|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 3, 2014 11:05:20 GMT -5
Nice find. 40 - 50 feet would you say? No sir. I would say over 60 feet, more like 70, compared to the doorways that are pretty high. This fits perfectly with Lungkwitz' painting scale. For once, his person isn't incorrectly scaled.
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Jun 3, 2014 17:25:30 GMT -5
Great! After just reading two pages, I want the whole book! How refreshing to read Chabot again. Thanks for digging for this. And I'm glad your back! It was getting lonely here. lol. Try these two sites...you can read the whole book... With the makers of San Antonio; Frederick C Chabot catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006687046The Alamo, mission, fortress, and shrine, Frederick C Chabot catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001264373Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 3, 2014 17:27:32 GMT -5
Awesome! Thanks, Marty. You get one free image for that. lol.
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jun 4, 2014 14:45:37 GMT -5
Alameda- MSA page 238-239. At bottom of page 238. I converted it to BW to reduce the size.
Thanks edward! I've been searching for years trying to find evidence supporting the assertion that Cordero was responsible to creation of the Alameda. Thanks also martyb for the links to Makers of SA online. I also found this one: digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:239303
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 4, 2014 16:14:13 GMT -5
Interestingly, this is identified as "CENTENNIAL EDITION... March, 1936" and my copy that I bought in the Alamo in the fifties, is identified likewise, and the content is basically the same, but the list of defenders at the end is very formally printed in mine and identified as "According to Dr. Amelia Williams, whereas the other one is credited as "Register of Alamo Heroes from Bronze Tablets in the Alamo, placed by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas." Chabot must have changed printers and updated it without changing the copyright. I wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jun 10, 2014 17:26:46 GMT -5
Rich and Edward,
What are your guesses for the dimensions of the adobe structure just south of Commerce and east of the Alamo acequia?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 10, 2014 18:58:06 GMT -5
Wait, I'll go measure it. For the stone house, my model measurements are: East/West: 15'8" North/South: 25'4" Wall Height: 14'2" Parapet: 2' Chimney above roof: 6'3" For the jacal: East/West: 14'10" North/South: 11'4" Wall height under eves: 5'9" Peak of Roof: 11' I also perceive a gap between the dwellings which I gave as 2'6". Hopefully, Edward has some "real" dimensions from deeds or plats. Mine, of course, are from the model as eyeballed and reconstructed by me from the Lungkwitz. My call is that the main building is stone and not adobe. This was possibly the Jose de la Baum house. It was at the N.E. corner of his property -- all between the acequias south of the Alameda and thus nearly to the Goliad Road.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jun 11, 2014 8:55:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Rich.
Is your email still at sbcglobal.net?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 11, 2014 22:23:14 GMT -5
Thanks, Rich. Is your email still at sbcglobal.net? Yep!
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jun 11, 2014 22:51:10 GMT -5
Wait, I'll go measure it. For the stone house, my model measurements are: East/West: 15'8" North/South: 25'4" Wall Height: 14'2" Parapet: 2' Chimney above roof: 6'3" For the jacal: East/West: 14'10" North/South: 11'4" Wall height under eves: 5'9" Peak of Roof: 11' I also perceive a gap between the dwellings which I gave as 2'6". Hopefully, Edward has some "real" dimensions from deeds or plats. Mine, of course, are from the model as eyeballed and reconstructed by me from the Lungkwitz. My call is that the main building is stone and not adobe. This was possibly the Jose de la Baum house. It was at the N.E. corner of his property -- all between the acequias south of the Alameda and thus nearly to the Goliad Road. I do not have much more then what you show. However, when Spahn purchased the property the east wall of the house was 36 feet east of the acequia. He was leasing it before he bought it in 1878. Not sure if it was the same house.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jun 12, 2014 7:22:05 GMT -5
Thanks, Edward. You must have a good system for organizing the records that you come across for each property. It would be cool if there were a tool in which you could click on a property on a historical map (or model) and pull up the collection of information or references (official and otherwise) on it.
Rich, look for email regarding Cottonwood tree models.
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jun 12, 2014 14:12:07 GMT -5
I do not have much more then what you show. However, when Spahn purchased the property the east wall of the house was 36 feet east of the acequia. He was leasing it before he bought it in 1878. Not sure if it was the same house. Not the same house Edward. The 1877 Sanborn map and a corresponding 1868 photo taken from the Menger Hotel show a series of offset structures on the south side of the Alameda immediately esst of the culvert through with the Alamo acequia passes. They stand where the de la Baume house once stood. BTW, the culvert is the same one seen in Hermann Lungkwitz' painting of the Alameda. The photo is from the SA Public Library Texana collection.
|
|
|
Post by bradponder on Jun 13, 2014 7:04:11 GMT -5
+ How long did the cottonwoods stand? Jim, in a March 26, 1911 San Antonio Express article titled "Builder's Spades Turn Up Soil Baked By Alamo Pyres", feature writer Charles Merritt Barnes said "there are but two of the fifty or more cottonwood trees left that grew originally on the Alameda. Neither of them is within a block of either of the pyres." If those two trees were remnants of the original tree lined grove and not re-plantings, then they were right at 100 years old. Their presence at that late date would have given little indication of the grandeur of the original promenade that was the Alameda, which by then had been renamed E. Commerce. I have failed as of yet to uncover any contemporary map from that era or earlier even (such as a survey, city engineer, or utility map), that illustrates the placement of the cottonwood trees, but have not given up hope that one will turn up.
|
|
|
Post by jrboddie on Jun 13, 2014 8:11:42 GMT -5
Brad, thanks for the info and analysis. I guess the two remaining trees must be among the 11 survivors depicted in the Lungkwitz painting of the scene in the late 1850s.
I find it interesting that in addition to the structural landmarks that were significant to these events, there are some notable natural ones as well, the cottonwoods of the Alameda, the pecan tree at the NW corner of the compound, the Ben Milam bald cypress, etc.
Do you have a copy of the March 26, 1911 article that is legible enough to read the paragraph that I tried to copy on the first page of this thread? I think it has some interesting details of the history of the Alameda and its environment.
|
|
|
Post by edward on Jun 13, 2014 11:56:13 GMT -5
+ How long did the cottonwoods stand? Jim, in a March 26, 1911 San Antonio Express article titled "Builder's Spades Turn Up Soil Baked By Alamo Pyres", feature writer Charles Merritt Barnes said "there are but two of the fifty or more cottonwood trees left that grew originally on the Alameda. Neither of them is within a block of either of the pyres." If those two trees were remnants of the original tree lined grove and not re-plantings, then they were right at 100 years old. Their presence at that late date would have given little indication of the grandeur of the original promenade that was the Alameda, which by then had been renamed E. Commerce. I have failed as of yet to uncover any contemporary map from that era or earlier even (such as a survey, city engineer, or utility map), that illustrates the placement of the cottonwood trees, but have not given up hope that one will turn up. Portion of last paragraph of survey SACE 1:209 1854
...Beginning at a stake set on the west side of an old Cotton [edge of paper] stump on the east side of the ditch. Thence with the Alameda....
|
|