|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 10:53:31 GMT -5
BTW, Jim, congratulations on this find. I'm sure it'll add fuel to the DLP, and Perry debates as well as this one! ;D Well, I also kind of debunked myself by finding Potter's context for "outworks". It does seem to make it clear that Crockett was shot though (and I'd guess this came from Ruiz), and it's another piece of evidence that pulls Crockett off the palisade. I've been able to turn up this late Potter reference on a number of websites now that I know what to look for. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before in the context of Potter's earlier statements. Too bad I took the long way 'round in finding it! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 10:58:28 GMT -5
I just accessed my email from Mark regarding the possibility of an outwork on the west wall. Mark says that we only know for sure that there wasn't one at the SW. Everything else is conjecture at this point. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 27, 2007 15:49:57 GMT -5
As I am still frankly learning about the actions/accounts and their specific meaning, or accuracy, I cannot weigh in on where I think Crockett was actually killed with any comment that would have any weight. My thing is the architecture.... One of the nice things about having made a very large and accurate architectural model of the compound is that when faced with thorny questions such as these, one has to just walk out to the ol' garage, and look the place over. With this topic in mind, here are some observations. 1.No cannon atop the Fortin De Teran ("Travis' position) could fire effectively at the main Long Barracks section just by being "turned." It would have first to be rolled down the ramp and repositioned. The deflection angle of such a shot, from the Teran platform, to the Long barracks, was severe, like about 70 degrees. 2. HOWEVER, a gun at the Teran position MAY have been able to be turned to fire upon the "northern extension" of the Long barracks, ie: that 158 foot stretch of jacale and adoble shacks that reached from the northeast corner, down to the 5.5 foot gap which separated them from the Granary section of the Long barracks. Don't know what that means, but there it is.... 3. If Travis was at the northwest corner (Condelle), and some gun was turned from there to fire at the Long barracks, it was still an "iffy" shot, but much better that one from the Teran position. 4. Of course, either gun at the "Juana" position, or further south just beyond the Trevino House (Travis' traditional HQ site) would have a much better ability to fire against the Long Barracks. 5. However, ANY of these positions were, it seems to me, just TOO FAR away from the Long Barracks to fire with any assurance that a large number of "friendly" Mexican soldados might not run across your field of fire. I don't know what actually happened, but if I had been a Mexican officer, I'd have my men manhandle the gun at least halfway across the plaza. But then there's that pesky Alsbury account, which places a gun just about to fire "just outside the door" of one of the northern west wall houses. So, perhaps they just said, screw the pushing, let's get off a shot from here... 6. This business about the "small piece from a high platform" has always bothered me, as I'm sure it has many of you guys. Potter in his map seems to be showing this gun to be actually mounted on a high raised platform, and firing, en barbette, over not only the outer wall, but an entire house from the inside of the plaza. Unless the gun was situated a good distance ABOVE the rooftop of the west wall house directly in front of it, the gunners could not have depressed the muzzle of their gun at all, and would have to fire it at maximum range and elevation. In other words, this depiction is rediculous. McArdle's map seems for an instant interesting, showning as it does an ACTUAL "raised platform" smack dab in the middle of the plaza, until one reads that he simply got this idea from Potter, didn't know where to put it, and so placed it convenienlty in the plaza in front of the Long Barracks. Again, this is rubbish. Don't know if this was slightly off topic, but perhaps it shed a sliver of light on things.... Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 17:02:50 GMT -5
As for the NW cannon, Potter writes in 1878 that it was "turned against the buildings" by the Mexicans. He offers no specifics as to which sections of barracks were battered. Not to parse this too much, but "turned", may just mean it was used against the buildings and doesn't necessarily imply that it was just reversed and fired from the same spot.
Potter may have passed the "raised platform" idea to McArdle, but he got it from Bradburn. In the 1878 account, he wrote, "I cannot locate this gun with certainty", and speculated about its position . Be advised though, that he also mentions that the gun was "wheeled by those who manned it against the large area after the enemy entered it". This might indicate that it was repositioned to some degree besides just rotating it to fire inside the perimeter. This gun was also described as being manned by the defenders against the Mexicans who were inside the fort, albeit for only a couple of shots before the men fell.
I find it interesting too that in the earlier, 1860 version of Potter's article he thought this "high" gun might have been located atop the chapel. He writes:
In the meantime the turning of Travis' gun had been imitated by the garrison. A small piece on the roof of the chapel or one of the other buildings was turned against the area while the rooms were being stormed.
I think this gun that was described as being in a high position stymied Potter as well. He obviously knew that the guns atop the chapel were not in position to assault the long barracks unless they were rolled down and out, but Potter also states that the chapel was the last area to fall, so that's not an option. I think he's just "thinking out loud" when he mentions the chapel. I think his 1878 version attempts to give the most realistic option, that the gun was on the west wall, but he qualifies his remarks by relating what Bradburn told him.
We still don't have a completely clear picture of Crockett's location, but from the Potter accounts, and by virtue of association maybe the Ruiz account too, we can rule out the NW corner because Potter specifically places Travis there.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 17:10:47 GMT -5
Mark, according to your latest research, aside from the 18 pounder on the SW corner and the gun in the Alsbury position, how many guns were situated along the west wall? Jim
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 27, 2007 17:49:44 GMT -5
R.M. Potter used Juan Davis Bradburn as his informant on matters pertaining to the Alamo battle, including the account of the "small piece on a high platform." Yet, from all accounts, Bradburn wasn't in Bexar at all during the 1836 campaign, but was stationed at Copano, on the Gulf Coast. So, apparently, Bradburn got the story from somebody else. I'm not knocking Potter's use of Bradburn as an informant, just pointing out that he wasn't an eyewitness.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 27, 2007 18:04:56 GMT -5
Mark, according to your latest research, aside from the 18 pounder on the SW corner and the gun in the Alsbury position, how many guns were situated along the west wall? Jim Jim, From south to north, we have: 1. The 18 pounder atop the Charli carpenter shop on the SW corner 2. the Gunade in an open position, firing through a window of a fallen adobe house 3. a 6-pounder in the ruins of the southern Castaneda House 4. a 9-pounder atop Fortin de Condelle, facing west (NOTE, No.'s 2 and 3 may be reversed, we are not positive about which gun was in which position. But this is the most likely placement.) Mark
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 18:20:56 GMT -5
R.M. Potter used Juan Davis Bradburn as his informant on matters pertaining to the Alamo battle, including the account of the "small piece on a high platform." Yet, from all accounts, Bradburn wasn't in Bexar at all during the 1836 campaign, but was stationed at Copano, on the Gulf Coast. So, apparently, Bradburn got the story from somebody else. I'm not knocking Potter's use of Bradburn as an informant, just pointing out that he wasn't an eyewitness. Right, and Potter was aware of Bradburn's absence. In the 1860 report, he writes: Of the foregoing details which do not refer to documentary authority I obtained many from General Bradburn, who arrived in San Antonio a few days after the action, and gathered them from officers who were in it. A few I had through a friend from Gen. Amador. Others again I received from three intelligent sergeants, who were men of fair education and I think truthful. One of them, Sgt, Becero, of the Battalion of Matamoros, who was captured an San JAcinto, was for several years my servant in Texas. From men of their class I would generally get more candid statements as to loss and other matters than from commissioned officers. I have also gathered some minor particulars from local tradition preserved among the residents of this town. When most of the details thus learned were acquired i had not seen the locality; and hence I have to locate some of the occurrences by inference; which I have done carefully and I think correctly.Again, Potter made many errors in these reports, but his intention was an analytical study free from romanticism and myth. I think there is value in it despite his mistakes, and I think it gives us a clearer picture of the Ruiz report. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 27, 2007 18:25:59 GMT -5
R.M. Potter used Juan Davis Bradburn as his informant on matters pertaining to the Alamo battle, including the account of the "small piece on a high platform." Yet, from all accounts, Bradburn wasn't in Bexar at all during the 1836 campaign, but was stationed at Copano, on the Gulf Coast. So, apparently, Bradburn got the story from somebody else. I'm not knocking Potter's use of Bradburn as an informant, just pointing out that he wasn't an eyewitness. Thanks, I was pretty sure he followed Urrea, but couldn't recall where to check. Potter, apparently conducted some interviews in Matamoros with actual participants, but the timeline escapes me. As the Mexican Army consolidated in Matamoros after its withdrawal from Texas, I wonder if Potter used Bradburn to facilitate or perhaps interpret the interviews? I'm not totally dismissive of Bradburn, he's the source, of the Mexican Army permanently losing 300 men at the Alamo, which by the time you figure those killed, died of wounds and invalided, to be pretty close to the mark. But, not being an eyewitness does limit the usefulness of specific remarks versus general knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 27, 2007 19:27:17 GMT -5
Wolfpack wrote: "Potter, apparently conducted some interviews in Matamoros with actual participants, but the timeline escapes me. As the Mexican Army consolidated in Matamoros after its withdrawal from Texas, I wonder if Potter used Bradburn to facilitate or perhaps interpret the interviews?"
The Handbook of Texas says Potter moved to Velasco, Texas, in late July 1837, so he had over a year to collect any interviews in Matamoros.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 27, 2007 19:27:44 GMT -5
As you know, Potter was living in Matamoros when the battle occured.
As I was a resident of Matamoros when the event happened, and for several months after the army returned thither, I had opportunities for obtaining the kind of information referred to which few persons, if any, still living in Texas have possessed... Potter, 1860
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 1, 2007 11:24:00 GMT -5
We still don't have a completely clear picture of Crockett's location, but from the Potter accounts, and by virtue of association maybe the Ruiz account too, we can rule out the NW corner because Potter specifically places Travis there. Jim On Travis' location, Sanchez-Navarro (Hansen page 408, item G) places him at Fortin de Teran, the center battery of the Norht Wall. In the Ruiz translation, Travis was simply "On the North Battery of the fortress...." While Potter who obviously spoke to Ruiz, says Travis was in the NW corner. So in trying to answer Crockett we 've raised another question.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 1, 2007 11:31:10 GMT -5
I was planning on looking today to find who might put Travis on the center battery rather than the NW. Glad you saved me some time, Wolfpack! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 1, 2007 11:37:51 GMT -5
This is of course, the "first" Sanchez-Navarro plat, the one that supposedly surfaced with the diary for the centennial, that Tom Lindley considers a forgery, not the second/latter one that Lindley considers authentic.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jul 28, 2007 13:53:55 GMT -5
Wow! You guys are really doing great work here. Lots of well-thought ideas. In wrapping up the last pieces of our new Crockett book, I have always been intrigued by Ruiz's statement and, like you, feel there is something here that should be explored. Because of this testimony, many are rightfully heading in a direction with a strong vision of what happened, and when. And speaking of "when," we know that Ruiz didn't show up with others from Bejar right after the battle because they "retired" to the town after being fired upon by Mexican dragoons. So when did Ruiz eventually show up inside the Alamo to see the carnage?
All of you probably understand the gruesome and necessary procedure by surviving troops after a battle. If it was two hours or more, then what he probably saw was Crockett's body AFTER it was moved into a convenient line-up for body count, identification, and, of course, the eventual removal to the funeral pyres.
Two things stick out that I didn't appreciate before I photographed Mark Lemon's Alamo. First, how unlikely ANYONE would stay around on the West Wall once the perimeter was breached. That wall was so vulnerable and easy to be cut off from the main buildings, so it wouldn't make any sense to fight your last stand along here. Second, if I am in charge of removing bodies out of the Plaza, I will line them up along the West Wall where they can be systematically and efficiently removed to the south (Main Gate).
|
|