NF Is there anything factually wrong w/ Foote's work?

Non-Fiction
Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
I know that Foote did not consider himself an historian and his work's are great reading without the citations.

My question is - does Foote make noticeable and significant mistakes in his narrative? Or, should someone feel as comfortable treating Foote's content as accurate and true as they would if reading a self proclaimed, more traditional historian/scholar?
 
Foote seems to have been conscientious with his chosen sources, but without playing the 'follow the footnotes' game expected of the trained historian, he would not be in the position to properly evaluate accepted accounts. Understandably as a novelist, he tended to use the more entertaining versions of events and conversations available at the time he wrote, some of which would not really be debunked until later on.

Having recently finished Vol II, two quick examples come to mind: Lee chewing out Stuart at Gettysburg (p. 461) and Rosecrans chewing out Wood prior to Chickamauga (p. 731). Both stories have been challenged; certainly neither happened (if they did at all) in the dramatic, foreshadowing ways portrayed. Also, any Gettysburg expert (of which I am not one) will tell you Heth did not head into town on July 1 "to get those shoes."
 
Foote's Narrative is a wonderful accomplishment and a pleasure to read, with no major accuracy problems, on the whole (though he does have a subtle pro-southern 'lean'). It's in the details (as @Pat Answer notes above) that dubious material sometimes creeps in. As a "popular" account of the war, it is excellent.
 
Last edited:
The people who aggressively go after Foote do so because his narrative doesn’t fit theirs. Shelby was remarkably evenhanded and accurate and that’s why his work remains popular. But in today’s hyper partisan world that’s not good enough and he needs to be sacrificed, so they smear him. Fortunately almost all of those nasty keyboard warriors have either left or have been banned by this site and it is a lot better for it.
 
Foote was an excellent writer and entertaining read. But he was not a historian and didn't follow the rules of evidence that a historian would. The rule of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story definitely applies to some of his works.

Two glaring inaccuracies that come immediately are from his Gettysburg book. He wrote that Heth went to Gettysburg for shoes (as @Pat Answer pointed out above) and that Buford was able to delay Heth's advance because of the superior firepower from his Spencer repeating rifles (there were only a couple hundred Spencers at Gettysburg and none of them were in Buford's command). I remember that there were other factual errors but it's been a very long time since I've read any of his books.

Ryan
 
The people who aggressively go after Foote do so because his narrative doesn’t fit theirs. Shelby was remarkably evenhanded and accurate and that’s why his work remains popular. But in today’s hyper partisan world that’s not good enough and he needs to be sacrificed, so they smear him. Fortunately almost all of those nasty keyboard warriors have either left or have been banned by this site and it is a lot better for it.
He was definitely writing with a southern bent, especially with Forrest. If you're comfortable with the standard narrative of the war, then yes, it's a good read.
 
Foote was an excellent writer and entertaining read. But he was not a historian and didn't follow the rules of evidence that a historian would. The rule of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story definitely applies to some of his works.

Two glaring inaccuracies that come immediately are from his Gettysburg book. He wrote that Heth went to Gettysburg for shoes (as @Pat Answer pointed out above) and that Buford was able to delay Heth's advance because of the superior firepower from his Spencer repeating rifles (there were only a couple hundred Spencers at Gettysburg and none of them were in Buford's command). I remember that there were other factual errors but it's been a very long time since I've read any of his books.

Ryan
I'd add that Catton probably falls into the same category - he was a journalist turned historian and IMHO actually a better writer. One area where I give Catton an edge over Foote - he did cite sources. Because of that it's easier to evaluate his writing. He put a lot of reliance on the OR and on published memoirs, which obviously led to some inaccuracies inherent in those sources.
 
Foote was an excellent writer and entertaining read. But he was not a historian and didn't follow the rules of evidence that a historian would. The rule of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story definitely applies to some of his works.

Two glaring inaccuracies that come immediately are from his Gettysburg book. He wrote that Heth went to Gettysburg for shoes (as @Pat Answer pointed out above) and that Buford was able to delay Heth's advance because of the superior firepower from his Spencer repeating rifles (there were only a couple hundred Spencers at Gettysburg and none of them were in Buford's command). I remember that there were other factual errors but it's been a very long time since I've read any of his books.

Ryan
He made the error of saying Spenser repeaters instead of Sharps breechloaders. When a muzzleloader had a max rate of fire of 4 shots per minute, the Sharps could fire up to 10 rounds per minute and the Spenser 20. That’s an obvious advantage over the Confederate weapons and probably how the legend began.

Out of 1.2 million words is there anything else?
 
He made the error of saying Spenser repeaters instead of Sharps breechloaders. When a muzzleloader had a max rate of fire of 4 shots per minute, the Sharps could fire up to 10 rounds per minute and the Spenser 20. That’s an obvious advantage over the Confederate weapons and probably how the legend began.

Out of 1.2 million words is there anything else?
In the remaining 1,199,965 there could be, I'd wager.

In all seriousness, we don't even know precisely what he used for the voluminous "facts" in those books. Three lengthy volumes on a historical event without any source notes is unusual.

"... probably how the legend began." That's the problem. He may have relied on "legends".
 
Yes, yes it is. I think there be few of us who started with the OR...
No question. The issue is not that. It's relying on the books as authoritative history, as many people do - as opposed to an entertaining way of becoming generally familiar with the subject.
 
In the remaining 1,199,965 there could be, I'd wager.

In all seriousness, we don't even know precisely what he used for the voluminous "facts" in those books. Three lengthy volumes on a historical event without any source notes is unusual.

"... probably how the legend began." That's the problem. He may have relied on "legends".
If he made it al up, he was pretty accurate. Many who use footnotes use a little truth to go to a extreme bias.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, so help me History.
 
No question. The issue is not that. It's relying on the books as authoritative history, as many people do - as opposed to an entertaining way of becoming generally familiar with the subject.
Which brings us back to the OP. Foote did not consider himself at license to make stuff up, and in fairness to him there are bibliographical notes at the end of each volume. He, too, relied on the OR among other secondary works. He clearly states that his primary aim as a writer was to tell as gripping a story as he could with the factual information he had. He did not consider himself a historian, there are errors of detail in his work that an academic historian might not have made, and therefore, if rigorous historical research is what one wants, one should not "feel as comfortable" treating his narrative like authoritative history.

Of course, there are reasons why rigorous authoritative history books do not fly off the shelves...

The Truth, the Whole Truth, so help me History.

Now that's another whole kettle of fish right there... :D
 
In the remaining 1,199,965 there could be, I'd wager.

In all seriousness, we don't even know precisely what he used for the voluminous "facts" in those books. Three lengthy volumes on a historical event without any source notes is unusual.

"... probably how the legend began." That's the problem. He may have relied on "legends".

Nobody has that much common knowledge about current events, let alone about events that were in the past. Where did he get his information? He didn't live through that era, so empirical, anecdotal evidence are out the window, so would be an oral evidence. What else is left? He didn't know anyone who lived through that event to do an interview. What else is left? He collected his information from books he read and probably from second hand-information. It doesn't matter if his stories are accurate it or not, because to my knowledge, he doesn't cite his work. Does it matter what anyone labels him? If he was a historian he was a plagiarist. If he was a storyteller, he was a literary pirate. Again, nobody had/has that much common knowledge.
 
Which brings us back to the OP. Foote did not consider himself at license to make stuff up, and in fairness to him there are bibliographical notes at the end of each volume. He, too, relied on the OR among other secondary works. He clearly states that his primary aim as a writer was to tell as gripping a story as he could with the factual information he had. He did not consider himself a historian, there are errors of detail in his work that an academic historian might not have made, and therefore, if rigorous historical research is what one wants, one should not "feel as comfortable" treating his narrative like authoritative history.

Of course, there are reasons why rigorous authoritative history books do not fly off the shelves...



Now that's another whole kettle of fish right there... :D
Never said he was a historian. OP I replied to, said he relied on legend. Fault of many. I have no problem with footnotes. Use them and study the footnotes.

However, many people who study the war aren’t advanced enough to read regimental histories, ORs, or care to study biographies of all of these guys. So, Foote’s work has value. He writes with a twang. Interviews with one, makes him interesting to listen to, even to northerners I would suspect. Has a bias, who don’t.

Someone reads his work, hopefully would make them want to know more. Much like Freehling and McPherson did me. Several 100 books later, I can understand they didn’t get it all Right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top