Wolfpack,
I'll go along with the water issues for sure! They're still looking for that fabled covered way to the river... I doubt they'll really find one.
Remember, the presidio is on much higher ground in relation to the river (and water table) than is the Alamo. Would a well have even been feasable with picks and shovels? They would have needed some kind of access to the river.
I think going off of the map done from the sketch by Chadwick has drawbacks. It's a second generation and I'm sure it exists but has anyone ever seen the original Chadwick sketch to compare it to the map in O'Connor's book?
I have indeed seen Chadwick's "sketch." I just checked my shelf and found it in a book about Raiford Stripling, the architect who restored the Presidio la Bahia. [Restoring Texas, Raiford Stripling's Life and Architecture, by Michael McCullar,1985, Texas A & M University Press, p. 91]. He located the original drawing in Charlottesville, Virginia, just after the presidio restoration was complete.
"...Raiford learned that the drawing, a bird's-eye perspective made by a New York lithographer in 1836 and entitled 'The Correct View of Fort Defiance,' was based on a smaller, 6-by-6-inch drawing that Chadwick had sent his mother in his last letter from Goliad. The larger lithograph showed a pitched-roofed, Gothic chapel, which meant that the New York lithographer had never seen a Spanish colonial structure. But the notes on the lithograph were remarkably thorough, describing the uses of various rooms and buildings and indicating how detailed Chadwick's original drawing -- which Raiford thought was probably an annotated plan -- must have been."
The drawing is indeed an "annotated plan" and not an aerial view perspective, as poorly performed by the less-than-knowledgeable New York lithographer. Therefore, no conclusions should be drawn regaring the appearance of any of the structures from the lithograph. They are only line drawings on Chadwick's plan.
Chadwick's "Explanation" on his plat is more detailed than the copy on the lithograph. His notes include the letter "G" missing from the lithograph. This says:
"G. Coach [not sure of word] house of Saviago last commander demolished & the breach in the wall repaired." [This on the plat is drawn as a small square connected to the outside of the east wall just north of the S.E. bastion. It is with dotted lines rather than solid lines. This is also missing from the lithograph.]
As on the lithograph, Chadwick has "a.a.a." to indicate "Ditches," but, on his plat, these ditches are clearly
inside the walls, not outside, as the moat-happy lithographer drew them. They are shown to have lined the complete east wall and south wall except where buildings existed near the gate. Also inside the west wall from the south end, running north to the main building. No ditch is indicated along the north wall.
As on the lithograph, Chadwick has "b.b.b." to indicate "Pickets." But he also has a
very significant addition to the text that the New Yorker left off. He
describes the pickets, saying, "6 feet from wall & the space filled with earth from ditch." Again, nothing along the north wall, which he shows with no outworks or inside embankment.
He shows "f" to be the "Flag Staff," but locates it outside the west wall, in the corner formed by the wall and building "I" on the yankee's etch-a-sketch, and not inside the compound where it is on the lithograph -- and at the restoration.
He lists "g" as "'Brook's Battery' -- 68 Musket barrels mounted" This would most likely be what has been called the "infernal machine." It is shown to be aimed at the "Sally Port," in about the same position that Sanchez-Navarro shows the "Redoubt" inside the Alamo gate.
This is where Chadwick's description ends.
He dated it:
Fort Defiance
March 2, 1836
Further conclusions I can draw from his plat vs. the lithograph are:
(1) The S.W. "blockhouse" was a work in progress outside the corner of the wall and appears a much lesser work on his plat than the N.W. and S.E. bastions, which appear to be part of the original wall, as at the restored presidio. It looks more like Sanchez-Navarro's outworks at the Alamo.
(2) The "sally-port" and its surrounding buildings appear on the plat more like the Alamo's low barrack and gatehouse.
(3) Chadwick show a feature inside the north wall, half way between the church and the N.E. corner that appears to be a platform or wooden-roofed building with a picketed front. It is no more than 15 or 20 feet long, if his scale is uniform. It would be against the wall, just behind Duvall's Company's bivuac.
(4) His drawing of "E -- Water Place" much more clearly suggests a ditch running to the north perpendicular to the wall. The lithograph turns this into some kind of recess in the actual wall.