The Peninsula Another Sears Mistranscription

[67th Tigers]

That letter that you say is an "o" is definitely not an o. That's not how he wrote his o's. It is an "s" as he normally writes an s.

McClellan wrote his s's as a line bulging to the right then left, but his o's as a loop. The letter after the r (downstroke and then curved upstroke) is a loop. You can see the pen come down and then loop in a circle to the left of the downstroke (almost like a d).

In the possible you give, the curvature of the s's is visible. I the probable in question, it isn't. Instead we have a loop.

As indistinct as McClellan's handwriting is, the central point remains - Sears altered the context of McClellan's writing to give it a different meaning.

 

[JerryD]

Yeah, I agree its possible.

 

[1SGDan]

No the point is that you have been a McClellan butt swab for all the years i have been here. There are other opinions. And truthfully they can also be correct.

 

[JerryD]

As indistinct as McClellan's handwriting is, the central point remains - Sears altered the context of McClellan's writing to give it a different meaning.

Not convinced at all. Central point remains that you are reaching to try to discredit Sears.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

I have encountered several transcription mistakes in books over the mere 4 years I took to research the war, which ended up in my typing up over 800 thousand words of original source docs, plus a variety of historians' interpretations of them. I note both versions side-by-side. Some errors are by well-known historians & shocked me. We're all just doing our best out here & no writer is 100% perfect at all times no matter how many readers sign off pre-publication. Of course setting the record straight is essential. If Sears has so many errors, have you heard back from him or his publishers at all?

 

[Belfoured]

Not convinced at all. Central point remains that you are reaching to try to discredit Sears.

I pointed out in post #15 one demonstrably false claim that Sears distorted the facts - refuted by none other than Fitz John Porter himself, whose own statement proves the theory false.

 

[JimN]

McClellan wrote his s's as a line bulging to the right then left, but his o's as a loop. The letter after the r (downstroke and then curved upstroke) is a loop. You can see the pen come down and then loop in a circle to the left of the downstroke (almost like a d).

In the possible you give, the curvature of the s's is visible. I the probable in question, it isn't. Instead we have a loop.

As indistinct as McClellan's handwriting is, the central point remains - Sears altered the context of McClellan's writing to give it a different meaning.

I can give many more examples using his handwriting to prove the word is possible, but not going to beat a dead horse. I have a feeling you want the word to read probable so bad that that is the only word you can see.

 

[67th Tigers]

I pointed out in post #15 one demonstrably false claim that Sears distorted the facts - refuted by none other than Fitz John Porter himself, whose own statement proves the theory false.

It's a bizarre argument that Sears deleting the parts of Porter's message that completely undermine Sears' argument is somehow not distorting the facts.

The confirmation bias needed to claim this is extreme.

 

[JimN]

McClellan wrote his s's as a line bulging to the right then left, but his o's as a loop. The letter after the r (downstroke and then curved upstroke) is a loop. You can see the pen come down and then loop in a circle to the left of the downstroke (almost like a d).

In the possible you give, the curvature of the s's is visible. I the probable in question, it isn't. Instead we have a loop.

As indistinct as McClellan's handwriting is, the central point remains - Sears altered the context of McClellan's writing to give it a different meaning.

Also, when McClellan writes a word with two letters with a high upstroke (e.g. "f, l, p) if you draw a line at the top of the letter it is almost always a straight line. In your "probable" the first b and the second b are completely different heights. So it is an s and a b at the end. Not two b's.

 

[Belfoured]

It's a bizarre argument that Sears deleting the parts of Porter's message that completely undermine Sears' argument is somehow not distorting the facts.

The confirmation bias needed to claim this is extreme.

Sears' "argument" is confirmed by Porter's article in B&L. And Marvel read Porter's message the same way. In your McClellan Fantasy Planet, that doesn't fit the agenda so it doesn't exist. Same as it ever was. Deal with it.

 

[67th Tigers]

Sears' "argument" is confirmed by Porter's article in B&L. And Marvel read Porter's message the same way. In your McClellan Fantasy Planet, that doesn't fit the agenda so it doesn't exist. Same as it ever was. Deal with it.

That's your confirmation bias talking again.

If you read Porter's actual message, he says that they can't hold their position without reinforcement and resupply. Indeed, it is every bit as legitimate to write "Porter wrote "we must retire." " as what Sears wrote - i.e. not very legitimate at all.

Sears was not proposing a counterattack as Sears contended. He was telling McClellan that he could not hold his position, and holding out the possibility that if heavy reinforcements and resupply were available, he could hold, and perhaps in a few days advance. Of course, resupply was not possible. That was the whole point of the movement.

Porter ends his message noting that a withdrawal was a regrettable necessity.

What Sears writes is disingenuous. It has a different meaning to what Porter actually wrote. Porter might have wanted to remain in position, but that was, in his opinion, contingent on things being available (resupply and fresh troops to reinforce Malvern Hill) that were not available. Hence the regrettable necessity of moving to Harrison's.

 

[Belfoured]

That's your distortion of the record talking. Porter told is what he meant in his B&L article: "expressing the hope that our withdrawal had ended and that we should hold the ground we now occupied , even if we did not assume the offensive. From my standpoint I thought we could maintain our position, and perhaps in a few days could improve it by advancing."

But, as usual, you know better what Porter meant than what Porter says he meant. Carnac the Magnificent in action again. In your world Sears is lying to us because he should ignore what Porter wrote.

 

[67th Tigers]

That's your distortion of the record talking. Porter told is what he meant in his B&L article: "expressing the hope that our withdrawal had ended and that we should hold the ground we now occupied , even if we did not assume the offensive. From my standpoint I thought we could maintain our position, and perhaps in a few days could improve it by advancing."

Maybe Porter recalled differently in the 1880's (or is being selectively quoted), but on 1st July, 1862, he stated that without resupply and heavy reinforcements, he would not hold the position and would have to retire.

 

[trice]

Maybe Porter recalled differently in the 1880's (or is being selectively quoted), but on 1st July, 1862, he stated that without resupply and heavy reinforcements, he would not hold the position and would have to retire.

Hold on there. If you want to claim Porter is being "selectively quoted" in a widely available work, commonly referred to and reprinted time after time, you need to be specific and show us ===exactly=== what you mean. Please show us directly. Please show us the page and paragraph in the work that you claim is being misrepresented, and where exactly you claim it is being distorted..

@Belfoured is referring to a specific part of a specific chapter in The Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Volume 2, published by The Century Company. That is The Battle Of Malvern Hill by General Fitz John Porter, starting on page 406 of the edition I am looking at. Porter wrote it himself for publication, just as he wrote other pieces. Here is a link to it for anyone who cares to see it for themselves. Please show us ===exactly=== what you are referring to as "selectively quoted".

If you cannot show what you are talking about, then please publish a correction retracting your claim. If you cannot do that, please stop making these constant attempts to discredit the posts of others just because the facts they present disagree with the way you want history to be.

 

[Belfoured]

Maybe Porter recalled differently in the 1880's (or is being selectively quoted), but on 1st July, 1862, he stated that without resupply and heavy reinforcements, he would not hold the position and would have to retire.

Check it to see if it's being "selectively quoted" before you make that false accusation. I realize that as a selective quotation specialist yourself, you might assume others play the same game. They don't.

 

[trice]

For anyone wondering, here is what General Fitz John Porter actually wrote in The Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Volume 2 article, The Battle of Malvern Hill:

While Colonel Hunt and I were returning from the front, about 9 o'clock, we were joined by Colonel A. V. Colburn, of McClellan's staff. We all rejoiced over the day's success. By these officers I sent messages to the commanding general, expressing the hope that our withdrawal had ended and that we should hold the ground we now occupied, even if we did not assume the offensive. From my standpoint I thought we could maintain our position, and perhaps in a few days could improve it by advancing. But I knew only the circumstances before me, and these were limited by controlling influences. It was now after 9 o'clock at night. Within an hour of the time that Colonels Hunt and Colburn left me, and before they could have reached the commanding general, I received orders from him to withdraw, and to direct Generals Sumner and Heintzelman to move at specified hours to Harrison's Landing and General Couch to rejoin his corps, which was then under way to the same point. ​

That is from the bottom of page 422 and the top of page 423 in the copy I am looking at, linked in my previous post.

 

[67th Tigers]

Hold on there. If you want to claim Porter is being "selectively quoted" in a widely available work, commonly referred to and reprinted time after time, you need to be specific and show us ===exactly=== what you mean. Please show us directly.

Please, just use the search function. You'll find the actual text of what Porter wrote, compared to Sears' selective quotations. The rest is a rearguard action by some who are embarrassed by what Porter actually wrote not fitting the narrative.

 

[Saphroneth]

Porter's Malvern Hill message can effectively be parsed as follows, in the critical section. He is acting like a corps commander.

He says that there was heavy fighting, and that his men held their position.

He gives the situation of his command:
1) They have not had food for a long time, and need to eat.
2) Their ammunition is exhausted, and they need resupply.
3) In addition, they have taken heavy casualties, and need reinforcement or replacement in the front line before daybreak.

If all of these things can be provided, then (based on the enemy front) he will not only be able to defend his position but could advance if McClellan wants this.
However, if this is not possible, they must retreat (retire).


Porter probably does not know for sure the situation of the army as a whole in supply terms, though he probably knows that the supply situation is parlous because his men haven't eaten for 24 hours. He also doesn't know if reinforcements are available.

What Porter does know is that McClellan is the person who actually has that information and can make those decisions, and so (as a corps commander) he passes that information up the chain. If the supply situation has been sorted out since the last time Porter got an update, and reinforcements are available, then there's one decision; otherwise, there's the other.


The reason why Sears in transcribing this message altered the meaning is as follows:

- he deleted the bit about reinforcements. This is quite significant because "if my men get provisions we can advance" is different from "if my men get provisions and reinforcements we can advance" as it changes whether Porter thinks his men can mount an effective counter-attack. Since Sears argues that Porter was "proposing to follow up the Malvern Hill victory with a counteroffensive" then it matters that Porter didn't say his men could mount a counteroffensive by themselves.
- he also minimized the scale of the provisioning and ammunition replenishment required. By itself this could simply be dropping words for space, but if Sears' argument is that a counteroffensive was possible then it matters that the men in question hadn't eaten in 24 hours and had run out of ammunition. By minimizing the scale of replenishment required, Sears makes it so that it could simply be read that the men hadn't eaten that afternoon, rather than that they hadn't eaten all day, or that they still had ammunition rather than being out.
- Sears also skips the bit where Porter says that they had suffered heavy casualties.
- finally, Sears removes the bit about "without this we must retire", which is Porter saying that a retreat is necessary if the conditions he laid out were not met. In one case (Lincoln's Lieutenants) Sears quotes either side of this sentence, but does not quote the sentence itself.


In combination, these changes all have the effect of maximizing the extent to which a counterattack was possible and minimizing the trouble the army was in. Someone reading Sears' version of events would have no idea that Porter had requested reinforcements, or that he had suggested that retreat would be necessary unless those reinforcements were available, despite that being really fundamental to the message McClellan actually got from Porter.


As an illustration, here is an at least equally valid summary of the Porter message:

At 9:30 that night Fitz John Porter signaled McClellan that there had been "a hard days fight for nearly four hours against immense odds", and that his losses were heavy. He said that reinforcements would be necessary before daybreak, and that his men had been "without food for 24 hours" and were out of ammunition, and that without reinforcement "we must retire".

This summary simply skips the good bits that Sears emphasizes ("Driven the enemy beyond the battlefield", "hold our own and advance if you wish") and instead focuses on the bad bits that Sears skips.

Neither, on their own, is a complete picture of what Porter said.

The issue is that Sears presents his incomplete version as being what Porter said, and concludes from it (that Porter was proposing to follow up Malvern Hill with a counteroffensive). He then uses this as part of the advancement of his "case" about McClellan.

In addition, as the person with access to the archives in an age before the digitization of the McClellan papers, Sears is making a one-sided summary which very few people have the ability to notice. It would not be such a big problem (though it would still be a problem) were Sears presenting a significantly cut down version of something that is otherwise widely available, but at the time of Sears writing these books the only way to discern the editing is to go and check the physical archives yourself.



There is a presumption that a professional historian and writer of history with priveliged access to sources should present those sources in as clear a way as possible, and certainly not leave out interpolated chunks which change the meaning in such a radical way.*




* it actually reminds me of something on the War of 1812 Wikipedia page, where the American editor who added Wellington's view on the War of 1812 included ellipses which actually cut out the bit where Wellington said that the war was a success.

 

[67th Tigers]

In his recent biography of Porter, Radical Sacrifice, William Marvel reached a virtually identical interpretation - and, as his source note shows, it is based solely on his reading of the message and not on Sears.

That's interesting, because checking Marvel, he agrees with me.

"At 9:30 that night Porter went back to the Malvern house to dash off a report for McClellan, informing him that the enemy had been driven "beyond the battlefield." With some food, ammunition, and reinforcements, reinforcements, he thought he would have no difficulty maintaining his position, and that he could even advance. "Without these," he added, "we must retire." Commending all who had helped win the day, he hinted at his preference for an advance by adding, "If they cannot reap the full fruits of their labors, they can only regret the necessity which will compell us to with draw." Colonel Hunt and a staff officer took that message to McClellan, whose headquarters at that moment lay near or aboard the gunboat Galena at Haxall's Landing, [sic] two miles away.* McClellan might have been sufficiently discouraged by Porter's stated wants to opt for retreat had he not already determined on it anyway, once he heard the firing subside. As Porter's note left the Malvern house, orders for the withdrawal were already on their way there, with instructions to demolish the carriages and spike the tubes of the heavy guns that had aided the victory, if they could not be moved. Instead of sending those desperate-sounding orders to Sumner [sic]**, his most senior subordinate, McClellan addressed them to Porter, his de facto chief deputy.65"

Marvel, William. Radical Sacrifice (Civil War America) (p. 176). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.

It is Porter's meaning that is the issue. Marvel notes that Porter's message was discouraging, which I also found when I found what Porter actually wrote. Sears edited the message to make it appear Porter was saying the opposite of what was actually said.

* This is incorrect. McClellan didn't board the Galena until 2300, and is another Sears-ism that has contaminated the literature. McClellan was at Malvern House during this period, about 800 m from Porter.

** Sumner definitely received orders to withdraw in sequence at the same time, but of course he had no siege artillery in his lines. See Meagher's AAR, in which he notes finding a Colonel of McClellan's staff whilst looking for Sumner who led him to Sumner. Sumner then, just after 2100, gave Meagher the withdrawal order. The colonel was probably the order's courier.

 

[67th Tigers]

If all of these things can be provided, then (based on the enemy front) he will not only be able to defend his position but could advance if McClellan wants this.
However, if this is not possible, they must retreat (retire).

It's worth noting that Porter believed the rebels were pulling back. Porter wasn't really suggesting attack at all, but rather reoccupying ground the enemy had abandoned.

Even Porter's AAR noted that they were "sadly deficient" in ammunition and provisions, which, with the fact it was dark, prevented any pursuit by Porter.