively -- and retain what was left. Fortunately, they remained in the saddle until the needs outgrew their organization's ability to handle them well. Meanwhile, the plaza took on its current carnival atmosphere with tasteless and irreverant commercialism in the form of Ripley's organization. Hopefully, this is all about to change, and some of it perhaps be reversed by the General Land Office and Phil Collins. We shall see.

Amen! Such base entertainment belongs far away from this sacred place, maybe the Riverwalk. Hope it comes to pass.