|
Post by neferetus on May 7, 2007 13:13:44 GMT -5
Another unrecognizable image of the Alamo, as envisioned by de Zavala.
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on May 7, 2007 18:47:21 GMT -5
this just keeps getting better and better.....
I don't know where you find all this stuff.
Please right another book!
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on May 7, 2007 18:47:36 GMT -5
this just keeps getting better and better..... I don't know where you find all this stuff. Please write another book!
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on May 8, 2007 12:50:06 GMT -5
Adina de ZavalaDue to her stance regarding the Long Barrack, Adina de Zavala fell out of favor with the DRT. She became its most vocal critic, continuing to remind the public of that organization's lack of historical detail and knowledge of the Alamo's historical signifacence. She formed THLA (Texas Historical Landmark Association) and remained its president until her death in 1955. The association's main objective was: 1. to work for the repair and restoration of all the missions of Texas 2. and for the use of the main building of the Alamo---the long two story Fort (North of the church of the Alamo) as a Texas Hall of Fame and a museum of History, Art, Relics and Literature. Adina de Zavala's personal dream by 1935 was "to see the main building of the Alamo mission restored. Historically, the church of the Alamo is not of such great importance. It was the building adjoining, the long barracks, which witnessed the slaughter of our Texas heroes. But we still have the lower walls of the long barrack and of the arcades facing the patio".
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on May 8, 2007 12:56:49 GMT -5
Clara DriscollWhen Clara Driscoll died on July 17, 1945, the press ironically had this to say about her the following day: In fitting tribute to the woman who single-handedly spared the shrine of Texas from demolition 40 years ago. Mrs. Driscoll's body will lie in state at the Alamo in San Antonio from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on May 31, 2007 12:21:40 GMT -5
Hey Ted, anything new in your quarter regarding the Alamo's proposed 'facelift'?
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 1, 2007 18:29:33 GMT -5
Can anybody tell me about the "hump" on the alamo church? In the 2004 movie there was no hump on the church, but nowadays there is. Was there a hump originally or was it created at some time after the battle?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 2, 2007 8:28:22 GMT -5
Th U.S. Army took over the Alamo compound in 1849 and converted it into a Quartermaster's Depot. The Long Barrack was restored with a new roof, as was the Alamo church the following year. To hide the new peaked roof to the once roofless church, Major Babbit created the now familiar upper gable, or 'hump'.
As it stands today, the Alamo church has had the hump for a longer period of time than it existed without it.
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 2, 2007 12:22:55 GMT -5
A little more info...
In March 1848, the chief assistant quartermaster was Major E. B. Babbitt. Major Babbitt received permission from the army early in 1850 to proceed with plans to roof the church building. By mid-May he reported "I am now about to cover the Alamo Church" (Young ca. 1970s:61), and said he had delayed until the question of who actually owned the land--the Catholic church, the city of San Antonio, or the federal government--was reasonably settled. The new top of the facade of the church building was designed by architect John Fries (Steinfeldt 1978:28); the whole renovation was probably completed by 1851.
By October 1851, as stated above, the army had officially leased the property from the east edge of the old courtyard complex to the acequia from the Maverick family (Fox et al. 1976:18). At about the same time, old Rivas Street in downtown San Antonio was extended eastward to the San Antonio River, where a bridge was built connecting it with old Paseo Street on the west side of Alamo Plaza; Paseo Street was extended eastward across Alamo Plaza and the north end of the Long Barracks to the acequia. Both streets were then renamed Houston Street (Heusinger 1951:25). The result was that the army lost its corrals and stables north of Houston Street, which undoubtedly prompted further additions to the structures within the courtyard complex, producing a series of stables and sheds laid out around an inner yard or patio approximately equivalent to the present north courtyard (A. Koch, 1873, Bird's Eye View of the City of San Antonio. Map, copy on file at the DRT Library, the Alamo, San Antonio, Texas).
Later, during the Civil War, the Alamo became a Confederate Army depot, then reverted to the U.S. Army at the end of the war. The army relinquished the property to the Catholic church in late 1877. On November 30, 1877, the Alamo buildings were purchased from the church by Honore Grenet who immediately began the work of converting the old convento buildings into a store and warehouse (BCDR Vol.7:373).
Grenet removed the roof built by the army and tore down all the walls and floors east of the facade facing onto Alamo Plaza. On the south side he tore down the northern third of the sacristy of the Alamo church and several other walls of the church which extended across his property line. He added an eastward extension to the stone facade along Houston Street, which made the building about 55 ft wide east to west (Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Ltd. 1885, copy on file at the DRT Library, the Alamo, San Antonio, Texas).The facades to the west, north, and south had wooden galleries added, and the new line of the east wall was built of wood. Apparently the old army stables and sheds in the courtyard complex were incorporated into this new building complex and continued to be used (Colquitt 1913:104, 140). Gateways opened to the north onto Houston Street, south onto Alamo Plaza, and east into a smaller area in front of a line of hay sheds and produce storage buildings, some of which were probably also originally built by the army (Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Ltd. 1885). Major changes to the convento building were completed by 1878.
(From the Alamo de Parras Site)
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 2, 2007 16:25:36 GMT -5
Thanks a lot for the extensive answer, Nef! So the hump was created to conceal the new pointed roof. Was the original roof flat when the church was build? I seem to remember having read that the church, or was it the Alamo as such, was never finished, so maybe the church did´nt have a roof from the beginning?
|
|
|
Post by Greg C. on Jun 2, 2007 20:20:12 GMT -5
Thanks a lot for the extensive answer, Nef! So the hump was created to conceal the new pointed roof. Was the original roof flat when the church was build? I seem to remember having read that the church, or was it the Alamo as such, was never finished, so maybe the church did´nt have a roof from the beginning? When the church was built, it was never completely finished, therefore there was never a roof until it became a US army post in the 1850's I believe.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 3, 2007 16:00:54 GMT -5
Thanks, Davy! I suspected as much. Nice to get a confirmation...
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 3, 2007 17:59:23 GMT -5
Thanks, Davy! I suspected as much. Nice to get a confirmation... But all of the supporting arches had been completed, however. The next step---which never arrived---would've been to emplace the arched roof and dome. In 1835, when General Cos was constructing the cannon platform in the back (apse) of the church, he lowered the rear wall to but twelve feet, then knocked down all of the supporting arches to build a cannon ramp running the length of the nave. (Rich Curilla explained how, if the rear wall had been left 21 or so feet high, then the cannon ramp would've had to have extended clear on out the doorway of the church. Hardly practical.) One nice thing about the rear wall of the Alamo today is that you can very clearly differentiate between where Cos knocked it down and where the newer portion begins, as the newer section of wall is decidedly narrower. Anyway, for all of Cos' work on the cannon platform and rampway, the church ended up looking like far worse a wreck than it in fact was.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 3, 2007 18:37:21 GMT -5
When General Cos constructed the cannon platform in the back of the church, was that when he fortified the Alamo (instead of staying out in the open where his troops would have had the advantage) and came under siege from the texans (and later Ben Milam led texans in a house to house battle, known as the battle of San Antonio, and was killed)?
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 15, 2007 14:06:54 GMT -5
The Alamo had been a military post since 1793. Other commanders before him may've done minimal work to the place to make it safe against Indian attacks, but it was not until Cos' arrival in 1835 that the Alamo was given serious consideration as a fortified place. When constructing his fortifications in 1835, Cos was only doing what any good commander would do: bolster up his defenses, all around.
The siege and battle of San Antonio in late 1835 was fought mainly in town. Cos had constructed numerous palisades and entrenchments around San Antonio, making it a stoutly fortified town, one that the Texians could not simply carry by storm. So it was that Milam, Burleson and the rest of the Texians had to resort to burrowing through the walls and rooves of buildings to root out the defenders. Since many of the buildings in Bejar adjoined each other, this was a slow, tedious process.
Only after some 200 of his troops had deserted, due to poor morale, did Cos finally decide to pull back to the Alamo. The fort was never attacked by the Texians, however, as Cos soon ran up the white flag and asked for some very generous terms, which he soon got.
During the siege of the town, the Texians did erect a battery just across the river and began taking pot shots at the Alamo's west wall. But this was all merely a feint and ruse to take Cos' attentions off of the town where the real attack was commencing.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 15, 2007 16:55:51 GMT -5
I see. Thanks, Nef! Maybe I´m in the wrong thread, but when the Mexicans breeched the north wall of the Alamo, was there already a hole in the wall covered with a small palisade from the beginning? I´m wondering whether the Mexicans made a hole in the wall, or made it through the palisade which covered an old hole in the wall...
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 15, 2007 17:42:59 GMT -5
Alamo 'engineer', Green Jameson describes the north wall as being "picketed all around" for support. The Alamo (2004) gives a pretty accurate view of how the wall must've looked during the course of the siege. Just as surely as the Mexican artillery was trying to knock it down, the Texians were busy shoring it up.
It was Cpt. Reuben Marmaduke Potter USA who, in his 1860 pamphlet suggested that there was a breach at the NE corner of the north wall. He even shows the breach in his 'Plat Of The Alamo'. Later artists have portrayed the breach as being nearer the NW corner of the wall ala THE WAYNAMO. Actually, the only 'breaching' of the wall that was done was by Mexican soldados effecting an entry point over the crumbling stone and timber barrier.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 15, 2007 23:15:00 GMT -5
Thanks a lot, Nef! So there was no hole in the north wall covered with palisades. Good. I asked because I´ve seen it on pictures of Alamo models and on some drawings too, I believe. I think I´ll take another look at the 2004 movie, just to see what that wall really looked like...
|
|
|
Post by neferetus on Jun 18, 2007 21:11:33 GMT -5
Alan Huffine's fine book BLOOD OF NOBLE MEN has many of Gary Zaboly's amazing pen and ink drawings of the Alamo, including the north wall. Michael Corenbleith, the set designer for THE ALAMO (2004) based much of his set plans on Zaboly's drawings.
(The Alamo church look has Craig Covner's artwork and research to thank.)
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jun 20, 2007 14:59:09 GMT -5
Now I know where I saw that hole in the north wall covered with palisades. It was on Kaj´s Alamo model! So I guess he got that wrong...
|
|