Palisade wall question

[valerobowie]

i was wondering,whenever building a palisade like wall either for cannon emplacements or other means,would builders scrape all the bark off the trees used,if not hows does this process work,just wondering?

[stuart]

Its a bit of a how long is a piece of string question and really depends on the trees being used. Ideally they need to be set as closely together as possible and that will normally require a certain amount of trimming to ensure that the adjoining faces are as parallel as possible. This will inevitably mean a certain amount of bark stripping, but I'm not so sure this was done as a matter of policy

[sloanrodgers]

It might have been beneficial to only partially de-bark the palisade poles. From what I remember
of my climbing days, there's nothing harder to scale than a tree with loose bark.

[garyzaboly]

One key bit of evidence is simply most of the 19th century photography---in the Civil and Indian wars, mainly---that shows palisades. Invariably the bark remains on the posts.

[marklemon]

The evidence suggests that the palisade, as well as other defensive features requiring wood at the Alamo consisted of cedar posts, which were commonly used in the region as vigas (ceiling beams) and other structural uses. It was common, strong, and plentiful. The bark of the cedar, however, is quite stringy and thin, and stripping it off would have been time consuming, and of dubious purpose. My guess is that they simply left it on.

[garyzaboly]

Worth mentioning here, too, is that San Antonio jacales were commonly built of standing mesquite logs, according to Bollaert and many nineteenth century visitors to Bexar. Gentilz's works shows their thickness and size. Whatever the issues regarding their bark, they were strong and durable posts ( they were later used for railroad ties). So it's certain that the Mexicans and Texians also chopped down mesquite trees for their fortifications.

[marklemon]

In reality, while the locals would have certainly used mesquite and cedar for building, other woods were also used, and the Mexican army, and also the Texians, being in much more of a hurry, and not prone to be so particular under the pressing circumstances, would have used any standing timber found along the river, which would have included, but been limited exclusively to, cedar and mesquite.
These would have included immature examples of:
various types of Oak, such as Spanish Oaks, and Mexican Live Oaks
Pecan
several types of Cypress
Locust
Sycamore
Each of these trees has varying types of bark, which, under the somewhat hurried circumstances of defensive construction, would have more than likely been left on the wood.

[texast]

Sorry for the non posting but things are rather hectic atm but,

Was it not true that most of the Palisade wall was actually built by the Mexicans Army when they were setting up for defense in the first place and again when they had possession before it was first take and Cos was forced out to return to Mexico?

They would have had more time to prepare and build the Palisade with a bit less hurry and would have done a bit better job probably with the spacing and trimming as needed. They would have followed more standards also in removing or not removing bark as required. The spacing when an issue if too big would usually have been filled in with adobe or a combination of mud/dirt and other materials needed to fill big gaps. Any Gaps smaller than a Bullet size would not been much of a worry as they would get lodged in between the wood gaps as they were mostly not that powerful to shoot through the wood but could splinter it fairly well. Yes there are some calibers or loads that can shoot through some of the woods used maybe but those would mostly need to be at a fairly close range to begin with and I don't think that was often much of a consideration for either side.

Just some thoughts.

[garyzaboly]

Cos' Army was most likely responsible for constructing the southeast palisade. The Texians, as well as Santa Anna's army, also pilfered many standing local jacales for their mesquite posts, not only to construct and strengthen fortifications, but also to build bridges. Doubtless other types of tree wood were used too....that goes without saying....for instance, there were cottonwoods in abundance as well. I'm not so sure that Cos' Army wasn't in a concerned rush to build its defenses...it knew that the Texians were gathering in force and would soon arrive. So how much "barking" was done, if at all, is anyone's guess. After all, they had much more than the Alamo to defend, but the plazas and streets of Bexar. No doubt any kind of wood was grabbed if it did the job, hacked or sawed to size, and put in place.

[marklemon]

The archaeology record of the palisade's construction reveals that it was a single row of posts, probably cedar (according to a journal entry of a member of a traveling party, passing through San Antonio, and bivouacking in the Alamo in the early 1840's, a few posts remained upright in the palisade area, and were described as cedar). In any event, the palisade was again, a single row of posts, each, as I recall, about 9 inches in diameter, closely spaced, with what appeared to be a half-sawed post laid against the outer face of the palisade at intervals of several feet. Jake Ivey interprets this as corresponding to firing slits (not loopholes per se) made by placing a shorter sawed post against the palisade at intervals, against which the riflemen inside could rest the barrels of their rifles. While this is Jake's interpretation of the data, it does make sense, and would explain the otherwise inexplicable regular spacing of the outer posts. I have found data to support this in a 19th century British Military engineering manual (Manual for Military Engineering, Compiled at the School of Military Engineering, Chatham,) I see the same configuration depicted there. While not strictly required, the presence of the post along the outer edge of the firing slit seemed to enable the rifleman to have a better rest for his piece, even to the point of being able to temporarily rest the rifle there. This arrangement was something akin to a hunter using the crook of a tree to rest his rifle in when steadying his aim to fire at his prey.
I quite agree with Gary that any kind of wood would have been chosen in constructing defenses. It's just that the types previously named were more in abundance.

[garyzaboly]

Mesquite trees seem to have been more in abundance in the Alamo neighborhood, which is why, obviously, the citizens favored them for their jacales. In fact Alamo Plaza itself---and other downtown San Antonio streets--- was once "paved" with mesquite trees blocks, and to this day, when the streets are excavated, mesquite blocks can still be found as the undersurface on many streets. No doubt cedar was used, but evidently mesquite was the most abundant wood in the vicinity.

[garyzaboly]

PS: the information also testifies that a circular palisade uncovered at the Alamo had both cedar AND cypress posts. So again, a variety of wood was used.

[marklemon]

I believe that I have pretty clearly said that a variety of wood was used.....mesquite may have been in abundance, but was used for what purpose? Paving blocks are one thing, long posts are another. While it may rarely reach as high as thirty feet tall, it usually is a low shrub-like tree with curving limbs and trunk, usually reaching ten feet tall at the most. They are the low, scrub-like vegetation which literally covers the prairie in south central Texas. As such, its usable straight-line length is quite short. This may have been sufficient for small jacales, but not larger structures. In fact, the Hererra Gate, which may have been the gate for the 9-foot wide porteria at the Alamo, was mesquite, but mesquite cut in fairly short sections and grafted together. Cedar on the other hand tends to grow taller, and quite straight, and has in its molecular composition, chemical compounds which make it, at least somewhat, resistant to fire. This is a factor which, along with its longer straight line length, may have accounted for its being used for vigas which spanned the ceilings of San Antonio houses and buildings. In fact, the material of choice in the missions, especially for vigas, is cedar. Anyone visiting the missions today, can see these cedar beams in every overhead space. The 1930's vintage promenade to the south of the Alamo church is likewise lined at the top with cedar posts. There is even a variety of cedar, frequently seen in San Antonio, called "post cedar" a name derived from its frequent use as fence posts.
Another native wood which was strong, and extremely rot-resistant, was cypress. Many old cypress trees still line the San Antonio River today.
The excavation of the "low barracks" area in the 1980s, revealed a 14 foot long cypress hand-hewn beam, which acted as the threshold of the main gate, which, not coincidentally, was 14 feet wide. When asked what became of this beam, I was told that it was "covered back up."

[texast]

I will tend to agree that mesquite although used in many items of the time would not have been used for any defensive structure other than such as a gate that would have been built and either grafted together as mentioned or built as a sectional structure.
Mesquite is a very good wood for many things and is more fire retardant and sturdy but the supply of extremely long pieces straight enough to be used for such fortifications is just not really feasible unless specifically stockpiled from various locations and stored then shipped from the various sources to the intended location. Even the Mexiacn army would not have had such luxury much less the texans.

There are many hardwoods in Texas that are much more useful and easier to work with as mentioned for such purposes and in most areas as Mark and a few others have pointed out most of what has not only been found through excavation is also seen around the other missions and forts of the area of the time.

[garyzaboly]

Just how many different trees species were cut down by Cos, Neill, and Travis for the construction of the Alamo's wooden works is not known. It remains an unanswered question.

There is a report of many years ago that describes the excavation of a circular cypress-and-cedar palisade on the Alamo grounds, its "posts closely united." More recent digs in the area of the southeast palisade, as already mentioned, have also provided clues.

Postholes found measuring approximately 4 inches in diameter were discovered in the lunette digs.

The north wall timberwork was covered with logs some 5-6 inches thicks, according to De La Pena. Were these all cut from cedar? Were they logs cut from various trees? Were they posts from local fences? No one knows.

As for mesquite not being used in mission construction, the 1793 report of repair work on Valero's convent and other stone buildings does indeed note "cedar logs for repairing the roofs, with 5,500 small mesquite boards and 18 canales of the same." When Cos cannabalized many of the then-extant structures east of the "long barracks" for stone, in 1835, he doubtless also utilized some of these cedar posts and mesquite boards, or cross-beams.

Travis' garrison made a number of sorties to burn huts...but it also stripped some of those huts for their mesquite logs, especially on the night of February 26th, and subsequently the Mexicans heard them "working incessantly" as the Texians tried to shore up their walls. It may be that some of the jacale-like structures within the Alamo were also demolished for this purpose.

The Mexican attack of February 25 had two purposes, aside from testing the defenders' firepower and range: distract the attention of the besieged while a new entrenchment was being dug, and also seize enough jacale timbers with which to build a serviceable bridge. There were plenty of abandoned huts in Pueblo de Valero that day to choose from.

The key to the "Jameson" plat refers to both "pickets" and "stakes"---which may be the same thing, or maybe not. Maybe "stakes" refers to shorter posts. All speculation.

Logs or boards were needed for flooring to the gun platforms, too. What type of wood was used?

Curiously, Edward Everett noted in 1847 that "southern pine" had to be imported from Bastrop to help reconstruct barracks for the U. S. Army at the Alamo, "timber suitable for the purpose not being obtainable nearer."

So it remains an open question as to whether or not ALL the picket posts, stakes, and wooden works for palisades, gun platforms, rifle steps, or shoring up walls, were made of just one type of wood, or of whatever could be had. It is more than likely that both the Mexican and Texian garrisons at the Alamo used whatever was closest at hand, and speedily, so it was a mix...a la the cypress-and-cedar palisade.