|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 24, 2011 12:08:48 GMT -6
Jag these are all from the RCOI and it seems consistent with later accounts don't you think? Jeesh, 3 or 4 posts just to made one G. D. point, what's up with that? Look you believe whatever you want to. Believe Goldin, Kanipe, Thompson who the hell ever, makes no never mind to me. All I can say here is, if He did as you believe he did, then you should have a hell of a lot of ammo to fire at those who say that Benteen dawdled or Reno failed when Custer had the information he needed and failed to act upon it. I've heard all those arguments and so have you, those "if only" arguments, "if only" Reno had held that G.D. timber another 15 to 20 minutes. "If only" Benteen had been 15 to 20 minutes faster instead of p!ss dawdling around. Ring any frak'n bells for ya? Well, maybe they've got a point because someone sure screwed up those 15 to 20 minutes and according to you it was Custer failing to act early enough upon, quote "the big village" and quote "a valley full of Indians" that Varnum supposedly and most assuredly reported early enough to do something about it. Yeah right. Not sure what your stating. You indicated that Varnum did not make statements about the size of the village and reporting to Custer till much later past RCOI. I presented his RCOI of inquiry testimony to show that Varnum testified to reporting to Custer and a the large village. Its always been one of my contentions that Custer should have sent the message to Benteen from Reno Creek and not when he actually sent Martin. How much quicker could Benteen have responded? Merry Christmas Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 24, 2011 12:10:41 GMT -6
I don't think the amount of Indians in the fight mattered nearly as much as the amount of fight in the Indians. Not original I know, but that does not mean is is not appropriate. Agree Merry Christmas Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 24, 2011 13:05:01 GMT -6
Benteen, what page is that quote from Custer in Donovan on?
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 24, 2011 15:14:31 GMT -6
Dark Cloud,
It is on page 148 in Donovan's book "Custer and the Little Bighorn" The Man The Mystery, The Myth. I think this happened once before and you were looking at a different book. Capt Fred has the book to verify it.
Merry Christmas Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 24, 2011 16:30:39 GMT -6
And who does he credit jotting that down? I find it hard to believe. If he thought it that large it contradicts logic and other quotes attributed that he would divide the command and attack piecemeal.
It is confusing. He wrote two Custer books, one Terrible Glory - Custer and the Little Bighorn and the other Custer and the Little Bighorn: the Man, Mystery, Myth etc.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Dec 25, 2011 10:13:30 GMT -6
And who does he credit jotting that down? I find it hard to believe. If he thought it that large it contradicts logic and other quotes attributed that he would divide the command and attack piecemeal. It is confusing. He wrote two Custer books, one Terrible Glory - Custer and the Little Bighorn and the other Custer and the Little Bighorn: the Man, Mystery, Myth etc. DC, that's just it, I can't find any notes in Donovan's work on it. You could try yourself online, but it's a one shot deal at google books. books.google.com/books?id=v8ij3IBYKGAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Custer+and+the+Little+Bighorn%22+The+Man+The+Mystery,+The+Myth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hET3TonmEqX3sQKlhpjGAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=benteen&f=false Look for page 148. It will give you just one chance to preview that page. You won't be able to go back to it. At least it didn't let me do it. Something about selling the damn thing - imagine that. Custer's Luck by Stewart note #92 on pg 280 makes this note after making Custer say those infamous words. Oregon Journal August 3, 1923; Roe. Custer's Last battle, 8.Note #91 just previous says, Reynolds had reported to him that the biggest bunch of Indians he had ever seen was ahead (91)... (which Stewart claims gave rise to the Custer report to his men and subsequent note #92. That note, #91, Stewart made reference to The Billings Gazette January 6, 1934.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 26, 2011 10:32:36 GMT -6
Gentlemen I hope you enjoyed your Christmas. In the same book by MR Donovan his next paragraph states "Boyer approached Custer as the Officers walked back to their troops. He said "General, I have been with these Indians for thirty years, and this is the largest I have ever heard of" Custer waved him off. Again no source for this. However,
Scanning through his second book "A Terrible Glory" on page 209 he uses this exact same quote, but this time he does have sources.
It is only a guess on my part but since his first book had no sources, he may have been questioned by people as to where he was getting his info from, just as you have, so when he wrote his second book he made sure he showed what his sources were. If you have the second book you will see that he lists sources for everything, chapter by chapter
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 26, 2011 14:14:06 GMT -6
This is Ward Churchill country. It's become a distressing presentation in recent history books, trying to leave the impression of academic research without much. He has tons upon tons of notated events. Some of the most important, though, have no notation or dubious notation, but unimportant stuff is notated up the wazoo to give the impression of depth. In some cases, I recall, the multiple sources have one source, and that dubious. That's because people can be counted upon to be impressed because they won't track down the original source, and he chooses a difficult presentation for his readers to do so.
I certainly don't want to leave the impression I always have, or wanted to, check each note or even many of them, but I've checked enough stuff to be certain Donovan hasn't either. You'll find multiple notes that leave the impression of multiple witnesses to the event that, in reality, may have just one dubious source, sometimes surely false. An actual historian tracks them all down before using them. Most of us here do NOT read history as much as books about history, which is not the same thing. He tries, as so many do, to leave the impression of a surety that is neither likely, possible, or there.
Using end notes instead of footnotes makes it a real pain to flip back and forth quickly. That's a choice by the author, generally for reason. So, let's follow this item.
You notice there is no source whatever for the specific quote in the first book, but you credit him with a source in the second, Terrible Glory. Note 22. It goes to Hammer, Custer in '76, page 64. Donovan did not check Hammer's source, otherwise he would have used it as well. An actual historian would have.
He credits Custer's Luck and other general interest books as well in his end notes. That's not quite as shocking as reading a bio of Custer and finding a notation referencing Classics Illustrated Comics, but it's not the resonant substance of a historian, either. Yeah, it's notated, but........what if your source got it wrong, or it's contested?
Indeed, he has tons of notes, but this is the guy who had someone with Custer who was not (fred discovered that, I think), who has Kellogg writing letters on a date long past but Donovan needed it for dramatic effect, who has Custer's wounds on different sides (were either notated? I forget....) at two different points, and enters the minds and psyches of Reno and Benteen to foster his theory.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 26, 2011 16:08:57 GMT -6
Dark Cloud,
I agree, and to take it a step further, I believe that most authors are more concerned about telling a good story than historical accuracy. They appeal to the enthusiast not the student. I know this because for many years I was the former, and for the last app 2 years am attempting to become the later.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 26, 2011 22:54:48 GMT -6
Dark Cloud,
Your comments about footnoting are very interesting, especially because of my little project with the time-line business. So-o-o... let me ask you for your advice... or guidance.
This thing is currently some 156,000 words and is "footnoted" in three different ways. While I have not counted them, there are probably some two dozen actual footnotes. These are what I would call informative or explanatory in nature and refer more to events than to sources.
The main "footnoting" is actually endnotes. Right now I have more than 1,200, and while there may be some that are "explanatory" or "informative," they are primarily source-driven, meaning I have gotten them from other books. The vast majority are direct, first-hand sources, though I may actually have some that are driven by opinions of other authors/historians. This latter group is minuscule compared to the former, as I am not in the least interested in what others have to say, only in what participants claimed.
The third group of "footnotes" are what I call "source notes," only to distinguish them from everything else because they pertain only to the time line. There are 480 of those, 93% of which are "sourced," and 90%-- or better-- of which are first-hand, primary sources. Those that are not are very few and are driven more by archaeology and the interpretation of primary sources by others (only because I do not have access to those specific primary sources). The 7% that have no source are generally-- I believe without exception-- used more for "color" purposes than informative, historical data. In other words, "They mounted their horses" (as we know they would have), in between two time periods that have been determined by primary sources.
The purpose of this book is not to re-tell an oft-told tale, but to dissect that tale as a military analysis. To give you an example, I do not go into anything occurring on the 26th and I only obliquely refer to Reno's retreat. From an analytical military point of view, there is virtually nothing that can be told or learned from either event, and in both cases, the trail is so well-worn that it is fruitless to do it again.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 27, 2011 0:38:14 GMT -6
My opinion on format isn't important; my complaint is specifically about how people are impressed with quantity rather than quality. W. Churchill is the guy who was outed first, but there are so many others.
So long as there is no passage in your book like the following, I'll be fine:
Custer, having arbitrarily decided to send Reno and his three companies to their death, and having already sent Benteen far away so as not to witness his coming treason-like actions, had Cooke prepare the official surrender document to Sitting Bull and had all the officers of the five companies sign it, all the while singing the album cut of Y.M.C.A. He carefully adjusted the second button from the top - the one with slightly greater amount (7.4% more) of tin (discussed in chapters 4-7) - of his tunic 897, and looked at a 78.48 degree angle at Boyeur waving a white shirt from Weir Point898, and after they'd finished he silently thought of his favorite verse in Boola Boola, his and Elizabeth's Favorite Song 899 because they both loved the Boola Boola part. Although, today only, he changed several of the lines out of boredom, singling silently to himself as he rode alone 500 yards ahead of his command.990
Just imagine who is going to read the book and if they'll be checking sources, and if you are one, what would you prefer? I personally like end notes at the end of each chapter.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Dec 27, 2011 1:58:09 GMT -6
Using end notes instead of footnotes makes it a real pain to flip back and forth quickly. That's a choice by the author, generally for reason. I completely agree, it's a chore to work with a heavily referenced book if it uses endnotes instead of footnotes. The layout might not look as clean as if you would mostly use endnotes, but the usability is much, much better with footnotes. I find it really helpful, especially if you put material and comments into those notes because they would not fit into the flow of the main text. As an example how to do it "right" in my opinion, have a look at Ostler's The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 27, 2011 8:58:05 GMT -6
Actually, DC, there are lots of paragraphs "endnoted" like that... minus the glibness, of course. Now, my question to you is, What do I do about it?
Again, I expect this book will be extremely controversial because it calls into question many long-held beliefs about the battle. In my opinion, it needs to be heavily footnoted precisely because of the "controversy" it will raise. Because of all that, however, it needs to be readable with an uninterrupted flow. I can understand how endnotes break that flow apart; I usually solve the problem by using an extra bookmark and then skipping over endnotes that simply use a source, an "Ibid," for example. That may not be the best or most authoritative way, however, so I remain open to suggestions. Re-formatting is not a problem.
My so-called "source notes"-- the ones I use to support the "time-line"-- are easily dealt with. Those, sequentially numbered, 1 to 480, can be simply put at the bottom of each chart. It is the interior stuff I am concerned about.
I have explained the "quantity" issue; I believe fully the "quality" issue-- as you say-- is paramount, and I believe I have achieved that, especially by largely eschewing "opinion" footnotes, or third- and fourth-hand accounts.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 27, 2011 11:22:08 GMT -6
Strictly speaking, last I knew footnotes appear at the bottom of the page, endnotes at the end of chapter or book. Footnotes are ideal but they leave the impression of a school textbook, which can be fine or not. For ME, that's ideal, though others do not prefer it. Next preferred are chapter endnotes.
Not having read the book, Fred, I can't comment on applicability, of course, but what has appeared in Custerland and in Donovan and others' works is the puzzling, unsourced quote or statement of fact (or sourced from a newspaper story forty years after) surrounded by absolute trivia notated beyond belief, all requiring reference to the book's end pages. That's what I was trying to satirize in the last post. People saying 'look at all the notes! It must be really well researched!' haven't actually traced them.
But so long as you follow source reference to the end so that you don't end up suggesting or claiming that, say, references to something by soldiers in the early July letter writing frenzy are so many individual verifications of the incident, when in reality or likelihood they're just repeating the same story making camp rounds as they wrote like a game of Telephone in letters to loved ones, not sworn testimony designed to be viewed as such.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Dec 27, 2011 11:50:54 GMT -6
And of course the final arbitreur is the publisher and what audience the book is intended for. As Jim Donovan's book was meant for a general audience that don't like wading through footnotes, his ended up at the end. A very limited audience/book buyers would want the footnotes. I believe Fred's publisher, who has a lot of military type books, has some guidelines to follow. And as Fred isn't recreating the RCOI, then it may have references that include letters and such. Who would buy a book recreating the RCOI when you can read the recorded statements verbatim?
bc
|
|