Morales and the south wall: the palisade or 18-pounder?

[Riley Gardner]

Hey friends,

A question I think is worthy of discussion. There's been some discussion that I've been hearing in recent years debating whether or not Morales and his column were actually going for the palisade wall or not. As we all know, traditional theory states that they were indeed aiming for the wall, but heavy rifle fire prevented this. He then diverted his column towards the Southwest corner, where he used the Charli house for cover, then took the corner when (assuming) the defenders turned the 18-pounder to fire into the plaza rather than out. This also would go along with capturing the defensive lunette as well and securing the main gate.

The new theory going on is that Morales was aiming for the corner all along to capture the 18-pounder sooner rather than later. Makes sense, right? Surely the palisade, with the abatis, cannon, the ditch and height would have made it extremely difficult to capture. Why send a column against such a position? Granted, the SW corner wouldn't have been a walk in the park, but there's much less obstacle to get over, and certainly between cannon fire one could make pretty extensive gains.

That being said, the palisade could have been a target if they were intended to take the palisade and then secure the church, disabling the cannon that could (and did) wreak havoc on that approaching from the east.

So what's the current thought process about this? Both to make make sense, though I'd give the edge to the SW corner theory. What do we all think?

(Also sorry if I don't get many military terms right - still a challenge for me to remember all those, and especially when they're in Spanish)

[Rich Curilla]

As for myself, I have completely abandoned the palisade as the goal for Morales' attack. I believe there is evidence (more than theory) that he was tasked with taking the gate. Can't swear to this, but the going reality is that he was aimed at the gate and lunette, was driven off by the fire power from that point and others, regrouped his men behind the Charli house or some other stone structure that might have still been standing in the west line of Plaza de Valero, and then assaulted the S.W. corner when (as you suggest) the opportunity arose. His column of slightly more than 100 men only had two scaling ladders. However many got over the wall to kill the crew of the 18-pounder would then have formed part of a pincer movement against the gate with those outside the fort being able to hit it from outside while the inside guys hit it from there. All this following orders to take the gate. Once that task was accomplished, then it would IMO have been up for grabs as to what he did next based on what was already happening in the compound.

Also, the wording of one of the primary accounts (Morales' after-action report? Can't remember if there is one.) was such that it leads some to believe that his column breached the fort before those on the north end.

[Rich Curilla]

The attack on the palisade is a hard concept to abandon. Even John Lee Hancock's superbly accurate movie makes a big (and unique) point of Morales attacking there first. Remember however that this script (while rewritten by JLH prior to filming) still originated from a first draft written in the mid to early 90's when the palisade theory was still in full swing in most camps.

If no assault on the palisade, then I consider it highly unlikely that Crockett was still there. All we know is that he was assigned the post on the first day of the siege. This could have changed several times as Travis, et. al., saw what the enemy was doing and where they were concentrating as the siege developed.

[Jim Boylston]

I'm also of the opinion that the palisade was not a primary target. It was really the only area in the compound wherein the defenders could deliver enfilading fire, so it makes sense that the attackers would avoid it, especially given that there were other, easier, points of attack.

[Rich Curilla]

Everything about an attack on the palisade, as far as I can see, comes from myth and movies, while nothing comes from any reliable primary source.

[loucapitano]

There are many good reasons why the theory that the Palisade was the focal point of Morales' column. It's just as likely that the 18 pounder was the target all along. The problem I have is that Morales' men had to cover quite a distance from their own trenches to the South Wall. The overall firepower they faced as they got closer to the fort might have diverted them to safer paths, one of which was the corner with the 18 pounder.
Personally, I believe Morales' was a planned diversionary attack to pin down as many Texans as possible while Santa Anna's main force of more than 1000 men struck the North Wall where significant damage had been down in prior days. Thus, Santa Anna had all the benefits of a flanking attack against a weakened position, probably defended by fewer than 100 men. The fact that the South column had only two ladders suggests that scaling the walls was not an objective, since the chapel walls were over 20 feet high and the gate was protected by the fortified lunette. I think that Morales noticed a decline in firing from the South Wall as the defender turned to face the Northern threat ("Crockett, Crockett...North Wall!") and stormed the section least able to mount a credible defense.
Of course, my theory is subject to determining whether Morales took the 18 pounder before or after the compound was breached from the North.
One more thing, Travis's letter praising David Crockett for being wherever he was needed all around the fort suggests that he was not at the stockade in the south during the attack but most likely at the North battery where he withdrew southward as the wall was breached. That might account for claims that his body was identified near the battery centered on the West Wall.
It's food for thought.
Lou from Long Island

[Rich Curilla]

It would seem to me (with a non-military mind) that the south column would be the surprise. They had places to hide less than 100 yards south, had two scaling ladders, and could make it to the south wall in 30 seconds if they ran. My feeling is that the build-up with the previous days' cannonading and bombardment from the N.E. battery followed by the clamor of 1,100 men attacking the north half of the fort in the middle of the night would naturally draw the defense northward. If Morales waited long enough until this north attack was clearly established, then he might have assumed he would have an easy time of it getting his men to the wall, capturing the gate and 18-pounder and getting the north-focused defenders from the rear. I know there would have been defenders ordered to stay where they were stationed at the south end, but how quickly that attitude may have crumbled with all the action at the north and NOTHING south of the fort -- that they could see. Once Texians started to abandon their posts -- i.e. Crockett and company particularly -- to "ride to the sound of the guys," then Morales ordered a charge. Then, the tables were turned by the stalwart fellows in the lunette, at the 18-pounder and perhaps atop the southwest corner of the church. They held their posts and forced Morales behind the Charli house. From there, it would have just been a matter of waiting for the right time to take the S.W. corner with the two scaling ladders. Hey, I just made this up off the top of my head, but what's wrong with it. Go for it. LOL.

[loucapitano]

Rich, as always, even made up off the top of your head, you raise good points. I think whatever actions Morales took were based on the logic of the moment as he saw them. No doubt he had objectives, but with only 100 men, he was not about to rush headlong into devastating rifle and cannon fire. Hence, he may have launched his assault at the sound of the North bugle, took to ground and to whatever shelter existed and waited (probably 5 to 15 minutes) for the opportunity to rush the wall at the S.W. corner.
The one question I have is the condition of the Charli house. Several illustrators like George Nelson and Gary Zaboli indicate the structure was a burnt out ruin that could not shelter many troops. Your excellent and well researched dioramas show the Charli house without a roof but relatively intact, which certainly could shelter a larger number of the enemy. The question I have is why would the defenders allow such a structure to remain intact so close to interfere with a key position? What has your research uncovered about the Charli house? Thanks for all the work you do.
Lou from Long Island

[rriddle3]

Nov 1, 2014 11:31:26 GMT -5 loucapitano said:

... The question I have is why would the defenders allow such a structure to remain intact so close to interfere with a key position? What has your research uncovered about the Charli house? Thanks for all the work you do.
Lou from Long Island

I asked this very question some time back in this thread.

[Riley Gardner]

Nov 1, 2014 11:31:26 GMT -5 loucapitano said:

Rich, as always, even made up off the top of your head, you raise good points. I think whatever actions Morales took were based on the logic of the moment as he saw them. No doubt he had objectives, but with only 100 men, he was not about to rush headlong into devastating rifle and cannon fire. Hence, he may have launched his assault at the sound of the North bugle, took to ground and to whatever shelter existed and waited (probably 5 to 15 minutes) for the opportunity to rush the wall at the S.W. corner.
The one question I have is the condition of the Charli house. Several illustrators like George Nelson and Gary Zaboli indicate the structure was a burnt out ruin that could not shelter many troops. Your excellent and well researched dioramas show the Charli house without a roof but relatively intact, which certainly could shelter a larger number of the enemy. The question I have is why would the defenders allow such a structure to remain intact so close to interfere with a key position? What has your research uncovered about the Charli house? Thanks for all the work you do.
Lou from Long Island

This is something (regarding the Charli house) I've wondered for some time too. Morales column, if I recall, had two (or more) ladders with them. Would it have been possible for those troops to climb onto the Charli home or walls and target the men at the SW corner? Perhaps fire from the lunette would have prevented this, but food for thought regardless.

[Rich Curilla]

According to current conclusions drawn by researchers Rick Range, Mike Harris and Craig Covner, the Charli House was stone, two rooms and had 12-1/2 foot high walls. Their retranslation of mission inventories coupled with a property deed also strongly suggest that the west wall from the Trevino House (Travis' H.Q.) south to the S.W. corner and thence east to the low barrack was no more than 7 to 8 feet high. The north wall of the Charli house was only 40 feet south from the S.W. corner. Anybody able to get on the roof of the house (if it still had a roof and if it wasn't covered with a gable roof) would have had clear shots not only at the 18-pounder crew but also at people walking in the courtyard beyond! If I were able to attach a photo from my model, I have clearly illustrated this problem. I must therefore assume that there is some flaw in the findings. Either the Alamo wall was higher, or the house was lower or non-existant. Filisola says the closest structures were along Alamo St. beyond the Plaza de Valero, and thus over 100 yards south. Labastida shows structures along the west side of the plaza AND around the S.W. corner across from the west wall for 100 feet or so. Sutherland says there where jacales lining both the east and west side of Plaza de Valero almost up to the walls. I'm at the point where I have serious doubts about the Charli house, but it seems to be a fact. So, go figure.....

If the house was mountable, I would think such a dramatic advantage would have been reported in one or more Mexican accounts or after-action reports, but there is no mention of it other than saying that Morales' column found momentary shelter behind it. Or, as Filisola said in his account, "At the same time [as the assaults on the north end], to the South, Colonels Jose Vicente Minon and Juan Morales with the columns skillfully took advantage offered by some small jacales with walls of stone and mud which were next to the angle corresponding to the West." Doesn't even sound like the Charli house to me.

In addition, a house 12-1/2 feet high only 40 feet from a 7 foot high S.W. corner absolutely would have blocked the field of fire of the 18-pounder to the south. I tend to agree with Lou. Why would ANYBODY (Cos or Jameson) leave a hazard like the Charli House standing?

My virtual model is designed so that things like this can be placed on it and "tried out" for a while to see what questions they raise that never occurred before "seeing" them in place. Thus, my Charli house is the 12-1/2 foot high stone house, since it was believed to be one of the original mission Indian quarters. One point in favor of its being there is that it actually appears in a photo taken from the roof of the Menger in 1868 -- and clearly looks in the style of the mission ruins and not a later structure. That is why it is believed to have been there in 1836.

[estebans]

Is it possible that Cos pursued the labor-intensive task of dismantling the Charli house by hand only as far as the minimum needed for a good field of fire for the cannon overlooking it, and left the "stump" of the lower walls there, which was subsequently built up into one or more jacales by enterprising residents? Utilizing existing structural elements like walls seems to be a common practice in photos I've seen, i.e. building them against something that's already there. Even John Goodman's petition to the SA council during his squatting wrangle with them suggests that he used wood to roof over, wall and fence in the existing structural remnants of the property he was occupying. In fact, if the upper stones of the house's walls were lying right there upon demolition, is it possible they were dragged around to form the base of still more jacale walls, thus creating a cluster of jacales out of the single original house, which becomes one of the groups of jacales mentioned during the 1836 siege and burned during the defenders' sallies? So maybe the Charli house has been right there in front of us (figuratively) the whole time.

Cos, I think, would have been well aware that even if jacales sprang up immediately on the Charli house remnants, all he need do was burn them to restore his field of fire (pun not intended). One thing I originally wondered about Taylor's initial advance into Tamaulipas was the absence of a more determined defense of Matamoros and the Villas del Norte northward along the river on the way to Monterrey. Then I ran across a communique where General Ampudia said something to the effect that reason why he had not conducted a protracted defense of Matamoros and would not do so in Camargo or Reynosa, I forgot which one, was that too many of the residents were living in jacales and would inevitably be burnt out of their homes during a lengthy siege, whether or not the defense was successful. Now that may have been crocodile tears for the poor and a CMA excuse, but it still demonstrates that the Mexican artillery officers knew how to get jacales out of the way when necessary.

Just throwing that thought out there: perhaps the Charli house had been transmogrified into a cluster of jacales whose burned stumps still offered the attacking Mexicans enough shelter to crouch behind and build up their numbers, then burst out when they spotted an opportune moment and overwhelm that low corner.

[Rich Curilla]

Good theory, but the problem is the 1868 photo from the Menger roof in which a complete primitive stone building is still visible. It's a vague image at best, but seems to be Spanish Colonial and solid. Of course, it could have been rebuilt -- and, I guess, in a primitive way even after the war. I could buy that Cos reduced the structure to be under the gun (in fact, why wouldn't he have done that?), but not the part about locals rebuilding between December and February. This would be a domestic need and this was a war zone. Bexarenos were more interested in moving out to the nearby ranchos until it was all over.

[Herb]

Crockett and his men desperately defending the palisade is such a popular idea (plus it makes such a great cinema image with the iconic church in the background) that it is hard to come to come to grips that it just didn't happen.

Filisola tells us exactly how and where Morales and Minion attacked - the southwest corner using the stone and wood jacales for cover. These soldiers (100 - 120 men) were skirmishers, normally chosen for their intelligence, and trained to fight using cover and concealment. Quite frankly the tactics they used were closer to modern infantry tactics than the columns and lines that the line and grenadier companies used. Filisola also tells us that Romero and Cos were forced to shift their attacks, BUT nothing is mentioned about Morales shifting his.

De La Pena (or Sanchez-Navarro) tells us that Morales objective was to seize the main gate. Generally speaking gates are usually some of the best defended points, (witness the lunette and the two cannon position in the interior of the Alamo compound) and an escalade attack is normally mounted on a near by wall and the gate seized from the rear (interior).

De La Pena also tells us that Morales' men were already inside the compound plaza as he scaled the North Wall.

[Rich Curilla]

So Morales' column (by comparison to the north columns) was like the "special forces" of the day. So, wouldn't they have been used as the key to capturing the fort? Only 100 plus men (crack troopers) vs. 1400 massed noise-makers. 1) Lots of attack noise on the north half of the fort. 2) Defenders run "to the sound of the guns." 3) The crack elite cazadores pick their moment and scale the walls, taking out the gun crew at the 18-pounder. Seems like a plan -- and a piece of cake -- to me.