|
Post by bobdurham on Mar 13, 2009 10:08:37 GMT -5
An enlightening post. This would go a lot toward explaining why none of the Mexican accounts of the assault mention the acequias as being an obstacle.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 13, 2009 10:28:15 GMT -5
Mark,
That makes sense to me. But, maybe you could get hold of Jake Ivey and get his comments on why he thinks/thought they were so much wider?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 13, 2009 11:11:39 GMT -5
What this all means is that the branches off of the madre acequia could very well have been only two or three feet wide, and could have easily been jumped over by the assaulting columns, providing of course they were visible to them. Mark Some very useful observations, although that caveat at the end is a killer. I remember a night navigation exercise across some low lying ground cut across by a number of watercourses. It ought to have been straightforward but there had been several weeks of heavy rain before which left large innundations and obliterated many of the landmarks. All too often the only way we found the watercourses marked on the map was when we suddenly stopped wading and started swimming
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 13, 2009 15:44:29 GMT -5
Very impressive find, Mark; congratulations to you and John!
Can you provide a bit more detail on the location of the remnants of the acequia on the Day's Inn grounds? I'd like to compare it to some overlays. I assume it's on the east side of the property, running at a right angle to Starr.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 13, 2009 17:38:10 GMT -5
Thanks Tom, The acequia section is about 80 feet in length, and does run at a right angle to Starr Street. It is immediately adjacent to the east end of the Day's Inn parking lot. IN fact, look north in the property of the Hampton Inn, and you can see where they have restored a section of this same acequia, and encorporated it into their landscaping. As for the un-restored section, I surmised that the only reason that it was saved was because there is a restored limestone house, circa 1850, which incorporates a portion of the east acequia wall as its foundation. An interesting detail is that there is a very old "Blessed Virgin" statuette, about 10 inches tall, partially embedded in the foundation of the house facing the acequia for reasons unknown to me. Mark
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 13, 2009 19:17:11 GMT -5
I believe the house you're talking about with the blessed Virgin statuette is the Heidgen House. The acequia runs close along the west side of the house. According to the following link, the deed to the house includes a binding preservation easement for the stretch of acequia adjacent to it: www.saconservation.org/places/heidgen.htm If you look at the satellite imagery on Google Earth, there's what looks like it could be a run of acequia along the east side of the Hampton Inn, and it's more or less in alignment with the section of acequia next to the Day's Inn parking lot. But I'm not positive that a section of acequia is what I'm seeing next to the Hampton.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 13, 2009 20:40:45 GMT -5
Yes, that was what I was pointing out in my post. The section of restored acequia on the grounds of the Hampton Inn aligns perfectly when viewed from ground level. It is also the same width as the un-restored section.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 14:38:04 GMT -5
Mark and company,
If this has already been mentioned, I will say I am sorry. What is the possibility of the artifacts and campfire being from a different Mexican Army occupation other than 1836?
The finding of Baker rifle related items in regards to the Alamo is always exciting.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 15, 2009 16:18:56 GMT -5
Well, as the fire pits and "battle artifacts" were all found at about the same level, that scenario seems unlikely. But even if the fires date from a somewhat later date, the fact remains that Mexican troops during the March 6th battle traversed the ground on which the History Shop now stands, as is evidenced by the Mexican buttons found in the exact same layer as the projectiles (musket/rifle balls, canister and langrage, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 18:12:07 GMT -5
There is no doubt that the attacking force was on the ground where the history shop was. I was just thinking that perhaps some occupaton before or during the siege of Bejar might aso be possible.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 15, 2009 20:11:48 GMT -5
There actually has been some doubt about that (whether or not Morales' column passed through the spot of the History Shop). This is because of the high regard with which scholars and archaeologists like Jake Ivey had held the accuracy of the Labastida plat. According to Labastida's March 1836 map, this area (on which the History Shop now sits) is flooded, which would have presented an infantry commander with a significant obstacle, especially at night. As the area east of the church and along the acequia had been prone for years to flood, troops surging through this area in darkness would have become mired in mud, which may have retarded and dangerously slowed their advance. So, the issue of the exact timing (before, during, or slightly after) of the campfires meant less to me than did their placement. This, as well as the artifacts found in the History Shop footprint, combined with the de la Pena account, proved that Labastida had exaggerated the north to south length of the flooded acequia, and that Morales' men approached from the northeast, towards the southwest.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 15, 2009 21:13:32 GMT -5
Thank you for the response. I am one of those folks who did not quite agree with Jake on everything...
|
|