|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 11, 2010 15:12:37 GMT -5
For anyone looking for a weekend escape March 27-28, you might want to consider a spin down to Goliad. Here's a link to what sounds like an event-filled commemoration of the massacre 174 years ago. presidiolabahia.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Mar 23, 2010 0:06:35 GMT -5
Which brings a question to mind...isn't there controversy regarding the Fannin portrait?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 23, 2010 9:03:55 GMT -5
I don't think there is any controversy - it aint Fannin :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Mar 23, 2010 16:08:57 GMT -5
So, like Bonham, there's no portrait from life taken of him? Just descriptions?
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 25, 2010 10:50:02 GMT -5
Alright Stuart, I'll bite... how do you know the portrait is not of Fannin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 27, 2010 0:03:30 GMT -5
Remembering the events of March 27, 1836 at Goliad...
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 27, 2010 11:39:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Mar 27, 2010 16:50:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 27, 2010 17:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 28, 2010 4:22:45 GMT -5
While since I've been digging into this one, but the basic problem is that the sitter appears to be wearing the uniform of an officer of the Army of the Republic of Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 29, 2010 13:08:20 GMT -5
Really, the ROT? I can clearly make out a US militia belt plate on his white buff belt, and it looks like eagles on his buttons and if I'm not mistaken there's a US flag in the deep background. Aside from that, the ROT infantry regs for undress are darn close to the US regs of the same period.
I had always understood it was painted by Samuel MOrse and I think he was a distant relative of Fannin's. Personally I have not seen any evidence that leads one to question the authenticity of this portrait. Maybe it is Fannin in his Georgia Militia uniform... or maybe it was just a portrait that surfaced and was lumped in with the other items believed to belong to Fannin. This portrait definitely has more potential than the images showing the "heroes" in uniforms with stars on the collars.
I would like to see more evidence presented to the contrary before we write this one off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 29, 2010 13:40:02 GMT -5
Really, the ROT? I can clearly make out a US militia belt plate on his white buff belt, and it looks like eagles on his buttons and if I'm not mistaken there's a US flag in the deep background. Aside from that, the ROT infantry regs for undress are darn close to the US regs of the same period. I had always understood it was painted by Samuel MOrse and I think he was a distant relative of Fannin's. Personally I have not seen any evidence that leads one to question the authenticity of this portrait. Maybe it is Fannin in his Georgia Militia uniform... or maybe it was just a portrait that surfaced and was lumped in with the other items believed to belong to Fannin. This portrait definitely has more potential than the images showing the "heroes" in uniforms with stars on the collars. I would like to see more evidence presented to the contrary before we write this one off. I already shared this with Scott and Wade, but thought I would go ahead and post: From Vol.67, No.1 July 1963 in the Texas Collection Section, pg 107 there is a note that through the generosity of Summerfiled G. Roberts and the efforts of the Dallas Historical Society, a major historic acquisition was placed on view recently at the Hall of State in Dallas. This display consisting of possessions of James Walker Fannin , obtained from the esate of Annetta Marie McCool, who died in December, 1961, and who was a distant relative of Fannin, Items acquired included the only known picture of Fannin,believed to have been painted by Samuel F.B.Morse. Other items displayed at the Hall of State were Fannin'watch, his sword, and leater sheath, epaulets from his uniform and a painting of a Fannin family member, Dr. Tomlinson Fort. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 29, 2010 15:45:42 GMT -5
Noted - but unconvinced. I've encountered too many artefacts and portraits "traditionally" identified with historical figures by relatives near and far; like 1828 pattern broadswords said to have been carried at Waterloo, and most spectacularly of late a letter which had Robert Burns scholars getting excited as it purported to be written by his widow. I won't trouble you with the gory details of how it was said to give a marvellous insight etc etc, just note that it was signed Jean Burns - innocuous enough says you until you appreciate that in Scotland wives retained their maiden name right up until the 1850s and that a genuine letter would have been signed Jean Armour.
But a relative had it handed down in the family...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 29, 2010 20:48:33 GMT -5
Noted - but unconvinced. I've encountered too many artefacts and portraits "traditionally" identified with historical figures by relatives near and far; like 1828 pattern broadswords said to have been carried at Waterloo, and most spectacularly of late a letter which had Robert Burns scholars getting excited as it purported to be written by his widow. I won't trouble you with the gory details of how it was said to give a marvellous insight etc etc, just note that it was signed Jean Burns - innocuous enough says you until you appreciate that in Scotland wives retained their maiden name right up until the 1850s and that a genuine letter would have been signed Jean Armour. But a relative had it handed down in the family... You have misunderstood my posting completly. It was not present as evidencd that the items were "the real thing" because they were aquired from a family member. It was to merely establish how and when the came to the Dallas Historical Society. I am very familar with the problems of family documentation...I don't know how many Trap Door Springfields I have been shown that Great Grand Pa carried in the Civil War. |
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 29, 2010 23:58:38 GMT -5
Stuart,
Let me ask you to be more to the point... WHAT exactly do you find in this painting that causes you to question it? The uniform is clearly not an ROT uniform unless you have some insight I am not privy to. Is there any solid evidence that causes you to so strongly denounce this portrait, or just your own "intuition"?
You made a bold comment and now inquiring minds are curious as to your reasons behind making the comment... I'm prying for your reasons!!! Thanks for humoring me...
|
|
