Rich,
"Siento, mi capitan! I thought it was a cannon."
Si senor, but which cannon do you depict that would be pulled into the front door of the Priest's House? Perhaps the cart
should be a cannon - or perhaps the house into which an attempt to pull a cannon into - was closer to an emplacement. Or perhaps the unknown 2-story, next to one of the emplacements IS the Priest's House, into which an emplacement cannon capture would be more likely (it does seem closer to the Navarro/Zambrano sequence than skipping past the 2-story, or skipping past the emplacement, or skipping past the un-enterable Yturri house to get into the "De la Garza Priest House located in the center of the next block)? Hmmm?
How far is it likely that "Beden" removed himself from the Priest's House to spike the cannon?
"“Our loss in this daring, hazardous, midnight assault, strange and miraculous as it is, was only one man—Beden of the New Orleans Grays, dangerously wounded in the eye in attempting to spike a gun."
Excerpt From: Francis White Johnson. “A History of Texas and Texans.” iBooks.
itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=5A580F81F0F0AD0E5A911BE28471E9F6"
"This Navarro house / Zambrano Row / Battle goal relationship still confuses me, or maybe I'm just dense and can't see the forest for the trees. Part of the problem is that participant accounts seem to agree that the Navarro House was captured first and then they started breaching the walls of the Zambrano Row from that point. This seems to suggest they went through the row from south to north, and I can't understand the goal "
In Barker's Johnson Texas & The Texans we have:
"“Early in the day, the companies holding the Navarro house, aided by the Grays, advanced and took position on the Zambrano Row, which
led to the Military Square....“This gave the detachment command of the Military Square, an important point gained.”
Excerpt From: Francis White Johnson. “A History of Texas and Texans.” iBooks.
itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=5A580F81F0F0AD0E5A911BE28471E9F6"
I have added emphasis to the word "led". This would seem to indicate they are moving from north to south towards the square - which fits the logic of the "goal". This would mean that the Navarro house is north of Zamrano row. And even though Edward suggests Seguin is opposite Zambrano Row, the length of it could afford this possibility as well. But having secured a building fronting Military square - they now proceed to move past the 2-story (in your plan), past the emplacement, past the impenetrable Yturri house - to get into the front of the de la Garza Priest house?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Edward,
I agree with the dangers of flooding (these have been significant even in the 20th century - hello Olmas flood basin) - I do not mean to imply that all structures survived this or that stone structures were not susceptible to this. Perhaps if you have the inventory of the 55 houses lost - we can check the list to confirm which stone structures were in fact destroyed. I also agree that many abandoned the city after the Battle of Medina potentially sacrificing property upkeep during absence - but I might not go so far to assume that stone structures failed for lack of upkeep during this abandonment. It is quite feasible that with the loss of many, many yet remained. Certainly many jacals could have been compromised. I certainly am speculating here due to lack of evidence.
Also with regard to:
"Fuentes: Military Plaza west side of Flores street toward the South end (1780)."
"Pedro Fuentes
‘With the Makers of San Antonio-1937’ (MSA)(ref: San Fernando marriages)
The location is given by Chabot. He says the location was at the proposed school (or just south of it) opposite the church on the west side of Flores Street."
I quote Chabot from page 70:
"Pedro, the parish priest, was granted a permit to construct the first two-story house in San Antonio, facing east and south on the plaza. Opposite the parish church, and facing the east side of military plaza, in line with the ramparts, was the site selected for the public school. South of it was the house and lot of Pedro Fuentes, whose lands extended along the west side of Flores St., opposite the old Perez homestead, acquired from the Cabreras, as far as the gate of the cemetery, which faced west (Sp. Ar. Grant, Sept. 20, 1777, II, 848). Padre Fuentes petitioned the government as follows: ...that having begun the construction of a stone house in the plaza of this villa, which is to face east, and having in mind to build two stories (dos cuerpos)...and having finished the ground floor, and being necessary, in order to complete the second story, ..."
I am no expert but it is quite possible that the Padre held control of more then one property. The "house and lot" may have been south of the school on the west side of Flores street - but then it would not seem to face east and south "
on" the plaza...so perhaps a second property was under construction "on" the plaza that faced east and south onto it (and not necessarily occupied while under construction). The Rullman map of 1837 shows 6 properties held by Fuentes (3 by Toribio (Pedro's father), 2 by Pedro, 1 by Ramon brother of Pedro), albeit outside the center part of San Antonio, even though all deed holders being deceased prior to 1837.
"Priest Pedro Fuentes was related to the Flores family."
I show Toribio married second, Silvestra Flores, daughter of Francisco Flores & Francisca Travieso (hmm a flooded house), and I show Ramon married Maria Guadalupe Flores de Valdes. Do you mean Pedro was related by way of a "mother-in-law" or "sister-in-law" or by some other means?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rich,
I have Nelson's book - but I can't get back to Texas for a couple of weeks to check it out. I am not sure the case is completely "nailed" such that Nelson's photos of 1868 are so incorrect to suggest that the action was not at the 2-story building you indicate. It might help if we knew who owned this building before abandoning the premise. It certainly would help the battle flow - the great advantage of the model you have built providing an ability to visualize this progression. I might have an easier time disregarding this structure except for all the evidence of the second story in the sources. This second story structure was rare in early 19th century San Antonio - so it would stand out, during any siege or battle it would be strategic (as indicated by this importance in the original petition for construction). And while I might speculate into numerous reasons for its non-existence at the time of battle - Occam's razor might suggest otherwise.
I do have one other thought:
You know how you have the 2 plazas or squares, separated by the block that is occupied at the center by the church. If you move due north from these 2 blocks, the north side of Commerce street is really 3 blocks - that is the block occupied by the church has a parallel in the 3 blocks due north. In one sense the church has a square to the west (military) and a square to the east (plaza de islas). Sources seem to speak of the block north of the military square and a block north of the plaza de isla square (main) - but they do not seem to speak about the block to the due north of the "church/block occupied by the church". In fact, both the Yoakum and Corner maps indicate two "mini" blocks, one directly north of the church and one directly south of the church that reside in the area between the two plazas. Corner shows a property called "Trevino" on the "mini-block" north of the church. The block to the north of this, being one of the 3 on the north side of commerce is the one where you show the 2-story structure. This block is between the 2 main blocks described in the sources. The SW corner of this is direct upon the military plaza and the SE corner is direct upon the "main" plaza. Both good command points, as indicated by cannon emplacements thereupon. Is it possible the sources are conflating the two - missing the one in between where you show the 2-story structure to be?
I am not suggesting that the De La Garza Priest house is not as is shown in your model, but the alternative 2-story "older" Priest house seems to be more advantageous to capture and more consistent with a battle progression/flow. It might even be a better counter-point to battlements on the top of the church. And the one source that mentions that "they initially attempted to break into the Yturri house but it was too strong, so they moved along the outside wall very close to the cannon emplacement and jumped the wall into the plaza (holy cow!) and entered the Priest House from the front" does not insist that they went east of Acequia towards De La Garza after jumping the wall - could they have crossed Acequia and moved under the windows in the east side of the 2-story, past the emplacement, jumping into the square - and moving west to enter the front door of the "old" Priest house?
Best regards,
Ray