Date:09/03/99
From: Robert Tarín
I don't know where the "bed" debate started but this is how I translated the paragraph in the Crisp/Lindley debate discussed in the Alamo Forum:
"... one was set up for the army that was called the president's store, for being situated in the same house that his excellency inhabited. In it, said goods were sold at quadruple price of what they had been in the plaza, after the best items had been picked out for the personal use of his excellency and that of his favorites."Robert Tarín
San Antonio
Subject:Re: Texians and Tejanos
Date: 09/03/99
From: W.L. McKeehan
Some of the inconsistency is due to language, the other one the overlap in descriptors that imply genetic, cultural origin or place of birth and adopted associations related to current geographic, cultural and political association. To Spanish speakers, all people in Texas (under Spain, Mexico and Republic) were Tejanos (thank goodness that Nuevos Philipinos never caught on). Aborigines who learned some Spanish referred to most in Texas that got in their way Tejanos (under Spain, Mexico and the Republic). Anglo-Tejanos probably never called themselves such, but they called themselves Tejanos when writing Spanish and probably Anglo from time to time in English (more often American, should we add American-Tejano, American-Texian?). Hobart Huson introduced the term Nordic instead of Anglo, but it never really caught on. Hispanic-Mexicans referred to Anglo-Texians as Tejanos as well as some Hispanic-Tejanos, particularly Centralista-Mexicans and Tejanos, more often than not "tejanos diablos." (Combinations denoting political association in Texas, Mexican Federalist, Texian Federalist, Tejano Centralist, etc., we can save for the next round).
Probably the clearest cut example of a great Mexican-Texian was Lorenzo de Zavala ("My name stands first in the Constitution of Mexico---And today I am a colonist of the Province of Texas") and definitely Pachita Alavez (The Angel of Goliad) would qualify, if only with the honorary title. Now that I've introduced the term "American", one should remember the descriptor was not the sole property of Anglo-Texian (and Tejano) Mexican immigrants from the north, but that "Long live America for which we are going to fight!" was the cry of the "American" Queretaro Conspirators and Padre Hidalgo, precipitators of the first milestone in freeing Texas from the yoke of vice-regal despotism and tyranny.
W.L. McKeehan
Bellaire, TX
Subject: Re: Texians and Tejanos
Date: 09/04/99
From: William Chemerka
Besides "Texians" and "Texans" a few other contemporary terms were used to describe the residents of Texas in the 1830's. In an article titled "A Texan By Any Other Name," which appeared in issue #54 (Feb. 1987) of "The Alamo Journal," the terms "Texonians" and "Texasians" were also used, though rarely. For example, a notice in the "New Orleans Bee" on Oct. 15, 1835 mentioned about "Those who have volunteered to join the Texonians." A letter from Jno. R. King to James Bonham, dated Oct. 27, 1835, stated that "we have held another meeting on behalf of the Texasians." The term "Texans" received an official early nod when a San Felipe-based committee of correspondence document dated Sept. 13, 1835 stated: "They are Texans, and their interests and rights are identified with those of all Texas." Compounding the terminology was Gen. Cos, who declared on May 12, 1835: "For shame to the Coahil-Texans...." And on March 7, 1836, a day after the fall of the Alamo, Cos used the term "Bexarians" in a communication directed to all inhabitants of Texas."
William Chemerka
New Jersey
Don't know what-cha call 'em, but everybody wants to be one!
Date: 09/04/99
From: Michael Lynch
I am new to this site so this idea may have come up a dozen times: Has anyone thought that Travis may have kept a daily journal or diary during the siege? This seems very consistent with his character (he did keep one earlier, I believe, even kept a record of his sexual conquests) Surely an event such as the Alamo, especially when he knew that all was lost,he would have kept a record of his activities for posterity. If such a diary did exist(or possibly STILL exist somewhere in some lost trunk), what a monumental treasure of knowledge that would give to us. (And certainly solve not a few mysteries.)
I just read Bill Groneman's newest edition to his Death of a Legend (in one sitting!). I imagine there will be much discussion about his "theories". He does make a very good case, I must say.
Michael Lynch
Modesto, California
I think you've been watching too many episodes of "The Antiques Roadshow." That's the only place I know where stuff like that is found in old trunks.
It seems very unlikely that such a diary exists...in the remote likelihood Travis even kept such a diary. Very few personal effects survived the siege. Those that did are rare. The documents that did survive, such as Travis famous letter, were those that were taken out of the compound earlier.
To this Editor's knowledge, the extant letters and documents of
William Barrett Travis are all we have. However, if you ever find that
lost trunk, please let us and the rest of the world know about it.
Subject: Alamo Escapee
Date: 09/07/99
From: Glenn Hadeler
As a youth, I remember that it was said that one man did escape from the Alamo. The man was believed to be Louis Moses Rose. Based on a search of your web page there seems to still be some disagreement as to whether this person did escape, or for that matter whether he even existed at all. Is there a definitive consensus on this subject?
Glenn Hadeler
Austin, Texas
See previous Forum query on this subject.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: We've posted what we know about the man. The story of Rose and his escape didn't surface until 1873. Since our only sources for this tale are questionable, we may never know the truth unless new evidence comes to light.
Subject:Alamo Architecture
Date: 09/12/99
From: Wendel Dickason
I have a few more questions about the architecture of the Alamo chapel:
- How was the gun platform and ramp in the chapel constructed? Illustrations
and movie sets often show it to be made of dirt and rubble. But given the
requirements that the platform be 13.25 feet high, 25 feet wide and 20
feet long, and the ramp (at 1:6 slope) would be 79 feet long, 13.25 feet
at the top and a minimum of 9 feet wide, this would entail excavating,
moving then piling up over 11,335 cubic feet of construction materials.
This is nothing for a good front end loader (Caterpillar, not Escopeta),
but a daunting task for soldados with spades and wheelbarrows. Also, is
there any evidence or speculation about the actual width and placement
of the ramp? Would it have allowed access to the Sacristy from the transept
of the church?
The present connecting wall between the church and the long barracks runs at about a 10 degree angle away from the East/West axis of the church. However, the "remains" of the North end of the Sacristy and the attached 'North room' appear to be parallel to the church. Traced out, the two courtyard walls would appear to have intersected at a very acute angle just before they reached the long barracks! So, just how did that inner wall connect to the Sacristy? Did it (and the 'North room') angle away from the Sacristy or was the North wall of the Sacristy also set at an angle? And, just how original is that set of ruins on the North side of the church?
One more question about the Sacristy,...other than the one over the door between it and the Monks burial ground, were there (and where) were the other windows? Contemporary drawings/paintings differ on what they show. Eastman depicts none on his Northside view but Arthur Lee shows one on the East side wheras Gentilz does not. Pity the camera wasn't used (except on the facade)before all the restorations.
Cedar Hill, Tx
- The Cannon Platform. First, I think that only the platform was
of packed rubble, probably with a wooden cribbing or retaining structure.
I believe that the ramp was of timbers and planks, and was the portion
that was burned by the retreating Mexican Army as described by Dr. Barnard.
It is unlikely that the ramp would have been any wider than the minimum
of nine feet, because of the difficulty of acquiring materials for and
constructing such a ramp. Since the nave is about 27 feet wide, this leaves
nine feet on each side of the ramp for access to the lower doorways. My
numbers for the sizes of the platform and ramp are a little different from
yours. A battery at the head of the church which would accomodate the eighteen-pounder
(the original gun in this position, and the one for which it was probably
designed in late 1835) and permit it to fire in two or three directions
would require a platform width, north to south, of 25 feet (which fit neatly
into the 27-foot width of the apse), and a depth, east to west, of at least
24 feet. A platform depth of 24 feet left only 74 feet of the interior
length of the church for the ramp. Guns firing in barbette could have a
parapet height of no more than 2.75 feet -- following the rules, a ramp
length of 74 feet, rising at the regulation 1:6, meant that the platform
could reach no higher than 1/6th of 74 feet, or 12.333 feet, so that the
parapet of the back wall of the chapel could be no higher than 15.1 feet,
or about half the height of the surviving walls in this area. That's why
the walls were knocked down here to an average height of 15 feet, as you
can see by looking up when you stand inside the church at the apse end
(or on the HABS drawings). The north side is only 14.5 feet, probably an
attempt by the engineers to correct the problem Sánchez-Navarro referred
to, when he said that this battery was hampered by a short and awkward
declination to the north -- that is, a gun facing in this direction could
not have the angle of its barrel depressed enough to fire effectively along
the east face of the wall of the two northern courtyards.
The south wall of the south courtyard, that runs from the sacristy to the southwest corner of the Long Barracks (old Mr. Long, the head of interpretation at the Alamo back in the 70s, used to insist to me that it was named after him), actually follows a series of different angles, which were not reproduced accurately on the HABS drawing or any other plan of the Alamo. This is the result of the rather long and odd history of this little piece of wall. The result of all those angles, however, is that the wall curves through several degrees until it heads to the southwest corner of the Long Barracks. I spent some time with a transit, a tape, and my eyeballs working this out, with a rather mystified Waynne Cox holding the other end of the tape for most of it. You pretty much have to climb up on the wall to get it right. The section of wall across the north side of the church that cuts off the northern third or so of the sacristy is the result of a little boundary dispute in the late 1800s, which resulted in this "new" wall -- something like one third of the thickness of one of the original walls was chiseled away at one point along this wall. So -- the north wall of the North Room, the Sacristy, and the Monk's BC are all parallel to the axis of the church and the north wall of the nave. The ruins of the north third of the sacristy were rebuilt in the early decades of the 20th century, apparently on the original foundations, after the complete removal of this wall in the late 1800s.
The sacristy was described in the Franciscan inventories through the 1790s. They indicate three windows opening into the sacristy, one of them "large." I think that one of the two smaller windows is the one over the door into the "rectory." The other small one was probably through the east wall of the sacristy, in the area removed by the destruction of the north end of the room, and the large one was probably through the north wall.
Archaeological Consultant to Alamo de Parras
