|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2009 9:06:40 GMT -5
I wonder if we can really say that just because Sanchez-Navarro drew the twin star flag it was really THE flag flying at the time of the siege? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't... one thing I think is certain is the NOG's flag was not "flying" above the walls or at least on a proper flagpole since the pictures of it show no grommets or eyelets to secure it with. The NOG's flag is a unit standard and is designed to be attached to a staff and in the picture of it in A Time to Stand there appears to be a sleeve on the hoist for just such an attachment. I know I saw another picture of it somewhere that wasn't as cropped and showed more of the hoist area but I can't remember where. The star and stripes flag seems to have been around and somewhat the "unofficial" flag of Texas at that time. It seems to me this would have been Travis' choice if he'd had one but that's a big IF. In the end, all we really know is Sanchez-Navarro illustrated the twin star flag and the NOG's standard was shipped back to Mexico as a trophy. As to whether or not we should get it back... I certainly don't want to give up the Mexican standards taken at San Jacinto and I don't think the Mexican government should give us back the NOG's standard either! Mustanggray, Your objection to the New Orleans greys flag not having grommets or eyelets is a commonly heard one, but in no way prevents it from having been flown. It has four sets of ties with which to tie it to a staff. Look through "Texas Flags" by Maberry, and it is full of flags, all meant to be flown, with ties, and very few, if any, with eyelets or grommets. I do concur with your thought on the star and stripe flag, for reasons previously stated. MHL
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2009 9:25:03 GMT -5
Stuart wrote: ".... The Greys' flag on the other hand is silk, its intended to be carried in parades, if not into battle, but certainly not for flying atop a building. I have seen silk flags treated thus at re-enactments and if left in a wind for more than and hour or two they will tear themselves apart. There's no doubt of course that it was found in the Alamo, but not flying over it."
Stuart, This would come as a big surprise to hundreds of Civil War regiments, all of which had large flags, flown in combat, all made of silk. Silk is surprisingly strong, and this is a well-known characteristic. The flags were not made of silk because they were prettier that way, but because they were in the long run, stronger and more durable than cotton . Why did the South, which had an abundance of cotton, and much less silk, make their flags out of silk? Because it is stronger. The proof is in the pudding: hundreds of these flags survive today, and a lot of them, for many, many years, some until the mid 20th century, were simply hanging on poles with no temperature controlled environment. And remember that many products have historically been made of silk, all of which testify to its strength. Until roughly the WW1 period, bulletproof vests were made of silk, as well as parachutes, for many, many years. Silk is one of nature's strongest natural fibers. I cannot speak to the silk flags you refer to, as having "torn themselves apart" in only a few hours, other than to suggest that they may have been of inferior quality or construction, not actually made of silk, or there was a hurricane going on at the time! All kidding aside, though, silk was a good material for flags because it was strong, as well as beautiful. MHL
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2009 9:27:12 GMT -5
garyzaboly wrote: "..I think the evidence for the two-flag tricolor being the only flag flying over the Alamo is more than compelling: we have Sanchez-Navarro's drawing of the fort as seen from the west. What details did he add?---in his rather horrendous draftsmanship he added the most important ones, from the tall pecan tree, to the acequia, to the places of ingress into the west wall, etc. (which critically relate to his Plano in terms of Cos' points of entry). And above the church, standing very large, very visible, is THAT FLAG. There is no other flag in view. This is not a speculation: it's the only eyewitness drawing of the fort made depticting its condition during the siege. That the flag corresponds precisely and inaruably with Colonel Almonte's journal description of the Texians' flag briefly raised in Military Plaza on February 23 as "a tricolor with two stars, designed to represent Coahuila and Texas," is more than compelling evidence: it is concrete evidence...."
No argument here... I said basically the same thing. I just feel that we cannot be certain that at some point, probably earlier in the siege when everyone's blood was up, the Grey's flag was not, if perhaps only temporarily, hoisted. Not saying it's sure, or even probable. Only a likely possibility. With this in mind, I elected to show the only two flags known to be at the Alamo during the siege. Whether they both were flying, or both flying for "X" amount of time, we just don't know...Yet. Also, a minor point, while it probably is the most likely place for it to have occurred, Almonte does not say from where the two-star flag was hoisted in Bexar. The Military plaza is only the probable location for this. Again, Sanchez-Navarro's precise detail of the two-star flag is compelling (I'll stick with that word), but it does not necessarily cover a varying condition on a different day. Still, I agree that it is the overwhelming choice when we have no other contradicting data. MHL
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 30, 2009 10:19:11 GMT -5
Courtesy trk:
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 30, 2009 12:45:10 GMT -5
Mark, I'm well aware of the qualities of silk, but we're talking about different uses.
Unit flags were made of silk because they were lightweight and would "fly" in a light breeze. A lot of them have survived because they were treated with proper reverence but we have plenty of actual examples and an abundance of written and visual testimony to the way they got tattered in use, and often very badly tattered in use. And moreover while a lot of emphasis was given to "shot-torn" flags, a lot of that damage isn't attributable to enemy action, but to wind, rain and other "natural" factors.
Now as to flags flying over structures, military or otherwise; they tend to be bigger and made of stuff like bunting which stands up to weather better. And just as infantry colours can be rolled up and placed inside an oilskin cover for protection against the elements, so structure flags (for want of a better term) - and Naval flags come to that, can be lowered at nightfall, which is why they need some means of fixing them not to a pole, but to a halyard for hoisting and lowering.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 30, 2009 12:48:32 GMT -5
Mr. Lemon,
I have no doubt it could be attached to a staff with the ties(thought I'd seen them before but couldn't find the image) or the sleeve. What I am saying is the way that flag is configured prevents it from being flown from a flagpole which is different than a staff. The NOG's standard was not made nor intended to be flown as a garrison color from a flagpole. While not some set in stone historic fact I feel that the garrison would have objected to serving under a unit standard such as the one in question... I would under similar circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Mar 30, 2009 12:59:50 GMT -5
I agree with Stuart in regards to silk vs. bunting. From the research I've done, the articles I've read and actual firsthand experience with silk colors, a silk flag will, does and did tear apart pretty quickly when left unfurled in real winds. I'm talking about handsewn flags with devices painted in oils and decorative leafing which is also another point at which they'll tear or as some have put it "rot", around the edge of the painting. If I remember correctly there is somethign in the early US regs regarding not unfurling your colors in high winds... they knew better than to do that from experience.
I've not researched garrison colors in depth but I've never heard of one being made of silk... they always seem to be made of bunting and I've always thought that was due to the sturdiness of the material.
What I find interesting is the lithograph(first saw it in Maberry's book) of captured colors. The Fayette Co. Volunteers on the red over white Texas flag, the Galveston Invincibles color and the NOG's flag all in the same place with what appears to be some other unit standards from the MAW... a very cool collection! We have the Ross Texas flag here in our park that has been featuered in so many publications, kind of neat to be able to go look at it on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 30, 2009 13:31:17 GMT -5
Mustang--
Refresh my poor memory...but did not the silk flag of the Georgia Volunteers get torn to shreds at Goliad after they hoisted it to celebrate Texas independence?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Mar 30, 2009 13:42:53 GMT -5
I had also elected to place the Greys flag over the long barracks complex in my 1993 compound drawing in TEXIAN ILIAD...and I can only blame Walter Lord and Sanchez Lamego for misguiding me. An intriguing thing about the Greys flag---especially if it was supposedly flying over the walls on March 6, 1836---is that there are no bullet holes, at least to my eye when scrutinizing the best photographs. Some might say that perhaps that was just pure "luck"...that bullets simply missed it. But if so, how do we deal with the fact that the Greys had also spent days fighting Mexicans in the streets of San Antonio in 1835, with bullets flying from every direction? That would have made the flag's luck even more fantastic. So more and more things seem to suggest that the flag had been safely kept indoors during the Feb.-March siege as well, and that during the 1835 battle it had been kept largely out of harm's way. If it was taken out briefly to make a statement to Santa Anna's besiegers, that's a different, and not improbable situation. But military tradition, especially in the British Army at least as far back as Bland's Treatise, stipulates that regimental "colours" in garrsion are to be kept in the commanding officer's room---that is, the highest ranking officer of the regiment: a tradition that is still adhered too. To further counter the argument that violently independence-minded Texians would never have raised any flag with the Mexican colors on it---that is, green, white, and red---there is a letter that describes the flag of one armed Texas schooner in May 1836---almost a month after San Jacinto---still flying "the Texian flag of 1824." To paraphrase what Arthur Hunnicutt says in "The Last Command," "it appears there's a whole lot of flags around here!"
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2009 13:46:32 GMT -5
People seem to be attributing to me positions I am not taking.... I have never said that the NOG flag was THE flag of the garrison, or was ever designed or made for garrison use. All I am saying is that it could have been, however temporarily, raised (OK, I wont use the term "hoisted" as it infers a specific method) on a pole, or staff, over a part of the mission by the Greys. I stress "could have been"... And it certainly would be within keeping with the unit's pride and motivation do do so, however briefly. My interpretation of the NOG flag, after having closely studied the older photos of the flag before it's severe deterioration, is that there are, in fact, several smallish holes in the flag which may or may not be from projectiles, but there are definitely several ares of what appears to be blood, or a substance consistent with blood. Look at the area immediately above and to the left of the letter "C" in "Company." It is a stain from a substance which struck the flag, and then ran downwards until it stopped. Also, a drop below the same letter, as well as a drop below and to the right of the "p" in Company" The largest area of staining is near the left edge, between the fringe, and the letter "F" in the word "First," where there appears to be 9 or 10 smaller spots surrounding a larger grouping of spots which make a single, larger spot. Now, I understand that these stains could have some other origin, but it is intriguing to say the least, that this flag, which was supposedly safely ensconced in a trunk, or hanging on the wall of some NOG officer, should have what looks an awful lot like blood stains. MHL
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Mar 30, 2009 13:55:45 GMT -5
PS...(and yes, hi Stuart, good to see you carrying the banner, as it were)...the main source for the Coahuila y Tejas attribution for the two-starred tricolor is Almonte's journal entry of February 23. How did he know this is what it represented? No doubt the friendly Bexarenos told him, if he hadn't already heard of such a flag. So, coupling this with Sanchez-Navarro's drawing, it's pretty convincing evidence that it was the flag flying over the Alamo from Day One. What happened to it? God only knows...torn to shreds by the fired-up soldados...lost in transport...perhaps even burned with the Texian bodies...stolen?...one man's guess, in this case at least, is as good as the next one's.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Mar 30, 2009 14:13:50 GMT -5
The first color reproduction of the Greys flag, in American Heritage's "History of the Great West," published in 1965 (p. 173), is very sharp and vivid in its colors. There are no red or brown stains on it. The predominant coloration is the blue of the lettering and the fading blue-grey of the field itself. We can hope to look for things it might show in other reprodcutions, but this early one speaks volumes: no bullet holes, no blood stains. And who can say how the flag was kept inside a barracks room? Maybe it was simply wrapped in oilcloth or canvas and leaned against a corner. At any rate, it was in good shape after the battle. Years ago Kevin Young sent me an old photograph of it hanging from the walls of the Museo Artilleria---way before it began to seriously deteriorate, and thus require "preservation" in a drawer.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 30, 2009 14:38:51 GMT -5
Well, since we're mostly engaged in "informed speculation" let me join in the fray.
First, like most everybody else, I agree that the two star Mexican Flag flew over the Church, and as Gary says the garrison would in all probability have flown only one color over the fort.
IMO, the Grey's Flag, as probably was Travis's five dollar Flag (bought by Travis as the Cavalry Battalion Commander and not Travis the garrison commander) were unit colors and as such would have been generally collocated with the commander in his quarters/headquarters normally and near his position in combat. As such they may have flown from the walls during the various skirmishes and when ever the garrison stood to. However, they were not the garrison flag and in all probability were not permanently mounted.
Other unit flags may have also been present. On March 6th, given the surprise of the attack, it is probably unlikely that very many if any of the unit flags left their locations in the various buildings. Any unit flag or garrison flag captured in combat would be witnessed by numerous officers and would be held as a trophy of war for the unit or nation.
I would suggest that as the Grey's colors ended up as such a trophy it is probable that it did get carried out into battle that morning. If it had remained in the barracks, etc. the greater probability is that if would have ended up as some soldier's or officer's private souvenir.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 30, 2009 15:21:54 GMT -5
Just some thoughts:
Let's look at this from the Texan side of documentation:
Travis says on 24 February, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. On 3 March he notes to Jesse Grimes, ....Let the convention go on and make a declaration of independence, and we will then understand, and the world will understand, what we are fighting for. If independence is not declared, I shall lay down my arms, and so will the men under my command. But under the flag of independence...
Is he speaking in symbolism there or does he really mean, that like Fannin, he is ready to hoist a flag designed to reflect Texas Independence?
On the 24th, by using the term "our" is he refering to a unified garrison flag?
Is it as wolfpack suggested: did some of the Greys, when the attack came, elect to fight under the personal company colors?
What flag you flew was tricky. Philip Dimmitt was flying the Bloody Arm flag (rasied when the garrison declared Texas independence rather early in December 1835). When Grant showed up at Goliad on 10 January , he and his men had it taken down.
If only Travis had elaborated on the flag flying from the walls. Oh, but he didn't so here we are.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 30, 2009 15:55:18 GMT -5
The issue of the Alamo Flag is on par with 'How did Davy die?" I'm unsure just how many flags were found inside the fort by the Mexicans but there seems to have been more than one flying.
From my understanding, a couple of young Mexican officers (Lieutenant Torres and Lieutenant Martinez) were shot down in the attempt to pull down one of the flags flow by the defenders. It would appear unlikely to be the flag hoisted over the Church. I think the soldados rushing into the Church would have been more concerned with killing all the defenders manning the guns of Fortin de Cos and less concerned about the flag. I feel by the time the Mexicans got around to pulling down the church flag, all of the Alamo's defenders would have been killed.
On that same note, the last remaining Texians fighting for their lives in the Church would most likely have taken aim at the soldados rushing toward them and not at a couple of Mexicans trying to pull down a flag.
Torres and Martinez were shot in an attempt to pull down an Alamo flag...but I seriously doubt it was the flag atop the Church. It had to have been somewhere else - but where? The two-story barracks seems a likely spot but the above action could have occurred most anywhere.
Seriously, would a group(s) of untrained and undisciplined volunteers really give a darn about military customs, courtesy, or Protocol?? These were free-spirited men in highly individualized groups within a group struggling for national identity. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a man carried a flag into the Alamo he probably would have hoisted it - pride (southern?) canceling out military custom.
This brings me to Travis' flag. I can't say for sure what his flag looked like but if he handed over five-dollars for it (a lot of money in those days) I think he would have insisted on getting his monies worth and flown it. And I find it difficult to believe that Travis or any other Anglo defender fighting for separation from Mexico would have approved of the two-star tricolor Mexican flag as the banner they would "proudly" fight under. That doesn't make much sense and clearly sends a mixed message.
I think it's possible there were several flags in the Alamo. The Grey's may not have been the only group to have a flag representative of them. Since the majority of the Tejanos in the Alamo were fighting in support of the 1824 Constitution and not for separation, maybe Travis and Bowie allowed them to fly the two-star tricolor flag to keep them happy.
So what happened to the other Alamo flags if indeed they existed? Well, I believe they were either destroyed or kept as souvenirs...probably both. The Mexicans were permited to loot after the battle and it's not uncommon for soldiers to pick up items to carry home. The way I see it, Santa Anna was lucky that someone decided to hand over the NOG flag to him instead of keeping it as a battle-souvenir.
Glenn
|
|