|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 12, 2007 11:13:40 GMT -5
Stuart
We will probably continue to disagree on the role Morales played on the morning of the attack...but since we already have a "Morales thread"going, I won't expand on it here.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 12, 2007 11:49:45 GMT -5
Maybe, a summary of the debate from my perspective, will help. Jim's article/the original scenario, was written partially as an answer to what many of us felt was a misinterpretation of the Sesma Account in support of the Lancer/Perry Account. The original scenario was basically that the breakouts occurred from the East Gate/Gap, the Horse Corral and the Palisade. In present terms the sidewalk on Houston Street next to the Long Barracks, the courtyard next to the Church, and of course the palisade that ran in front of the Church to the SW. Given what we knew at the time, this scenario made sense to those of us who felt that the Sesma Account did not support a cavalry action along the West Wall. Mark Lemon's research as shown by his model, clearly rules out the Horse Corral, as an exit for a large group of organized men. This moves any breakout from the courtyards to the Cattle Corral (or today's Cavalry Courtyard) or so close to the East Gate (Houston Street sidewalk) to rule them out as two distinct exits (although both may have been used - from the Mexican perspective it would have been seen as only one exit). This led me to start looking where else could the third exit have been. I still rule out the West Wall, Sesma's statement about Mora being on the opposite flank clearly, imo, shows that Mora was responsible for the West Wall. As Sesma does not write about an organized breakout defeated by Mora, imo, this rules out the West Wall as one of the exit sites cited by Sesma. The North Wall is also clearly out of the question, the Mexican Main Attack; as is the SW corner, seized by Morales. By the process of elimination I'm left with the Lunette as the third exit point. I'm not really satisfied with this, in fact I felt much more comfortable with the original scenario, but logically this is the only way I can see it fitting with what Mark Lemon has learned about the architecture of the courtyards. Personally, I blame it all on Mark!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 12, 2007 12:59:00 GMT -5
I think something else that may be confusing the issue and drawing us away from the original scenario as presented by Jim and myself is this business of the Texians supposedly coming out in an organised body.
This is problematic only in so far as there is no proper east gate through which a large number of men could have exited as a body; however this becomes less problematic if we look at the likely scene of the action.
Both the fact that Sesma was responding to either visuals or reports of the breakouts and the direct testimony of Loranca places the fight rather further to the east and further away from the Alamo than we may first have been envisaging.
Therefore far from an organised escape, by say (without prejudice and purely for the sake of example) the New Orleans Greys, what is perhaps more likely is that a large number of individuals exited at a variety of points and instead of scattering had clumped together for mutual protection and support by the time they ran into the lancers.
In short just because the lancers ran into a large and aggressive body of men it doesn't necessarily follow that those men had initially exited the Alamo as an organised body
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 14, 2007 23:34:29 GMT -5
Ok guys. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how Sesma's attacks may have played out. So I have some questions. When Sesma sent in his cavalry to intercept the second group of defenders, he says his lancers were spotted by the Texans and that they took refuge in trench/ditch. Initially, I took that to mean the irrigation ditch or Acequia de Alamo to the rear of the church. Honestly, I don't know for certain if I'm correct on that. Was there or could there have been another ditch Sesma was referring to? If it was the acequia just behind the church, I'm thinking the defenders saw their situation as hopeless and hoped to gain some protection from the church guns above their heads. If this is accurate, then Sesma's lancers would have to wait until the soldados in the Alamo stormed the defenders inside the church and effectively silenced the guns or risk taking heavy losses. Does this assessment sound about right or am I off the mark? Secondly, I'm unsure about where the third breakout group originated from. I think it was the lunette, but heck, I'm just guessing. It seems like a logical choice but I'm just a little uncomfortable with it. Wolf lays out a reasonable argument for the lunette theory. And I have little doubt at least some defenders were observed leaving the lunette. He also makes a fair suggestion as to why a breakout couldn't have originated from the west wall. I guess I'm just not convinced the west wall wasn't the site of the third breakout. The reason for my doubt is the lone defender that was discovered hiding under the bridge, south of the Alamo. I think that if a group of Texans were making a break from the lunette they would have jumped into the protection of the ditch and followed it out past the palisade and continued on to the east and not south. Initially, the center of the west wall was not engaged. There would have been a small window of opportunity for a handful of defenders to drop over the wall and conceal themselves temporally in the irrigation ditch. Remember, visual range was somewhat impaired at this time. It's possible they could have gone undetected for a short while. They could have been trying to follow the ditch south to the river or La Villita. But eventually they were discovered and Sesma sent his lancers after them...killing all but the one who took refuge under the bridge. So I think it's possible that a third breakout could have come from the west wall...but far from probable. I know there is a lot of "if's" "could have's" and "maybe's" but speculation is my middle name. Glenn
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Dec 15, 2007 8:31:42 GMT -5
While it's possible the Texans tried to make a stand in the Alamo Acequia, it's equally possible that they resorted to one of the branches of the main ditch that watered the crop lands to the east of the Alamo Acequia.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 15, 2007 9:50:48 GMT -5
Glenn, while I don't rule out the possibility that one or two defenders may have gone out through the west wall points of egress, I'm fairly certain that they were not Sesma's third group. Sesma's report is conspicuously silent about activities along the west. Since he lavishes so much praise on his men in this document and doesn't give any details about Mora, that gives me a clue that nothing much happened with the Mora group to the west. Tom Lindley hinted that he'd found a Mora after battle report that said something about defenders in "ditches" (if memory serves), but when I asked him about it 2 years ago he kind of laughed it off and implied that he'd been baiting me a little bit. I don't think he ever made the find public, so I doubt if it's consequential. At the time we were involved in an ongoing debate about the breakouts and the Perry report, so if this Mora report was a smoking gun I feel sure Tom would have made it public. I think Sesma was mobile during the battle, but not so much so that he could have seen the west wall action. He may have relied on some second hand information in compiling his report but, again, the absence of any real mention of Mora's activities leads me to believe he didn't do much other than patrol the area. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 15, 2007 10:09:26 GMT -5
Two thoughts; like Stuart, I'm wondering if we're giving the Texians (and Travis) too much credit for planning any sort of organized breakout. The more I think about this, the more I think Stuart's scenario is more likely -- any number of defenders exiting the fort from various places and coalescing into ad hoc groups in several locations, probably the 3 that Sesma refers to. His mention of a group of Texians marching out in some kind of order sounds odd, but it would comport with an exit by a number of Texians thorugh the narrow east gate, which might look like a column.
Second, what about those guns at the rear of the church? Santa Anna seems to have deliberately avoided approaching them or exposing troops to them. Sesma stayed at a distance that was safe from these guns. Since the church was one of the last places to fall, it's possible that the defenders there could have kept up fire from those guns during the battle (if they had anything to shoot at). They could have provided some cover for a time to a breakout group in ditches behind the church. This makes me wonder what those guns were doing during the battle and why there is no mention of them (that I can recall) by Mexicans. From Cos's intelligence the Mexicans would have had a pretty good idea of the fortifications in the Alamo and that the church was a relatively strong position, more difficult to assault than the smaller buildings around the compound. Thus, they avoided it. So, were the guns used at all?
Again, I can't escape the idea that there just wasn't much of a plan for how the Texians might defend the place when a major assault came. The canon were quickly rendered useless once the Mexicans reached the wall. There do not appear to have been a lot of firing loopholes or other firing positions for riflemen to shoot from. There is the idea that the Texians had planned to fall back into the Long Barracks to make a final stand, if it came to that, in order to hold out as long as possible and maximize Mexican casualties. But the fact that they either didn't plan or didn't think to spike the guns before retreating makes me wonder if that was much of a plan either. Of course, if they really were asleep and taken by surprise, there may not have been much chance to do anything in even a remotely orderly way.
Just ramblings that bubble up from following the discussion.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 15, 2007 10:45:33 GMT -5
Equally variously...
I think its worth recapping on a couple of threads that came together here.
First off; both Loranca and Sesma describe the Texians ending up in a ditch. The word Sesma used specifically relates to an agricultural rather than a military ditch. We're therefore talking about an acequia rather than part of the fortifications.
However I think its pretty clear we're not talking about the present little trickle of water that runs through the Alamo grounds, but a larger one further out. There are a number of reasons:
If it was the preserved one I'd expect to have references to the Texians being driven back under the walls of the fortress rather than into an anonymous ditch.
Loranca identifies the site of the fight as being the same place as the funeral pyres. I don't recall the details but on another thread it was pointed out that the peach orchard mentioned by Potter (?) as being the location of at least one of the pyres is now the site of the fire-house; which again takes us well out to the east of the Alamo and into that scenario I suggested above.
The artillery on top of the church may not have been very effective for a couple of reasons. In the first place the gun position was built by Cos to cover the Gonzales road from a Texian attack coming out of the east.
In theory it could have fired on Sesma's cavalry and perhaps did, but wouldn't have been much use because apart from anything else the gunners would have been firing into the rising sun. Even if the sun itself hadn't broken the horizon the combination of lightening sky and the black shadow of the east ridge will have made accurate gun laying all but impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 15, 2007 11:43:54 GMT -5
Stuart - I agree on the net uselessness of those guns; also, no targets to the south (Morales never was in range) or north, although Romero may have been within range for a while, it couldn't have been for long. Also wonder about the state of darkness/sunrise; even if in darkness, would the Mexican skyrockets have provided a target in the Romero force, at least for a while? But all we get regarding Mexican casualties from cannon fire is the Toluca Battalion on the north wall, where the Texans clearly did get off a good shot or two, But no real evidence of any effective use of other Alamo cannon. Did the 18-pounder even get off a shot at Morales? If not, why not? Were they asleep? Got to them when it was too late? AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Dec 15, 2007 14:01:31 GMT -5
Reference the cannon fire - I've mentioned elsewhere, I've only been able to find a few references to the defenders' cannon fire. Three specifically, the infamous shot that hit the Tolucca Battalion that is mentioned so prominently and often (something that points to it as an anomaly), the "Crockett cannon" that was supposedly turned on the the Mexicans after they scaled the North Wall, and the Becerra Account, which says "On top of the church building I saw eleven Texians. They had some small pieces of artillery, and were firing on the cavalry ...." (Hansen, 457) The Becerra Account is problematic, but that statement seems reasonable.
Lorcanca in his statement says the Texians succeeded in firing only four pieces of artillery - total. (Hansen, 477).
Reference the West Wall. I agree with Jim, here, the reference to Mora on the opposite flank, certainly implies that he faced the West Wall (probably from the NW due to the terrain). Sesma's report doesn't mention Mora anymore than that - while that in itself doesn't rule out a breakout from the West Wall, imo, it does rule out that it was one of the ones Sesma wrote about in his report.
Tom Lindley showed me the Mora Statement, and it was something to the effect that " I (Mora) had killed some Texians in the ditches of the Alamo." Tom had planned on including it in the book he was working on with Groneman and Musso. I know Groneman and Musso were planning on still publishing it, since Tom's death, but beyond that I don't know anything new.
It is certainly possible that some defenders attempted to make it to the river from the West Wall, I just don't think there is any currently published documentation for it.
As far as the defender under the bridge, I've often wondered if he wasn't one of the three picketts stationed outside the walls.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Dec 15, 2007 18:37:57 GMT -5
I think this topic is one of the most fascinating. I'm curious as to how some of you think this part of the battle should be interpreted and physically displayed at the related locations. If the Texas-size ego can handle it, look at the opportunity that exists on the east side of the current Alamo compound.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 15, 2007 21:58:44 GMT -5
If we can pin down the most likely place where a final stand took place (perhaps near the fire house), some kind of memorial/marker should be placed there. The fact that some of the defenders tried to save themselves and, when they saw they couldn't, made a final stand there shouldn't upset anyone.
I'll leave the nature of the memorial up to the experts and to planners who know what is possible and practical, but now that you mention it, if we are going to try to restore the Alamo to the extent possible, this part of the battle should be included.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 15, 2007 22:01:10 GMT -5
Boy, Gary, that's a good question. I can remember my initial response when I first learned of the breakouts. It didn't set too well and I regarded it with a lot of suspicion and doubt...and I'm not from Texas.
But ya know, history is what it is, and the truth should never be swept under the rug. As long as what is being presented is factual then I say let the facts speak for themselves.
Having said that. Were I to address the same group of kids who wrote those encouraging letters, I would want to make sure they understood that the defenders of the Alamo didn't have some sort of death wish. That the hero's of Texas history were not the actor's in the popular movie "300" who did have a death pact.
I think the prevailing theme should be: There are times when discretion is the better part of valor. And that living to fight another day is preferable to suicide...it is not a cowardly choice.
But let's be honest. No matter how good our intentions... or how well the facts and subject matter are presented, there will be those who will find it unacceptable and reject it. But that's their problem...not ours. We are not in the business of "sugar coating" history.
As far as to how to display this part of history that is factual and tasteful...I think you and Mark could be an option. With Mark's masterful model building skills and your photographic wizardry, I believe the two of you could create an accurate representation of the breakouts. I would then place them on display in the appropriate areas on the east grounds. A properly worded description of the action taking place would be part of the display. Just some random thoughts.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Dec 16, 2007 10:48:47 GMT -5
For myself, I never put much stock into any planned or organized withdraws or breakouts from the Alamo. I think the collective attitude was "hold until reinforced" (or rescued). So I view the breakouts as pretty spontaneous rather then designed.
Now it's entirely probable that a number of defenders decided long before March 6th that if "push came to shove" they would consider making a dash. But on the whole, I feel that kind of thinking was suppressed.
According to his letters, Travis seemed resolved to stay and fight it out and a large majority of the garrison probably felt the same. A planned withdraw from the Alamo would not have been without some consequences, some of which would have been regarded as unacceptable.
Leaving the Alamo would mean leaving behind the women, children, the wounded and the sick...including Bowie. There may have been other considerations involved such as not wanting to hand over the fort's cannon to Santa Anna . In any case, I think the thought of leaving people behind would have discouraged the idea of a planned breakout.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 16, 2007 22:24:17 GMT -5
Of course, Mrs. Dickinson quoted one defender (Crockett or Warnell??) as saying they hated begin penned up like that and would prefer to fight out in the open. I don't think there was any big plan to exit the fort either, but I'll bet any number of defenders thought out loud that, if push came to shove, they'd have a better chance out in the open and would move out of the fort if they could. That is a completely different thing than pakcking up and leaving the non-combatants and wounded to their fate.
As to marking the spot, a little further thinking makes me think that this spot should be part of some sort of overall guided tour (which can be a self-tour, with a small printed map). Depending on how much of the Alamo might be restored, visitors could be provided with such a map with various spots numbered on the map (the low barracks & Bowie's room; the southwest corner (already marked now); the west wall, north wall, gun emplacements, the palisade, lunette, etc.). The spot near the firehouse would be another one. There are a few ways in which those spots are physically marked (plaques, artists renditions, reenactments). I'd hate to see any sort of manequins (ever been to the O.K. Corral in Tombstone? They've got manequins there and they're hideous).
The important thing is that the visitor would get a meaningful account of the battle as well as realistic idea of what the fort looked like, what it would have been like to defend it with less than 200 men, and what an assualt by 1,500 troops might have represented to such an enclosure. When visitors reach the spot where the breakout (or at least one of them) took place, the marker and map should explain exactly what they were doing, which should eliminate any suggestion of giving up the ship or leaving one's comrades to their fate. It should also be noted that other defenders bolted from other parts of the fort in an effort to escape the onslaught, to maybe have a better chance of fighting or escaping out in the open; maybe even of giving themselves up in the belief they'd be treated as prisoners. Others either didn't choose to leave or had no opportunity to do so; they also died fighting, either at their original posts, elsewhere in the compound or making a last stand in the long barracks.
AW
|
|