primary vs secondary sources

[mmescher]

In the discussion of Lincoln’s watch, there was a post with the following:

...primary sources are great, when they are reliable. Note to the civilian contingent. Here is another good example of why you can't rely on them solely every time or presume the obvious is not true because some minutiae is lacking in a period account. Classic case to illustrate the point.



I really don’t see how the error in recounting the inscription demonstrates anything beyond there was an error in an old man’s memory. I think what this illustrates is the tendency for errors to creep in with recollection which, while it might be an “eyewitness” account, tends to get clouded with age.

But the quoted comment also seems to be making the jump from a failure of memory to focusing on lack of evidence as proof for whatever supposition you want to make and declare it true if you think it is obvious, despite the lack of any evidence to support the supposition.

When the presence of a particular item is completely lacking in period accounts, the silence is deafening. Wouldn’t the safer approach be to refrain from using something until its use and its frequency of use could be documented? Just to dredge up the question of brick tea as an example, if there are no period advertisements in American stores for brick tea but abundant ads for other types of tea, the presence of brick tea or its use in the United States would, to me, obviously be in doubt. Lack of any directions in cookbooks further support questioning its use. We haven't found any secondary source that provided documentation, other than other secondary sources, for that form of tea in America during the mid-nineteenth century. It may be minutiae to some people but some reenactors – both military and civilian – do know the difference between coffee and tea and are interested in getting things correct and want some evidence for what they put in their cup, not someone’s conjectures that an item was “obviously” used.

What may be dubbed minutiae for a civilian is no more detail-oriented than worrying whether a model 18-whatever musket had a brass cap rather than a steel one. Civilians as well as military want their impression to be as correct as possible. To belittle efforts at historic accuracy because a topic is more often civilian in nature or one individual considers it minutiae is an insult to every civilian reenactor and soldier who strives for correctness in his or her impression.

And if you want to rely on secondary sources in the total absence of primary, I’m reminded of Euell Gibbons’ experience with skunk cabbage. He found more than one secondary source with identical detailed instructions for cooking it and the result was described as a delicious cooked green without a hint of skunk odor. When he tried the cooking methods, the odor was “thick, heavy and foul” and the taste was absolutely disgusting. Evidently, all the authors had just copied what someone else had written and never tried it themselves.

[Linda Trent]

an error in an old man’s memory

Hi Mike,

Actually, it wasn't just an old man's recollection. When the Smithsonian actually got into the watch they found that Jonathan had inscribed that the Rebels had attacked Sumter on the 13th.

Edited at 1:20 AM to add the following from the New York Times April 30, 1906.

"I was working upstairs when Mr. Galt came up. He was very much excited, and gasped:

"'Dillon, war has begun; the first shot has been fired.'


The whole NY Times interview is under the Lincoln Watch thread.

But the point is, we're all human and as such we're all capable of making mistakes. Jonathan honestly thought that the 13th was the day that the Rebels attacked the fortress.

But to me, this just proves our point as to why we shouldn't look at just one document and call it the gospel -- rather we need to study all sorts of primary documents. Books, magazines, journals, diaries, letters, agricultural manuals, cookbooks, newspapers, clothing, material culture...

But yet, this primary source is vital in other ways. For example, the Smithsonian said, "it was not unusual for professional watchmakers to record their work inside a watch," and by Jove, we find that Lincoln's watch had a record inside. This is just one more primary source to back up the Smithsonian's statement.

It also tells us the date that word arrived in Washington about the attack on Sumter.

What I find amazing is that it really doesn't matter where the researcher lives. When someone sends in some primary source information, and then others send in their findings from different sources. This tends to tell me that we're on the right path for something that was probably pretty typical.

But yet at times there's dead silence from the past in regards to a topic, it is times like this that I wonder if we're onto something that may have been done but is rare, or only done in certain regions, or never done.

The problem with secondary sources is that we are at the mercy of the author's ability to research. Sometimes authors say something and fail to footnote it -- my experience is that oftentimes this means that they don't have a source and it's reader beware.

Secondary sources have their place in research, but only when their done in a manner that it's easy to see how the author drew his/her conclusions. Preferably with footnotes and a bibliography.

Linda.

[sbl]

I found a problem with reading an early 1900s interview with the last surviving member of a unit. The old gentleman had "remembered" himself into a number of incidents where he wasn't or that other sources don't mention him. Sometimes "oral history" is made up of bad things forgotten and good thlngs that should have been.
Another problem is that some day to day details we find interesting weren't worthy of recording.

[Scooby_308]

Sometimes "oral history" is made up of bad things forgotten and good thlngs that should have been.
Another problem is that some day to day details we find interesting weren't worthy of recording.
I fully agree with that. Stuff that is common place is rarely worth a mention in any writing from a primary source. I would be assumed that since it was common practice that everyone would know it and find it trivial. I don't think those 19th century folks had us 21st century folks in mind while they were writing. ;)

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Going back to 1849...

On the afternoon of September 12, 1782, some 250 Indians and 40 British Rangers attacking Fort Henry at Wheeling (now West Virginia) watched as the fort's gates opened and a teenage girl run out. She ran across the cleared ground into a log cabin some sixty yards away. In a few minutes, she exited the cabin and sprinted toward the gates carrying a large bundle.
The Indians opened fire on the running girl, but where unable to stop her from reentering the gates.

The teenager was Betty Zane, and the bundle was much needed gun powder for the fort's defenders who were almost out. Unable to take the fort, the siege failed.

The "Powder Exploit" would have likely slipped into frontier lore except for the "Belle of Wheeling," Lydia Boggs Shepherd Cruger (1766-1867). In November of 1849, the 63 year old former Lydia Boggs, the last surviving eye witness to the 1782 siege of Fort Henry, swore out an affidavit that:

1. Betty Zane did not make the run for gun powder it was another girl named Molly Scott.

2. That the fort had not run out of powder but rather Ebenzer Zane (Betty's older brother) who had run out or powder in his fortified cabin

3. That Molly had been in Zane's cabin and Boggs who had been in the fort had handed her the powder

4. That no Indians were close enough to fire on her, so she made the run in relative safety

5. That Betty Zane was not even in Wheeling at the time

Cruger's affidavit and account stepped on a local legend, a created a firestorm of controversy.


Folks then, and even mostly know, dismissed the 63 year old Cruger's account as senility. Or, that she was correct, and the "Betty Zane Powder Exploit" was in fact just local myth.
The problem was that Cruger's version did not jive with any of the recorded
accounts left by previous interviews with survivors.

However...

Cruger was correct. But she was describing the 1781 attack on Fort Henry, and though she was at the Fort for the 1782 attack, for some reason she did not see Betty Zane's run.
Basically, she remembered the "history" of the 1781 attack and Molly Scott's run, and was not involved or did not see the 1782 attack and Betty Zane's run.

The only conflict in her memory in her 1846 interview is that she forgot that the 1781 attack took place shortly after sunrise and the 1782 attack took place in the afternoon. And she meshed them together.

While there are some folks who know the Betty Zane story (largely thanks to the novels of Zane Grey), few if any know of Molly Scott.

As policemen or detectives will say... eye witness accounts are filtered through one's own perception. However, where the versions come together, one gets "closer" to what actually happened.

CHS

[Linda Trent]

Sometimes "oral history" is made up of bad things forgotten and good thlngs that should have been.

I fully agree about the oral histories. My 1st cousin used to tell me stories that my great grandpa used to tell. One was that my great grandfather ran away from home when he was 16 years old to join the Union army where he served as a drummer boy. After the war the US Congress granted him (and others) a certain amount of land for his faithful service.

The real story? He did serve in the Union army, but his father's family Bible states that he was born in 1841 and the county paper says he enlisted in 1862. Do the math.:lol: Also the piece of land that the Congress gave him? According to the county deed books he purchased that from his father following the war. While I think that oral histories, have their place in research I do not believe that they are entirely reliable.

Another problem is that some day to day details we find interesting weren't worthy of recording.

What are some examples of day to day details that weren't worthy of recording?

Thanks,

Linda.

[sbl]

I'd say Hygiene related details for example. You'd have to go into newspapers ads to see what soaps were being made. Next a local store might still have records of what soap was bought and the frequency of soap being restocked could be looked at. We do that with a unit's ammunition records rather than trying to find a soldier's letter recording that he received 40 rounds of Enfield ammunition on a certain day.

[sbl]

Here's another primary source example. The Brownell family memorial in Providence RI has vivandiere Kady Brownell buried there. That's easy as even though she died in NY, the cemetery has a record of her being interred. Her husband's dates have the birth date but the death date isn't chiseled in. Luckily Robert Brownell has a pension file which has a letter from him in Harrisburg PA. You go to Harrisburg vital records and there is no Robert S. Brownell, but the cemetery has a Robert S. Brownwell interred at the same time. The census and death record have a woman born in "Germany" living at the same address and reporting the death. She's the wife of the boarding house owner. From these you make a "guess" that her accent confused the doctor filling in the death certificate. Sgt Robert S. Brownell is actually in the Harrisburg cemetery from primary sources and an "educated guess."

[Craig L Barry]

people read the posts here, and it spurs further dialog. Yes, primary sources like memoirs are less reliable than primary sources like the ORs, but both are important to telling the story. And newspapers are probably the least reliable, even less than memoirs. Examples have been given here, and some that I remember off the top of my head from Company Aytch where Sam Watkins will recall specific people being injured in certain ways, what they said, etc. Checking the service records or bios you find they were not there or not injured.

I have also mentioned the hyperbole that might be used about the capabilities of a certain weapon from a primary source, and it is of course less valid than what a secondary source like Claud E Fuller's The Rifled Musket may record about the capabilities of that same weapon. And the best research is when I have that particular in my hands, can take it apart and see how it is made and make my own observations and conclusions. Am I the primary source there, or is the weapon? Would the lack of citation make the findings any less factually correct? How about if I did the same thing with a hundred weapons or three hundred? At what point does it make no difference?

Also, just finished reviewing David Burt's book on SIC & Co, mostly based on the McRae papers, and which raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps a bit of research into other sources both primary but especially secondary would have provided some of the answers. My sense has been (and continues to be) that we can largely miss the point or the purpose of historical research, and get bogged down in the minutiae too easily. Just my opinion, of course. Heaven forbid I be accused of not enough footnotes!

[sbl]

Craig, your observations may explain why we do this "hobby."

[ElizabethClark]

I do think that sometimes we can get lost in the little details and fail to put them into a larger societal context, but I disagree that the conflicting details of primary sources, including newspapers, are less important or "reliable". Factually, they may have some issues. But, looking at societal context, the information in a newspaper is what a person in that particular area may be using to form opinions and observations regarding a particular event--even if the information is flawed.

Yes, it seems a bit outrageous now, that newspapers reported "factually" on Mormons building a tunnel under the Atlantic to smuggle over English girls for polygamous unions in Utah... but newspapers reported it, and people did believe it, and got their dander up because of it. So, as a primary source, it becomes an informative piece of information--not for the facts themselves, but for what those facts influence in the society that accepts them.

If a secondary source has largely drawn on mis-informed primary sources, it will only serve to further distort the facts. Removal of ribs to wear smaller corsets is a prime example, as is "hoops were bigger in the south, as evidenced by wider doors"--both non-factual statements that were "well supported" by lots of secondary sources for a good long while, and still float around out there!

I've not found too many aspects of life too small to be mentioned in women's writing. References are sometimes quiet, and not all female writers recorded everything in detail, but there are numerous diaries and letters, and more being made available even now, that speak of the tiny details of domestic life that round out the picture, and place other bits of detail into context.

First in my mind is the diary of a young wife in the Colorado gold fields, 1863. She records her daily chores, mentions shopping and prices and from whom she bought things, town activities, her frustrations with her husband (who works at non-mining projects too much for her tastes, and spends too many nights down the street playing in a fraternal brotherhood brass band), her little son and his daily health and growth and the spankings he gets when he's whiny, what foods they eat and how they're fixed, how long it takes for mending, how the local soaps compare to those in other areas, what clothing she's working on, who she hears from (and how), what the local politics are, how they manage things like washing when the snow won't let up, or when the mud won't let them get off the hill... hundreds of tiny details, but because they're all in context, they're *very* easy to absorb and understand. Her diary helped me put other things in context, too--peddlar accounts, store records, newspaper mentions of entertainers traveling the gold fields, out-of-context information about the speed of mail.

Now, her diary isn't the be-all, end-all of research, but it's a great piece of the puzzle and shows a LOT of everyday detail that some might consider trivia. I've rarely read that level of detail from a male writer. Female correspondants are not always so easy to find, but they're getting more-so, and I do find that some of the earlier secondary sources we sometimes use make assumptions about things based only on male informants, as they lacked the current primary female-perspective resources.

If a person's entire research goal is to better understand how life functions in the mid-century, then those little details *are* the point of the research.

[Linda Trent]

You'de have to go into newspapers ads to see what soaps were being made. Next a local store might still have records of what soap was bought and the frequencey of soap being restocked could be looked at.

Yes, but one can also look at period receipt books, agricultural books, magazines... and find recipes on how to make it at home. I have a bunch of period soap recipes on my website.
http://thebradfordplace1863.homestead.com/SoapMaking.html

We're lucky enough here in Gallia County to have a store daybook from 1860 and 1862 that is in our local library, plus if we travel to Columbus to the state archives there is at least one entire box of receipts from a local store here in Gallipolis. Receipts where the store purchased the goods from their suppliers. That's pretty cool because there are also receipts from the shipping companies that tell which steamer the supplies came in on and so on.

Over on the peanut thread Hank mentioned a couple of everyday common things that one would hardly think worthy of mention. Who, by the time they're old enough to read a cookbook, didn't know how to butter bread? Yet, there are directions in the Kentucky Housewife for buttering bread.

Bread and Butter. Cut some smooth thin slices from a fine light loaf of bread, buttering each slice neatly before you cut it from the loaf. (p. 317, Kentucky Housewife, 1839)

Or how difficult is it to boil a turnip, yet the Kentucky Housewife has a recipe for that too.

Boiled Turnips. Take a thick paring from your turnips, rinse them clean, and boil them tender in a good quantity of water with a handful of salt. When you think they are done, try them with a fork, and if you can pierce it through them easily, they are done; if not boil them longer. (ibid p. 200)

My sense has been (and continues to be) that we can largely miss the point or the purpose of historical research, and get bogged down in the minutiae too easily.

Alright, so are you saying that there comes a time in which we know everything we need to know about a certain subject, and any further research into it isn't really important? What if we stop and just one more day would have revealed something really incredible, or would help to put something in context?

I mean, I agree that we shouldn't get bogged down to the point that we don't have a life, or miss moving on to other topics; but I'm always interested in every aspect of 19th century life no matter how important or unimportant the detail may seem. Finding new details is like coming down on Xmas morning and getting that something I've been wanting for years!:lol:

Linda.

[sbl]

"Finding new details is like coming down on Xmas morning and getting that something I've been wanting for years!"

Isn't it great?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Craig, your observations may explain why we do this "hobby."

Exactly...

That is why some folks like no notes, some footnotes, and some endnotes.

;) :)

CHS

It is not what happened that was important. Rather, it was what people later convinced themselves must have happened that was important.

-Alistair Cooke on the "Boston massacre"

[Danny]

...What are some examples of day to day details that weren't worthy of recording?Thanks,
Linda.

...our day to day detailed and obtuse descriptions of Civil War Reenacting may someday seem to have been unworthy; in hindsight wouldn't one wonder at our capacity to obfuscate a pretty basic idea.

dw

[Pvt Schnapps]

I think defecation provides the best example of day to day detail that did not as a rule get recorded.

Having said that, I know of a couple of sources dealing with the construction of sinks and at least one soldier's reference to the use of fence corners on the march.

I even recently, in the course of searching associated with the Great Boiled Peanut Controversy, found a few interesting references to water-closet paper. And I would love to find something that supported or undermined my personal theory that much of the devotional literature carried by troops had a less than elevated purpose.

This may also present a great example of something that interests reenactors much more than professional historians. We see porta-johns and wonder about the facilities available to an individual soldier at the time. A more academic writer might only care about the question from the general perspective of, say, how did sanitary discipline affect disease rates and the condition of troops.

To cite a couple of less earthy examples, reenactors care a great deal about whether a soldier at a particular point in the war would have a bullseye canteen or a seven-rivet bayonet scabbard. But neither the QM department at the time nor many contemporary historians would.

From that perspective, you would have to wonder how a pro would view some of our debates. The best excuse we have is perhaps that our fixations (sometimes bordering on the fetishization of material culture) constitute a kind of primary research that may ultimately have a broader utility and, if not, cost nothing but our own time and, occasionally, temper.

And besides, it's our idea of fun :)

[Linda Trent]

I think defecation provides the best example of day to day detail that did not as a rule get recorded.

...in the course of searching associated with the Great Boiled Peanut Controversy, found a few interesting references to water-closet paper. And I would love to find something that supported or undermined my personal theory that much of the devotional literature carried by troops had a less than elevated purpose.

Hi Schnapps,

Thanks to you, I think we may be getting closer to proving at least regular paper was used. Anytime there's a new invention/discovery there's usually some sort of "why it's better than something else," and sure enough. Here are two different sources that I found interesting.

American Medical Gazette and Journal of Health, 1859 p. 294. (http://books.google.com/books?id=r6mdl5s0awQC&pg=PA294&dq=medicated+paper&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1865&num=100&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA294,M1)

"Misery Obviated.-- The greatest blessing of the age is J.C. Gayetty's Medicated Paper for the Water-closet. It is endorsed by the press, the clergy, the bar, the school-teacher, the merchant, the family, and the public generally. To use the language of one of the New York dailies:"It is beautiful pure Manilla paper, as delicate as a bank-note, and as stout as foolscap, entirely divested of the poisonous chemicals of so-called pure white paper, and of printer's ink, and is medicated so as to cure and prevent piles..."So it looks like they considered pure white paper and printer's ink (or newspapers) as toxic, and therefore the medicated paper was considered to be superior.

In a similar article but in the Dec. 25, 1858 Scientific American p. 131 (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia0014%2F&tif=00135.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-0014-18) we find:Grand and unapproachable discovery -- No article at present before the people is so liberally patronized and so justly entitled to universal attention as Gayetty's Medical Paper, for the watercloset. It is one of the finest discoveries of the age, and will entirely prevent the use of ordinary paper, which is poisonous with chemicals and impurities, and produces piles. It cures and prevents piles, and is harmless to the healthy. The genuine is water-marked in each sheet with the name of the discoverer. Sold in 50 cent and $1 packages...[remainder tells where to get it].

I'm sure given a little more time we could find more. I like the date on the Scientific American, like I said it's like Xmas morning to find little tidbits like this. :lol:

Linda.

[bob 125th nysvi]

I really don’t see how the error in recounting the inscription demonstrates anything beyond there was an error in an old man’s memory. I think what this illustrates is the tendency for errors to creep in with recollection which, while it might be an “eyewitness” account, tends to get clouded with age.

fact that "eyewitness" accounts, particularly those put to paper years after the fact are notoriously inaccurate, even unreliable.

Ask any cop and he'll tell you even 'fresh' memories (such as those from a crime or accident) can be highly inaccurate.

Part of the reason for this is unlike a photograph or memories have an emotional component which colors or evens changes the facts in our perception.

But the quoted comment also seems to be making the jump from a failure of memory to focusing on lack of evidence as proof for whatever supposition you want to make and declare it true if you think it is obvious, despite the lack of any evidence to support the supposition.

Physical evidence is of course the best source to back up 'eyewitness' accounts but even then physical evidence can be misinterpreted.

For mass manufactured items obviously if it was in widespread use there would be documentation of such both primary and secondary.

But I think there are a lot of areas where you may not be able to find documentation to support what you want but lack of documentation does not necessarily preclude it's existence.

For example I've never seen any "documentation" on how to put on pants, yet they obviously did. In the middle of the 19th Century a lot of things were still home made or very locally manufactured.

The trap here is because someone didn't document it it could not have existed.

I think the safest thing you can say is that because there isn't primary. secondary and physical evidence that an item or technique was not in widespread use/

To categorically say, it didn't happen is almost as bad as saying it could have happened.

A great example of the above phenomenon is the Battle of Little Bighorn. The "white" representation of the battle was colored for years by what we wanted it to be. It was based on "eyewitness" accounts by strictly white men and native accounts were totally ignored. An entire mythology was built around the event.

Native accounts were dismissed (other than for racial reasons) because they didn't have written accounts and physical evidence was lacking to support their accounts.

Yet as archeology started to seriously examine the battlefield and lay out the physical evidence the "white" account of the battle started to fall to pieces and the native accounts started to be given more credence. Even silly little things like the natives trying to use army ammunition in their rifles (couldn't happen didn't hit right?) started to be supported by finding strangely deformed and shattered casing on the battlefield.

I think as reenactors were are on the safest ground by having primary, secondary and physical evidence. And we should stick to what we can support when we use techniques and equipment (whether civilian or military). But as historians we have to recognize that new evidence turns up every day and new interpretations are given to old evidence. We should keep an open mind when researching and stick to the documentable when presenting.

[Craig L Barry]

"The memory curve" and within about five days very few details can be accurately recalled. In 1885, Hermann Ebbinghaus discovered the exponential nature of forgetting. The following formula describes the relationship between the event (e) and how long the memory of it is retained: R = e-s/t, where R is memory retention, s is the relative strength of memory, and t is time.

Most memoirs were written and published many years after the actual events they attempt to recall. Heck, Sam Watkins went back and published "corrections" to his original memoirs (which were recently published when a relative discovered them in a desk), particularly his thoughts on the pretty girls in the "Pass the Butter" episode. The girls were not nearly as attractive as the gal he married in the revised version. She either read it or had his recollections from the original memoir pointed out to her by her old biddy friends, the civilianazis of the time...

If my wife (The War Dept) ever reads the "Civil War Musket", or the footnotes actually, I might be in trouble. Since nobody reads the footnotes, I am not worried about it.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

"The memory curve" and within about five days very few details can be accurately recalled. In 1885, Hermann Ebbinghaus discovered the exponential nature of forgetting. The following formula describes the relationship between the event (e) and how long the memory of it is retained: R = e-s/t, where R is memory retention, s is the relative strength of memory, and t is time.

Most memoirs were written and published many years after the actual events they attempt to recall. Heck, Sam Watkins went back and published "corrections" to his original memoirs (which were recently published when a relative discovered them in a desk), particularly his thoughts on the pretty girls in the "Pass the Butter" episode. The girls were not nearly as attractive as the gal he married in the revised version. She either read it or had his recollections from the original memoir pointed out to her by her old biddy friends, the civilianazis of the time...

If my wife (The War Dept) ever reads the "Civil War Musket", or the footnotes actually, I might be in trouble. Since nobody reads the footnotes, I am not worried about it.
Your book had footnotes? I hadn't noticed....

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

IMHO, they are more like "endnotes."

But I don't know Herr Craig's wife anyway.

;) :)

CHS

[Linda Trent]

But I think there are a lot of areas where you may not be able to find documentation to support what you want but lack of documentation does not necessarily preclude it's existence.

Hi Bob, You're correct, but I don't see that anyone's saying that something didn't exist just because it's not documented. What we have been saying is that especially today with the hundreds of primary sources on the web, in libraries, etc. most anything and everything can be found with a little work, if it existed.

But it goes back to what is it that one's trying to prove? Is one wanting to prove pizza to the 19th century? Well, they had crust, they had sauce, they had cheese and sausage, why not? Just because there's no evidence does this mean that we should all have pizza at an event? I don't know of very many people who would support pizza as historically appropriate to the CW era. But I'm not interested in trying to prove pizza (or anything modern) did or did not exist. What I'm interested in is what was most typical of the period. So what I'm most interested in are the things that show up time after time after time.

For example I've never seen any "documentation" on how to put on pants, yet they obviously did. In the middle of the 19th Century a lot of things were still home made or very locally manufactured.

It's not pants, but close. I was delighted a few years ago to find an article about how ladies go to bed. While it was written with a humorous tone, it never-the-less is quite accurate (thanks to experimental archeology). :p This was comes from the October 22, 1863 Gallipolis Journal, though the editor does note that it came from "a New York paper" though he doesn't say which one. What I find so amazing is how risque this is for a general audience. :eek:

First she relieves her glossy hair from its thraldom of pins and combs, and 'does it up' more compactly. Then off comes the little embroidered collar and the light vapory cloud of lace she calls her undersleeves, which all the day have been clasped around her white, plump arms by a couple of India-rubber straps. Next, the 'love of a spring silk' dress is unfastened in front, partially revealing -- never mind what just now. The sundry waist strings and buttoned straps are unloosed, and, lo! what a collapse. A collapse like Lowe's big balloon. -- She stands like Saturn, in the centre of rings. There they lie on the soft carpet, partly covered by the linen underfixens, with no more expression in them than there is in the bare floor beneath the carpet. Sits she now upon the edge of the snowy bed, and begins the unlacing of gaiters, and the disrobing of those fair swelling limbs of the stockings. The pretty foot is carefully perched upon the knee, down drops the gaiter, off comes the elastic garter, and her thumb inserted at the top of the stocking pushes it down -- down over the heel, and -- the cotton rests beside the prunella. So with the other foot, involving a slight change of position.

I think the safest thing you can say is that because there isn't primary. secondary and physical evidence that an item or technique was not in widespread use.
To categorically say, it didn't happen is almost as bad as saying it could have happened.Again, no one's saying it couldn't have happened, just that when so many other options are available, why use something that hasn't been documented yet?

We should keep an open mind when researching and stick to the documentable when presenting.You got it! :lol:

There is also a difference in whether one is preparing for a first or third person event. For a third person event one needs to be able to know the facts, and be able to talk and compare the present with the past. But first person (whether interpretation or immersion) requires that a person portray a person from the past with only the knowledge that that person would have at that time and place. So, if I was portraying a person from Washington on April 13th, 1861, I would probably believe that the opening guns were fired on the 13th despite the fact that Linda Trent knows that they were fired on the 12th. There are so many different ways to use primary sources.

But to simply say that something was so common back then to be recorded, I'm just not finding that.

Linda.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Exactly.

Absence of proof that Cthulhu exists is not proof that Cthulhu does not exist.

CHS

[sbl]

"We serve Dagon now"

HP Lovecraft Mess

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Heretic and blasphemer!

:)

CHS

[Linda Trent]

I have never read a period account of how a soldier buttoned his britches, but I feel sure that they were usually buttoned.
For example I've never seen any "documentation" on how to put on pants, yet they obviously did.

One thing we need to do is think about is who, what, when, where and why might a person describe such an activity. A couple of areas that came to me were travel-logs, period pornograhy, and that sort of thing. I hesitant to use a particular book as a good primary source document, because the book wasn't published until 1888. However, several historians believe that the manuscript was actually written much earlier, and it does have references to the Crimean War (which would put it pretty much in our era). I won't reference the book here since it is hard-core porn and this is a family forum, but if anyone wants to know the title shoot me an email. But here is a relatively inoffensive portion of the book:
I lingered to button up my trowsers, saying to the voice, 'You go to ****' -- The voice made no reply, all was dead silence. -- In my flurry I buttoned my trowsers somehow on to my coat, then had to undo it, then buttoned my trowsers to my drawers, then couldn't find the button holes, and so lost time, altho whilst arranging my trowsers I walked slowly towards the main road...

Whether this is a period source or someone's imagination 20 some years later it does perhaps lend a clue as to where one might search. Here he's describing the rush to remove himself from a situation and he describes his flurry. Perhaps to find out how a soldier put on his pants, or how he buttoned them one might turn to accounts of battles, or some other situation where soldiers were rushed to get up, dressed and in line. What I see in the pornography is along the same lines as an early morning attack where both are racing to get dressed and ready.


There are tons of existing trowsers both military and civilian to examine. Most all of them have buttons. It's pretty safe to assume that they were indeed buttoned, however, were they? Well... while I haven't examined hundreds of military photographs I have searched a few civilian, and there are images where the civilian has his pants buttoned see the University of Pittsburg's CDVs of working men (http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?sid=be56937d9de6c4f4a391d6d91d83871a&g=imls&med=1&c=lysh&q1=lysh&rgn1=lysh_all&ox=916&oy=1012&lastres=3&res=2&width=180&height=296&maxw=2888&maxh=4745&subview=getsid&lasttype=boolean&view=entry&viewid=LYSH2317.TIF&entryid=x-pss6.b002.i09&cc=lysh&quality=4&resnum=35&evl=full-image&image.x=93&image.y=150). James Young is a good example. I'm not sure if the link will take you straight to his picture or not, but I'll give it a try. You can clearly see that his pants are buttoned, and it sure looks like the button is through the button hole. ;-)

I kind of like the reference to buttons found here in this humorous account:During the night our two faithful Esquimaux kept on deck... Their clothing was quite wet from exposure to the high seas that prevailed when they came to us... They were very ragged, and Captain B--- presented each with some new garments, which made them very thankful. Some of the articles were new pants, and each man immediately put on a pair. Sampson's was a fair fit--that is to say, they were tight as a drum upon him; but Ephraim's! the waist would not meet within six inches... [he sucked in his breath] while he nimbly plied his fingers, and rapidly filled each button-hole with its respective button... Pants were now on and completely adjusted -- buttoned!... It goes on to say that nature caused Ephraim to breathe and his "pants burst, the buttons flying all over the deck!..."
Arctic Researches, and life among the Esquimaux, 1865, p. 45. (http://books.google.com/books?id=ctYBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=pants+button+button-hole&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1865&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES)

While these aren't military references, a soldier is nothing more than a citizen who (enlists or is drafted) to serve in an army for a certain length of time. Thus when putting on clothes familiar to him he'd dress the way he always did as a civilian.

I really like this reference, though granted it's about putting on the stirrup pants, but it's a hoot!In the morning, so soon as Mr. Parsons finds himself awake, he throws his arms around the posts at the head of his bed; places his feet against the foot-board, and thus stretches himself...[he] seizes his stockings, and, after many ineffectual attempts to balance himself on one leg, he gets them on. His feet are now thrust into his boots after the same manner. To perform these operations he has never dreamed of seating himself... it become necessary for him to encase his legs in his pants, than he does sit down...
...the invention of 'straps,' perhaps the most difficult thing on earth is to button a pair of rather short pants under your boots... Put your boots on first, and there is no necessity of making fast these buttons but once... Another advantage may be mentioned -- your 'inexpressibles' are never 'rumpled' half as much. The consequence of getting a little dirt and blacking on the inside is nothing -- since it is unperceivable...

Mr. Parsons seats himself to put on his pants... [He] is lazy, and lazy men often take the most difficult way of accomplishing their object. [He] leans his head on the back of his chair; stretches his feet as far out as he can get them, and his head here, and his feet there, acting as levers, of which the chair and the floor are the respective fulcrums, he manages to upheave his body, and, then, the rest is easily, if not gracefully done...

[He] now begins to think of shaving... To wash is the next requisite...

[He] now adjusts his neck to his stock... inserts his arms through his waistcoat; carefully fastens the top and bottom buttons; draws his shirt bosom gently through the interstice; then puts on his coat; buttons the lower button of this; thrusts his handkerchief between it and the vest!..." Southern Literary Messenger, (http://books.google.com/books?id=01EFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA564&dq=straps+pants+legs&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1865&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES)1841 p. 564

There's another humorous article about a Brit in Maine come to buy a wedding suit.[Quote]Where could he try the pants on? ...it happened well that the new clothing store had a corner curtained off for the purpose, and Nehemiah was speedily closed therein.

The pants had straps, and the straps were buttoned. Nehemiah had seen straps before, but the art of managing them was a mystery. On consideration, he decided that the boots must go on first. He then mounted a chair, elevated his pants at a proper angle, and endeavored to coax his legs into them. He had a time of it. His boots were none of the smallest, and the pants were none of the widest; the chair, too, was rickety, and bothered him; but bending his energy to the task, he succeeded in inducing one leg into the 'pesky things.' He was straddled like the Colossus of Rhodes, and just in the act of raising the other foot, when [the chair broke]... Harper's New Monthly Magazine July 1857, p. 284 (http://books.google.com/books?id=HIYCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA284&vq=pants&dq=straps+pants+legs&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1865&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0)

Most of this stuff was found in less than 3 hours of searching the internet. I can't imagine how much more could be found by people searching letters, diaries, journals, etc. The Bloomer costume is based upon mens' wear, and there are several accounts of how the trowsers are to be put on. There are lots of different areas for a researcher to search, and so much more out there to be found.

Scott, I don't know if you have anything to add from your study of the more risque stuff. :lol:

Linda.

[sbl]

"Scott, I don't know if you have anything to add from your study of the more risque stuff."

I could but the stuff I have might have to be deleted as it's mostly images. Nice posting of the trouser buttoning. On eleg ata a time I'm guessing.

I might add that the few sources out there of the construction of Bloomer costumes trousers show them to be a female not a male garment as they buttoned on the side and were supported at the waist band rather than being held up with suspenders. This would the aid woman in letting down the trousers w/o getting undressed to relieve herself. Just an educated guess. This construction would be "handy" for a Vivandiere/Cantiniere in the field getting back into another area of my interest.

[Linda Trent]

"I might add that the few sources out there of the construction of Bloomer costumes trousers show them to be a female not a male garment as they buttoned on the side and were supported at the waist band rather than being held up with suspenders.Interesting. As I said the Bloomer was based upon men's wear. There are so many different versions of the trowser including ordinary and turkish. The ones I had made for the '57 Camping trip were just like men's trowsers with 4 or 5 buttons down the front and an adjustable strap in the back.

The difference I think between needing suspenders or not is that ladies have a waist and hips to hold them up. :lol: There is no way that we could use suspenders with the bloomer since the skirt comes down to about the knee.

rather than being held up with suspenders. This would the aid woman in letting down the trousers w/o getting undressed to relieve herself. Just an educated guess..

Yep! based on experimental archeology. :p

Linda.

[tompritchett]

I could but the stuff I have might have to be deleted as it's mostly images.

The key would be post a description of what is being shown in the picture and then provide a link to the picture. You are right; I would delete the pictures. But I tend to leave links alone if there is a purpose behind the links.

[sbl]

Thanks Thomas. I was just saying "I could" if the that was the subject. You're saying "I can" if I follow the rules you stated.

[sbl]

Thank you Linda. My statement is based on the "few" I have seen. "Based on" can mean that there are two legs but I'm not wearing "My Dear Wife's" slacks. ;)

I have seen a sketch of a proposed outfit that Dr. Mary Walker proposed of an "undersuit" with "whole Drawers" buttoned to an undershirt to be worn under a suit coat and attached skirt with trousers like a man's but buttoned to the undershirt or worn with suspenders. Unfortunately, I forgot to save the issue date of the Smithsonian magazine article I got this from back in the 90s.