|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 17, 2007 10:55:43 GMT -5
TRK has been doing some research on the Fulton report, and asked me to scan and post this diagram. I'll simply post the picture and let Tom add his comments: Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 17, 2007 14:16:29 GMT -5
I'd love to hear more about this one. For starters, who was Fulton's source? He's got Bowie in the hospital and Crockett near the kitchen. No mention of Travis.
AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 17, 2007 15:23:31 GMT -5
First off, thanks to RangerRod, who, at my request, made a special trip to the Texas State Archives and copied the relevant pages, and to Jim for scanning and posting them here.
Two years ago, there was an article by Tom Lindley in the Alamo Journal concerning a drawing of the Alamo he discovered, I believe in the files of the Texas General Land Office. The drawing was made by George W. Fulton during an 1837 visit to San Antonio.
Recently, while doing some name searches, I came across a reference to a diagram of the Alamo by Fulton that was not mentioned in the AJ article. The article is "Joseph Baker," by Ethel Mary Franklin, in Southwestern Historical Quarterly 36, no. 2. Baker (1804-46) was a significant figure in Texas in the 1830s and 1840s. By October 1836 he was translator to the State of Texas (which may have some significance to the following). Two months later, he was elected first chief justice of Bexar County.
When George W. Fulton visited Bexar in early August 1837, Judge Baker took him on a tour of the Alamo compound. As Fulton wrote years later, Baker "directed my attention to the room I have marked B as the one occupied by Bowie, being on his sick bed, when bayoneted by Santa Anna's minions. The corner marked C was shown me, as the spot where Crockett fell, surrounded by dead Mexicans. ... I am confident that the foregoing is as then stated to me by Judge Baker, whose opportunity for correct knowledge at that time, cannot be disputed." The source of this quotation, along with the map, with Fulton's markings on it, that Jim posted, is: John Henry Brown, History of Texas I: 581-82.
There is no mention of how Judge Baker came to his understanding of the locations of Crockett's and Bowie's deaths. They may have been based on his talks with local Mexicans, hearsay, or surmise. I would simply say that, regardless of the veracity of Baker's information, it is interesting in that it possibly represents the local consensus or "common knowledge" of where Crockett and Bowie died. It is also interesting that the location of where Bowie met his end is in the convento, which we know served as a hospital. Too bad Fulton didn't specify on which floor Bowie supposedly died.
To me, the most interesting detail that Fulton pointed out on the map is where there was a "wide entrance" through the wall connecting the church and convento. Fulton's 1837 drawing of the Alamo that was the subject of the AJ article showed, above the low barracks, what appeared to be a wide, arched entry in that connecting wall. There was a discussion about the exact nature of the entryway in the wall between the church and convento on another forum a year or two ago; IMO, Fulton's description of the entry as "wide," coupled with his drawing of the Alamo compound from the south, tends to bear out that it was a large, arched opening.
It's also necessary to mention that the map reproduced in Brown's History of Texas is actually the map of the Alamo included in William Corner's San Antonio de Bexar: A Guide and History (1890), on which Fulton superimposed the letters B and C and the two slash marks signifying the wide entrance to the convent yard.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 14:07:43 GMT -5
It is interesting to see this map (which I have in my William Corner book) with Fulton's additions. Notice that two of these details (Bowie's and Crockett's deaths) are exactly as depicted in Republic's The Last Command.
Since the upper story of the "long barrack" was used as Bexar's hospital for many years prior to the siege and battle, it would be a natural thing for locals to think Bowie died there, since they most likely knew he was sick. Street rumor usually expands the most immediate first impressions. Bowie -- hospital.
Personally, I no longer believe the upstairs long barrack was being used as the hospital by March 6. My hypothesis is that all hospitalized men were moved to the low barrack during the siege due to the bombardment sustained by the 2nd. story of the long barrack in the Siege of Bexar and by Santa Anna's batteries. Hence, Sanchez-Navarro's labeling the low barrack as the hospital and making no reference to the long barrack as such. In fact, where is there ANY such contemporary reference after Jameson's January 18th. letter?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 18, 2007 14:21:45 GMT -5
OK, any idea about the difference between the 1890 Post Office and today's in relationship to the North Wall?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 18, 2007 18:25:56 GMT -5
It is interesting to see this map (which I have in my William Corner book) with Fulton's additions. Notice that two of these details (Bowie's and Crockett's deaths) are exactly as depicted in Republic's The Last Command. Since the upper story of the "long barrack" was used as Bexar's hospital for many years prior to the siege and battle, it would be a natural thing for locals to think Bowie died there, since they most likely knew he was sick. Street rumor usually expands the most immediate first impressions. Bowie -- hospital. Personally, I no longer believe the upstairs long barrack was being used as the hospital by March 6. My hypothesis is that all hospitalized men were moved to the low barrack during the siege due to the bombardment sustained by the 2nd. story of the long barrack in the Siege of Bexar and by Santa Anna's batteries. Hence, Sanchez-Navarro's labeling the low barrack as the hospital and making no reference to the long barrack as such. In fact, where is there ANY such contemporary reference after Jameson's January 18th. letter? Rich, You and I have gone over this one before, but in Hansen, pages 160 and 161, there are two diagrams by Dr John Sutherland, in which he labels the (supposedly upper floor) convento room as "Sick Room," on both. Depending on who you believe, he was there at least until the 23rd of Feb. I know you believe the hospital was moved after that, but to me, we must be careful of such "reasoned supposition" especially if there is no hard data to support an alternate scenario. Based on the evidence, I believe BOTH areas were used as hospitals, otherwise, Bowie would have been moved to the Convento, when, in the first day or so of the siege, he became so ill that he had to be removed from his west wall quarters. When you look at the size of the Convento room's interior (26 feet long, by 13.8 feet wide), this allows for only 11 or 12 cots at the most, and according to various sources, the garrison had at least 16 or more sick men. The more realistic scenario to me, based strictly on the evidence, is that the convento continued to be sused as a hopspital, and additional patients, such as Bowie, were moved to the "Low Barracks'" eastern wing.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 18, 2007 18:49:24 GMT -5
First off, thanks to RangerRod, who, at my request, made a special trip to the Texas State Archives and copied the relevant pages, and to Jim for scanning and posting them here. Thanks for the credit amigo, but you pointed the way. I do like to get outta my Mount Bonnell cave once in a while and see the city.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 18, 2007 18:52:31 GMT -5
First off, thanks to RangerRod, who, at my request, made a special trip to the Texas State Archives and copied the relevant pages, and to Jim for scanning and posting them here. Two years ago, there was an article by Tom Lindley in the Alamo Journal concerning a drawing of the Alamo he discovered, I believe in the files of the Texas General Land Office. The drawing was made by George W. Fulton during an 1837 visit to San Antonio. Recently, while doing some name searches, I came across a reference to a diagram of the Alamo by Fulton that was not mentioned in the AJ article. The article is "Joseph Baker," by Ethel Mary Franklin, in Southwestern Historical Quarterly 36, no. 2. Baker (1804-46) was a significant figure in Texas in the 1830s and 1840s. By October 1836 he was translator to the State of Texas (which may have some significance to the following). Two months later, he was elected first chief justice of Bexar County. When George W. Fulton visited Bexar in early August 1837, Judge Baker took him on a tour of the Alamo compound. As Fulton wrote years later, Baker "directed my attention to the room I have marked B as the one occupied by Bowie, being on his sick bed, when bayoneted by Santa Anna's minions. The corner marked C was shown me, as the spot where Crockett fell, surrounded by dead Mexicans. ... I am confident that the foregoing is as then stated to me by Judge Baker, whose opportunity for correct knowledge at that time, cannot be disputed." The source of this quotation, along with the map, with Fulton's markings on it, that Jim posted, is: John Henry Brown, History of Texas I: 581-82. There is no mention of how Judge Baker came to his understanding of the locations of Crockett's and Bowie's deaths. They may have been based on his talks with local Mexicans, hearsay, or surmise. I would simply say that, regardless of the veracity of Baker's information, it is interesting in that it possibly represents the local consensus or "common knowledge" of where Crockett and Bowie died. It is also interesting that the location of where Bowie met his end is in the convento, which we know served as a hospital. Too bad Fulton didn't specify on which floor Bowie supposedly died. To me, the most interesting detail that Fulton pointed out on the map is where there was a "wide entrance" through the wall connecting the church and convento. Fulton's 1837 drawing of the Alamo that was the subject of the AJ article showed, above the low barracks, what appeared to be a wide, arched entry in that connecting wall. There was a discussion about the exact nature of the entryway in the wall between the church and convento on another forum a year or two ago; IMO, Fulton's description of the entry as "wide," coupled with his drawing of the Alamo compound from the south, tends to bear out that it was a large, arched opening. It's also necessary to mention that the map reproduced in Brown's History of Texas is actually the map of the Alamo included in William Corner's San Antonio de Bexar: A Guide and History (1890), on which Fulton superimposed the letters B and C and the two slash marks signifying the wide entrance to the convent yard. The idea that the arch featured in Fulton's drawing is actually an open archway is very, very problematic, and is an issue that I have studied intensly for a long time. First let's look at what he says: "...there was THEN a wide entrance about where I have marked..." This statement is very important, because it indicates that in his drawing of about the same timeframe, the archway was NOT open, but could be discerned somehow. Apparently, he saw a recessed archway, and thought that it once had been open. While this may be true, it almost certainly was not open in 1836. Next, we have the 1848 drawing by Seth Eastman, from the opposite side of the high wall, which shows no large arched opening of any kind, nor any trace of one. He only shows a very small arched opening. This was at a time before the Army committed any resources to changing or modifying the place. Drawings by Gentilz (1844) and a photograph from the mid-1860's, both show definite traces of an arched feature, but a close study of the wall's thickness and deterioration over the years indicate the folowing scenario: The high wall had an odd "bow" or break about mid-point along its length, and due to a thickness differential (the eastern leg of the wall was thicker than the western leg), there was an offset, or ledge, of about 6 inches or so. In 1836-1837, the high wall DID have an arched FEATURE, but this was not a "through and through" arched opening. Rather, it was a recessed arch, much like the transepts inner wall faces in the main church.. This most likely had some connection to the original church built there, which collapsed, and was rebuilt at its present site. Inside this recessed arch was an actual doorway, much smaller than its surrounding recessed arch. (This is the same one shown in Eastman's drawing) By 1844, due to water intrusion and faulty construction, the thicker, western edge of of the offset, had begun to fail and fall away, moving slowly to the east. This is what you see in Gentilz' drawing of 1844, where he shows what looks like a "crack" in the wall, but what is actually the irregular edge of the offset, falling away. By the 1860's, in a photograph (not the one in Nelson's, but another much clearer one in afternoon sunlight) you can actually see the recessed archway, or what is left of it, still remaining at the site. The businesses located at this site in the latter part of the 19th century oblierated what little remained, and by 1900, viirtually nothing was left of this strange feature. Today, the area has been taken out of the wall, and only the large gaping gateway is there now.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 19:08:53 GMT -5
Once again, Mark, I follow your logic on the metamorphosis of the archway and the deteriorating south wall of the convento and find it very sound.
In further support, it seems unlikely to me that any smaller door built into a filled-in arch by military occupants, either Alamo de Parras or General Cos, would have been an arched doorway (as seen in the Eastman drawing). Functionality would have probably caused them to simply top a rectangular opening with a wooden beam to support more stone or brick on top. This is what the U.S. Army did in the church with doors and windows. Thus, the Eastman drawing must be showing a mission period doorway, which therefore would have been the 1835-36 passage.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 18, 2007 19:40:03 GMT -5
First let's look at what he says: "...there was THEN a wide entrance about where I have marked..." This statement is very important, because it indicates that in his drawing of about the same timeframe, the archway was NOT open, but could be discerned somehow. I'm not following that part of your argument: The way I'm reading it, Fulton was saying that at the time he visited the Alamo in August 1837, which was the same time he made his drawing, there was a "wide entrance" in the wall at "about" the place he marked it on the Corner map. Fulton infers that he witnessed that wide entrance, and his drawing, the one in the Texas GLO, seems to be showing the top of a wide, arched entrance in that spot. I understand that Eastman's and Gentilz's drawings of that area do not show a wide, arched entrance in that wall by the 1840s, but if the wall was deteriorating in that area in the late 1830s or early 1840s, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major project for the Catholic Church, which owned the Alamo, to have the opening filled in and a smaller door installed, to save the wall from collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 20:46:20 GMT -5
Rich, You and I have gone over this one before, but in Hansen, pages 160 and 161, there are two diagrams by Dr John Sutherland, in which he labels the (supposedly upper floor) convento room as "Sick Room," on both. These plats are problematic for me. Whoever drew them, they seem to derive from Potter's 1860 description and plat. They even reproduce his obvious errors. Long barrack 186 feet long rather than 191. Church 75 feet long rather than 105. Dimensions for horse pen given in exactly the same terms and figures as Potter: 63 yards by 34 yards. A 50-foot long wall connecting the church and the long barrack. Sutherland also steals Potters incorrect plaza dimensions of 154 yards by 54 yards. Potter's description refers to the church as having walls "of solid masonry being four feet thick. It was originally one story, but had upper windows, under which platforms were erected for mounting cannon in those openings." Sutherland's map notes read, "Walls of the church A -- of solid masonry -- 4 feet thick -- one story high with upper windows." Visually, Sutherland's (Ford's?) plat is also obviously derivitive of Potter's 1860 plat. You've already pointed out Potter's two sets of two rooms inside the west wall. But also four equal rooms in the low barrack, divided in half by the porte-cochere. A seemingly mythical gate at the eastern end of the low barrack, which at least one researcher (can't recall whom) believed was Potter seeing the gap from the no-longer-extant kitchens wing and thinking it must have been a gate, so he made it a gate on his plat. And most obvious of all, the erroneous footpring of the church with too many angles in it's northeastern corner and the convento wall connected in true Alfred Ybarra fashion. Also a missing east wing of the middle of the long barrack and the same squiggly line showing a non-existant breach at the eastern end of the north wall. As for other verbal details on the plat, Sutherland clearly errors (if Joe and Mrs. Dickenson have any credibility) with the location of Travis' death. He also has Dickinson falling (though not jumping) out of the church's east "upper window," as per the street rumor that Potter cemented into myth in his publication. My point is, how can we depend on Sutherland's plats for any primary information if they are this obviously derivitive from a congectural 1860 description by someone who wasn't there? I certainly believe that Sutherland was aware of the hospital, or "sick room," as he called it. It was indeed upstairs in the long barrack on Feb. 23. He may even have had his leg examined in the room. But all this does nothing to my theory. I clearly understand -- and value -- your "facts only" approach to your research. It is how you must work, if you are to give us the definitive VR tool to use for future research. My self-appointed role is to offer educated guesses to your research and that of others. You now have heard my theory that the hospital was moved (I accept expanded) to the low barrack, so, if new evidence presents itself, you will be more apt to recognize it. After all, as Don Quixote said in Man of La Mancha, "Facts are the enemy of truth." Scientific method is (1) hypothesis; (2) theory; (3) fact. Gary Zaboly's hypothesis is that the *thing* holding up the twin star flag on top of the church in Sanchez-Navarro's drawing is a huge palisaded watch tower. So far in my mind, that still isn't solid theory OR fact. I think it is a raised stone corner, as per Eastman's "Watch Tower."
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 18, 2007 21:05:41 GMT -5
Based on the evidence, I believe BOTH areas were used as hospitals... Would this not have been a necessity in preparing for a battle anyway? I mean getting additional space available for potential wounded. My main reason for holding out for the evacuation of the upstairs hospital is that NO eyewitness to the final assault in the Mexican Army commented on such a facility or attacking such a facility nor included it on plats. Do you think that the portion of the convento's upstairs that was destroyed by the Texians in 1835 had originally been part of the hospital? If so, by the time the Texians moved into the Alamo, what was originally four (?) intact adjoining rooms totalling 100 by 18 feet (outside dimensions) had been whittled down to 26 by 13.8 feet (your inside dimensions) -- the rest was rubble from enemy cannonading! That last room was pretty dern exposed! The morale factor alone might have made Travis move the men. O.K.... I'LL SHUT UP NOW!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 18, 2007 21:16:49 GMT -5
First let's look at what he says: "...there was THEN a wide entrance about where I have marked..." This statement is very important, because it indicates that in his drawing of about the same timeframe, the archway was NOT open, but could be discerned somehow. I'm not following that part of your argument: The way I'm reading it, Fulton was saying that at the time he visited the Alamo in August 1837, which was the same time he made his drawing, there was a "wide entrance" in the wall at "about" the place he marked it on the Corner map. Fulton infers that he witnessed that wide entrance, and his drawing, the one in the Texas GLO, seems to be showing the top of a wide, arched entrance in that spot. I understand that Eastman's and Gentilz's drawings of that area do not show a wide, arched entrance in that wall by the 1840s, but if the wall was deteriorating in that area in the late 1830s or early 1840s, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major project for the Catholic Church, which owned the Alamo, to have the opening filled in and a smaller door installed, to save the wall from collapse. For the Catholic church to have undertaken to repair one single wall, when so many others , including some of those of the Convento and its courtyard, which presumably they might have cared about, were utterly deteriorated and had fallen, is hard for me to accept. And why they would have gone to the trouble in such a project, where niceties of architecture were not in any way important, to have made the recessed arch, especially when more than enough stone was available to have filled in the entire arch, is also hard for me to grasp. Another fact which argues against the large, open arch being there is that, not too many years earlier, what was on the other side of this wall was a solid row of "cells" or apartments, in which a very large opening wouldn't have made sense, or been feasible. The idea was that the only entrance to the convento courtyard, or cloister, was the Porteria, in the western side of the Convento complex. This porteria controlled access into and out of the courtyard, and even had its own gatekeeper. The presence of a large arched opening in the wall would have defeated the purpose of the porteria. Perhaps Fulton was seeing the recessed arch, and just assumed that it was, at least at one time, " a wide entrance."
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 18, 2007 21:25:42 GMT -5
There is another feature in this diagram that has always seemed very odd to me..the seeming goglegged- passageway from the recessed area, or "alley" just to the left, or north of the confessional, which leads back into the complex of rooms on the north side of the church. This is the only diagram that shows such an odd feature, and in fact, it could not have been configured this way, as the sacristy is cut in half by this arrangement, and the Lavatorio, the small room just off the northwest corner of the sacristy, is obliterated. This, as well as the fact that there was no opening in this "alley" other than the high window in the eastern face of the back wall, which led into the "Monk's Burial Chamber," make this configuration impossible, and the diagram's accuracy in general, very questionable.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 19, 2007 1:03:02 GMT -5
I'm following this thread with more interest than my lack of intervention might suggest.
As I've said before in another place, I tend to agree with Rick on the "hospital" business and suspect that we might be confusing two slightly different things and that the "sick room" was not necessarily a hospital ward but a doctor's consulting room/office and dispensary; and that long-term patients as opposed to those simply given an asprin and told to go away, were accomodated down below in what we NOW call the long barracks.
As to the "Fulton diagram" it is of course nothing of the sort. All he's done is annotated a later one, warts and all. The text is clear enough though that there was "then", ie in 1837, a "wide entrance" where he marked the plan. He obviously saw something there at that time, but it probably comes down to how you define "wide". It must have been something more than a house door, but needn't have been a big wide gateway.
Could it however have been an existing ordinary sized doorway which had been "informally" widened by Cos' men or even Jameson, to get a gun or guns through into the Convento yard
|
|