Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Valmy]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yes, I suppose there could have been hundreds of men inside one house. Sure. Maybe thousands.

I'm sadly ignorant of the topic under discussion but I have to applaud this line, which lead me to literally burst out laughing at work.

[Malthus]

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.

I didn't know "amusement" required soul soothing. Maybe to a Yank it does. 

[grumbler]

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.

Okay.  I guess this is just one of those cases where rationality (my explanation of why the facts of publication make it less trustworthy) comes up against romanticism (your bald assertion that you just trust the source more because of its publication history)! 

Since you reject my logic and I cannot understand your emotion, we will just have to leave it as a disagreement.

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).

it isn't contemporaneous (it was written after the fact) and the fact that the author serves his own self-interest by being frugal with the truth under circumstances that might make him look bad means that his participation in the events makes him less reliable as a source.  Also, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details.   Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.

[grumbler]

I didn't know "amusement" required soul soothing. Maybe to a Yank it does. 

Call your responses what you wish, your soul can be soothed. 

[Malthus]

"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.

What's the source of the quote?

The only cite I can find online is a pamphlet entitled "The Story of The Hancock House", a pamphlet put out by the NJ Parks Service.   

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

He was chosen presumably because he did command the Queens Rangers - which did have a certain reputation on the patriot side for aggression - and because he did have a real life confrontation with the family of the main character on the show.

[grumbler]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

Most of the time I don't have a problem with historical fiction, but I turned off JFK in disgust.  Sometimes Stone's propaganda went over the line.

[Malthus]

.  Also, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details.   Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.

Well, that's good, because what is under analysis here is motives and reasoning, not chronologies or details. We already know he got at least some of the details wrong: his men did not kill everyone inside the house, for example.

[Sheilbh]

Okay.  I guess this is just one of those cases where rationality (my explanation of why the facts of publication make it less trustworthy) comes up against romanticism (your bald assertion that you just trust the source more because of its publication history)! 

I think potential audience is a key factor in assessing its reliability especially when dealing with a document like a diary. In addition publication history can in itself tell you a lot about the material - see the treatment of Sir Roger Casement's diaries.

it isn't contemporaneous (it was written after the fact) and the fact that the author serves his own self-interest by being frugal with the truth under circumstances that might make him look bad means that his participation in the events makes him less reliable as a source.

Okay. I didn't know that it wasn't contemporaneous I thought it was something that he wrote near the time. Obviously you need to be aware of anyone's desire to make themselves look good, excuse their own faults and that they will have their own biases. That's part of how you use the document - as I say handle with care - that doesn't make it unreliable.

Also, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details.   Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.

Except in a case like this where from what I can tell you have duelling accounts from around that time in which case you have to balance the different sources. As I say I'd value your second-hand example more than this, I'd value this over a propaganda account from either side. But in an example like this where you're two hundred year's later and you have competing narratives in the documents at the time how do you go about reconstructing events except by balancing, making fallible judgements on the accounts you have and trying to construct a plausible narrative from it - which for what it's worth seems to be what Berk and Malthus were doing just with different sources.

[Sheilbh]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

Never bothers me really. Sometimes it seems a bit egregious but I mainly care if it's an enjoyable film/series or not.

You should make an exception for Wolf Hall

[Malthus]

"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.

What's the source of the quote?

The only cite I can find online is a pamphlet entitled "The Story of The Hancock House", a pamphlet put out by the NJ Parks Service.

I found it!

In spite of the flippant character of this description of the most
famous of the various raids along the Delaware river, the entire affair
was highly discreditable to the Anglo-Hessian arms. According to military
records the descent upon Salem county was made by Anglo-Hessian troops
from Philadelphia, assisted by detachments from New Jersey's loyalist
regiments and unorganized bands of refugee robbers. A detached regiment
from Philadelphia, under the command of Colonel Charles Mawhood. hav-
ing come down the river and encamping at Sharptowu. marched into Salem
City. Failing to surprise Colonel Anthony Wayne and a small body of

troops', the I'.ritish, recruitiuj? a party of 'J'ory adherfiits. kuown by their
uniform as "(ireens." resolved to "cliastise the insolent rebels," among
whom were three hundred militia at Quinton's Kridge. three miles from
Salem City. The Whig commander at this place was Colonel Henjamin
Holmes. Resolving, with Spartan-like courage, to protect the people of
the southern part of the county. Colonel Holmes made such preparations
for his defense as the situation affoi'ded. I']arly upon the morning of the
18th of March the Hritish advanced undiscovered to within half a mile
of Quinton's liridge. secreting tliemselves in !i swamp and in nearby tim-
ber, whicli lined the bank of Alloway's creek. A small party of light
horsemen then advanced as if to challenge the AVhigs. The ruse was
successful, and from the opposite shore the militia, under the command
of Captain William Smith, rushed without military order across tlie bridge
and into the ambuscade. In spite of Captain Smith's effort to rally his
men, the timely appearance of Colonel Hand with the Cumberland militia,
and the personal heroism of Andrew Bacon, who cut the draw of the bridge
and in the midst of a galling lire held the King's troops in check, the
Whig militia was decimated.

Thus defeated by a body of raw troops, who were in a state of exulta-
tion over their success. Major Simcoe. appealing to Colonel Mawhood. was
reinforced by all the troops that could, with safety, be sent from Salem
City. The night had been devoted to strengthening the position of the
Whig militia, which, under the direction of Colonels Holmes and Hand,
controlled the front and both flanks of the advancing Uritish regulars.
So galling was the fire that the King's troops were thrown into confusion
and retreated to Salem City.

Failing in his purpose of plundering. Colonel Mawhood adopted new
tactics. Addressing a letter to Colonel Hand, he proposed that the militia
at Quinton's Hridge lay down their arms, promising that after paying in
sterling for all cattle, hay and corn, he would i-e-embark for Philadelphia.
Otherwise Colonel M.awhood declared he would burn and destroy the homes
of the Whigs, giving over their wives and children to the tender mercies
of the refugees. To this was annexed a list of those in Salem county
who would be first to "feed the vengeance of the British nation." To the
letter Colonel Hand made a bold and spirited reply, characterizing the
communication as the "cruel order of a barbarous Attila." refusing to
lay down arms and promising retaliation if property was destroyed.

I'nable to cope with the Whigs of Salem county, either by open attack
or by threats. Colonel Mawhood determined upon a midniglit assault against
a bod.v of four hundred militia who had been stationed at Hancock's
Bridge. Conveyed thence by boats, followed by a short, forced march,
with orders issued from headquarters : "(Jo 1 spare no one — put all to
death — give no quarter '." Major Simcoe was detailed to put into execution
a fiendish plot, in which the most notorious of the local Tories participated.
Fortunately, however, the main body of the militia had departed, leaving
only a small guard stationed to guard the bridge, the headquarters being
the Hancock mansion. Foi'cing the house, the owner of the premises,
Judge Hancock, a party of non-combatant Quakers and the guard of about
twenty-five men. were massacred as they slept or bayonetted as they
fought for freedom. A few escaped or were taken prisoners by the enemy.
This ended the expedition, and within a few days the Anglo-Hessian troops
returned to Philadelphia, their vessels laden with plunder. It will be
noticed that no reference whatever is made to the affair at Quinton's
Bridge.

http://www.archive.org/stream/documentsrelat02newj/documentsrelat02newj_djvu.txt

The source is listed as "newspaper extracts, 1778".

You can really find stuff online these days.

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

[Malthus]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

[dps]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

Most of the time I don't have a problem with historical fiction, but I turned off JFK in disgust.  Sometimes Stone's propaganda went over the line.

Yeah, there's a difference between embellishing historical truths in order to tell a better story and simply presenting what is at best idle speculation and at worse outright lies as the truth.

[The Brain]

Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.

Some Shakespeare movies are worth checking out.