A More or Less Comprehensive lists of Errors in Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Please list errors of omission and commission.
Be nice.
Minimize rhetoric.
If you post he did something deliberately, I will ask for proof, be prepared to support it.
Please put the page number or a link to Google Books if possible.
The Civil War: A Narrative is a three volume, 2,968-page, 1.2 million-word narrative. The probability of finding errors seems high. Have fun.
 
First up is
Reference
Where a blood stained diary is found a cold harbor. So far it is alleged without contradiction that there is no evidence such a diary was found.
Rimh2zyrGetV8hOTqq04LVU2KdMcRLPH7o4CAX26_HSG7N2bRK8wQxSWxdWTUdUe1O9uC9l7youC6uTQVT8G7ApbUHUIlpkA.png
 
Please list errors of omission and commission.
Be nice.
Minimize rhetoric.
If you post he did something deliberately, I will ask for proof, be prepared to support it.
Please put the page number or a link to Google Books if possible.
The Civil War: A Narrative is a three volume, 2,968-page, 1.2 million-word narrative. The probability of finding errors seems high. Have fun.

I won't be returning to Foote's trilogy for a few months at least, but I'm definitely going to be watching this thread. Break out the popcorn!
 
So, I have the first volume and I'll take note of things on the thread! I started to read it but then....well, can not remember how far I got but I'll look forward to learning from this discussion!
 
In defense of Foote, the examples cited so far are anecdotes and not what can truly be called history. The book is called a "a narrative." What is the great harm throwing in few anecdotes to make the narrative more interesting? Maybe these anecdotes are stories that have been passed down so long that they are accepted as fact in some quarters. That said, I am not a fan of Foote because I do not like his writing style. It is too verbose for me. For sheer reading pleasure give me Bruce Catton!
 
Here he claim that Bufords men had 7 shot spencer carbines at Gettysburg...
From 2nd book.
7shot.jpg


He also claim that the battle starts over shoes... but that is more a question of interpretation, since that is in fact what Heth wrote in his report a few month later.
(Personally I think he was looking for horseshoes)
 
In defense of Foote, the examples cited so far are anecdotes and not what can truly be called history. The book is called a "a narrative." What is the great harm throwing in few anecdotes to make the narrative more interesting?
The harm is that people, random readers, later historians and TV producers have used his books as factual and him as an historian and expert on the topic.
(and this is not the fault of Foote)
 
In defense of Foote, the examples cited so far are anecdotes and not what can truly be called history. The book is called a "a narrative." What is the great harm throwing in few anecdotes to make the narrative more interesting? Maybe these anecdotes are stories that have been passed down so long that they are accepted as fact in some quarters. That said, I am not a fan of Foote because I do not like his writing style. It is too verbose for me. For sheer reading pleasure give me Bruce Catton!

That's a great point. Is there harm in anecdotes to illustrate a point? It was a genuine feeling - there is a documented and well sourced account of Forrest conversing with an Iowa surgeon at Ft Pillow. "This war would have been over long ago if you Westerners had stayed home!" he snarled.

P S
Oops! Short attention span. Sorry! :notworthy:
 
I believe that many works, even those written by a "historian" can contain factual errors, especially when you are dealing with first hand accounts. Some people couldn't remember the events clearly, others had reasons to conceal things. Some just outright lied. Some lie to cover up other truths, or to inflate their part in events. We are only human after all, and what motivates us is not always clear or known. Others also alter or hide or change records. Foote cannot tell us, and since eh used no footnotes, who can say where he found his information. We either like or dislike the man, but he has been very influential. One just has to use him with caution, but we know that now don't we. Nothing is sacred anymore. just look online. Everyone is suspect, or so we are led to believe.
 
The harm is that people, random readers, later historians and TV producers have used his books as factual and him as an historian and expert on the topic.
(and this is not the fault of Foote)

I'm still curious about the "harm." The fact that others accepted his stories without verifying them seems to be of little import if those who rely upon him can readily find the real facts. Anyone who believes all they read or hear from any source on the war wholly uncritically, then they will be disappointed no matter the source. I'm reading Professor Ural's new book on the Texas Brigade. I can nitpick several small factual errors, but I have found it a great read and an excellent addition to the history of the brigade, despite its small errors.
 
I'm still curious about the "harm." The fact that others accepted his stories without verifying them seems to be of little import if those who rely upon him can readily find the real facts. Anyone who believes all they read or hear from any source on the war wholly uncritically, then they will be disappointed no matter the source. I'm reading Professor Ural's new book on the Texas Brigade. I can nitpick several small factual errors, but I have found it a great read and an excellent addition to the history of the brigade, despite its small errors.
The purpose of this thread is to see what the extent of errors is.

Other questions is what I call the good enough standard or it works standard. Is it good enough for the general public to use or even use on this this blog. Does it work for the lay public. In an business class I was thought there the optimum solution to a problem was the one that satisfies the need not an ideal, a principal also in computer science.
 
Please list errors of omission and commission.
Be nice.
Minimize rhetoric.
If you post he did something deliberately, I will ask for proof, be prepared to support it.
Please put the page number or a link to Google Books if possible.
The Civil War: A Narrative is a three volume, 2,968-page, 1.2 million-word narrative. The probability of finding errors seems high. Have fun.

Here's a post I made earlier this year:

Let's take a look at the Prologue of Foote's narrative:

If one reads Shelby Foote's narrative, and only Shelby Foote's narrative, what does one come away from it believing why the secessionists acted? Did they act just because they didn't like Lincoln, or does Foote identify any other reasons?

On Page 34, Foote claims Lincoln was opposed to any compromise measure, when in fact Lincoln opposed only measures that would allow the expansion of slavery and was willing to sign on to any other compromise measure. He uses Lincoln's letter against compromise on the expansion of slavery as if Lincoln was talking about any and all compromise proposals.

In speaking of Jefferson Davis' inaugural address on Page 40, Foote says Davis didn't mention slavery. While it's true Davis didn't use the word "slavery," he did say, "The declared purpose of the compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was to 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;' and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States composing this Confederacy, it has been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that, so far as they are concerned, the Government created by that compact should cease to exist." He also said, "With a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from sectional conflicts, which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare ... " and "Actuated solely by the desire to preserve our own rights, and promote our own welfare, ... " These euphemisms referred to the sectional arguments and to the published secession documents that were familiar to all, and those all had identified issues surrounding the institution of slavery. So while not specifically using the word "slavery," Davis did indeed mention slavery, issues surrounding slavery, and the arguments over those issues in his inaugural. Davis also didn't use the word "tariff" in his inaugural, yet Foote says he spoke of the tariff. Why is it that Foote ignores the references to slavery because the word wasn't used, yet he highlights the tariff, even though that word wasn't used?

In his discussion of the confederate constitution on Page 42, Foote highlights as most important the use of "Almighty God." One has to read to the end of the paragraph in the other, less important changes to find that "persons" had been changed to "slaves."

On Page 31 he says R. E. Lee was a colonel when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry. Lee was a lieutenant colonel.

On page 43, Foote identifies the tariff only as a protectionist tariff protecting manufacturers from what Foote identifies as "largely superior products of England" without talking about how it was the primary means of revenue generation for the government, whose treasury was largely depleted at the time. He says, "Without the rod of a strong protective tariff, eastern manufacturers would lose their southern markets to the cheaper, largely superior products of England, and this was feared by the workers as well as the owners." This ignores the fact that when secession occurred, the tariff was at its lowest point in decades and was a revenue-only tariff, not a protective tariff, and had been for years without eastern manufacturers losing southern markets. In fact, southerners consumed very little in the way of imported goods.

On Page 44, Foote claims South Carolina had cut the Sumter garrison off from purchasing all food in local markets back in January, with this policy being continued by the confederacy when it took over. That is not correct. They didn't cut off local purchases until April.

On Page 50 he claims Lincoln judged before the firing on Fort Sumter that it would unite the North. There's no evidence of him making such a judgment.

On Page 63 he gives another dubious claim of a conversation, this one involving a colonel's uniform.

On Page 56, Foote repeats the claim that Lincoln outmaneuvered the highly experienced confederates and he claims Lincoln had used Fort Sumter as a tool to unite the North. He also claims Lincoln maneuvered the confederates into firing the first shot on Page 47.

On Page 51 He makes the highly dubious claim that Lincoln didn't want to be hampered by having Congress in session.

On Page 66 He makes the false claim that Lincoln had endorsed secession during the Mexican War. He claims people were held without charges long enough to grow pale in prison, when in fact prisoners were only imprisoned a short time without charges and were let go upon taking a loyalty oath.

On Page 65 he makes the claim about "a ragged Virginia private, pounced on by the Northerners in a retreat. 'What are you fighting for anyhow?' his captors asked, looking at him. They were genuinely puzzled, for he obviously owned no slaves and seemingly could have little interest in States Rights or even Independence. 'I'm fighting because you're down here,' he said." Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any documentation for this incident ever happening.

On Page 67 he writes, "Though Americans grew pale in prison cells without knowing the charges under which they had been snatched from their homes or places of employment, there were guilty men among the innocent, and a dungeon was as good a place as any for a patriot to serve his country through a time of strain." This supposedly was early July. At that point very few people had been arrested, and they knew why they had been arrested.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...-and-arbitrary-arrests?rgn=main;view=fulltext
 
Last edited:
Foote cannot tell us, and since eh used no footnotes, who can say where he found his information. We either like or dislike the man, but he has been very influential. One just has to use him with caution, but we know that now don't we. Nothing is sacred anymore. just look online. Everyone is suspect, or so we are led to believe.

I'm still curious about the "harm." The fact that others accepted his stories without verifying them seems to be of little import if those who rely upon him can readily find the real facts. Anyone who believes all they read or hear from any source on the war wholly uncritically, then they will be disappointed no matter the source. I'm reading Professor Ural's new book on the Texas Brigade. I can nitpick several small factual errors, but I have found it a great read and an excellent addition to the history of the brigade, despite its small errors.

That's a great point. Is there harm in anecdotes to illustrate a point? It was a genuine feeling - there is a documented and well sourced account of Forrest conversing with an Iowa surgeon at Ft Pillow. "This war would have been over long ago if you Westerners had stayed home!" he snarled.

Hmm. Imagine if there were a very personable writer with an extremely charming Yankee accent (hard to imagine - I have to admit that no accent has charmed me more than Foote's) who gets featured in a prominent documentary.

[Flirting with camera] "Everyone KNEW, they just didn't say it, that the "honorable" Marse Robert paid a lot extra for young mulato women, which he bought a lot of..."

Outrage would fly left and right. "That has never been proven!" "It was an outright lie!" "Insinuations based on rumours based on lost documents!"

"Calm down. He never claimed to be a scholar. But it's a good yarn."

But that gets cemented in the mind of the public, because now everyone believes it because it was said by this charming guy who got a lot of screen time, shown in classrooms and highlighted in reviews. Google Robert E. Lee after that and it's all you'll find.
 
Back
Top