|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 12, 2008 22:34:12 GMT -5
Scott, Tom's latest work remains unpublished, but he had an article on Alamo artillery published in an Alamo Journal some time ago. I don't have the issue, but I'm sure Bill Chemerka could enlighten us as to the issue number and whether or not your query is addressed. The DRT library has a copy of the Lindley article as well. Jim
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 20, 2008 21:31:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is important or not, but I stumbled across an 1852 newspaper story that states some ditch diggers for Mr. A Maverick excavated 13 cannon of different sizes near the Alamo. They were badly damaged. All were spiked and most of the trunnions broke off. It's a very interesting article. Has anyone seen this particular account before?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 21, 2008 8:03:00 GMT -5
RR, it could be important.
The fact that some cannon were dug up on Sam Maverick's property is known (Mary Maverick may have mentioned it in passing in her memoirs), but I'm not familiar with that specific newspaper article. I'm out of town and can't access my copy of Hansen's Alamo Reader, but I don't think that the article is reprinted in there.
Any chance you could post it here?
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 21, 2008 13:15:37 GMT -5
RR, it could be important. The fact that some cannon were dug up on Sam Maverick's property is known (Mary Maverick may have mentioned it in passing in her memoirs), but I'm not familiar with that specific newspaper article. I'm out of town and can't access my copy of Hansen's Alamo Reader, but I don't think that the article is reprinted in there. Any chance you could post it here? I had heard that cannon were dug up on Sam Maverick's property also, but did not remember it being so many. Apparently it's not that surprising here and I just found a vague mention of the 1852 discovery on pg. 635 of Hansen's Alamo Reader. I have to go out now, but maybe I'll decipher the small blurred print and type it out tonight.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 21, 2008 21:22:10 GMT -5
I think that number (13) matches what Rick Range came up with in his research for his book. Apparently, until recently, all the brass cannon found there had disappeared, by various means. Rick's uncovering in a north Texas barn of a (Spanish) brass 4-pounder which has turned out to be a very strong candidate for inclusion as an authentic Alamo gun is, in my opinion, one of the great under reported stories of late. Why this has had so little coverage is a mystery to me, especially in a field that is so starved for new data. Efforts are underway to have this gun placed in the Alamo's collection, for all to see. Mark
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 21, 2008 23:55:09 GMT -5
Thirteen is definitely the key number in this cannon discovery. The transcribed article below is more detailed and has a slightly earlier date than the Hanson source. It's also badly written.
Buried Cannon Discovered ---- The Telegraph, Houston, TX. June 25, 1852
Western Texan says that, very recently, some workmen, who were digging a trench on Mr. A. Maverick's place, at the Alamo, struck upon part of a cannon, in digging out which, they discovered twelve others, varying in size from small wall pieces to those ten feet in length. The editor says: -
Among the number are three eighteen pounders, two copper twelve-pounders, two copper and one iron eight-pounders and four swivel or wall pieces. They are all spiked, the trunnions of most of them have been broken off, and they bear evidence of having had fire applied to them, which was either for the purpose of bending or causing them sooner to rust. There is considerable speculation as to who buried them. The general impression, however, is that they were buried by Travis previous to the fall of the Alamo. Some few are of opinion that they were buried by the Mexicans.
Mr. Maverick intends instituting inquiry in order to ascertain by whom these cannon were deposited, and if it was by Travis, he will turn over to Gov. Bell, as belonging to Texas. If they ever belonged to Texas, we think they should be turned over to the General Government. We hope, however, they will not not be removed from the Alamo, as they evidently form a part and parcel of the glorious struggle that there took place for Texas Independence - which for deeds of noble bearing and undying, unyielding valor is without a parallel in the history of our country.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 22, 2008 8:22:18 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that, RangerRod. It's interesting that the tubes the newspaper described add up to twelve, not thirteen, and that it reported three 18-pounders (was the reporter including the 12-pound gunade?).
FYI, the referenced Western Texan where the news about the find was originally published was the San Antonio newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 22, 2008 10:54:37 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that, RangerRod. It's interesting that the tubes the newspaper described add up to twelve, not thirteen, and that it reported three 18-pounders (was the reporter including the 12-pound gunade?). Nice catch on the cannon total. The author obviously had some problems while composing the story. A. Maverick was certainly meant to identify Samuel Augustus Maverick, but how could the writer mistake any of the Alamo artillery as copper cannon? I've never even heard of cannon being solely constructed of this soft metal. I told you it was an interesting article. Yes, I believe it was the first newspaper published in San Antonio, but I sure wish it had existed several years earlier. It could have filled in a lot of historical holes during the 1840s, bad writing and all. Local news must have been an odd mixture of rumor and print sources from other towns before the advent of the Western Texan. Later.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 22, 2008 15:33:51 GMT -5
The total may not necessarily be off. The report says one was found and then 12 others which makes the 13. The breakdown of the types however is prefaced with the words "Among the number" so there could still have been a nondescript thirteenth gun.
None of the guns will have been copper, but its entirely possible that the bronze pieces were mistaken as such, especially if they had been in a fire as well having been buried for some time.
The fact that three were described as 18 pounders can I think be discounted; clearly there were three big ones, but...
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 22, 2008 20:32:23 GMT -5
The total may not necessarily be off. The report says one was found and then 12 others which makes the 13. The breakdown of the types however is prefaced with the words "Among the number" so there could still have been a nondescript thirteenth gun. None of the guns will have been copper, but its entirely possible that the bronze pieces were mistaken as such, especially if they had been in a fire as well having been buried for some time. The fact that three were described as 18 pounders can I think be discounted; clearly there were three big ones, but... For my part, total was the wrong word. I understood TRK to mean that the calibre and metal type of a siingle cannon was vague as you politely clarified. I believe you are correct that the author's poor description of the damaged artillery was one of perception and not metallugical knowledge. I do hope that something can be gleaned from this flawed article if this particular version of the cannon discovery was previously unknown, but maybe that's a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 23, 2008 2:39:53 GMT -5
Since writng my earlier post it occurs to me that being bronze the guns will have oxodised to a pale green colour in the ground which will easily have been mistaken for copper
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 29, 2008 21:04:54 GMT -5
I find this discussion especially interesting. I visited the Alamo three weekends ago (something I do whenever I get a chance tp come to Texas), and several folks giving historical talks and accounts of the battle made a note of pointing to the vaious tubes on the grounds, and noting the largest was "THE" 18 pounder used in defense of the Alamo during the siege.
I never paid that much notice of the cannons in my earlier visit, assuming that all of them were there as representations of cannon used in the battle, but not actual cannons from the Alamo. What I did not hear explained or answered was how and where these tubes were found, and how it was determined that the largest was the 18 pounder in question.
There's a good chance my temporary work detail assignment in Texas (from New England) will become permanent within a few months, allowing me a chance to spend some actual time digging into questions like this. I can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 29, 2008 21:50:14 GMT -5
We've debated this 18 pounder question a fair amount over the years. Wolfpack is probably a good person to weigh in on it...he measured the barrel last time we were there. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 30, 2008 11:22:00 GMT -5
We've debated this 18 pounder question a fair amount over the years. Wolfpack is probably a good person to weigh in on it...he measured the barrel last time we were there. Jim One day, I'm going to write it down instead of trusting what was once a good memory! Honestly, I've forgotten the details, but simply measure the bore using a dollar bill (a little over six inches) shows that its bigger then a 12 pounder (over four inches, iirc). Now, I don't know how you can conclusivily prove it's the 18 pounder, but finding it with the other cannon on the Maverick property with the destroyed trunnions, etc. seems to make it extremely probable. I wish we had more information on where exactly they were found, it would seem probable to me that the Mexicans dumped them in one of the acequias that crossed what was to become the Maverick property.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 30, 2008 14:44:49 GMT -5
It makes sense. I'm guessing they (the Mexicans) had no need to haul additional artillary around with them, for logistical and tactical reasons, and simply did what they needed to do to render them unuseable, then dumped them, after the battle.
|
|