|
Post by TRK on May 4, 2009 20:57:00 GMT -5
Dang, I have a copy of the original Spanish San Luis Potosi daybook, but not the Zapadores'. Does Borroel provide the original Spanish text of the passage in question?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 4, 2009 22:06:06 GMT -5
Tom, No, he doesn't. I am assuming that he's translating directly from the original text, and providing a verbatim translation, as, when he wants to make a comment, he uses parentheses. Borroel has been instrumental in translating many Spanish language documents of the period, as you know. Most importantly, Borroel is a native Spanish speaker, so his command of the language is excellent. Mark
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on May 4, 2009 22:26:15 GMT -5
I don't doubt the NOG's colour could have been planted and flying somewhere and I don't think others here do either. The issue for me with the NOG's colour is it was not designed to "fly" hoisted on a flagpole as was alluded to in a roundabout way. I say kudos to you for coming up with this interesting tidbit.
My issue is this, the translations says the flag was ripped down... does the photo you insist we all use as a reference show any signs that the flag was ripped down?
This seems to answer some questions but it raises others...
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 4, 2009 23:07:32 GMT -5
Sorry to disagree, mustang, but I refer you back to the earlier posts in this thread, where, quite emphatically, the opinion was put forth by some that the flag was not flown, raised, or hoisted at the Alamo. Some said that it was fixed to an interior wall, or folded in a steamer trunk. The same source even put forth the opinion that I was defending its flying there because I had shown it that way in my book.....others even theorized that it wasn't even there at all. As to the matter of "signs that the flag was ripped down," the answer is quite simple. The flag probably had ties sewn in three or four places along the reinforced hoist edge.. As restored, it was given a new set of ties (as seen in the more recent, post-restoration photos), an indication that there were traces of the old ones remaining. So then, if the flag was torn from the staff, the ties would have given way at the point where they were fixed to the flag, tearing off at the point of connection, and not the flag itself. Remember, new silk is very strong, certainly stronger than cotton thread.
Also, the flag, as you point out, was not designed to have been hoisted (no grommets, etc) and was most likely fixed to a staff. Torres may have only pulled down the staff, and not torn anything on the flag at all:
"The brave Lt Jose M. Torres plants the battalion tri-colour flag upon the enemy's two-story quarters after ripping down the Texan's blue banner flag. "
Here are some key points. Torres is said to have "ripped down" the flag. This may mean he actually, literally ripped the flag from its staff, or simply pulled the flag, staff and all, down. Or, he may have torn two ties (there is evidence of tearing in two places in the B&W photo, along the hoist edge, in the upper half of the flag), as he was pulling down the entire staff. There are several possibilities.
Also, and very telling, Torres is not said to have hoisted his own (Mexican) flag, but simply "planted" it, which makes sense.
The quote is quite clear, and this seems to be the evidence that was said previously to be lacking. If Roger Borroel has translated the logbook entry accurately, or used primary source material to reconstruct it, then the matter is resolved for me. Mark
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 5, 2009 0:56:33 GMT -5
Going off on a tangent; this agrees, of course, (with more detail) with what DLP wrote, which is fine by me; but lurking in the back of my mind is a recollection that one of the arguments which the late Tom Lindley raised against the authenticity of the DLP diary was that young Torres was still alive and well after the battle.
I don't recall the details, but this Zapadores account, if authentic, would obviously demolish that argument.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 5, 2009 9:26:53 GMT -5
I am going to contact Borroel ( I think I have his email address somewhere) to get confirmation of the quotation. He is known as an accurate translator, but it never hurts to double check.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 6, 2009 10:55:33 GMT -5
I am going to contact Borroel ( I think I have his email address somewhere) to get confirmation of the quotation. He is known as an accurate translator, but it never hurts to double check. Mark, be careful, here. Roger has found a lot of source material that has been overlooked, missed or ignored, but his translations haven't always been the "best". IF you can get a copy of the original account, it would be of extreme value, to have somebody else independently translate it. I can't commit, TRK, but if he's willing I'd trust his work!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 6, 2009 11:50:18 GMT -5
I am going to contact Borroel ( I think I have his email address somewhere) to get confirmation of the quotation. He is known as an accurate translator, but it never hurts to double check. Mark, be careful, here. Roger has found a lot of source material that has been overlooked, missed or ignored, but his translations haven't always been the "best". IF you can get a copy of the original account, it would be of extreme value, to have somebody else independently translate it. I can't commit, TRK, but if he's willing I'd trust his work! I will tend to agree with above statement. One thing that stuck out to me was the wording plants the battalion tri-colour flag upon the enemy's two-story quarters Beyond the discussion that this would tend to suggest the long barrack, why is a Mexican account making a point about their battalion flag being a tri-colour? I guess the argument could be made that we would sometimes say, that the stars and stripes were hoisted but in general one would just say that the battalion colours were planted. As to the Torres issue: Check the original Campo Santo records at the Catholic Archives in San Antonio. Do not use the translations done by Leal, but rather look at the micro film of the originals. I have the typescript that was included with them (done by someone else) and Torres is on them for 6th March, but a check of the handwritten original would be help decieded that matter. All that said, this new accouning could be a significant piece of the puzzle. Any idea where the original came from?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 6, 2009 17:34:38 GMT -5
I can't speak to Mr. Borroel's translations as I don't speak Spanish myself. Most of his translation work is highly regarded. I'm grateful he's spent so much time trying to uncover these long-ignored Mexican sources, and I wish more people would jump on the bandwagon. I do, however, disagree with a lot of his conclusions, specifically regarding the Alamo battle. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 6, 2009 21:48:48 GMT -5
It seems that what Roger has done is to make a "composite" log book, based on various , but good, sources. Not that that's a bad thing, what he has done took a lot of work, and it reads well. It was my error to misread his document, which does say that it was derived from different sources. I still think that it presents a compelling case, however. Not so sure about the church being the location of the NOG flag (as he now thinks). I rather believe that the term "iglesia" may have been used sort of generically, as referring to the mission itself , so that when one says the "highest part of the church" he really means "the highest part of the mission." But I don't know.... What follows are pertinent portions of his correspondence:
"....The sentence fragment, "blue banner/flag" is in the original manuscript/ entry, if you will, noted down after the battle. What follows are the original sources. Please be advised that this might be a two-email reply; I would like to get down to details in order to answer your question properly and fully. Later research has revealed that the NOG flag was not atop the convento, but the highest point of the, "iglesia", i.e., the church! But this data came too late for me to notice/realize it, in order to rectify/update my text. As stated in my Introduction to the logbook, on p. iii, I wrote the following: "The data for the Zapadores unit was gathered from a number of sources: the de la Pena papers; General Urrea's military diary...from the Spanish language work of General Miguel A. Sanchez Lamego, "History of the Zapadores Battalion, Vol. I, "Chapters X & XI translated for this work by the author(me)." Now these chapters were given to me back in the 1990s from a Canadian source, and are in bad copy form; the left side edge of the book print was spotty, or just dots. Hence a few words on the left side are illegible. Hence, I was not able to translate the whole sentence. I point this out because this observational fact will become apparent in a little bit. Plus, there is another important source not mentioned in my text, but it seems to be where the bulk of the data is located at/from. Here it is: "Historical Flags of the National Museum", by Gen. Juan Manuel Torrea. Published in Volume VIII, No. 1, Epoca 4a, corresponding from January to March of the Annals of the National Museum of Archaeology, History and Ethnology, Mexico, 1933, pp 81, 82 and 83. So you see, I only gathered the MS, and then translated them, and had them published. The most I did was compiling them all together in one text for the benefit of the reader. I will continue with your question, is the blue flag specifically mentioned in original sources? In my last email, my answer to your question is that the March 6th entry is a composite of the cited original sources, and therefore, not one iota of data there is mine. Now for the NOG flag issue. From the Historical Flag text by Gen. Juan Torrea, dated 1933. From the research of this general, and based on it, for he must have read the original papers of the Zapadores battalion, he writes, first in Spanish, after naming the the battalions of Jimenez & San Luis, he writes, "y estas fueron las tropas lanzadas en raudo torbellino para tomar el fuerte por el lugar en que flameaba la bandera azul[blue flag] de los Voluntarios." My translation: These were the troops that forced their way through the confusion of the battle to get to the location of the fort where the blue flag was flying." In the same text he writes the following, again, first in Spanish: "Esta bandera-la azul[blue] quitada a los texanos-se conserva en nuestro Museo Nacional." My translation: This flag-the blue one of the Texans-is preserved in our National Museum." His last statement in his work citing the color of the NOG flag is this: Al avistarse las tropas Mexicanas, fue colocada en lo mas alto del fuerte del Alamo la bandera de los defensores, de color azul celeste que llevaba la siguiete inscripcion: "First Company of Texas Volunteers-God and Liberty-from New Orleans." My translation, a better translation, not updated in my works yet: "In sight of the Mexican troops, there was in place, at the highest part of the Alamo fort, the flag of the defenders. It was sky blue and it carried the written inscription: "First Company of Volunteers-God and Liberty-From New Orleans." So this General must have gotten all these details from the papers of the Zapadores battalion which, as one supposes, he easily got hold of, being a general at the time. Mark, please note the fact that the NOG was flying at the highest point of the, "Alamo fort" as stated by the general, and hopefully the original documents. This point will become relevant soon. It's been awhile since I've read all of this. From the 1943 text of Gen. Lamego, who BTW wrote of De la Pena at this time, proving that de la Pena's works WERE known before the Mexican publication of his journal in 1955 by J. Sanchez Garza. Gen. Lamego MUST have had accessed to the original Zapadores documents, and more so since he goes into more detail, VERY, RELEVANT detail I may add, and should solve any questions on the NOG blue banner and what part it played in the battle. It's as good as it gets. Now for some needed, intelligent speculations at this point. Was the banner in a quarter/room in the Alamo compound, or was it flying? Was it ripped down, or just taken down? And WHERE WAS IT during the battle? Mark, as I have stated, I have not looked at this material for a long time nor studied it, but the answers were right under MY nose all the time! At the time, these questions about the NOG flag was not important to me, nor was I interested in it, I quess because it never became a topic till now, with your question. At this point in this answer of mine, there is no doubt whatsoever, it was taken from the Alamo, all reliable Mexican sources point to it. There should be no more speculation on this part of the Alamo saga. Now for Lamego's narration based on the Zapadores sources he consulted. Please be advised that all the following data is on p. 177, a copy that I will mail to you. Notice in the March 6 entry, I stated in parentheses, "40 minutos de combate", however, as I look at the MS, it really says, "solo 40 minutes de combate". My translation, "only 40 minutes of combat". Remember, the left side of this page is illegible down the whole page, as you will soon see for yourself. My answer will now center on the capture of the NOG flag where two paragraphs are devoted to it. There will be blanks spaces because of the left side being illegible. Now this part I choose not to insert in the text, but at the time I saw no importance as I've stated before. Only that Jose Torres ripped down the NOG flag. Here is my translation of this event, based on Lamego's book and Zapadores source material: "But there is still more. The personnel from the Jemenez battalion attempted to take the blue Texan flag which fluttered [Sp. word, ondeaba: to ripple/flutter] on the mast/flagpole [Sp. word, mastil, meaning: 1~mast 2~flagpole; see Sp. dictionary] that was placed at the highest part of the church [iglesia in ms] and without able to achieve it....interior of the fort, sub-lieutenant of the Zapadores battalion, Jose Torres desired to carry out the feat that was attempted by those other brave [men], and with a firm conviction he made for the church after....[I think "deaths" only "m...tos" shows clearly] and exposing himself to a barbarity, he was able to knock down [Sp. word, abatir to knock/bring/strike down as with a flag] the flag.....put in its place the tricolor banner of his battalion." Next paragraph: "This brave exploit cost him his life since he was seriously wounded....but a little time afterwards the captured of the fortified work......handing to his posterity a brillant and glorious...." From this, we can surmise that the flag was flying, and not in a room of the Alamo compound; that it was a blue flag that was captured by the Mexicans; that it was ripped or knocked from OFF its mast/flagpole; and now we know that it was flying at the highest part of the church, the world famous Alamo church! Before this, I always thought it was atop the convento; it was really flying from the highest point of the church. Lemego MUST have read a Zapadores document that states this important fact. Too bad I don't have the rest of this work so I could see his bibliography; I would have gotten it by now! Some more later, time for a rest. But all of this material should stop needless speculations on this matter."
Mark
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on May 7, 2009 9:51:46 GMT -5
So some of what this gentleman is going off of is what somebody else "must have" looked at years and years ago... hmmmm.
Well, I'm pleased with at least one part, it seems the flag itself was not ripped down but was knocked down or pulled down flag and staff together as would be consistent with a unit standard attached to a flagstaff by a sleeve(which to me is clearly visible in the photo posted here). Cool... ;D
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 7, 2009 14:19:43 GMT -5
I agree with Scott; its problematic and needs to be used with care. Unlike the late TRL I'm not going to denounce it all as a fake, because there is obviously some good stuff in amongst the chaff, we just need to sift it.
I'm happy with the proposition that the General obviously had access to sources which aren't currently in the public domain; I'm just wary of taking everything he wrote as Gospel when he paraphrases or interprets rather than quotes directly. Too much can go wrong here, not through any intent to deceive but rather in trying to helpfully exlain. The reference to the church is the obvious case in point. I don't have a problem with the translation of the General's words to read church - but did the original source actually say church or merely content itself with a high/highest point, which the general "knowing" the church to be the highest point (was it?) inserted the reference to the church by way of clarification?
Did he do that or did he transcribe the reference verbatim? We don't know and that's why although happy with the generality of Roger's narrative, I'm cautious on the detail.
In particular I'm not happy with the reference to the blue flag because it seems very much to me that it is the General describing the blue flag not his original source. ie; he has a document or documents which describe the Zapadores taking a flag and as the very same flag is sitting in front of him in the museum he naturally describes it as a blue flag, with the inscription which he is looking at.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 7, 2009 15:06:01 GMT -5
I agree with Scott; its problematic and needs to be used with care. Unlike the late TRL I'm not going to denounce it all as a fake, because there is obviously some good stuff in amongst the chaff, we just need to sift it. I'm happy with the proposition that the General obviously had access to sources which aren't currently in the public domain; I'm just wary of taking everything he wrote as Gospel when he paraphrases or interprets rather than quotes directly. Too much can go wrong here, not through any intent to deceive but rather in trying to helpfully exlain. The reference to the church is the obvious case in point. I don't have a problem with the translation of the General's words to read church - but did the original source actually say church or merely content itself with a high/highest point, which the general "knowing" the church to be the highest point (was it?) inserted the reference to the church by way of clarification? Did he do that or did he transcribe the reference verbatim? We don't know and that's why although happy with the generality of Roger's narrative, I'm cautious on the detail. In particular I'm not happy with the reference to the blue flag because it seems very much to me that it is the General describing the blue flag not his original source. ie; he has a document or documents which describe the Zapadores taking a flag and as the very same flag is sitting in front of him in the museum he naturally describes it as a blue flag, with the inscription which he is looking at. I concur with Stuart. There was never doubt in my mind that the Alamo flag was atop the church, but none of the above related information nails anything on the head concerning the Greys flag being hoisted there. There is something strangely out of joint with Borroel's summary: it does not sound right. It appears that these particular Mexican historians of the 20th century were ASSUMING that the flag taken down was the same one preserved in their museum. Inserting "blue banner" etc. here and there amidst the fragments of 19th century documentation to explain the flag's makeup is a natural assumption, but unless there is solid proof---viz., photographs or direct transcripts of the actual post-battle documents confirming that it WAS the Greys flag---then it's deja vu all over again, and we are back to phase one.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 7, 2009 15:35:29 GMT -5
To add some more food for thought here: Sanchez-Lamego wrote, regarding Walter Lord's account of the supposed seizure of the Greys flag: "it was written in a free translation in concept. It contains some mistakes which are excusable because of terms foreign to the writer, and also because he had bad information." [!]
Lamego also notes, in a footnote that the "whole excitement did not happen around the blue flag from New Orleans, but around Travis' battle flag which he had bought {for $5) and taken with him to the Alamo, namely the Tri-Color with 1824." (pp. 38-39).
So confusion is rampant, even among the Mexican scholars.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 7, 2009 16:13:10 GMT -5
Lamego is a very, very problematic source, and I personally wouldn't use his book as a reference for anything significant, as it contains so many blatant errors and contradictions. Here are but just a few:
1. He cites a gun platform "midway (along the west wall), a platform had been constructed for another piece of artillery firing westward over the roof(!) of the old Mission (sounds like he got this from Potter)."
2.He places the Alameda incorrectly to the west of the Alamo.
3. He states that the "First Company of Volunteers of New Orleans joined with the Company of Tennessee."
4. He names the Alamo commander as "John Barret Travis." He then immediately follows this mistake with Travis' letter, signed with the correct name(!) He did, however, get his rank correct.
5. He states that "an hour after the assault began" the Mexicans were still outside the walls.
6. He states that the Mexicans were repulsed "many" times.
7.He states that the battle ended "by 8:00A.M."
What's worse, he states, in his own text, that "the troops of the Permanent battalion, Jimenez....tried to strike a blue flag which waved from a pole placed on the roof of the two storied building known as the Quartel (The Quarters)." And then footnotes himself, refuting what he had just written. Confusing? Just a bit....He may have been referencing Gen'l Torrea's data, but it is not in quotes anywhere, and anyway.... why not present your theory in the main body of the text, and leave the questionable source material in the footnotes, with why you disagree with it?
ML
|
|