|
Post by garyzaboly on May 7, 2009 16:20:59 GMT -5
I am no proponent of Lamego as an historian: he also claims that the Alamo flag was the one Travis purchased. Yet quoting him proved my point: the Mexican scholars themselves could not agree on the facts. Nor am I "cherry picking." But it seems to me that a sober look at Borroel's conclusions reveals that he is offering nothing but what 20th century Mexican historians ASSUMED the said documents were referring to---namely, the Greys flag. WHERE is the 1830s Mexican data to say that this was what was pulled down from the flagpole? To paraphrase a line from the movies, "Show me the evidence!" Then we'll cherry-pick.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 7, 2009 16:25:57 GMT -5
It does seem that Lamego is using data he gleaned from General Torrea as whole blocks of text in his book, and then goes on to disagree with Torrea's conclusions in a footnote. Why he should do this is unclear, as Torrea no doubt had easy access to whatever documentation he wished to see. It really would have been helpful if both Lamego and Torrea listed their specific sources for their own particular beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on May 7, 2009 16:28:39 GMT -5
"Lamego is a very, very problematic source, and I personally wouldn't use his book as a reference, as it contains so many blatant errors." Mark, Isn't Borrel using Lamego as a reference or did I misread him? I can easily see where Borrel is jumping to conclusions at least in regard to the whole episode of Torres capturing the NOG's/blue banner. Borrel says the translation reads Torres knocked down or struck the color/banner in question. He then turns around and says Torres took the color/banner OFF of the flagpole... that's not what the translation he offers a few sentences before says! It says he knocked down or struck the color... Personally I'm tired of this and more than disgusted with the discussion. Unless my feeble will power fails me I won't post anything else here adding fuel to this now ridiculous argument/discussion.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 7, 2009 16:45:18 GMT -5
Yes, he says he uses the "Spanish language work of General Miguel A. Sanchez Lamego," among other sources. Not sure what he means there. Instead of speaking for him, I'd prefer to get Roger to come to this site, and explain his methodology himself, as I'm sure he can do a better job of it that I can. The bottom line is that, undoubtedly, there are Battalion logbooks/day-books extant in Mexico City in the National Museum. General Torrea would have, by nature of his rank, been granted free access to them. NOW, whether he took advantage of that access, or just made something up, is the question. If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd defer to the general's word. This is, however, far from conclusive, I freely admit. Mark
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 7, 2009 18:36:19 GMT -5
This is frustrating on so many levels..... First, I need to say that, more than anyone else, I have had some bitter words with Roger in the past, namely on the old film forum site. But that being said, Roger is not at fault here.... I am. It was I who carelessly misread his text, and thought that he was utilizing a single source, when, if I had merely slowed down and carefully read the whole block of text, I would have seen that he freely admits that his "Iteneraries of the Zapadores and San Luis battalions During the Texas War of 1836" was a careful compilation of a number of sources, including the one by General Torrea. I still strongly believe that he (Genl Torrea) was granted free access to the National Museum archives when compiling his explanatory texts for the flags in the museum. MY strong opinion is that, unless we are prepared to make the charge that Torrea just made up his description of the New Orleans Greys flag and the circumstances of it's capture, then we should, by default, give the general the benefit of the doubt, unless and until his account can be proved a falsehood. After all, his (1933) account remains the "best evidence" at this time...... In addition, there is another account from a source in Canada (strange, I know) of the Zapadores Battalion which also follows that of Torrea. This account is being mailed to me by Roger, and as soon as I get it, I'll post it here. But my main point is that it is not fair to bash Roger, as he did nothing "under the table." It was all above board, and I applaud him for trying to compile the available data in one volume. A careful perusal of his writings on this issue reveals a very good faith effort.
The last thing I need to throw out there, is that the most infuriating thing is the unwillingness of the Mexican government to open their archives for serious researchers who, in their labors, would surely uncover details of great valor on the Mexican soldiers, and then go on to write about it, all of which which would seem to fulfill their goals....just makes you crazy... Mark
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on May 7, 2009 18:38:51 GMT -5
Just as a point of information, and if it has not already been mentioned check the footnotes on page 722 of Hanson. This is more or less the article published in Frontier Times.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 7, 2009 19:28:12 GMT -5
This is a bit confusing: this is not a hard book to locate: the Benson Library has a copy (from which Tom Lindley made copies and I myself made copies). Why not track down a copy to correct the problem before you publish it?
As I see it, this regardless when an where, this is all boiling down to at best secondary sources. If there is more material in the Mexican Military Archives perhaps a primary source could be found.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 7, 2009 19:55:52 GMT -5
That would be really interesting. I never had a problem with him, but you're not the only one. Borreal certainly had his vociferous opinions. I kind of miss the old bird.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 8, 2009 1:10:38 GMT -5
While I'll be more than happy to see Roger here, the problem as I explained above isn't with Roger's tanslation/interpretation but with what Torrea wrote. There's no reason to doubt that he was using sources not available to us; the trouble is that he doesn't appear to be quoting them verbatim and his references/descriptions of the blue flag do very much read as if he is describing the flag which he could see in the museum rather than quoting the documentation.
He may indeed have been describing the very flag which Torres captured but until the original document turns up we can't automatically assume that his description was lifted from the source rather than the evidence of his own eyes
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 8, 2009 9:50:51 GMT -5
The following is a response from Roger, which he asked me to post for him:
"........ There's just a few points that I wish to address here on the many posts in regard to my translation of small parts of the texts of Generals Lamego and Torrea. Be advise, that ONLY the Zapadores account is a compilation of original sources, NOT the San Luis Logbook. ~~~First of all, in regard to Lamego, I did not know about him(or his texts) and his comment on de la Pena till late in the 90s, when I received a copy of those two cited chapters from a fellow Canadian Alamodian. And what is equally important, I did not know that the whole text was located at a University library in Texas at the time. Hence, I only had what was send to me when I form my work. ~~~~~Secondly, Mr. Groneman states that he does not trust my translations. Fair enough. Many people today don't trust the many different Biblical translations in existence. However, he also doesn't trust any of de la Pena's papers, therefore I'm in excellent company. BTW, many people don't trust his outdated work, Defense of a Legend anymore. Fair enough. When one publishes, expect public criticism, it's the nature of the game. ~~~~~~Back to Lamego; there was an interesting post on Lord's account of Jose Torres and the NOG flag, and the poster stated that even historians(Lamego) can be wrong. However, in regard to Lord's account, Lamego was NOT wrong. It is Lord who misunderstood the original sources, and got them wrong/mixed-up in his outdated text. For Lamego states in a footnote: "Lord's account was written in a free translation in concept." What this means is that Lord as a professional writer had the liberty to play loose with the sources to make the account interesting to the reader. For example, he writes, "As the battle raged in the plaza", or "the angry eagle of Centralist Mexico", all designed to make the account come alive. All authors do this. HOWEVER, Lamego further writes that Lord made, "mistakes", foremost being that he wrote, that, Lt. Damaso Martinez was killed beside Torres. If Lord had done HIS research correctly, he would have found out that Lt. Martinez DID NOT GET KILLED at the Alamo, in fact he was still alive and on duty in the Zapadores battalion as late as August of 1840, when he co-signed an order for the authorization of combat medals for the troops who took part in the Alamo battle. I know this fact because I translated this document. Furthermore, his name appears on many Mexcian official documents in the late 1830s, esp. 1839.~~~~~~Finally, it seems that some posters want to see and examine the original documents in order to believe anything. Which means that any book they have ever read, they really don't believe its contents simply because they have not examine the original documents personally, that are the basis of the book they have read. This is just a clever tactic in order to discredit a work they just don't happen to like, nor want to believe. Well, sir, if they REALLY mean what they say, then THEY should go down to Mexico City and get the originals in order to be satisfied of any translations. Mark, please post this reply to the two sites for I think this will clear some things up, but if not.......................LOL!
Roger Borroel
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 8, 2009 15:11:04 GMT -5
Ah, vintage Roger... not helped by references to postings on another site.
On the whole its fair comment right down to the last para. I don't know what's been said elsewhere but the fact remains that notwithstanding the access Lamego and Torrea may have had to sources in Mexico City; Roger is essentially translating secondary sources and that's important when it comes to this business of the flag because one of those sources is unquestionably the flag itself and without seeing the originals or verbatim transcriptions of the originals we can't know the degree to which they verify each other - or don't. There's no getting away from that.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 8, 2009 16:07:11 GMT -5
I cannot strongly disagree with you on this Stuart, except in our differing evaluation of the Torrea information. I'll repeat an excerpted portion of one of my earlier posts:
"I still strongly believe that he (Genl Torrea) was granted free access to the National Museum archives when compiling his explanatory texts for the flags in the museum. MY strong opinion is that, unless we are prepared to make the charge that Torrea just made up his description of the New Orleans Greys flag and the circumstances of it's capture, then we should, by default, give the general the benefit of the doubt, unless and until his account can be proved a falsehood. After all, his (1933) account remains the "best evidence" at this time......"
That last bit is really the key here. It is the closest thing we now have to what is legally called "best evidence," unless (and until) access can somehow miraculously be granted to some researcher, be he American or Mexican, to the archives in the National Museum in Mexico City.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 9, 2009 1:57:11 GMT -5
As ever Mark we're so very close, but not just quite.
It is very good evidence, but only up to a point. I'm happy that Torrea picked up the account of the fight for the flag from a contemporary source of some kind and I'm willing to admit the possibility that the same source provided an at least partial description of the flag.
The problem is that Torrea is also describing a flag which he himself was clearly looking at and therefore as he doesn't provide a verbatim extract we don't know how much (if any) of that description comes from his contemporary source and how much from his own observation.
Yes, I'm comfortable with his account of how Torres captured the flag, but did the original say it was a blue one or did Torrea interpolate that because he knew it to be so?
Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 9, 2009 4:28:24 GMT -5
Your point is taken, Stuart, and I don't disagree, and I certainly don't like that we are so close, but....not quite. I must only reiterate that what we have, at present, is the "best evidence," until someone hits pay dirt and is granted access to the Mexican archives. One day, I feel certain, this will happen, and we'll all have our eyes opened. As an investigator professionally, I'd look first to General Torrea's family, to see if he left behind any notes or documents which may shed light on his work for the Museum. That is a good lead, in my opinion, but not good enough to get me to go to Mexico, as it is quite a treacherous place in which to travel nowadays. Mark
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 9, 2009 6:33:02 GMT -5
By example of wishful thinking re: Alamo flags. Recently I pointed out to Kevin Young that in that photograph he posted of the flags in the old Artillery room that there are plenty of smaller regimental-sized flags and only one huge flag that seems to be a tricolor. It's so big that it has been draped into a curving position below: obviously at least a garrison-sized flag.
Kevin cautioned that it could easily be a captured French flag, which makes sense.
Still, any detailed Mexican inventory/history of that flag collection BEFORE a number of the flags were destroyed in the early twentieth century would go a long way towards settling a few issues, if not all.
Also, one crucially important point here: I've gone back and researched many many many many documents that other historians had SUPPOSEDLY already studied and sourced and even quoted from, and have often found that they were wrongly quoted, or that information was actually invented (!), or that much damaging evidence (especially if the author was writing a hagiography) had been deliberately left out. Such egregious dissembling is the mark of either a liar, a coward---in terms of the reality of the history being considered---or, more kindly, just someone plainly dim. So if someone asks, don't you trust IMPLICITLY the historians and researchers who came before me? All I can say is, "Are you kidding?"
|
|