FW: [civilwarwest] Citations
From: Harry Smeltzer [mailto:hjs21@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Citations
If the genealogy of the incident (in this case, the conversation) can not be tracked down to a good source through all the different works in which it has been included, that to me is a pretty serious indictment.
A similar controversy has been a topic of discussion regarding an Eastern theatre battle, where a generally accepted theory regarding a corps commander’s meaning and intent in a very short sentence attributed to him by another in a field dispatch appears to have its origin with the Comte de Paris some years after the end of the war. The Comte’s statement did not include a source, and he of course was not with the army when the incident occurred. But this theory has been passed on through the years, even to be included in a recent and best selling history of the battle, and a current magazine article.
From: GnrlJEJohnston@... [mailto:GnrlJEJohnston@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Citations
In a message dated 1/1/2005 4:21:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LDS307@... writes:
This does not mean every facet about the battle of
Chickamauga, for example, but if we are talking about Wood's
coversation with Rosey, then your sources should be cited.
But this is once again common knowledge as it is in almost every book that depicts the battle of Chickamauga including the OR's Most of the time, if you go from author to author, the footnotes are usually redundant from one to another.