NF McPherson, McDonough, Smith: Plagiarizers?

[TallTallMan]

Now-inactive blogger Dimitri Rotov accuses those three historians of plagiarism. I will link the articles here to see what you all think:

James McPherson's "Concentration in Time"

To oppose the enemy's ability to concentrate in space, Lincoln early prescribed the concentration in time of simultaneous advances . - Arche...

cwbn.blogspot.com

Jean Smith, <em>Grant</em>, and antigravity

Students - being innocent, ignorant, and contentious - are subject to fairly specific and stringent plagiarism rules at college. Dr. Jean Ed...

cwbn.blogspot.com

Jean Smith and <em>Grant </em>(cont.)

In his Battle Cry of Freeedom , James McPherson follows a narrative timeline - and timelines are a boon to storytelling but a bane to analys...

cwbn.blogspot.com

Jean Smith and <em>Grant </em>(conclusion)

Today's readings are taken from Bruce Catton's Grant Takes Command (Little Brown hardcover, 1968/69), pages 232-233; and from Jean Smith's ...

cwbn.blogspot.com

Civil War plagiarists, an endless supply

An alert friend of this blog noticed that newer book reviews like this one were failing to make mention of the plagiarism committed by Jame...

cwbn.blogspot.com

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It would be helpful if the blogger had compared the citations for the text in question, not just the text itself.

I'm more disappointed that a biographer would crib Catton than the plagiarism itself. If you're going to plagiarize, don't, but if you do at least do it like McDonough and take from an unpublished or otherwise obscure source few people have read. Not to decrease your chances of being caught, but because it will actually be fresh for the reader. If I wanted a biography of Grant that regurgitates Catton, I'd just read Catton. But I'd rather read some other modern biographer than Catton (or Foote or Freeman).

Stephen Ambrose got into trouble for plagiarism, but his real problem was the he simply wasn't very good researcher or writer. Having read two of his books I really don't understand how he was as successful as he was.

 

[Belfoured]

It would be helpful if the blogger had compared the citations for the text in question, not just the text itself.

I'm more disappointed that a biographer would crib Catton than the plagiarism itself. If you're going to plagiarize, don't, but if you do at least do it like McDonough and take from an unpublished or otherwise obscure source few people have read. Not to decrease your chances of being caught, but because it will actually be fresh for the reader. If I wanted a biography of Grant that regurgitates Catton, I'd just read Catton. But I'd rather read some other modern biographer than Catton (or Foote or Freeman).

Stephen Ambrose got into trouble for plagiarism, but his real problem was the he simply wasn't very good researcher or writer. Having read two of his books I really don't understand how he was as successful as he was.

Dimitri posted some very worthwhile material but he had his own agendas and was capable of a bit of hyperbole at times. I fully agree on Ambrose. Some (but not all) of his books are generally the equivalent of popular magazine articles to some extent - IMHO, of course. One exception is Undaunted Courage, about the L&C expedition.

 

[TallTallMan]

It would be helpful if the blogger had compared the citations for the text in question, not just the text itself.

I'm more disappointed that a biographer would crib Catton than the plagiarism itself. If you're going to plagiarize, don't, but if you do at least do it like McDonough and take from an unpublished or otherwise obscure source few people have read. Not to decrease your chances of being caught, but because it will actually be fresh for the reader. If I wanted a biography of Grant that regurgitates Catton, I'd just read Catton. But I'd rather read some other modern biographer than Catton (or Foote or Freeman).

Stephen Ambrose got into trouble for plagiarism, but his real problem was the he simply wasn't very good researcher or writer. Having read two of his books I really don't understand how he was as successful as he was.

I have not read any of Ambrose's books, but I've heard that. The worst researched book of modern times is "Triumph Over Alcoholism".

 

[RedRover]

Dimitri posted some very worthwhile material but he had his own agendas and was capable of a bit of hyperbole at times. I fully agree on Ambrose. Some (but not all) of his books are generally the equivalent of popular magazine articles to some extent - IMHO, of course. One exception is Undaunted Courage, about the L&C expedition.

Here's an old article on Ambrose, quoting him that he was a "Civil War historian" before being hand-picked, by his account, to be the biographer of Eisenhower.... or maybe not...

Ambrose: Eisenhower issues... ABC

Ambrose issues, 2002:
Ambrose issues; Forbes, 2002

Twenty books in thirty years is pretty prolific. College professors often employ research or graduate assistants to compile stuff for books and articles. I've seen reference that in his later years, Mr. A. employed some of his children as his research assistants, etc.

 

[Belfoured]

Here's an old article on Ambrose, quoting him that he was a "Civil War historian" before being hand-picked, by his account, to be the biographer of Eisenhower.... or maybe not...

Ambrose: Eisenhower issues... ABC

Ambrose issues, 2002:
Ambrose issues; Forbes, 2002

Twenty books in thirty years is pretty prolific. College professors often employ research or graduate assistants to compile stuff for books and articles. I've seen reference that in his later years, Mr. A. employed some of his children as his research assistants, etc.

His book on Emory Upton is "thin" IMHO.

 

[RedRover]

His book on Emory Upton is "thin" IMHO.

Just for comparison, Foote spent approximately 20 years to write three narrative Civil war volumes (though admittedly almost 3k pages).

Mr. Ambrose published all told something like 35 books. Of these I have personally only read Band of Brothers and Pegasus Bridge. I read a few chapters of Upton and the Army in a college class...

 

[Pima]

Here's an old article on Ambrose, quoting him that he was a "Civil War historian" before being hand-picked, by his account, to be the biographer of Eisenhower.... or maybe not...

Ambrose: Eisenhower issues... ABC

Ambrose issues, 2002:
Ambrose issues; Forbes, 2002

Twenty books in thirty years is pretty prolific. College professors often employ research or graduate assistants to compile stuff for books and articles. I've seen reference that in his later years, Mr. A. employed some of his children as his research assistants, etc.

I do not understand. Why did Ambrose lie? Especially about the real numbers of hours he spent with Eisenhower. Did he think none would notice?

The last part of your post is a truly sad reality. My father' s graduation thesis was stolen by his professor and the latter presented it at a conference as his own intellectual work. You can imagine my father' s surprise when he went to this conference only to see that the material presented was 100% taken from his thesis. Of course nothing could be done about it.

A serious historian should never resort to plagiarism. With the Internet that malicious practice can be easily discovered. Back then it might have been a bit more difficult but now it is totally impossible. If I tried to do it I would be discovered rapidly. All the Professors have a program to check any work. Are publishers using it too? If they were not I would be surprised.

 

[TallTallMan]

I do not understand. Why did Ambrose lie? Especially about the real numbers of hours he spent with Eisenhower. Did he think none would notice?

The last part of your post is a truly sad reality. My father' s graduation thesis was stolen by his professor and the latter presented it at a conference as his own intellectual work. You can imagine my father' s surprise when he went to this conference only to see that the material presented was 100% taken from his thesis. Of course nothing could be done about it.

Serious historian should never resort to plagiarism. With the Internet that malicious practice can be easily discovered. Back then it might have been a bit more difficult but now it is totally impossible. If I tried to do it I would be discovered rapidly. All the Professors have a program to check any work. Are publishers using it too? If they were not I would be surprised.

That's horrible about your dad. And that a professor did it is disgusting.

 

[TallTallMan]

Here's an old article on Ambrose, quoting him that he was a "Civil War historian" before being hand-picked, by his account, to be the biographer of Eisenhower.... or maybe not...

Ambrose: Eisenhower issues... ABC

Ambrose issues, 2002:
Ambrose issues; Forbes, 2002

Twenty books in thirty years is pretty prolific. College professors often employ research or graduate assistants to compile stuff for books and articles. I've seen reference that in his later years, Mr. A. employed some of his children as his research assistants, etc.

His book on Emory Upton is "thin" IMHO.

Just for comparison, Foote spent approximately 20 years to write three narrative Civil war volumes (though admittedly almost 3k pages).
Mr. Ambrose published all told something like 35 books. Of these I have personally only read Band of Brothers and Pegasus Bridge. I read a few chapters of Upton and the Army in a college class...

I do not understand. Why did Ambrose lie? Especially about the real numbers of hours he spent with Eisenhower. Did he think none would notice?

I would like to read Ambrose's Halleck (my homeboy) and his Custer/Crazy Horse, two of the most fascinating Americans. Did he just use Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee on that last one?

The craziest history liar story is Joseph J. Ellis saying he was a hardcore Vietnam vet and antiwar protester when he really nowhere close to the country. I have only skimmed his works and now question if he made up stuff in there.

As much as I enjoy Shelby Foote the man and his work, he plagiarizes Catton some in the final volume with the "began by one mad man...ended by another", which was in Never Call Retreat. Did they get it from something else?

 

[RedRover]

I do not understand. Why did Ambrose lie? Especially about the real numbers of hours he spent with Eisenhower. Did he think none would notice?

The last part of your post is a truly sad reality. My father' s graduation thesis was stolen by his professor and the latter presented it at a conference as his own intellectual work. You can imagine my father' s surprise when he went to this conference only to see that the material presented was 100% taken from his thesis. Of course nothing could be done about it.

Serious historian should never resort to plagiarism. With the Internet that malicious practice can be easily discovered. Back then it might have been a bit more difficult but now it is totally impossible. If I tried to do it I would be discovered rapidly. All the Professors have a program to check any work. Are publishers using it too? If they were not I would be surprised.

Would you be excited to buy an Ike biography from a relatively young college professor, with a pony tail, or from a hand-picked amanuensis who unveils for us the inner secrets of the man?

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 12-4-1975:

World at War: Ambrose Interview... youtube

Ambrose versus the British coxswains at D-day: web article by Kevin Elsby, 2002.

 

[Library Lady]

Serious question for the professional writers here like @Eric Wittenberg : When you've spent months to years reading everything you can find on a particular subject, how do you keep straight what was somebody else's idea and what was strictly yours when it comes time to write the book? I can understand the process for a short-term project with (fairly) limited resources like a high school or undergrad college term paper, but the process for a book that has, say, 20-50 pages of bibliography is hard for me to grasp.

 

[Pima]

Would you be excited to buy an Ike biography from a relatively young college professor, with a pony tail, or from a hand-picked amanuensis who unveils for us the inner secrets of the man?

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 12-4-1975:

View attachment 482900
View attachment 482901
View attachment 482902
View attachment 482903
View attachment 482904

World at War: Ambrose Interview... youtube

Ambrose versus the British coxswains at D-day: web article by Kevin Elsby, 2002.

I see your point but as a reader I would probably would not care that much about the author. I wanted to read a book about G. Thomas for example. Among the various books I decided to try: "G. Thomas: Virginian for the Union" by C. J. Einolf. I do not know who is author; I just think the contents of his book may be accurate and very good because I read here on CWT that he is more impartial than other authors on the man.

In the first video he is surely fascinating. I thought that until I read the second article you kindly presented. Ambrose just crafted a story without any historical basis. Just because he felt that the story, in the context of D-Day, felt good? That is so wrong on so many different levels. Plagiarism is one thing but inventing stuff without any sources to back it up is so **** mean. Especially when writing popular history authors should be very careful. They risk to spread false history to a very large number of people.

 

[RedRover]

I see your point but as a reader I would probably would not care that much about the author. I wanted to read a book about G. Thomas for example. Among the various books I decided to try: "G. Thomas: Virginian for the Union" by C. J. Einolf. I do not know who is author; I just think the contents of his book may be accurate and very good because I read here on CWT that he is more impartial than other authors on the man.

In the first video he is surely fascinating. I thought that until I read the second article you kindly presented. Ambrose just crafted a story without any historical basis. Just because he felt that the story, in the context of D-Day, felt good? That is so wrong on so many different levels. Plagiarism is one thing but inventing stuff without any sources to back it up is so **** mean. Especially when writing popular history authors should be very careful. They risk to spread false history to a very large number of people.

Here is a defense of Mr. A., with some interesting comments too. Gives the current American Historical Association definition of plagiarism:

Defense of S. Ambrose...

I recall after the Band of Brothers book and Mini-series, there was some dissapointment, as Pvt. Blythe's family was chagrined to see their father depicted in an odd way, and it suggested he died of wounds.... He actually recovered from his wounds, remained in the army, fought in Korea, and died on active service in 1967. Mr. A. did have a source for what was in the book... somebody is said to have told it to him during his oral interviews of the veterans. Being dramatic, it is included in the book, etc.


From George Gomme's "Folklore as an Historical Science" (on google books):

From this older article, Mr. J. W. Chambers in 2010 notes the "folklore" developed with the popular study of WWII by the late 90s'

The author puts Mr. A.'s work at the top of the list of influential work by historians on the above account:

Anyways, to the point, folklore is considered important. Veterans oral interviews, like those collected by Mr. A. for his history books, are sometimes classed or valued as "folklore" regardless of their specific "historical accuracy" (from Peter Adams' "Fire and Steel"):

The good news is that what historians write does not change the past, just perhaps the way their readers are inclined to perceive it.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Serious question for the professional writers here like @Eric Wittenberg : When you've spent months to years reading everything you can find on a particular subject, how do you keep straight what was somebody else's idea and what was strictly yours when it comes time to write the book? I can understand the process for a short-term project with (fairly) limited resources like a high school or undergrad college term paper, but the process for a book that has, say, 20-50 pages of bibliography is hard for me to grasp.

I do my footnoting as I go in order to make sure that things which need to be attributed properly are. As for my own ideas, I do detailed outlines for my projects to make certain that those things are included.

 

[Belfoured]

I would like to read Ambrose's Halleck (my homeboy) and his Custer/Crazy Horse, two of the most fascinating Americans. Did he just use Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee on that last one?

The craziest history liar story is Joseph J. Ellis saying he was a hardcore Vietnam vet and antiwar protester when he really nowhere close to the country. I have only skimmed his works and now question if he made up stuff in there.

As much as I enjoy Shelby Foote the man and his work, he plagiarizes Catton some in the final volume with the "began by one mad man...ended by another", which was in Never Call Retreat. Did they get it from something else?

I would like to read Ambrose's Halleck (my homeboy) and his Custer/Crazy Horse, two of the most fascinating Americans. Did he just use Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee on that last one?

On Halleck, I think you'd be much better off reading Commander of All Lincoln's Armies by John Marszalek. Much more research and analysis IMHO.

 

[ed_flanagan]

It would be helpful if the blogger had compared the citations for the text in question, not just the text itself.

I'm more disappointed that a biographer would crib Catton than the plagiarism itself. If you're going to plagiarize, don't, but if you do at least do it like McDonough and take from an unpublished or otherwise obscure source few people have read. Not to decrease your chances of being caught, but because it will actually be fresh for the reader. If I wanted a biography of Grant that regurgitates Catton, I'd just read Catton. But I'd rather read some other modern biographer than Catton (or Foote or Freeman).

Stephen Ambrose got into trouble for plagiarism, but his real problem was the he simply wasn't very good researcher or writer. Having read two of his books I really don't understand how he was as successful as he was.

People forget that Bruce Catton had E.B. Long ("Civil War Day By Day") as his researcher. The problem with many historians is that they are too lazy with paraphrasing or "cut'n'paste" other historian's research and works.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I think there is something that needs to be clarified. Nobody "owns" documentation. If it were unethical to reuse other historians research documents, every book about the Army of Tennessee would be a three page pamphlet. Thomas Connelly's ground breaking research is referenced in virtually everything written about the war in the Western Theater. In a recent post on CivilWarTalk I used a Howell Cobb quote that has been referenced (+/-) 100,000 times. Neither I nor the 99,000 other writers owns that quote.

There is a profound difference between an academic history & a popular publication. The number of Gettysburg/ Lee / Jackson books that come out every year is astounding. Every last one of them is tailored to repeat the preconceptions of the that audience. No deviation from the accepted litany is tolerated. That market will only buy what they already know. If you want to sell those books, that is what you do. An academic history is a very different thing.

My good friend who is an award winning historian has recently had a book published by the LSU Press. He invested eight years in research & writing it. The book was critiqued & reviewed by historians before final acceptance. That it is a rigorous process is the least that can be said.

The world of self published history is one of near unlimited variety. I once received 35 unanswered emails with very elaborate content. A man had concocted a version of the Nashville Campaign & Gen. Hood's behavior that was very much at odds with the accepted history. When I pointed out that his statements were impossible because of the calendar, he cast aspersions on my sexual orientation. Because of the way my name is spelled he assumed I am a woman.

There really is something about the subject of the Civil War that brings out the ranting nut job in some people. I stopped opening his emails after that. A review of one of his titles stated that the references were mostly from his own books. Thankfully, his mania died with him.

Everyone has to read history with a critical eye. However, if there is a large image of Lee on the cover & has the word Gettysburg on it, adjust your expectations accordingly. Those furrows have been plowed so many times that you can't even see the mule's ears.

Personally, I seldom if ever read a secondary source. All of the telegraphic traffic to the Military Telegraph office in Washington is online. The logbook that contains Dana's coded messages to Lincoln makes for fascinating reading. I suggest doing as Lincoln did & reading them out loud to friends. Fair warning, amid the fog of war there are some astounding misconceptions. That is part of the charm. There is a reason historians seek out three independent sources.

Just a note on Shelby Foote. I know for a fact that he was not a historian & did not pretend to be. He said exactly that in person. He was a storyteller. One of the advantages of having a faculty wife & historian friends is having drinks, dinner & long evenings of deep discussion with interesting visitors.

A lot of Foote's research material is very dated. He repeated two apocryphal Forrest stories on Ken Burn's series, e.g. That doesn't make his books any less interesting or narrative any less intriguing. Foote, like all of us was a man of his times.

 

[Belfoured]

I think there is something that needs to be clarified. Nobody "owns" documentation. If it were unethical to reuse other historians research documents, every book about the Army of Tennessee would be a three page pamphlet. Thomas Connelly's ground breaking research is referenced in virtually everything written about the war in the Western Theater. In a recent post on CivilWarTalk I used a Howell Cobb quote that has been referenced (+/-) 100,000 times. Neither I nor the 99,000 other writers owns that quote.

There is a profound difference between an academic history & a popular publication. The number of Gettysburg/ Lee / Jackson books that come out every year is astounding. Every last one of them is tailored to repeat the preconceptions of the that audience. No deviation from the accepted litany is tolerated. That market will only buy what they already know. If you want to sell those books, that is what you do. An academic history is a very different thing.

My good friend who is an award winning historian has recently had a book published by the LSU Press. He invested eight years in research & writing it. The book was critiqued & reviewed by historians before final acceptance. That it is a rigorous process is the least that can be said.

The world of self published history is one of near unlimited variety. I once received 35 unanswered emails with very elaborate content. A man had concocted a version of the Nashville Campaign & Gen. Hood's behavior that was very much at odds with the accepted history. When I pointed out that his statements were impossible because of the calendar, he cast aspersions on my sexual orientation. Because of the way my name is spelled he assumed I am a woman.

There really is something about the subject of the Civil War that brings out the ranting nut job in some people. I stopped opening his emails after that. A review of one of his titles stated that the references were mostly from his own books. Thankfully, his mania died with him.

Everyone has to read history with a critical eye. However, if there is a large image of Lee on the cover & has the word Gettysburg on it, adjust your expectations accordingly. Those furrows have been plowed so many times that you can't even see the mule's ears.

Personally, I seldom if ever read a secondary source. All of the telegraphic traffic to the Military Telegraph office in Washington is online. The logbook that contains Dana's coded messages to Lincoln makes for fascinating reading. I suggest doing as Lincoln did & reading them out loud to friends. Fair warning, amid the fog of war there are some astounding misconceptions. That is part of the charm. There is a reason historians seek out three independent sources.

Just a note on Shelby Foote. I know for a fact that he was not a historian & did not pretend to be. He said exactly that in person. He was a storyteller. One of the advantages of having a faculty wife & historian friends is having drinks, dinner & long evenings of deep discussion with interesting visitors.

A lot of Foote's research material is very dated. He repeated two apocryphal Forrest stories on Ken Burn's series, e.g. That doesn't make his books any less interesting or narrative any less intriguing. Foote, like all of us was a man of his times.

A lot of interesting points. I'll just follow up on a few.

I think people tend to underestimate the minefield that some publishers make a manuscript pass through, especially the academic presses like LSU and UNC. On occasion it can be "over the top" but it means material errors are much less likely. Other good ACW publishers, like Savas Beatie, have their own rigorous screening protocols. And all these publishers insist on a meaningful degree of editorial control - which a qualified author can persuade them to be flexible about when it makes sense.

Reading secondary sources is, of course, a matter of personal choice. There is a ton of excellent material out there and one would need eight lifetimes in order to gain the same understanding of certain events by reading just the original sources - many of which lie in archives around the country and can only be accessed in person. Good secondary sources will point the reader in the direction of those that the author has relied on.

That gets me to Foote. Like Catton, he was not a trained historian. He was a novelist/story teller, while Catton was a journalist. Both were obviously excellent writers. Much - but not all - of what they wrote still holds up and both make for entertaining reading. The one thing Catton did that Foote did not was use source notes. Because both wrote in the 1950's and 1960's, the sources they used were limited to those in existence and known - meaning that they are dated. In addition, a lot of the primary sources they had access to are now known to be unreliable in certain respects. Because Catton used source notes, we know what he was relying on for this point or that one and we are therefore better able to assess his writing than we are Foote's. Foote supposedly rejected source notes on the theory that historians are "so concerned with finding out what happened that they make the enormous mistake of equating facts with truth...you can't get the truth from facts. The truth is the way you feel about it". I think we'll have to agree not to agree on that. To me it sounds like something a novelist would say ...

 

[RedRover]

That gets me to Foote. Like Catton, he was not a trained historian. He was a novelist/story teller, while Catton was a journalist. Both were obviously excellent writers. Much - but not all - of what they wrote still holds up and both make for entertaining reading. The one thing Catton did that Foote did not was use source notes. Because both wrote in the 1950's and 1960's, the sources they used were limited to those in existence and known - meaning that they are dated. In addition, a lot of the primary sources they had access to are now known to be unreliable in certain respects. Because Catton used source notes, we know what he was relying on for this point or that one and we are therefore better able to assess his writing than we are Foote's. Foote supposedly rejected source notes on the theory that historians are "so concerned with finding out what happened that they make the enormous mistake of equating facts with truth...you can't get the truth from facts. The truth is the way you feel about it". I think we'll have to agree not to agree on that. To me it sounds like something a novelist would say ...

From the novelist himself (requires a login to jstor, registration free):

Foote, 1991: a novelists' view of history...