It is never easy to admit an error, even if it was not
mine but having written what I did last week, I found myself having to follow
my own advice. Very recently, a discussion developed about whether or not
General James Longstreet and his staff also helped a battery along the Harpers
Ferry Road at Antietam as well as at the Piper orchard on September 17, 1862. Since
the argument hinged upon three citations I used in Antietam: the Soldiers’ Battle (1989), I had to revisit my
research.
I acquired a copy of
the Latrobe Diary from the Virginia Historical Society in the hopes of refuting
the argument against me. When I reexamined the document, I discovered that I
based my conclusion upon an addenda, which Latrobe attached to his diary about
what he believed happened along the Harpers Ferry Road. H.H. Penny wrote the article,
which Latrobe inserted in his diary in which Penny describes Longstreet
actually firing the guns against Ambrose Burnside’s soldiers.
I searched records,
which were not available to me in 1989 and found three men in the Army of
Northern Virginia with that name. One H.H. Penny served in the 8th Georgia
(G.T. Anderson’s Brigade) and would have been nowhere close to either the
Harpers Ferry Road or Piper’s farm. The other two, W. H. Penny and William H,
Penny served in Carter’s Virginia Battery and in Armistead’s Brigade, both of
which were at Piper’s while the Union counterattack from the Bloody Lane surged
toward the orchard and barn.
Very often “W.” in
script appeared in a typed transcription as “H.” I have seen it repeatedly, a
case of which I will relate toward the end of this entry. The H. H. Penny in
Latrobe’s diary mistook the men of the Federal II Corps as IX Corps soldiers.
Latrobe erred in taking the document at face value and I erred in believing
Latrobe.
Consequently, I wrote
the historian who noted the error in my book and thanked him for bringing it to
my attention and that upon revisiting my source, I realized that Latrobe had
erred citing the article.
The historian, a true
gentleman, wrote back that at the time I did my work I did not have access to
the materials he had found while researching his books.
I
genuinely appreciate his reply and his sincerity. We both ended up in following
the advice in my last blog though I have no reason to believe that he read it.
He is not only an excellent historian but also a real professional.
Concerning
transcription. In my book, Into the
Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg (White Mane, 1998) I wrote that
“Boney” Smith (7th Tennessee, Archer’s Brigade) carried the regimental flag
after the color bearer went down. Rumor also had it that the 14th had a black
color bearer. Writers have assumed, as my source did, that “Boney” was that
individual.
In Robert Mockbee’s
typed, Historical Sketch of the 14th Tennessee,” he mentions Smith as the
“colored” bearer of the flag. I found a photocopy of Mockbee’s work and
discovered that the color bearer as “Barney” Smith. When the transcriber copied
the handwritten manuscript, he mistakenly wrote “Barney” as “Boney” and “color
bearer” as “colored bearer.” While not uncommon transcription errors, they
contributed to the rumor that “Boney” was the African-American color bearer of
the regimental flag.
An historian does not
often have access to the original manuscripts but has to rely on typed copies.
When I revised Antietam: The soldiers’
Battle, I found and corrected quite a few names that were copied
incorrectly and consequently, changed them.
Thank goodness for the
rosters, which are now available, and for the National Park Service Battlefield
Libraries. It just proves that nothing is static in historical research.
Something new will always provide material to make our work more accurate.
