GDG- Re:Shelby Foote took perfectly legal advantage

[Chet Diestel]

  "Facts" are often as illusionary as the proverbial pot of gold at the end 
of the rainbow and certainly a lot more fluid.
   By that, I mean the appearance of newly discovered information tucked 
away in the attic in the form of someone's great grandfather's 
never-published diary or the resurfacing of all but forgotten sources, such 
as Coddington and the Bachelder Papers, can result in sweeping today's 
accepted "facts" into history's dustbin or at least render historians, 
professional and amateur, reason to put new interpretations or perspective 
on events, Stuart's actions during the campaign, as Tom brought up, being an 
excellent example.
  Of course, that raises a question of: Just what is a fact?
  For example, what is the true fact of how long the Confederate artillery 
bombardment of July 3 preceding Pickett's Charge (or any other name one may 
prefer as being more "factual.") last? Historians by the score have written 
about it, but the best they can do is an approximate for the so-called 
"fact" is in wide disagreement. Those who witnessed it and wrote about it 
either at the time or in subsequent works are all over the map, so to speak. 
Indeed, even E. Porter Alexander, who probably should have known better than 
anyone else, renders at least three separate lengths of time for the 
artillery assault in his post-war writings. So, the fact is that this one 
fact is an approximation at best.
   Besides, in assessing a work like Foote's Narrative, we must always keep 
in mind the "facts" --- sources, if you would --- that were available to him 
a half-century ago compared with all the distinguished works --- both 
academic and popular --- which have been published in all the years between, 
along with new primary material which as come to light, have altered some of 
those facts and given new perspectives in revision interpretations to 
others.
  But then, perhaps the most lasting tribute to Foote's place in Civil War 
literature is the very fact that 50 years later his three volumes are still 
in print and still selling and that parts of them --- on the Vicksburg and 
Gettysburg campaigns --- have been pulled out and published as quite 
successful works on their own merits.
  Moreover, like Bruce Catton, Foote's works --- because they were so 
well-written and readable and successful in the marketplace --- did as much 
as any historical work  to reawaken the almost dormant interest in the Civil 
War as its historical light was blocked by the immense forest shadow of 
World War II.
   With regards,
      Chet



Esteemed GDG Member Tom Ryan Contributes:

   Dave,
   Thanks for that most interesting contribution to the topic.  I would like 
to add one caveat, if I may, to the subject of the validity of historians' 
work.  I have noticed a tendency, if only limited but still an issue, of 
historians to "borrow" from one another and perpetuate a "fact' without 
thorougly looking into it on their own.  In other words, they rely on their 
fellow historians to have done the research properly, but, unfortunately, 
that is not always the case.

    Just one example, and this has been discussed here before, is the long 
running contention that Jeb Stuart had gone off on his own during the 
Gettysburg Campaign, and had callously ignored his responsibilities to 
General Lee and the ANV to pursue personal aggrandizement.  That, I believe, 
has been suffiently debunked in recent works, yet the story continues to be 
perpetuated.

    While historians get it right most of the time, there are instances when 
short cuts are taken and proper research methods ignored.
    Tom Ryan