|
Post by Jake on Feb 14, 2012 20:43:07 GMT -5
But talking about the S-N sketch from the Veramendi roof, and the problems associated with that, here's another problematic view of the Alamo. Look at the Bollaert sketch, made from the roof of the Lockmar boarding house. It was thought for a while that this was the same place as the Veramendi house, but the location of the Lockmar boarding house was on the west side of Soledad at its corner with Calle Romana, some 1100 feet north of the Veramendi building. A copy of the Bollaert drawing is in Nelson -- which page depends on the edition.
From the Lockmar location, Bollaert shouldn't have been able to see the front of the church, and yet he shows it as though he's at the Veramendi location, but the alignments of the other buildings seem to suit a more northern location better. So is it simply impossible to get a sketch of the Alamo to look right from across the river?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 15, 2012 0:38:22 GMT -5
So is it simply impossible to get a sketch of the Alamo to look right from across the river? Now you've nailed it. LOL. I just plotted this out from the position you said (1,100 feet north of the Veramendi) on my Google Earth Bexar overlays. What I find is that, from that point, he would have been able to see much of the Alamo Church facade. The Long Barrack corner would have possibly blocked the left columns and maybe the left niches. But you certainly wouldn't have seen the south face of the long barrack as in the drawing, and you would have been able to see the north wall of the 2nd. story hospital building. If this point of view is correct, then that easily makes the gabled roof structure the Trevino House but flies in the face of the structure to the right of the church being the south end of the low barrack. It would have been almost two facade widths to the right of the facade and you would have been able to see the north side of the building very well. On the other hand, if this detail of the drawing were meant to be a building in line with the Trevino house along the west wall, then the building at the extreme right of the drawing COULD be the east end of the low barrack north face. Are there any reports of some fly-by-night salesman in the 1840's who might have been peddling some pretty wonky eyeglasses?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Feb 15, 2012 3:27:57 GMT -5
But talking about the S-N sketch from the Veramendi roof, and the problems associated with that, here's another problematic view of the Alamo. Look at the Bollaert sketch, made from the roof of the Lockmar boarding house. It was thought for a while that this was the same place as the Veramendi house, but the location of the Lockmar boarding house was on the west side of Soledad at its corner with Calle Romana, some 1100 feet north of the Veramendi building. A copy of the Bollaert drawing is in Nelson -- which page depends on the edition. From the Lockmar location, Bollaert shouldn't have been able to see the front of the church, and yet he shows it as though he's at the Veramendi location, but the alignments of the other buildings seem to suit a more northern location better. So is it simply impossible to get a sketch of the Alamo to look right from across the river? Hello Jake, I was of the belief that the Veramendi home was one of Anton Lockmar's boarding houses. Didn't he own more than one? Mike
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 15, 2012 5:09:08 GMT -5
Jake, as for the SN sketch and his depiction of entrenchments along the southern end of the West Wall:
Is it not possible, given the probable location from which he drew the sketch and the distance from that location to the two "circular trenches with ditches," that what SN saw were two separate piles of dirt in the form of mounds thrown up during the digging of the acequia by the Mexicans in Oct/Nov 1835 and, having just arrived in Bexar, he misinterpreted them as defensive entrenchments?
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 15, 2012 14:20:53 GMT -5
Mike, you suggested the other possibility that I was going to post -- that the location of the Lockmar that I'm working from was wrong. Thing is, it's a lot of hours to trace ownership and work out the possible locations, so I haven't done that yet (fairly easy to do online, with the Bexar County deed records all available -- just time-consuming). We could put this on hold until I have a chance to track down Lockmar properties, or maybe someone in the group already knows this?
David, I had always thought, once we knew that there were no trenches along the west wall at the southwest corner, other than the acequia, that if we assume S-N was doing the best he could with the information he had, that yes, he was seeing the acequia and whatever dirt mounds hadn't been used, and thinking he was seeing fortifications (and to some extent being right) but couldn't work out what they were. And never got a good look at this area to get straight on what was there.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 15, 2012 14:33:41 GMT -5
Turning back to the question of the top of the church as shown by S-N, here's a drawing I had never seen before that I found by accident on the TAMU site: i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r635/goodjive/AlamoPictureUnknown.jpgThis is one of the pictures that TAMU has on their "Alamo Images" page. Does anyone recognize this picture? The label on "Alamo Images" says: "Anonymous, 'Alamo Church' , 19th Century -- Anonymous painting, probably nineteenth century, of the 'Alamo Church.' A stucco coating is clearly visible on the walls." www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/adp/history/alamo_images/images.htmlI suppose it's possible that this is a pre-1836 picture, although somehow the stylistics seem to feel more mid-19th c. But if it's mid-19th, what on earth were they doing? Why were they drawing it this way? If it was a pre-1835/36 picture, then it would certainly tell us what the base structure was that the fortifiers started with, and according to my reconstruction of the history of the building, it would probably have looked like this in the late 1820s after all the bad times.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Feb 15, 2012 14:58:13 GMT -5
This picture, never caught my eye before, but two things jump out to me the first is no notches in the door, which certainly implies pre 1835 fortification. The second is no statues in the niches - not sure what that implies.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 15, 2012 16:55:43 GMT -5
We could put this on hold until I have a chance to track down Lockmar properties, or maybe someone in the group already knows this? Jake, either you and I, or I and Bruce Moses, had a discussion about the deeds for Anton Lockmar a few years ago. I can't find my notes on all of that, but I thought there was evidence that Lockmar had a house or inn a ways north of the Veramendi house. I just searched for Lockmar in the Bexar County Clerk records, and there are several entries. On 1 November 1838 Antonio Lockmar, George Dolson, and Peter C. Fohr bought at tax sale a house and all appurtenances on a "corner lot on Main Street and Alley" in San Antonio. There's an agreement between Lockmar, George Dolson, and Peter C. Fohr, 20 May 1839, concerning an interest they had in some property; it doesn't cite the location. On 25 January 1842 there is an indenture between Anton Lockmar and Peter Fohr to divide between themselves the outstanding debts of a "House of Entertainment named the Bowie Tavern." Also dated 20 May 1839 is a record of a deed between Lockmar and his wife, Maria Palomas Trevino de Lockmar, selling to Catherine L. Jackues fo $140 a parcel of land set apart as the 5th division on the "east side fo the street that runs northward from the northeast corner of the Public Square in the City of San Antonio." The lot "fronts on the west on the street as aforesaid, on the north adjoins a lot of land allocated to Francisco Trevino, on the east fronts on the San Antonio River, and on the south adjoins a lot of land belonging to William B. Jacques." So, is this the Veramendi house? Addendum: I just found that if you do a name search for just "Lockmar," it turns up a bunch of deeds and records for "A Lockmar." These appear to be from the late 1830s to the early 1840s. It may be an undertaking to translate the wording of the deeds in to actual physical locations.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 15, 2012 19:50:18 GMT -5
This picture, never caught my eye before, but two things jump out to me the first is no notches in the door, which certainly implies pre 1835 fortification. The second is no statues in the niches - not sure what that implies. My guess is that it is of later imagineering. With no statues in any niches, it should predate Falconer's highly accurate 1841 drawing and yet Falconer has upper statues AND gouges. The anonymous painting also is lacking carving on the door frame (although it is hard to see if it has any on the arch), a condition that wouldn't have existed until after the U.S. Army redid the door posts.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 15, 2012 19:53:49 GMT -5
By the way, I have seen this picture before but cannot find where. It was 15 or 20 years ago, and the only time I saw it. It was in some secondary work.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Feb 15, 2012 19:58:17 GMT -5
Tom, the problem, as you're seeing, is many returns, usually, and not enough time to stop and sort them out to see where they are and what they are. But it's an interesting question, and we can pursue it.
And what's the deal with the subject line? Which thread are we in?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 15, 2012 20:11:35 GMT -5
To whom did the Veramendi house belong at the time of the siege? I thought it was still Bowie's or someone else's in the family. Had it changed hands by then? S-N still refers to it as the Veramendi house.
Also - not to belabor the point I raised earlier, but I find it puzzling that the entire S-N drawing shows the fort from the northwest, not the vantage point of the Veramendi house at all. Am I imagining this or missing something? I know we've discussed his inclusion of the north wall as a kind of "fudge" or something he could have observed post-battle (along with other features), but the entire drawing is from that angle.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Feb 16, 2012 7:07:24 GMT -5
And what's the deal with the subject line? Which thread are we in? Jake, I moved a lot of posts concerning the Sanchez-Navarro drawing/plans from the "Altar to Their Sons" thread to here, and left a note about it in the "Altar" thread: trying to keep things somewhat sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 16, 2012 7:23:06 GMT -5
Allen, to your question about SN's point of view when he sketched the Alamo's defenses: He could not have sketched the Alamo from the Veramendi house. The point of view in the drawing is from the northwest of the Alamo, not from the west (the Veramendi house is due west; the facade of the church and the rear of the Veramendi house are parallel to each other and on the same azimuth). Based on the angle described by the sketch, I believe SN drew it from a stand of mesquite, cottonwoods, live oak and cypress on the east side of the San Antonio River where the river and Calle de Soledad almost converge - about 4 blocks north of the Veramendi house. Here is an image depicting the two points of view. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Feb 16, 2012 7:47:13 GMT -5
Allen, here is another rendering of the points of view, this time on a map of Bexar as it appeared in 1836. Attachments:
|
|