Charli/Losoya House

[elcolorado]

In our discussions about the Morales attack, a couple of us made some references to the "stone building" to the south of the SW corner.

I was looking at the usual maps (Sanchez-Navarro, La Bastida) and didn't see a structure directly south of the SW corner as Gary Zaboly shows in his drawings.

So my question to our team of esteem archaeologists is: What do we really know about the Charli/Losoya (stone) building??

Glenn

[marklemon]

Glenn,
I wouldn't be too concerned that either LaBastida or Navarro didn't show it. LaBastida seemed only to be concerned with the compound proper and treated any outside structures in the most perfunctory manner (Look at his drawing of Bexar, for example.) Navarro, for his part,seemed to only be interested in drawing defensive features, even to the detriment of architectural accuracy.
This house is fairly well documented. It can be found in a number of drawings from the 1840s, by Bolleart, and Capt Arthur Lee to name a few. In fact, I believe that Jake Ivey has identified it in a photograph. In Nelson's book on page 79 ( I have the second edition paperback) in the section entitled "The Civil War Starts at the Alamo," the house shows up in the long composite photo at the bottom of the page. It is the dirty looking stone structure over towards the right side of the photo, sandwiched in between two white wood frame structures. I can, I think, even make out the faint traces of the filled-in arches (after all, this house used to be one of the old mission Indian structures). If I have my facts right, Jake even correlated the site of this lot in the photo, and sure enough it is in the right place just south of the southwest corner. But I don't want to speak for Jake. Hopefully he'll chime in and add his insight to this point.
Mark

[elcolorado]

Thanks, Mark. I never would have known that the small stone building in the photo was the structure in question. Zaboly's drawing captures it well. Would you happen to know the dimensions?

Glenn

[TRK]

[Edited to note that this post contains information that I subsequently found to be mistaken: see my subsequent post on page 2. TRK]

The Bexar County Clerk's office has a deed dated March 16, 1850, in which Concepción Charli sold for $1 the house to her son, Juan Losoya. The deed gives the survey specs, basically stating that the sale included "one house and lot on the east side of the San Antonio River in that part of the City of Bexar known as the Alamo, at the southwest angle of which the square of the old Mission of San Antonio de Valero." The starting point of the survey was a "stake set in the East bank of the ditch which runs on the West side of the buildings of the old mission." The south boundary of the lot was the northern boundary of the lot of Jesus Cantu. The southeast corner of the Charli lot was marked by a stake set near the southeast corner of that house. The east boundary ran in front of the house more or less north to the northeast boundary of the lot, which was at some point along the west wall of the old mission (the number of varas this stake was from the southwest corner of the mission compound is obscure). Then, the north boundary of the lot ran back to the start point.

[bmoses]

There appears to be some confusion here about the Charli house and the Losoya house which were in fact two seperate structures. The Losoya house was rebuilt over the ruins of Charli's workshop (adobe) which was the western (north/south running) structure in the southwest corner of the compound. The Charli house (stone) was located outside (south) of the compound. The summary of the southwest corner below comes from Jake's work.

Pedro de los Angeles Charli began serving at Mission San Antonio de Valero in 1773 as carpenter, barber, and sacristan. For his service, Charli was granted in 1786 a house, workshop and large garden near the southwest corner of the compound. Details contained in the grant reveal that the house was made of stone and measured 8 varas square (22.2'). Just north of the house and running north from the southwest corner of the compound was Charli's jacal carpenter's workshop measuring 6-3/4 varas east/west (18.75') by 7-3/4 varas north/south (21.3'). Before the acequia was rerouted to the outside of the compound (sometime between 1829 and 1836), it had flowed directly past the workshop and under the compound wall where it angled abruptly toward the west, passing between the Charli house and the compound wall.

Pedro Charli died between 1786 and 1792 and left his property to his wife, Maria de Estrada. Their daughter, Concepción Charli, married into the Losoya family and eventually ended up with a large portion of land on either side of Losoya Street.

By 1836, the area of the Charli workshop had been converted into a gun position. It was noted by a Mexican officer after the battle that a fortification ditch had been built up "...to reinforce the southwest corner because here the main wall was too low". Much of the confusion about the location and appearance of the Charli home and workshop after the battle are the result of General Andrade's thorough razing of the compound following the defeat of Santa Anna at San Jacinto. As Dr. J. H. Barnard reported "...the Alamo was completely dismantled, all single walls were leveled, the fosse filled up, and the pickets torn up and burnt."

The Losoya house, rebuilt sometime before 1843 on the site of the old Charli workshop, was not precisely rebuilt on the foundations of the old structure. The Losoya house was the same width (18.5') as the workshop but was now 9.25 varas north/south (25.7'). Since the Charli workshop was completely reconstructed on the same location, the structure shown in the Bollaert drawing made from the top of the Alamo church looking west (see Nelson, page 72) is either a depiction of the Losoya house or of the Charli house outside the compouned. As Mark pointed out in a previous post, this same structure is clearly shown at the far right of the 1860 panoramic photograph (sans-roof, Nelson page 79).

[stuart]

Thanks for that last post Bruce, the historical geography of this area is certainly starting to become a lot clearer to me now.

As I read and extrapolate from your post, the Charli house survived because it was a stone structure and not so easy to demolish. Cos' men left it alone because the Alamo was only a part of a much bigger defensive area and the house wasn't seen as a problem.

The Texians on the other hand left it where it was because Jameson had more urgent priorities as and when he could persuade anybody to do any work.

That un-named Mexican officer's comment I think illustrates both points. The gun position constructed on the Charli workshop site was too low to be defencible. That wasn't a problem for Cos because he didn't expect to be attacked there. The Texians on the other hand saw this as a priority and added a ditch or deepened the existing diverted acqeia (I can never spell that word right).

[bmoses]

stuart said:

. . . the Charli house survived because it was a stone structure and not so easy to demolish. Cos' men left it alone because the Alamo was only a part of a much bigger defensive area and the house wasn't seen as a problem. The Texians on the other hand left it where it was because Jameson had more urgent priorities as and when he could persuade anybody to do any work.

Stuart,

I am not so sure about how the Charli house (outside of the compound) faired during and after the battle. It would have been extremely close to the Texans position and thus could have been an impediment to their line of site. Was it burned along with the other structures near La Villita on the night of February 25?

It makes since to me that Nelson and others refer to the former location of the Charli workshop as the "Charli house" in images, when in fact it is the reconstructed Losoya house shown in the Bollaert drawing and the panoramic photograph. That leaves me to wonder whether the earlier stone Charli house is in the images at all. It should be a short distance to the left (in the 1843 drawing, 1860 panorama) outside of the compound, but I don't see anything that would match the description.

It's interesting to note that Nelson shows a couple of structures just south of the garden in his "1785 Mission Valero" bird's-eye view. This is the general area I would expect to see the 22.2' x 22.2' Charli house. In the "Alamo 1836" painting, Nelson depects the structures leveled and labels them "burnt houses outside the Alamo". I suspect this was in fact the fate of the original stone Charli house.

[elcolorado]

By 1836, the area of the Charli workshop had been converted into a gun position. It was noted by a Mexican officer after the battle that a fortification ditch had been built up "...to reinforce the southwest corner because here the main wall was too low".

Ok. I need some clarification. Are we talking about a simple ditch or a semicircular palisade and ditch? I recall Sanchez-Navarro's map had a defensive fortification at the SW corner but didn't archeology disprove that?

Glenn

[Jim Boylston]

Ok. I need some clarification. Are we talking about a simple ditch or a semicircular palisade and ditch? I recall Sanchez-Navarro's map had a defensive fortification at the SW corner but didn't archeology disprove that?

You beat me to the punch, Glenn. I thought Mark's research indicated that this SW lunette type structure didn't exist, and it isn't depicted in the model. Mark, how about some clarification?
Jim

[stuart]

Part of the problem may be the translation, but leaving that aside I'm a little uneasy about the way its described as "built up". In my experience ditches are dug down while walls are built up.

Is it possible that what's really being described is not a ditch at the bottom of the wall but a sand-bagged heightening of the parapet?

[stuart]

So far as the house is concerned, stone doesn't generally burn too well so even if it was torched the walls will still have been standing and anyway doesn't Filisola specifically describe Morales' men using it to cover their approach?

I really don't see the situation up to February 23 justifying the "arbitrary" destruction of someone's house, while afterwards there was neither the time nor the opportunity.

[bmoses]

Glenn,

You are correct - the Radio Shack excavations carried out by Jake Ivey did not find evidence of this supposed defensive work.

Within the 20' x 70' window provided by the Radio Shack excavations, the acequia was the only trench found west of the compound and Jake Ivey deduced that it was dug at about the same time as the battle. Labastida does not show exterior trenches outside the west wall (as does José Juan Sánchez). Jake went on to suggest that the new acequia was likely dug in 1835 by Ugartechea's engineers to strengthen the defensive works of the compound. The dirt from the moat-like ditch was probably used to build the gun platforms inside the compound. This action also allowed the inner branch of the acequia to be closed off and the holes in the exterior walls (north and south) to be sealed.

The archaeological evidence also points out the general accuracy of the Labastida plan related to defensive fortifications as compared to the Sánchez maps.

[elcolorado]

So far as the house is concerned, stone doesn't generally burn too well so even if it was torched the walls will still have been standing and anyway doesn't Filisola specifically describe Morales' men using it to cover their approach?

I really don't see the situation up to February 23 justifying the "arbitrary" destruction of someone's house, while afterwords there was neither the time nor the opportunity.

I agree with you, Stuart. Clearly, the Texans didn't make good use of the time they had to level all of the surrounding structures. And, as you stated previously, Cos wouldn't have bothered with the jacales since he did not anticipate fighting from within the Alamo, itself. When the defenders finally realized their folly, it was too late. While they had success burning the jacales, fire wouldn't have much of an effect on a building(s) of stone.

What Filisola says was that Morales' column approached by taking cover behind "small jacales with walls of stone and mud.." We interpret that to include the Charli house but Filisola doesn't actually specify any particular structure. But I think it makes sense that Morales would take advantage of the stone building.

Glenn

[marklemon]

The thing we need to keep in mind is that the Charli house (the "outside the wall house") was, in an earlier time, simply another of the Indian houses of the mission at Valero. It was most likely made of stone, and would have been located about 35 to 38 feet immediately to the south of the southwest corner of the walled compound, and more or less in line with the Charli carpenter shop just to the north. The compound was walled in as a precautionary measure against the Comanches in about 1760-62 (If memory serves), and the fact that the southernmost mission house (later to become the "Charli" house) was left outside the walls was as a result of its projecting more to the south than did the southern gatehouse, later to become the "Low Barrack." As the friars obviously saw the assymetrical nature this mis-alignment presented, they solved it by simply leaving the ("Charli") southernmost house outside the walls when they ran the southern wall from the gatehouse westward to the Charli carpenter shop. I feel confident that this same structure (Charli house) is shown in Nelson's book. As I said before, I may be wrong, but I believe that faint traces of filled-in arches can be made out on this structure in the photo. In any event, it appears definitely to be longer (north-south) than it is wide (east-west), suggesting that it may still be configured much like the southern Castaneda House, shown in Eastman's "west wall houses" drawing, also in Nelson. This drawing shows the Castaneda House with two filled-in arches remaining, while the northern room has collapsed. In the case of the Charli house photo, it appears that it is the southern room that has collapsed.

[marklemon]

Bruce,
I believe that BOTH houses (the old Charli house, AND the rebuilt Charli carpenter shop)are in fact shown in Bollaert's sketch on page 72, which you posted above. Look over towards the left portion of his sketch, and see the two rectangular doorway openings, one larger than the other. Looking directly above the openings, you'll see the flat horizontal roofline, and then, looking at the far right side of this structure, you can even make out its northern face. It appears that Bollaert is trying to place some foliage in this area, which obscures some of the details somewhat, but I think he is , in fact, showing both houses. He even correctly depicts the size differential in the two mis-matching doorways, just like it shows in the photo of this same structure. For those interested in examining this, please refer to the Nelson book, as the two doorways are shown there in their entirety.
Mark