James E

James E. Crisps in his book Sleuthing The Alamo wrote about his thoughts on Sam Houston’s speech that he made to the soldiers at Refugio. The main reason for Crisps to investigate Sam Houston’s address was to understand why Houston’s actions were in contrary to what he said. In the book Sleuthing The Alamo, Crisps made people believe that Sam Houston’s speech was not correct by researching the statement in detail and disapproving the speech using the findings hence saving Houston’s reputation. Through the analysis that he did, he investigated the speech and interpreted it in four different versions; the actual meaning of the original statement, the interpretation of the speech as described in Ehrenberg German-language memoir, the translation of German language memoir by Bartholomae and Churchill’s version (Crisp, 101).
What Crisp Think about Ehrenberg, Bartholomae and Churchill’s Version for Speech Content
In the book Sleuthing The Alamo, Crips tries to explain and unravel the myths about the history of the Texas Revolution. He brought light on the account about racism and political correctness that had been hidden by culture wars in the past two centuries. Crips explain the history of his youth with the help of the experiences that he had in his childhood while in Texas, where he shows evidence of distorted documents, collected and ignored reports which had hidden the voices of the Texan in the past. James continues to unravel the reasons that led to archiving the documents that relate to the Texas past including the three eyewitnesses to the death of Davy Crockett at the Alamo (Crip, 118)
The original version of the book that Jmaes wrote about was initially known as the Texas un Seine Revolution which was an account of the Texas Revolution written by Herman Ehrenberg and published in 1843. The book was later translated to English and edited by Bartholomae then later actively edited by Charlotte Churchill with Milam and Fannin in 1935. Even though Bartholomae’s translation was the first translation for the Ehrenberg version from German, there were many hidden and skipped things, and Professor James Crisp considered it to be an incompetent translation. It was incompetent because, during Bartholomae’s translation for his master’s thesis, there were no professors from the foreign language department in the graduation committee to avoid the omission of essential parts (Crisp, 144).
. Crisps explain the history of his youth with the help of the experiences that he had in his childhood while in Texas, where he shows evidence of distorted documents, collected and ignored reports which had hidden the voices of the Texan in the past. James continues to unravel the reasons that led to archiving the documents that relate to the Texas past including the three eyewitnesses to the death of Davy Crockett at the Alamo (Crip, 118)
The original version of the book that James wrote about was initially known as the Texas un Seine Revolution which was an account of the Texas Revolution written by Herman Ehrenberg and published in 1843. The book was later translated to English and edited by Bartholomae then later actively edited by Charlotte Churchill with Milam and Fannin in 1935. Even though Bartholomae’s translation was the first translation for the Ehrenberg version from German, there were many hidden and skipped things, and Professor James Crisp considered it to be an incompetent translation. It was incompetent because, during Bartholomae’s translation for his master’s thesis, there were no professors from the foreign language department in the graduation committee to avoid the omission of essential parts (Crip, 144).
Churchill’s version was later translated to English and was put into children’s version by the editor, Henry Nash Smith, with a request from a publisher, William Tardy. Tardy who was a Spanish teacher, was only interested in publishing books for children. Smith removed two chapters, altered and removed some words, sentences, and paragraphs to fit into the children’s perspective. Therefore, since Churchill’s version had omitted and had many anti-Catholic passages as well as it had many reference to alcohol, violence, and racism, many people including professor James did not see it fit to be used as a reference material due to lack of the original content. Additionally, since Ehrenberg’s version of the text had a lot of anti-clerical and anti-Catholic passages, hence Crisp did not consider them reliable to use and to put into people’s minds because they were not all proven (Crip, 146).
Crisp considered the book by Ehrenberg the most extended and explicit version of the eyewitness of the revolution to a Texan soldier. The book has thus been in use to explain the history of the Texas revolution but has received criticism from the likes of Crisp since he considered it not accurate. He argues that the details were not correct since the book was translated from the original language to English and it was written long after the events had occurred. Crisp continues to argue that the idea of the editor, Smith to remove some of the information from the original text was “misguided effort to preserve the truth by sanitizing it” (Crip, 134).
Professor Crips wrote that removal of the texts led to misguiding and misdirecting people to believe that the Texas Revolution was initially like that yet it was not. Many scholars from 1935 relied on that version without vital information on politics and military work about the Texas revolution. Moreover, others believed that the speeches, such as Houston’s speech that was associated with Ehrenberg were not virtually exact (Crip, 231). For Crisp, it is only if there was a proper first translation of the Ehrenberg’s text, would it be important because Ehrenberg wrote what he experienced and what he saw; thus they are not reliable.
Crisp’s Thoughts about Houston being Considered Anti-Mexican and Anti-Tejano Racist According to Houston Speech.
Houston’s speech was widely known for demonstrating racism against the Tejano and the Mexicans living in Texas. In his remarks, Houston spoke negatively against the Tejano with the inclusion of calling them half-Indians. Crisp described that it was harsh for Houston to argue that the Tejano and the Mexicans living in Texas were helping the enemy with their large number. Crisp was astonished that Houston would insult the Mexicans this way as well as speak negatively about the Indians. Crisp argues that such harsh words did not sound like Sam Houston’s because he was believed to be the warrior of the time with his army against the Mexicans and what Houston wanted was the independence of Texas from the Mexicans (Crip, 214).
Additionally, Professor Crisp’s reaction surprise about the speech of Houston that demonstrated racism was mainly because of the childhood nostalgia and how Houston always considered friendly relationship with the Native Americans hence the thought of calling Mexicans half-Indians could not make sense to him. James argued that the rise of racism was brought in by the Anglo-Americans who saw that the Mexican governors were not politically fit to run Texas hence sort to overthrow the leadership thus the rise of the Texas Revolution. Crisp argued that the Texas revolution was mainly as a result of political and cultural differences between the Anglo and the Hispanic people and hence the Hispanic people ended up being the most affected (Crisp, 227).
Thus, according to Crisp, there is no way that Houston’s speech as much as it was racially biased could be the factor for more revolution. Additionally, James stated that instead of radicalized historians blaming Mexican deficiency, be it culturally or racially, they end up blaming racism from the Anglo-Americans for the cause of Texas Revolution. Thus, Houston’s speech was not the cause that spared the revolt (Crip, 228).
Conclusion
Professor James Crisp was somehow correct about not considering the texts available from the translation from Ehrenberg’s book. The argument about how there was incompetent when it came to the conversion was right, and it was not the right source of inspiration to the speeches that people like Houston made. Additionally, people need to understand the causes of the Texas Revolution before blaming it on Houston’s speech that depicted racism since it was not the leading cause of the revolt against the native Mexicans.

x

Hi!
I'm Dora

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out
x

Hi!
I'm Barry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out