University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Documentary Editing: Journal of the Association
for Documentary Editing (1979-2011)
Documentary Editing, Association for
Fall 2005
A Note on Identifying Source Materials
Robert Scott Davis
George C Wallace State Community College - Hanceville, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/docedit
Part of the Digital Humanities Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Reading and
Language Commons, and the Technical and Professional Writing Commons
Davis, Robert Scott, "A Note on Identifying Source Materials" (2005). Documentary Editing: Journal of the Association for Documentary
Editing (1979-2011). 273.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/docedit/273
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Documentary Editing, Association for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Documentary Editing: Journal of the Association for Documentary Editing (1979-2011) by an
authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
A Note on Identifying Source Materials
Robert Scott Davis
Documentary editing relies on the correct and complete identification of
the authorship of documents and imprints) Fraud and misidentification can
occur, however, even when authorship is authenticated because a writer can
create a document to mislead, such as trying to give the text undeserved
authority and credibility or to present an alternative version of a particular
event. 2
One telling example is the late Colin Campbell's edition of a record by
his kinsman Archibald Campbell, Journal of an Expedition against the
Rebels of Georgia.' The chronological account of a 1778-1779 campaign of
the American Revolution is preserved in the Campbell family archives. The
journal appears to be a handwritten copy of a now lost original record that
was created on a day-to-day basis almost as events happened. Research
revealed, however, that this account includes incorrect dates for major
events and describes situations in the wrong chronological order, even allowing for common errors when recording events from memory. By his own
account, Campbell had achieved a brilliant military success. He may have
'pre-dated' his memoirs in anticipation of an audit of his accounts. The
British government typically made officers accountable for public funds
entrusted to them well after the completion of military campaigns, as it
would Campbell's heirs.3
1For a colorful history of forgeries of historical documents, see Kenneth W. Rendell,
Forging History: the Detection ofFake Letters and Documents (Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1994) and Charles Hamilton, Great Forgers and Famous Fakes: The Manuscrzpt Forgers
ofAmerica and How They Duped the Experts (Lakewood, CO: Glenbridge Publishing, 1996);
also see the list of suggested readings on forgeries at www.ischool.utexas.edu/-i389cdg/
readings.html.
2Some classic examples of efforts to answer to, if not rewrite, history for purposes of justification or redemption include the Cornwallis and Clinton pamphlets concerning the
American Revolution; see Benjamin F. Stevens, comp., The Campaign in Virginia, 7787 (2
vols., London: privately printed, 1888);James Wilkinson, Memoirs ofMy Own Times (4 vols.,
Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1816); and Benjamin F. Butler, comp., Private and Ojjhial
Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, during the Period ofthe Civil War (5 vols., Norwood,
MA: Plimpton Press, 1917). In the compilation ofthe 128-volume War of the Rebellion series
(1881-1901), the editorial board resisted efforts to have documents edited or supplemented with explanations to cover mistakes made by individuals during the Civil War;
Alan C. and Barbara A. Aimone, A User's Guide to the OffiCial Records of the American Civil
fl:Or (Shippensburg, PA: White Mane, 1993), 9.
3See Archibald Campbell, Journal of an Expedition against the Rebels of Georgia in North
America, ed. Colin Campbell (Augusta, GA: Richmond County Historical Society, 1981).
118
Documentary Editing 27(3) Fall 2005
Another example is the diary that Cyrena Bailey Stone compiled. On the
surface it appears to be an account of her husband as a 'secret Yankee,' a
Unionist in Confederate Atlanta, from 1January to 22July 1864. Her death
in 1868 would seem to support the authenticity of the record itself, yet a
close reading of the text indicates otherwise. Stone describes events too
vaguely to ring true as a day-by-day journal. With text that is rich in carefully
crafted but excessively patriotic phrases, Stone's goal may be to explain and
excuse her husband's adventures. Her husband's activities called his true
allegiance into question and suggest that Cyrena Stone may have written the
memoirs to show her husband and herself had been staunch Unionists rather
than Confederate collaborators. 4
Authentication of the Stone diary remains elusive. By comparison, Mary
Chesnut's famous 'Civil War diaries,' were actually a heavily edited memoir,
written between 1881 and 1884, but based upon her actual diaries. This
memoir was 'carelessly edited' after her death and before it was first published in 1905. 5 Similarly, no one knows why General Edward Porter
Alexander never published his memoirs but instead used his reminiscences
to write a history of the Army of Northern Virginia. 6
A different example is the ongoing controversy over what could be an
eyewitness account of the death of David Crockett. The memoir of Mexican
officer Jose Enrique de la Pena includes the report of this most famous prisoner of war at the Alamo. Whether the account is authentic or a fraud by the
notorious forger John Laflin (akaJohn Lafitte) likely will never be sorted out
to everyone's satisfaction'? Still another example involves the blending of a
legitimate record with a later addition. The newspaper publication concerning the so-called Mecklenburg Resolves, was combined with memories of
participants by document thief Milligan Miller. He crafted the Mecklenburg
4See Thomas G. Dyer, Secret Yankees: The Union Circle in Conftderate Atlanta (Baltimore,
M'p:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
"Mary Chesnut, The Private Mary Chesnut, eds. C. Vann Woodward and Elisabeth
M!Jhlenfeld (New York, NY: Oxford University Press 1984), ix.
6Edward Porter Alexander, Fighting for the Confederacy, ed. Gary W. Gallagher (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), xiv-xxii.
7James E. Crisp, 'The Little Book That Wasn't There: The Myth and Mystery of the de
la Pena Diary,' Southwestern Historical Q,uarterly 98 (October 1994), 262-98; David B.
Gracie II, 'Just as I Have Written It': A Study of the Authenticity of the Manuscript of
Jose Enrique de la Pena's Account of the Texas Campaign,' ibid., 105 (October 2001),
254-9l.
Documentary Editing 27(3) Fall 2005
119
Declaration of American Independence that does not stand up to careful
scrutiny.8
Sometimes misidentifications occur because of faulty archival practices.
The haphazard way in which originally loose pages were bound in the 1950s,
for instance, caused Robert R. Henry's memoir to be cataloged as the court
martial of Archibald Clark. The memoir's true nature was revealed as other
portions of Henry's memoir were discovered, which had been cataloged separately in various other archivesY Similarly, it had long been believed that
the Massachusetts Historical Society held almost all of General Benjamin
Lincoln's papers. In fact, they were broken up in the late 1800s and much of
his correspondence survives in dozens of public and private libraries across
the United States. lO Also, authentification of the diary of early American
Baptist minister John Newton proved problematic because of the confusion
created by the fact that there were two John Newton's, one an Episcopalian
minister and the other a Presbyterian minister. Each kept well-known
diaries; the location of Presbyterian ReverendJohn Newton's diary remains
uncertain. 11
Documentary editors as well as historians must avoid the reliance on
faulty and or fraudulent authentification. As illustrated by the Wilkinson letters, trying to identify misidentified, suspect, and even faked documents
often proves difficult or even impossible to do. Clues as to all three types of
problems are much the same. Instincts that 'something is wrong' or 'this is
too good to be true' often prove correct. Typical warning signs are finding
impossible dates, persons, and events in the text. Suspect works often contain suspiciously vague connections to dates and people. Fakes and forgeries
are particularly notorious for 'name dropping' famous persons and events.
The opinion of someone, even by a person with a highly regarded reputation, should not be accepted as a substitute for documented proof. For
8See William H. Hoyt, The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence: A Study of Evidence
Showing that the Alleged Early Declaration of Independence by Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, on May 20th, 1775, is Spurious (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam's Son, 1907).
9Robert S. Davis, 'Exposing 'Secrets Worth Knowing' in the Early Republic: Robert R.
Henry's Papers as a Problem in Documentary Research,' Documentary Editing 20 (1998),
61-67.
lOFrederick S. AllisJr., and Wayne A. Frederick, The Benjamin Lincoln Papers, 1635-1964
(Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1967), 22-2B.
11 Robert S. Davis, The Many Journeys of the Rev. John Newton and His Diaries,
1781-1790,' Viewpoints in Georgia Baptist History 12 (1990), 23-24. For other such tales of
the problems of missing manuscripts and imprints see Davis, 'Georgia Ghosts or Where
Are They Now? One Researcher's Catalog of Georgia's Missing Historical Records,'
Provenance 8 (1990), 31-51.
120
Documentary Editing 27(3) Fall 2005
example, David Ingram's often discussed account of his journey from
Mexico to Nova Scotia during 1568-1569 includes so many obviously manufactured details, such as his encounter with a dinosaur, that even his best
defenders are hard put to find anything in his memoir that could refer to a
real place (although they have tried to prove that at least some of his details
represent his actual experiences))2 By contrast, no one has questioned the
accuracy of William Lee's memoirs, which survive only in print. Lee wrote
an epic tale of traveling from New York to Florida, then across the Creek
Indian lands to Georgia by way of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, between
1768 and 1781. Lee's book includes a probable account of the story's provenance and many of the details it provides can be tied to be real places and
events. Beyond a mention of seeing the site of Braddock's defeat years after
the battle and a passing mention of George Washington (but not of actually
seeing Washington), Lee mentions no encounters with major historical
events, places, or persons. In his telling his adventures, Lee describes himself as anything but heroic or farsighted. 13
Historians strive for certainty but documentary editors must give complete honest proof the highest priority. Unanswered and unanswerable questions concerning authentification are prevalent, but once in print, errors,
however honest, may perpetuate mistakes and fraud indefinitely.
12'The relacon of Davyd Ingram of Barkinge in the Com of Essex Saylor,' is Sloan
Manuscript 1447 in the British Library. For an analysis and history of this document, see
Charlton Ogburn, 'The Longest Walk: David Ingram's Amazing Journey,' American
Heritage 30 (3) (April/May 1970), 4-13.
13See William Lee, The True and Interesting Travels of William Lee (London, England: T.
and R. Hughes, 1808).
Documentary Editing 27(3) Fall 2005
121
122
Documentary Editing 27(3) Fall 2005