Memoir Relibability - Manderson

[19thOhio]

This is in reference to Charles F. Manderson, Commander of the 19th Ohio for most of its service and then a two term senator from the state of Nebraska, and his book The Twin SevenShooters, (1902) which can be read online at "archives.com." (I have referenced this in other threads.) It is a memoir of certain parts of his experiences in the Civil War , mainly the awarding of two pistols after the Battle of Stones River and their loss and recovery.

Many regimental histories may be just a memoir written by a regiment member shortly after the war, as part of a regimental history supported by the regiment during one of the regimental reunions after the war, or suggested by family members.

On page 25 Manderson states that the men "go to their positions and company commanders take their places in line. 'Attention! Battalion!' shouts Major Stratton (Henry Granville Stratton), assuming command. I look on somewhat amazed at this sudden devotion to drill and not down in camp orders." Manderson then tell show he was awarded the two pistols. Here Stratton presents the pistols to Manderson.

But:

In the Stark County Republican April 2, 1863, p. 3, a reporter writes that "presentation of the pistols to Manderson and a transcript of the presentation speech of Capt. J. M. Nash and the response by Manderson." Stratton was sill at home in Warren recuperating from his wounds at Stones River. Manderson even wrote a letter to Stratton at Warren congratulating his promotion to Lt. Colonel on April 14.

Thus, in my research I considered memoirs a bit less accurate than say news accounts or battle reports, though any of these could cast a certain spin on events. I suppose certain dates or times or details could be mistaken, but the presenter of an award might remain in the mind of the writer, especially one who he was working with for four years in battle and is the subject of a book.

Have anyone on this forum come into conflict involving the reliability of primary sources? Discussion?

 

[Kurt G]

Beware of some primary sources . Find as many as you can when researching an event . Some participants have a faulty memory , or see something that they misinterpret . Others recall the event to put themselves in a better light . Memoirs can be especially suspect because the author is usually trying to put themselves in the best possible place or may have an agenda that strains the truth . I think of John Brown Gordon's memoir , but many others are open to criticism .

 

[SWMODave]

Have anyone on this forum come into conflict involving the reliability of primary sources? Discussion?

Kurt G gave the same answer I would. I put much more credence in first hand accounts than I do current historical interpretations, but when I read them, I put them to the M & M test. First, do they appear to have a hidden agenda that blurs their motive. And secondly, how is their memory.

Over time, even first hand accounts change as memories get 're-wired' with age. I am not a scientist but this seems to happen to most of us, and at no fault to us. Tell a memory five years ago, and tell it today, and there are probably some small changes, that will become bigger in another five years.

Motives are usually harder to hide, although some authors are very good at disguising their tainted message.

Your incident above appears to be more of a memory that has faded over time, and when writing the memory, a character in the story has changed. Since the author has no motive to tell a mistruth, I suspect this is merely a memory glitch, which reminds us, that even without a suspected agenda, parts of our history will always remain a mystery.

Depending on your age, you either already have sympathy for the author..... or will some day.

 

[Kurt G]

To quote Bruce Catton; "Even the most painstaking history is a bridge across an eternal mystery ."

 

[19thOhio]

I highly respect Manderson, even visiting his highly neglected grave site. I figure a lapse of memory and now wonder if he was ever corrected in this by any of his peers who might have read the book.