The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, no towel throwing allowed The term use is in this case simply a matter of perspective, and relatively moot it would seem if it brought such consternation.It would seem the word was unnecessary in the title but I used it to suggest the issues resulting from the notoriously poor powder, and the point of trying to find out why it was so.

Agreed that the Dupont was more likely the powder being sought, which ironically was that which the defenders had originally at the Alamo.In their case, their supply of that powder was depleted when the number of the contingent left there on the Matamoros expedition prior to the siege. They took most of this 'good' powder, leaving the unfortunate defenders with what remained, and the store of Mexican powder left by Cos in December.

With the Dupont powder, which was indeed from Delaware, it had been notably sold and traded throughout the states, which certainly included the New Orleans entrepot, where the barrels of powder on the Pelican had originated.

The production of gunpowder of course, must be regarded as appropriately volatile, and in volume production such as was carried out at Dupont, the inevitability of explosion must have been a constant threat.

The Mexican powder left in the Alamo, in further reading, I found was seriously damaged even to add to its poor quality, by the effects of what is known as 'creeping damp'. This natural situation is something well known in Texas and in which the dampness permeates relentlessly regardless of precautions attempted.

This same circumstance was why the men left at the Alamo were caught as they slept with guns unloaded, the same dampness would have effected powder left in the pans. By the time they reacted, the compound was overrun, and they had little to do but try to flee. These defenders were not the seasoned veterans and frontiersmen who indeed comprised the less predominant faction of the contingent, and those fewer do seem to have tried to stand as the others fled.
It does seem that historians are often not entirely correct on many aspects of this tragic event, and the true number of defenders are not accurately known, but simply estimated.

It is the same with the numbers of Mexican forces, typically largely exaggerated by those emphasizing the more heroic perspectives of the siege itself. However, this same embellishment seems to concern the numbers of Mexican casualties.

As with much of the research I have done here, my primary source has been "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010, where it notes the accounts of Santa Anna's 2nd in command Gen. Vincente Filisola, who regarded the Alamo engagement as 'useless'.

Tucker notes on p.3, "... while historians have grossly inflated the number of Mexican losses, the Filisola document shows that most of the attackers losses were due to fratricide. In all truth the Mexicans lost fewer men than traditional documents have claimed : in all less than three hundred casualties.
The large percentage of fratricide casualties means that the entire Alamo garrison may have killed or wounded barely a hundred of their opponents.".

My comment on the percentage of such Mexican casualties being as much as 90% was admittedly far beyond what numbers here reveal, and probably from my initial reaction of surprise at this clearly remarkable revelation.

While clearly the gunpowder issues of the thread topic, while playing a key role in many dynamics of this historic and tragic event, the true 'dilemma', at least for me, has been trying to better understand it.
While the tragedy was as put by Gen. Filisola, a useless engagement, the heroism of the forces on both sides was indisputable.

[yulzari]

If Mexican powder was prone to suffer from dampness it could point to using guano derived sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate as the saltpetre portion of the gun powder.

Sodium nitrate is a workable alternative to potassium nitrate saltpetre but is less effective and is notably hygroscopic so goes soggy when exposed after a while. It needs to be kept sealed until used. Often turned to as a cheaper ingredient or when the better is not accessible. OK as long as you use it up fast but goes soggy in storage and definitely in a weapon, especially the pan of a firelock, overnight. OK-ish for blasting or fireworks where the buyer uses it soon after purchase but firearm powder is stored until used in the future so not a good choice.

Not conclusive evidence but makes it valid to examine the possibility seriously and is at least consistent with the reports made here.

There is a process to convert sodium nitrate to potassium nitrate but that is chemistry knowledge out of period and beyond the Mexican technology of the day. A less direct route is to use the guano in 'nitre beds' but I am not aware of any being created in Mexico and is a slower and more wasteful method. Not to mention unpleasant.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by yulzari

If Mexican powder was prone to suffer from dampness it could point to using guano derived sodium nitrate instead of potassium nitrate as the saltpetre portion of the gun powder.

Sodium nitrate is a workable alternative to potassium nitrate saltpetre but is less effective and is notably hygroscopic so goes soggy when exposed after a while. It needs to be kept sealed until used. Often turned to as a cheaper ingredient or when the better is not accessible. OK as long as you use it up fast but goes soggy in storage and definitely in a weapon, especially the pan of a firelock, overnight. OK-ish for blasting or fireworks where the buyer uses it soon after purchase but firearm powder is stored until used in the future so not a good choice.

Not conclusive evidence but makes it valid to examine the possibility seriously and is at least consistent with the reports made here.

There is a process to convert sodium nitrate to potassium nitrate but that is chemistry knowledge out of period and beyond the Mexican technology of the day. A less direct route is to use the guano in 'nitre beds' but I am not aware of any being created in Mexico and is a slower and more wasteful method. Not to mention unpleasant.

Again, I join Fernando in very much appreciating your valuable insight and expertise here!! The differences in the chemical properties of these two compounds in the 'nitre' is profoundly explanatory in the circumstances they clearly faced here. Absolutely fascinating Yulzari, thank you!!

[Jim McDougall]

Reading further in "Exodus from the Alamo", Philip Thomas Tucker, 2010,
on p.123 there is more saying that the Texians were , "...not desiring to utilize the Mexican black powder which was all but useless".

The Alamo's defenders could rely only on the limited supply of "..high grade black powder from the Dupont factory in Delaware". It is noted that Dupont supplied the American forces in the war of 1812 as well, so clearly there had been precedent for Dupont powder in New Orleans for some time.

However, the contingent of volunteers who left the Alamo prior to the siege took the bulk of the Dupont powder, probably as they were to attack Matamoros and expected action. They had no idea that reinforcements and supplies would not be forthcoming to the Alamo.
In the meantime they assumed the Mexican powder would be sufficient in the interim. Unfortunately its integrity had been compromised by the following noted in this reference (p.123)...due to the lengthy transport FROM MEXICO; the high humidity of the Texas central plains; lengthy storage in the limestone rooms and the rising damp complicated by the extreme cold wet winters of these Texas regions.

It sounds as if the Mexican powder was indeed produced in Mexico, and by the description given by Yulzari this suggests very likely production using bat guano. This making the powder more susceptible to moisture.

This begs the question of the Dupont powder, which is regarded as 'high quality' and apparently less prone to these problems? Would this powder have been produced using the 'French method' for niter, as devised by Turgot and Lavosier with niter beds using manure, mortar or wood ashes, earth and straw moistened with urine and after period (up to year) leached with water and filtered through potash.

As the barrels of powder which were destined for Mexico had come from New Orleans and were captured from the vessel Pelican, it sounds as if Santa Anna was aware of the issues with powder and was trying to resolve it. As noted, very likely that powder from New Orleans would have been the much desired Dupont product.

[yulzari]

I do have to qualify my post above in that I am drawing upon the use of saltpetre from Chile and that bat guano was used in US gun powder production.

My post was about the possibility that sodium nitrate was used in Mexican gun powder production. The reports are consistent with that but the source of Mexican saltpetre is unknown to me as is it's chemical composition.

http://www.themeister.co.uk/hindley/..._saltpetre.htm gives a brief overview of saltpetre over history for gun powder. Chilean saltpetre was actually used for gun powder but not good powder and was being converted to normal saltpetre in some quantity late in the 19th century industrially but black powder firearms powder demand dropped drastically with new nitro smokeless powder but remains important for the ignition of artillery shells today. The sporting use is only a small fraction of the military demand these days.

From the Mexican perspective it was the cheapest source of a saltpetre, direct from Chile by ship, compared with buying ready made gun powder from the USA or Europe. I can see it being a possible commercial choice for the core firework and blasting powder production in Mexico. Again I know little of what they actually did in Mexico other than that they did make gun powders in some form or forms.

[fernando]

The earliest references of gunpowder mills in Mexico date from circa 1550, a unit built West from Mexico City, profiting from the canal running from Chaputelpe to supply water to the city. Soon after the Real Fábrica de Pólvora de Nueva Espana was expanded, adding three new mills and a lustration engine. This factory exploded in 1784. In 1780 another factory was built near Santa Fé, three leagues from the capital, which pestle engines were powered by hydraulic wheels. Eighty mestizos were employed to move the granizators.
If i were a person well within the gunpowder science, i would not discard the historic evidence of the 'several' manners of how saltpeter may obtained.
In the extreme, the Portuguese Castle of Moura had its medieval taipa (a mud/lime/stone mix) wall panes destroyed (1809/1826) for the digging of raw material to produce saltpeter.
Much prior to this were the needs during discoveries, where demands of powder were highly demanded, where saltpeter sailed from India played by far the largest role.
Whether dampness was a key factor in the Mexican gunpowder mediocrity by the presently discussed period, one might ask; how is it consistent that such setback did not sporadically affected a determined number of kegs and kept being viral in continuity?
Perhaps a more consistent explanation is the lack of skill of their gunpowder makers. Although the basics were no secret, making it good or bad depends more in the criteria put up to prepare it. To what i have recently read, you may have the best ingredients (and reasonable machinery) at hand but, if you don't follow highly methodical rules you achieve as good as powder for carnival crackers. There is no decent powder mill without a competent gunpowder master. We also had quality setbacks over here by the same period; but the government did not relax until good stuff was again well manufactured ... leaders were sacked in 1832 and again later, systems were double inspected and in 1833 it was concluded that powders tested were not inferior to those from France and Switzerland...
One thing never discussed here is the other two (three when also counting with the air) gunpowder components; saltpeter is the star but, one can not make omelets without eggs. There is a lot to consider about sulphur ... and (coal) wood, the 'poor/rich' parent, which the practicals sustain that the ideal type (and harvest) is (also) responsible for a good powder. Maybe the Mexicans of this period did not pay much attention to such part. My ignorant perspective is that these discussed issues did not only reside in a period encompassing such episodes but since actual Mexican gunpowder factories probably ceased to exist (Santa Fé ?) and were replaced by artisanal resources. Hitchhiking Yulzari's wise considerations, where did they have the means to measure the true output what they were doing ?

All in all ...
Anyone can make chicken curry; but i wouldn’t swap the one made by wife for any of those bought in take out spots .

.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, perfectly written and well illustrated as always and I always enjoy your analogies!! good points on the 'omelette' making as in gun powder making and right, the other two components were quite necessary as well.

On the dampness issue, I thought to look into how in the world powder was dealt with in the days of 'fighting sail'. Obviously at sea, there was a 'bit' of dampness around
Apparently there were individuals assigned to keep powder viable. One source says the men in these areas wore special footwear and there were curtains kept moist to avoid sparks. Surprisingly it is noted the magazine was usually below water line, so further puzzling how it could be kept dry.
In any case, the keepers of the powder apparently were charged with sifting it and remixing it for distribution to the 'powder monkey's (young boys carrying it to gunners).

Perhaps failure to properly sift and remix powder supplies were key in the poor quality of the Mexican powder?
If the Dupont powder was so great, would it not be susceptible to moisture damage?

Yulzari thank you again for these further insights, and the note that Chile was a source for the saltpeter used in Mexico. It was cheap and there was of course notable volume of its production. The constant maritime activity from there seems well understood so inclusion of the saltpeter would be expected.

I admit I am still unclear on the differences in saltpeter, between sodium and potassium nitrates. It seems that both of these compounds are derived from bat guano. The only notable difference seems to be that the 'potassium' version is less 'hygroscopic' (susceptible to moisture effects) if I have understood correctly.

Returning to the Alamo for a moment, in a touch of irony, one defender was killed as he ran toward the powder magazine with a torch. The miserably inadequate powder he hoped would take out as many attacking Mexicans as possible.

On the US powder production, it does appear that guano was indeed used broadly for saltpeter up to and including the Civil War, however I have wondered if the Dupont powder of such noted high quality was in fact using the 'French' process. The Confederate forces had many mills and all seem to have used either guano or other means of saltpeter production. There is some mention of use of urine, but unclear how much used that instead of guano etc.