|
Post by dimbo33 on Aug 8, 2008 12:45:46 GMT -5
Speaking of the four pound bronze cannon that Rick Range located in North Texas--Rick and I are trying to verify that it is an Alamo cannon but we can not prove the link. The story is that the cannon was sent from San Antonio to Philadelphia in the 1870-1880 period in payment of a debt. We do not know who might have sent the cannon but the obvious suspects would be the Maverick family. The cannon was supposedly sent to a Mr. Howard Barclay French whose father founded the Samuel H. French Company. This company started in the pharmacy business but expanded into the paint and building supply manufacturing business. Howard had a relative (probably a cousin) named Harry B French who also had a pharmacy company that merged with Smith Kline to form Smith Kline and French which is now Glaxo Smith Kline. Supposedly the cannon was on the lawn of Howard French (along with a revolutionary war cannon) for two generations. His address in Phil. may have been 2021 Spruce St. The cannon was said to have been located by J. P. Bryan in a pawn shop in Phil in 1986 and brought back to Texas. The cannon has it trunnions broken off, the know of the casabel is broken off, the handles are broken off and it is not spiked. There is a Spanish Crest that seems to date it from the mid 1700s. There are two articles on this cannon in the artillery folder at the DRT Library. One is from the Dallas Morning News of Nov. 2, 1986 and describes the history of the cannon as given above. We are looking for any connection between San Antonio and the Howard Barclay French family. We hope that there might be a bill from the French's, a picture of the cannon on the lawn of the French's, a bill or receipt for the transportation of the cannon to Philadelphia--anything that could connect this tube to San Antonio. If any of you all are interested in helping us (especially any Yankees that live near Philadelphia) please dive in. I have more details on Howard B. French if needed but they are pretty easy to find on the INTERNET. I have not had any luck in finding period Philadelphia newspapers on line. Thanks, Gregg
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 9, 2008 22:03:15 GMT -5
Hey Gregg. So am I to understand that this 4 pounder was suddenly discovered in 1986 at a pawn shop, but that it actually has a traceable history back to an earlier time with Mr. French? It seems to me that a lot of supposed Alamo artifacts make their first appearances around the big anniversaries (100th or 150th) or with the debut of noted Alamovies. It's hard enough to trace small arms with a good story back to a certain battle and I think artillery may be even harder. I don't have any information on this matter, but wish you fellows luck in your interesting quest.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Aug 9, 2008 23:57:43 GMT -5
I think that when the facts are revealed about this gun, the preponderance of the evidence will weigh heavily in favor of the gun most likely being from the Alamo. The "sudden discovery" of the gun in 1986 is not sudden at all, but rather a result of the sesquicentennial tending to draw out related stories, much like the phenomenon we saw during the centennial of the Civil War. In these days, stories which would normally not be thought to be important enough for publication, "suddenly" became newsworthy. Many stories or facts which had existed for years were suddenly "discovered" in 1961 or 2. As is often the case, especially in earlier times, debts were often settled in curious ways, and these settlements were not always recorded, or if they were, the documents don't always survive. So actually proving the link may turn out to be difficult. But it is interesting that the gun is Spanish, and of the correct vintage (mid to late 1700's) and has been disabled in virtually the same exact manner that the "real" Alamo guns have been. As I have discussed with Rick on several occasions, the act of removing the trunnions and cascabel is not an easy one, and this fact means that someone had a very strong motive to render this gun un-serviceable. you can see, the gun has a history. In my mind, the evidence, circumstantial as it is, points to the gun either being an Alamo gun, or a Mexican gun which was demilitarized rather than have the Texans capture it. Mark
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Aug 11, 2008 7:41:51 GMT -5
RR, I did not mean to imply that the tube was randomly found in a pawn shop. The story is that J. P. Bryan chased down the cannon over a five year time period and that it finally was located in a pawn shop. The other story was that a collector found it. I am a great cynic in these matters but, like Mark, it seems as thought there is a reasonable chance this cannon was at the Alamo. That is why we are putting so much effort into chasing down this story. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 11, 2008 18:11:27 GMT -5
Gregg, I understand and didn't mean to imply that you are not thorough in your research of this particular cannon. I was just wondering about the artifact's history before it's discovery in 1986 and the chain of custody that takes it back in time to the Alamo battle. It has been stated that this lost piece has been disabled in a similar manner to the famed Alamo guns, which possibly ties it to the battle. I agree that it's possibly an Alamo gun, but without the cold hard facts it seems just as possible that it is not. Sorry, I'm such a stickler. I'm no artillery expert, but wasn't the removal of the trunnions and casabel on cannon, but 2 common ways of disabling cannon and not specific to the Alamo battle. While this piece may eventually be traced back to the Texas Revolution in some manner, that doesn't place it in the Alamo on that fateful day. In the swath cut across Texas by the Mexican Army, they could have come upon other cannon unrelated to the Alamo. Logically, they may have then disabled them in the same manner. This cannon could also date to a conflict before or after the Texas Revolution in many places governed by the Spanish. Presently, I'm skeptical in my ignorance without more facts, but if there is anyone who can solve this mystery, it's you and Mr. Range. My primary cannon interest lies with the 4 pounder Twin Sisters, so I will leave this Alamo research to those that are more knowledgeable than myself. Adios.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Aug 12, 2008 11:28:35 GMT -5
"I'm no artillery expert, but wasn't the removal of the trunnions and casabel on cannon, but 2 common ways of disabling cannon and not specific to the Alamo battle."
RR,
I've been thinking the same thing... but then I'm not a noted author or historian so what do I know?!
SMc
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 12, 2008 21:32:57 GMT -5
Scott, are you fishin' for compliments? ;D
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 12, 2008 22:34:51 GMT -5
I'm only foot-noted myself.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Aug 14, 2008 11:36:07 GMT -5
No fishin' going on here... just seems us simple ol' "armchair" historians get pushed to the end of the line when you get big names throwin' out there ideas and comments.
I'm still interested in the 3 18pdrs mentioned earlier in the thread. Where were they, what were they doing and who was using them???
SMc
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 14, 2008 15:27:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that most of the participants on this thread are avocational historians, published though they may be...they've got "day jobs"...and armchairs!!
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 14, 2008 15:57:50 GMT -5
they've got "day jobs"...and armchairs!! Hey, I'm working from 5 am to 9 pm these days, so you could say I have a day and night job. I'd like to sink into an armchair around now, but gotta get back on task
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on Aug 14, 2008 22:33:09 GMT -5
Scott,
I've seen your name in print as an adviser in at least one book, so step off that high...er, low horse.
|
|
|
Post by dimbo33 on Aug 15, 2008 1:01:27 GMT -5
I would ask all of you (famous or not) to look at my posts one more time. We have no proof what so ever that this cannon was at the Alamo. We are not claiming that it was. We think that the information we have on the possible provenance, the age of the cannon, the poor casting and the damage done to the tube make it worthwhile to try to prove that it was an Alamo Cannon. We feel that it is unlikely that we will be able to prove that it is but it seems as though it is worth the try. That is why I posted the facts of this site. There are many avocational historians that visit the site and if I am not mistaken some of them live in New England. Since I do full time pediatrics here in Wharton and know next to nothing about the Alamo I am begging for help. It would be so awesome if we could actually prove our case. WE WILL NOT LABEL THIS CANNON AS AN ALAMO CANNON UNLESS WE ARE COMFORTABLE THAT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT IT IS. I hope those of you that have read my books get the feel that I am a stickler for facts as opposed to theories. Once again, thanks for any help on serious research that you can give us. Gregg
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 15, 2008 12:15:40 GMT -5
I'm grateful for all the members we have, and the various expertise (s) that they bring to the forum. I can't think of a member, that has posted more then once or twice, that I haven't learned something from. I'm glad for the opportunity to participate in informed debate about these topics.
I'm also glad to have the opportunity to read the posts, in areas where I'm woefully ignorant. I can't debate Mexican Carbines, or architecture, for example, but I value those that do.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 16, 2008 7:15:50 GMT -5
There are many avocational historians that visit the site and if I am not mistaken some of them live in New England. I guess I'm one of those avocational historians from New England. lol! But I did live in San Antonio for several years, have returned for visits several more times, and currently am on a work detail in Dallas which has allowed me the chance to come to San Antonio twice more since May, with another trip planned for next weekend. I visit the Alamo grounds every time. I certainly do not consider myself to be an expert on the Alamo (I don't think anyone here really does). Knowledgeable? Yes, but with room to learn lots more, which is why I'm here. Let's face it, there are things about the Alamo story that we will never know with absolute certainty, and I think that's one of the things that keeps drawing people back. Your questions about the 18 pounders are good ones. There are folks working at the Alamo that tell visitors the large tube on the grounds is THE Alamo 18 pounder. The first time I heard that was on my visit there over the July 4 weekend. I guess I'm curious as to how they know that. Regardless, healthy debate is a good thing. I might be a New Englander (which might imply I'm too far removed from San Antonio to have much to add), but I've been hooked on this story since I was around five or six and saw Fess Parker doing his Davey thing at The Alamo. I've seen the flicks and read many of the books, but I hang out here to learn about things that plug in the holes in what I don't know. Bottom line is that, expert, or novice, all of us here share a love for and a deep interest in the Alamo's history -- it's story. I know I've had my eyes and mind opened since signing on, here.
|
|