Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Berkut]

He privately published it for friends it wasn't widely published until the 1840s. Again I can see the motivation to make himself look as good as he couldn't. But I don't see why it should be treated as immediately untrustworthy - obviously you may be right and his diary could be full of self-exculpation, I don't know. But it seems a reasonable source to treat with care rather than just scepticism.

I don't want to consider it untrustworthy at all!

I am just not willing to read someone personal account of things they were involved in where there has been some question of there being issues with people being killed while trying to surrender, noting that he doesn't say "Then we killed them while they tried to surrender" and conclude that therefore it must not have happened because surely he would have said so...

I think it could have happened, and Simcoe could

A) Not really be aware of what exactly happened, him being the commander and not likely to have been the guy driving his bayonet into sleeping militia members,
B) Perfectly aware that it did happen, and not consider it worthy of note because things like that happened all the time,
C) Perfectly aware that it did happen, consider it an unpleasant reality of war that his readers would not understand, so best left unsaid,
D) Kind of aware that maybe something happened he would not be too proud of, but he took his subordinates word on the matter that nothing really happened and left it at that,

All of these would not even impugn the overall trustworthy-ness of the source. You just have to take it with the understanding of what it is - NOT a objective recounting of the actions in question from an unbiased observer.

I don't think I am treating the source with skepticism at all - I am treating the use of the source to "prove" some facts (no one was killed trying to surrender or after surrendering) while then turning around and saying we should ignore the same source for other facts (everyone was killed) as it is convenient to feed our conclusions with a lot of skepticism.

I honestly have no idea what really happened that night. I don't think anyone does, there simply isn't enough actual information.

My point is simply that absent hard evidence, it is just as presumptions to demand that the "truth" be that nothing happened that was not completely ok is as large a stretch as the demand that we treat Simcoe like he was in the SS at Malmedy.

[grumbler]

He privately published it for friends it wasn't widely published until the 1840s. Again I can see the motivation to make himself look as good as he couldn't. But I don't see why it should be treated as immediately untrustworthy - obviously you may be right and his diary could be full of self-exculpation, I don't know. But it seems a reasonable source to treat with care rather than just scepticism.

Except that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself.  I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.

I take no side in the debate over whether Simcoe was a monster, a saint, or something in between.

I would note that it is interesting that Simcoe's military journal isn't available as a google book, which means that Google could only discover one copy of it (they list their source) and that (Russian) source asserts copyright over that one copy, copyrights over the journal as a whole have long since expired, of course.  You'd think there was a copy in a library somewhere so that Google could make the whole thing available.

[Berkut]

He privately published it for friends it wasn't widely published until the 1840s. Again I can see the motivation to make himself look as good as he couldn't. But I don't see why it should be treated as immediately untrustworthy - obviously you may be right and his diary could be full of self-exculpation, I don't know. But it seems a reasonable source to treat with care rather than just scepticism.

Certainly.

My approach, acknowledging that the man is likely to be partial to himself and to his cause, is to ask: what in the diary did Simcoe take care to explain or excuse?

That, it seems to me, is the telling point: he takes great care to attempt to explain or excuse why his attack didn't net the large force he thought it would, and the (to him unfortunate) death of the Judge.

He simply wasn't concerned to explain or excuse the killing of the Rebel soldiers. The inference: that he did not think that required explaining or excusing.

But it is your inference, not his, that then concludes that his troops killing a bunch of sleeping soldiers without accepting surrender without remark is evidence that it simply must not have happened, despite reports from others that it DID happen.

There are plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations for why he doesn't mention it that don't involve it just not happening.

[Sheilbh]

Sure but that also depends on what those other sources who say it did happen are.

Except that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself.  I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.

Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.

How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.

[The Brain]

There is no objective truth in history. There are experiences and stories, and they are all equally valid.

[Berkut]

Sure but that also depends on what those other sources who say it did happen are.

Except that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself.  I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.

Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.

How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.

I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

If you want to "prove" that your guy could not possibly do anything wrong, then it seems like this is the right methodology for that...

If you want to reasonable conclude what is actually likely to have happened given the totality of what we know about warfare, the times, and other contemporary reports, while understanding that no real certainty is possible, then it doesn't seem as useful.

[Valmy]

There is no objective truth in history. There are experiences and stories, and they are all equally valid.

As in all equally likely to be ruthlessly trashed by your peers when you publish.

[Malthus]

If you want to "prove" that your guy could not possibly do anything wrong, then it seems like this is the right methodology for that...

I say we find someone trying to do that, and then tell them it is wrong. 

[The Minsky Moment]

What can be said with reasonable confidence is that it is likely that Americans on the patriot side would have viewed Simcoe as villain, whatever the true facts may be concerning the the details of his military operations.  Since the TV show tells its story principally from the POV of that side, it is not surprising that he is portrayed negatively.  There are other British characters that are given a more balanced or positive portrayal.  But it is after all a TV show.

[Malthus]

What can be said with reasonable confidence is that it is likely that Americans on the patriot side would have viewed Simcoe as villain, whatever the true facts may be concerning the the details of his military operations.  Since the TV show tells its story principally from the POV of that side, it is not surprising that he is portrayed negatively.  There are other British characters that are given a more balanced or positive portrayal.  But it is after all a TV show.

Of course it's just a show.

It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.

[grumbler]

Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.

How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.

The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts.  The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.

Sure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one.  More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.

[Malthus]

Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.

How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.

The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts.  The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.

Sure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one.  More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.

It was first printed in 1787. There would have been plenty of people still alive then who knew the facts. Indeed, in part his exact reason for printing it, as he says in the preface, was to "correct" what he saw as errors in other people's accounts - meaning he knew whatever he wrote would be attacked and contradicted in turn, as that was part of what he set out to do to them. Admittedly, the people whose accounts he was concerned about were - other British officers. See the Author's own introduction, first paragraph on page 13. 

It may well be that there are better potential sources: as you say, an impartial interviewing of Rangers. It would be wonderful if such a thing could be produced. As far as I know, no such account exists, so we are stuck with the sources we have - albeit imperfect sources, as acknowledged.

[Sheilbh]

The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts.  The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.

I disagree. I think a diary prepared for the public is something I'd take more care with than one prepared for private publication and gifting to friends, which in turn is less trustworthy than one written without ever imagining it would be published.

Sure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one.  More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.

Definitely it's less than a second hand report interviewing other participants because there's more than one voice. I think it's far more not reliable, but relevant, than a third-hand account for a museum (though I'm not clear how that could be written without using sources like this) because it's contemporaneous and from a participant. Yes there's all sorts of  health warnings with this sort of document but it's far more useful than just a historian looking back and trying to reconstruct it (as I say it should be a source in that sort of attempt).

[grumbler]

It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.

the show writers include the author of the book that the show is based on, and he had a hard-on for Simcoe (who wasn't a captain at that point, but who cares about history on TV, right?)

If it soothes your Canadian soul at all, just assume that the show writers are acknowledging that they are dealing with fiction by referring to their character as a captain, thus making it clear that the viewer who cares about history shouldn't confuse the fictional captain with the real-world major.

[Berkut]

"Go - spare no one - put all to death -
give no quarters."
- General Charles Mawhood to the Queen's
Rangers, March 20, 1778

This was the day before the attack, and Mawhood was Simcoe's direct superior in charge of the Queen's Rangers.