Monthly Archives: October 2013

It pays to be Doris Kearns Goodwin

Steven Spielberg keeps buying the rights to her books faster than her publisher can get them on the shelves. From the LA Times:

A year after Steven Spielberg‘s “Lincoln” became a box office hit and award-season favorite, the filmmaker’s DreamWorks Studios has announced plans to make another presidential drama — and based on the work of the same author who helped make “Lincoln” possible.

The studio has acquired the rights to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s upcoming book “The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism,” which is set for publication Nov. 5. Kearns also wrote 2005′s “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius ofAbraham Lincoln,” which became the basis for Tony Kushner’s “Lincoln” script.

We’ve already had a couple of really good onscreen Teddy Roosevelts: Brian Keith in The Wind and the Lion and Tom Berenger in TNT’s Rough Riders. Interestingly, Keith was in Rough Riders, too; he played Roosevelt’s predecessor William McKinley. John Milius directed both films, so maybe it wasn’t a coincidence.

Not sure what they’re planning to do with Taft, but if Spielberg’s got some money to spare on visual effects, my people can sit down with his people and discuss an option on an old post of mine…

Be a shame to let this current superhero mania go to waste.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Run Dave Run

Some upstanding citizens are trying to convince David Barton to run for the Senate.  If it means he won’t have as much time to write history books, I’d be happy to make a small campaign contribution.

I believed in Harvey Dent, and I believe in David Barton.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Online records

When I was working on my master’s thesis, one of the things I wanted to do was examine the federal pension applications of King’s Mountain veterans.  The NARA Rev War pension files are fantastic sources, sort of like miniature autobiographies of common soldiers along with supporting documentation.  Thing is, there are a heck of a lot of them, and I was only after pension files from veterans of one particular battle, so each roll of microfilm only had a few documents that were relevant to my project.  I spent as much time fast forwarding through microfilm reels to get to what I needed as I did reading the material I wanted to see.

Fortunately, people who are interested in using the Rev War pension files have it a lot easier these days.  Almost all of them are available at Fold3, one of the best subscription services to access digitized material.  These aren’t transcriptions, mind you, but digital versions of what you’d see if you were looking at the microfilm.  All you have to do is pay a subscription fee and you can peruse these documents to your heart’s content while sitting on the couch in your pajamas.  No gas mileage, no parking hassles, no library closing hours, no other researchers hogging the microfilm reader, and no duplication costs.

The Rev War pension files are just one example of the sort of thing you can access through these online subscription services—pay vouchers, muster rolls, the records of the Southern Claims Commission, Indian treaties, journals of the Continental Congress, Washington’s letters.

There’s clearly a lot to be said for these online services, and yet I haven’t run across that many academic history books that cite them.  Part of the reason for this is simple: people haven’t been digitizing manuscripts for all that long.  But even when it comes to more recent books, I don’t see that many online collections cited.  I know a lot of genealogists who make extensive use of these online services, but not many professional historians who do so.

Again, these sites offer digitized versions of the exact same thing you’d see if you consulted the microform, so on the face of it it’s hard to see why there would be any difference in citing one instead of the other.  In fact, if one of the purposes of citation is accountability (i.e., to allow readers to easily check an author’s sources), citing an online digitized document would seem to facilitate that better than citing the same thing from a roll of microfilm or a folder in a vault.

So is it just me, or are academic historians reluctant to use online services like Fold3, and is there some reason for that?  And will we start to see these types of services utilized more frequently by academic researchers as time passes?

(By the way, if it seems like I’ve been obsessing lately about choosing among different formats of primary source material, I plead guilty as charged.  This book project has made it something of a pressing issue for me.)

Leave a comment

Filed under American Revolution

UT has a dinosaur now

Of course, I heartily approve of this.

A 2,400-pound, 24-foot-long bronze skeleton of an Edmontosaurus annectens—a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur—was installed today outside the front entrance of the McClung Museum of Natural History and Culture as part of the museum’s fiftieth anniversary celebration.

Its selection is fitting because the Edmontosaurus is a hadrosaur, and these types of dinosaurs once roamed the coastal plains of Tennessee. The McClung Museum also houses actual hadrosaur bones—the only non-avian dinosaur bones ever found in the state—in its Geology and Fossil History of Tennessee permanent exhibit.

They’re holding a contest to name this sucker at the McClung Museum website; November 8 is the deadline for submissions.

I think the name should relate to East Tennessee history: Chucky Jack if it’s a male, Bonnie Kate if it’s a female.  Too bad it’s so hard to tell the difference.

2 Comments

Filed under Gratuitous Dinosaur Posts

Uproar over a statue, and this time it’s not a Confederate

Thomas Watson of Georgia began his political career in the late nineteenth century as a Populist champion of small farmers and opponent of powerful railroad companies.  As a congressman, he was instrumental in implementing Rural Free Delivery by the postal service.

By the early twentieth century, however, Watson was lending his voice to prejudice rather than reform with his virulent denunciations of Catholics, blacks, and Jews.  His condemnations of northern and Jewish influence in the wake of Leo Frank’s 1913 trial for the murder of Mary Phagan contributed to the anti-Semitic feeling against Frank that resulted in his August 1915 lynching.

There’s a statue of Watson on the grounds of the Georgia State Capitol, but as of this month it’s slated to be moved across the street to make way for a renovation project.  The statue’s removal apparently has nothing to do with Watson’s bigotry and everything to do with the prohibitive cost of moving it back once the renovations are done, but it’s prompted an interesting discussion about historical memory and one political figure’s very mixed and quite troubling legacy.

Leave a comment

Filed under History and Memory

Two events for all you folks in East Tennessee

If you live in my neck of the woods, here are a couple of upcoming events you might like.

This Saturday from 2:00 to 6:00 P.M., Marble Springs State Historic Site in Knoxville is holding its annual “Halloween Haunts & Haints” event, with special activities for kids and trick-or-treating at the site’s historic buildings.

Next up is the Lincoln Institute’s 2013 R. Gerald McMurtry Memorial Lecture.  Ron Soodalter will present “The Quality of Mercy: Abraham Lincoln and the Power to Pardon,” at 11:00 A.M. in the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum.  Soodalter is the author of Hanging Captain Gordon: The Life and Trial of an American Slave Trader, and has worked as an educator, curator, and contributor to numerous national magazines.

2 Comments

Filed under Abraham Lincoln, Museums and Historic Sites, Tennessee History

Using published primary sources

As handy as it is when you can access the same primary source material in different forms, it also forces you to make choices about the form you’re going to use.  For example, when I undertook this King’s Mountain project I knew that sooner or later I’d need to dig into the Cornwallis material at the UK’s National Archives in Kew.  I’m in no position for a trans-Atlantic commute, so consulting the original documents is pretty much out of the question.  Thankfully, this material is available on microfilm, so I assumed I’d be scrolling through them while seated in front of a machine.  (Some of Cornwallis’s papers appeared in a three-volume biographical work published in the nineteenth century, but these volumes don’t have everything I need.)

But just recently I found out about a comprehensive six-volume collection of Cornwallis’s papers relating to the Southern Campaign, edited by Ian Saberton and published by Naval & Military Press in 2010.  A nearby library has all six volumes, so it would be a lot easier for me to use the books than it would be to track down a repository with the microfilm and print what I need.  This would also allow me to maximize my research time and budget on the collections I can only access in manuscript or microform.

At this point, I’ve just about talked myself into using these books instead of the microfilm so that I can spare myself some hassle and devote more time and attention to other collections that are only available in manuscript or microform.  An annotated documentary edition also gives you the benefit of reading the editors’ insights into the documents, which can be extremely helpful.  I’ve found just a couple of reviews of the Cornwallis volumes.  One review was pretty positive; the other criticized the editorial apparatus but said little about the transcriptions themselves.  Since the transcriptions are what I really need, I’m not too worried about whether the annotations or introductions are extensive.

Still, it’s a trade-off.  As with any published documentary edition, the question basically comes down to whether the convenience of a printed and easily available published version of a manuscript source is worth being another step removed from the original documents.  Microfilm isn’t the original, of course, but at least you’re looking at images of the documents themselves.  And I’ll be relying on the Cornwallis papers pretty heavily, since I’m trying to incorporate more of the British perspective than other King’s Mountain studies have included.

These are the type of questions I’ve been mulling over lately.  Now I want to hear from you guys.  What do you folks think about using published editions of primary source material when the same material is available in microform?  As readers, does it have any effect on how you evaluate a scholarly work?  And for those of you who write history, do you prefer to use a printed documentary edition when one is available, instead of manuscripts or microform?

2 Comments

Filed under American Revolution