|
Post by Kevin Young on Feb 27, 2012 13:47:09 GMT -5
Here's a photo of the Losoya statue with your's truly, taken a few years ago. I thought it could have been displayed in a more prominent place. [a href=" "][/a][/url][/quote] If I remember right, the logic was that it would be closer to Losoya Street...apparently placing it up where the house was(and inside the historic Alamo wallline) would make the area to busy...it is all about the view...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2012 15:40:32 GMT -5
Not all was bad, but her focus (and that of others as well) seemed to be more on aesthetics, not the actual history of the battle. She wanted the church/shrine to be the center of the site and thought the Long Barrack was an obstruction to viewing the church. The Long Barrack probably had more significance in the battle itself than the church did; I think more defenders died there than in the church, so I'm glad it is preserved in at least some form and Adina is largely to thank for that.
Kevin - I agree that her design for LB restoration was "a bit much," but you're right; at least the building would have been there and could have been revised later.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2012 15:42:39 GMT -5
Here's a photo of the Losoya statue with your's truly, taken a few years ago. I thought it could have been displayed in a more prominent place. [a href=" "][/a][/url][/quote] If I remember right, the logic was that it would be closer to Losoya Street...apparently placing it up where the house was(and inside the historic Alamo wallline) would make the area to busy...it is all about the view... [/quote] I'm certainly glad that the statue is there and that I finally saw it on my 3rd of 4th visit to the Alamo (while on my way to the Riverwalk). It's location is one indication of the lack of a comprehensive "presentation" of Alamo Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Feb 27, 2012 16:37:37 GMT -5
...and I just can't get away from the feeling that the statue *belongs* on the site of the house he was born in and died defending -- busy sight-lines aside. (Now, I'm not so sure about that other statue of that Wiener fellow. ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 27, 2012 16:46:32 GMT -5
That one, Rich, is still very much a work in progress (speaking optimistcally)!
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 29, 2012 14:33:13 GMT -5
Adina De Zavala and Clara Driscoll’s story is filled with ironies. It was Adina who brought Clara into the DRT in 1903. Driscoll paid $500 for a 30-day option on the LB with an additional sum of $4,500 extending it to February 1904 which would go towards the agreed sale price of $75,000. The DRT collected just over $7,000 in the interim, so Clara advanced another $17,000+ to complete the initial down payment of $25,000. Driscoll’s financial contribution totaled approximately $22,000 of which the State of Texas compensated her zero. In January 1905 the legislature appropriated $65,000 to purchase the Alamo.
After that, the Second Battle of the Alamo erupted, a very public dispute fought in the courts and the newspapers over who should have control of the Shrine, the Adina De Zavala Chapter or the newly formed Alamo Mission Chapter (the Driscoll group.) I find the chapter name the Driscoll faction chose to be an ironic one. They had no interest in featuring any aspect of the Alamo that would suggest it was a former Spanish mission. The famous “occupation” of the LB by Adina in 1908, was not to prevent businessmen from assuming control of the building, but was to prevent the DRT from leasing the building to a private interest while awaiting the final disposition of the case.
For me, the ultimate irony is that neither Clara nor Adina got what they wanted. The Long Barrack was not razed, and the Convento was not fully reconstructed.
Beyond the political infighting of the DRT, there was also a larger scale political fight between the “Wets” and “Drys” over the fate of the Long Barrack. The prohibitionists wanted the building torn down and the anti-prohibitionists wanted it to be saved. Governor Oscar Colquitt ordered the two-story stone walls of the Long Barrack to be preserved, but while out of state Lt. Governor William Harding Mayes ordered the demolition of the upper story wall.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Feb 29, 2012 14:41:45 GMT -5
Very interesting, Hiram! Thanks for posting. Far more irony than I ever heard about before.
I'm still a bit unclear about what part of the LB today was actually part of the original structure. I had been told that only the front (west) wall is original.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Feb 29, 2012 17:14:07 GMT -5
I'm still a bit unclear about what part of the LB today was actually part of the original structure. I had been told that only the front (west) wall is original. The early-20th century photographs reproduced in George Nelson's book show the demolition of the Grenet Building, and the two-story stone wall which remained after the removal of the wooden structure.
Although I don't know of any documented information, it would seem logical that once the upper part of the LB was razed, they would use that stone to help reconstruct the east side of what now is the barrack. It makes no sense to haul off loose stone only to bring back different loose stone.
There is no official answer as to what percentage of the LB is still original stone, but if someone says "under 20% original," they are being reasonably accurate. As for the mortar, I would estimate less than 10%.
If you look carefully at some of the interior corners of the LB walls, you can see that they were using the same stone that was used to build the Gift Museum in the mid-30s; not fully reconstructed corners, but some repair work.
|
|