|
Post by elcolorado on Jun 30, 2007 10:08:41 GMT -5
Gentlemen. What is the consensus in regards to what flag flew over the Alamo church and what flag did Lieutenant Torres and Lieutenant Martinez rip down since it appears not to have been the New Orleans Greys flag?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 30, 2007 11:18:04 GMT -5
The only eye witness evidence indicates that it was the two-star tricolor as saeen in Sanchez Navarro's drawing from 1836. It is reported by Almonte as being flown in the military plaza upon the arrival of the Mexicn army on 23 Feb, and later, evidently, was hoisted atop the church (Navarro). Ther is another source, a local mexican citizen, if I remember correctly, who from the top of neaby mission of Concepcion witnessed the flag and described as being the Mexican tricolor. However, from that distance, the center detail of the two star tricolor would not have been distinguishable, and would certainly have looked like the Mexican flag. The site of Torres' exploits may have not been the top of the church, but rather the top of the convento, which was almost the same height as the top of the front of the church.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 30, 2007 11:22:09 GMT -5
Mark, the blue banner you depict on the top of the convento, is that supposed to be the Greys' flag or some other banner?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 30, 2007 12:23:40 GMT -5
Mark, the blue banner you depict on the top of the convento, is that supposed to be the Greys' flag or some other banner? The bottom line on this subject is that we don't currently (and may never) have more precise data on the flag or flags that flew at the Alamo, other than what we already know about the two-star tricolor, and the greys flag, we cannot say without great speculation what if any additional flags were there (the mysterious Travis 5 dollar flag reference notwithstanding). Therefore, since we KNOW the Grey's flag WAS there, and since I find it beyond credibilty to accept that a group of highly motivated Americans from New Orleans would simply pack up their banner in a trunk somewhere in the Long Barracks, I elected to place it atop the Convento, unless and until conclusive evidence surfaces to refute it.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 30, 2007 13:09:57 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with that, the grommets thing, has been overstated, as you well know. I witnessed American servicemen figure all kinds of ways to fly flags no matter what materials were or were not on hand!
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 30, 2007 14:39:10 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with that, the grommets thing, has been overstated, as you well know. I witnessed American servicemen figure all kinds of ways to fly flags no matter what materials were or were not on hand! That's an excellent point. The flag, or banner of the Greys may have certainly been made for them without grommets as a "banner" of sorts, but as you say, it could easily have been tied to the hoist by its corners. The flag may or may not have been flying from the convento, but was almost certainly, in my opinion , flying somewhere above the walls.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 30, 2007 15:07:02 GMT -5
Well... yes and no.
To some extent the argument about ties grommets and and what have you is pretty semantic. The fact of the matter is that it was a flag intended from the outset to be carried into battle rather than flown from a flagpole.
So the question that then arises is that you have this pole of say 8 to 10 feet long with a flag attached to it. What do you do with it?
Assuming that its neither been left in a corner and forgotten, nor actually carried during the fight on the morning of March 6, there are probably two alternatives.
Traditionally colours were supposed to be lodged at the commanding officer's quarters and hung out from a window, to denote his headquarters and the alarm position for his company.
The New Orleans Greys had pretentions to being a "proper" military unit and so this will undoubtedly have occurred to them, but the lack of a suitable upper floor apartment could have been a bit of a bummer.
A less formal alternative was to "plant" them in the works, as was frequently done during the Civil War.
Again however I'm not too happy with this scenario as once again there wasn't really an obvious place to do this.
The final alternative, or rather variant on the last, would have been to fix them to a suitable point on top of either a wall or a building - not in the middle like a flag-pole, but wedged and perhaps tied into a corner angle.
The point I'm making is simply to look at the practicalities of placing a short lightweight pole with a banner permanently attached to it. I assuming that it was flown and the question is not whether but where would have been best
(I have to confess here to also speaking from practical experience in re-enactment)
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 30, 2007 21:06:24 GMT -5
The defenders had access to almost every roof in the entire compound. The Long barracks (main section) especially, was ideal for securing any type of flag, either mounted on a large, or shorter, lightweight pole, being as it was one of the most prominant locations, not to mention the hights elevation (convento)other than the church transepts. So however it was secured, and to whatever it was fastened, I feel very strongly that there is a high probablility that the Greys flag was flying on the morning of March 6..and the most logical place would have been somewhere along the top of the Long Barracks. These guys were proud and probably a little cocky, and as previously stated, I cannot fathom them packing their banner away and out of view.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 1, 2007 4:03:28 GMT -5
Quite agree, the point I'm making is that having worked through the practicalities of handling such a flag (and pole), I'd be looking to have it lashed upright in a corner rather than in the middle of a roof.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 1, 2007 9:31:20 GMT -5
Guys. The only problem I have with the New Orleans Greys flag (NGF) as the flag being torn down is that it appears to be undamaged. This is a bit surprising given the fact that it was made form silk...or so I read. And here's another thought. With several Mexican soldiers shot down in the attempt to rip down the NGF...I can't help but wonder how it didn't get any blood on it.
In regards to the tricolored flag, it could be argued, and has, that the independent minded Texans would reject such a flag since it was contrary to their interests....Seguin's Tejano's being the exception. But...as Mark points out, the Navarro drawing makes it hard to dismiss the two-star tricolor flag as one of the flags in question...if not the flag.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 1, 2007 11:08:25 GMT -5
While the 1824 Tricolor, has almost become regarded as a myth, it is important to note that it, too, flew over the Alamo, there's just no evidence of it flying over it in March.
The 1824 Tricolor, was the only flag authorized by the Texas Government, prior to its collapse. We know it was flown by the Texas Navy. Dimett's company also flew it for a time, as did Johnson and Grant. It is the probable flag that flew over the Alamo after Cos's surrender, until Johnson and Grant left Bexar for Goliad en route for South Texas and Matamoros.
Dimett, raised the Bloody Arm of Revolution Flag at Goliad, and this apparently caused a confrontation with Grant who was flying the 1824 Flag. When Dimett's Company left Goliad to reinforce Bexar it took a flag from Goliad with them. As the men had all already declared for Revolution vs the restoration of the Constitution of 1824, it would seem probable that the Bloody Red Arm Flag, although possibly the 1824 Flag, was carried to the Alamo.
Stephen Hardin believes that the Lone Star Stars and Stripes Flag, depicted in the 2004 movie as Houston's Flag at San Jacinto, was also flown over the Alamo, although I'm not clear on his evidence.
For a small garrison, there seems to have been an abundance of flags.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 1, 2007 11:21:28 GMT -5
Guys. The only problem I have with the New Orleans Greys flag (NGF) as the flag being torn down is that it appears to be undamaged. This is a bit surprising given the fact that it was made form silk...or so I read. And here's another thought. With several Mexican soldiers shot down in the attempt to rip down the NGF...I can't help but wonder how it didn't get any blood on it. In regards to the tricolored flag, it could be argued, and has, that the independent minded Texans would reject such a flag since it was contrary to their interests....Seguin's Tejano's being the exception. But...as Mark points out, the Navarro drawing makes it hard to dismiss the two-star tricolor flag as one of the flags in question...if not the flag. Stuart, I agree that it was most likely afixed to a pole and situated in a corner atop some building along the Long Barracks...no hard proof mind you, but just seems probable, given the physical reality of their options of where to put it. El Colorado, I'm no expert on textiles, but it is my understanding that silk when new is quite strong, and the fact that it was probably tied to the hoist, if there was one, or simply to a pole, makes it seem more likely that it wasn't ripped. This meaning that when pulled on really hard, it had a better chance of being pulled from it's tie-points, rather than having to be actually ripped from a grommet. As for the blood issue, my experience with such things in both the military and as a former federal investigator having done crime scenes many times is that blood goes where it wants to, not where we necessarily imagine it to go. This meaning that all kinds of violence can go on near to or around an object without it having much, if any blood transferred to it. It may, of course, but just not necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 1, 2007 12:43:02 GMT -5
I think we also need to distinguish between "a flag" and "the flag", because there were at least two if not three:
First there's the tricolor with the two stars. Although it doesn't survive we have good eyewitness testimony for it. It has been argued that it shouldn't/couldn't have been flown because the two stars represented the twin states of Coahuila and Texas which the garrison were fighting to separate. Perfectly true, but we've still got those witnesses and I've suggested on another thread, possibly in another galaxy far far away, that the two stars were actually symbolising the two races: American and Mexican united in a new state of Texas.
Secondly there's the New Orleans Greys flag. The reason for the lack of apparent damage will simply be down to the fact that it was attached to a light pole/staff intended to be carried, rather than a big heavy flagpole as was the case with the twin-starred tricolor. In siezing it there will have been no need to literally tear it down.
Thirdly, and often overlooked was a red white and blue tricolor with a white star on the red stripe next to the staff. This was carried by Captain Andrew Robertson's 'Harrisburg Volunteers' at the siege of Bexar and afterwards left in the Alamo. Creed Taylor remarks that to the best of his belief "fragments... were found in the ruins after the fall of the fortress".
I have my doubts by the way that Dimitt raised the "bloody arm" flag in his unsuccessful confrontation with Grant at Goliad. Reuben Brown describes what went up as the "flag of independence" rather than defiance. Arguably the two could be one and the same, but there was also, as it happens a blue flag at Goliad with a lone star and the word INDEPENDENCE, which sounds much more like the one Brown was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 2, 2007 15:57:36 GMT -5
Mark
You're right about the strength of silk...I should have remembered. Silk was used many years ago in the construction of parachutes and was also the material used in making bullet proof vests. So, yes...silk is some tough stuff.
What you, Herb, and Stuart have told me about the NGF being "tied" to a pole or staff makes perfect sense to me. Now, I understand why the flag would show no signs of damage. You guys are good.
Do you gentlemen suppose the New Orleans Greys positioned their flag atop the Convento because it was one of the taller structures or because they were posted in that area? Maybe both?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 2, 2007 19:51:18 GMT -5
Mark You're right about the strength of silk...I should have remembered. Silk was used many years ago in the construction of parachutes and was also the material used in making bullet proof vests. So, yes...silk is some tough stuff. What you, Herb, and Stuart have told me about the NGF being "tied" to a pole or staff makes perfect sense to me. Now, I understand why the flag would show no signs of damage. You guys are good. Do you gentlemen suppose the New Orleans Greys positioned their flag atop the Convento because it was one of the taller structures or because they were posted in that area? Maybe both? elcolorado, The Convento roof-top location is purely speculative, as far as I know. The Greys flag, which I feel quite sure would have been flown by these guys, could really have been mounted anywhere, but most likely was atop the walls at some point along the Long Barracks, because this building, especially the convento, was the highest point in the compound (except for the transepts of the church). This is where I chose to place the flag in my book, but I freely admit I have no hard evidence to place it there. Just common sense. Another factor may certainly be that it may have been placed in the vicinity of the asssigned area of the Greys, but the trouble is that we don't know where that was. Mark
|
|