by Dr. Ray Miles, McNeese State University
Footnotes or endnotes appear in all history books, especially monographs. Some students comment that they are distracting because those little numbers clutter the text. Of course the notations are not meant to clutter and they serve several functions. Footnotes can be used to clarify, define, or argue a point more thoroughly than is appropriate for the text. As a professor of mine once said, “Grind your axes in the footnotes, not the text.” Footnotes can be used to give the reader alternative views to those being expressed in the text. They can also offer suggested sources that may expand upon a point in the text. However, the primary purpose of the notation number is to lead the reader to a citation that will provide them the exact location for the source material used for documenting the passage of text.
This means then that the author must take great care in making notations so that the citation will take the reader to the correct source location. Accuracy is vital: the author, title, edition, and page number(s) are all signposts that guide the reader so that they don’t get lost on the research highway. Once the reader gets there they must decide whether or not the author has fairly used or interpreted the source. This is another matter altogether.
Practical exercise in verifying the use of sources:
Have you ever followed footnote citations to verify their accuracy and whether or not the author used the sources fairly? I had done this when grading student research papers as a matter of routine, but had never given the practice much thought when reading a monograph. Many years ago I received a request to review a book for a historical journal. When the book arrived I was pleased with the magnificent dust jacket art but once I began reading the work…well let’s just say that old adage came to mind: “you can’t judge a book by its cover.” I will not furnish the citation for that book. It is not my purpose to belittle the author or the editor. I will say it was a history of the Osage Indians and the book provided numerous examples on how NOT to “do history.”
So let’s take a passage from the book and explore the citations within it. At this point in the book the author is attempting to give some sense of the increasing value ofSpain’s trade among the tribes that held territory along theMissouri River. The Osage were a formidable group and success in trading depended upon their goodwill:
Some idea of the value of the fur trade in the 1775-1776 season can be gained from the assignment of traders and the amount invested in trade goods. A total of 97,000 livres was invested in the Missouritrade. 28 If we take twenty cents as the value of a livre, this would be a total of $19,480 invested in trade goods. Profits usually ranged from 100% to 200% of the amount invested in trade goods. We will take 100% as our figure for estimating the value of the Missouri trade in 1775-1776. On this basis, the Missouri trade would amount to $1,948,000 and the Osage part of this trade would amount to $888,000. By applying the same basis to the 1794-1795 season, the amounts would be $3,500,000 for the total Missouri trade and $1,920,000 for the Osage trade alone. 29 Clearly the Osage trade accounted for half or more of theMissouri trade. No figures are available for theArkansas trade, but the Osage portion of this trade would be at least half.
27Abraham P. Nasatir, Borderland in Retreat (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1976), pp. 18-19; also Lawrence Kinnaird, ed., “Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765-1794,” Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1945, Pt. 1, Vol. II: 214-218.
28 Ibid., p. 228.
29 Loc. cit.
In this example, footnote 27 is important even though this number is not given in the passage provided. For students who may not be familiar with the Latin used in this older citation style, footnote 28 says “Ibid” which means “in the same place” and was commonly used to reference the same source noted in the previous footnote. “Loc. cit.” in number 29 means “in the place cited exactly” and was used to specify that the citation was in the exact location (source and page number) as the previous citation. The obvious question for footnote 28 is which source is the author referencing, Nasatir or Kinnaird? A quick check reveals that Nasatir’s book is only 175 pages so the “Ibid” in footnote 28 can’t refer to that work. Therefore, all of the information referenced for footnotes 28 and 29 should all be derived from a single page: 228 of “Spain in theMississippiValley, 1765-1794.” That page is included as a Word document at the end of this essay.
Note that the document is a translation of the report “Nations of theMissouri” from Pedro Piernas, the lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana, to Luis Unzaga, governor ofLouisiana.
Now, with the book passage and the original source cited we can begin our exercise. The author states that the Spanish investment in theMissouritrade totaled 97,000 livres. The source specifies “97,400.” Next the author states that the value of the livre should be twenty cents. No authority whatsoever is cited for the exchange value. Even if we indulge the author and accept the value, the “math doesn’t work.” 97,000 X .20 equals $19,400 not the $19,480 written by the author. However, if you multiply .20 times the correct number in the source, the sum is $19,480!
Even more troubling is what comes next. The author asserts that profits usually ranged from 100% to 200% and once again, no authority is cited. He then arbitrarily selects 100% as the margin he will use to calculate the value of profit to be expected from the Missouri Riverarea and Osage trade. He arrives at the dollar value of $1,948,000. It is clear the author multiplied the investment amount times 100 rather than 1.00 (which is proper expression of 100%)!!! This mistake is compounded when he derives the value of the Osage trade by taking just under one half (45.58%) of the dollar amount and giving $888,000 as the value of their trade. The only accurate figure in the author’s calculations is his assertion that the Osage trade accounted for roughly one half of the total Missouri Rivertrade. Note on the source document that the Little Osages and Great Osages (the two divisions of the Osage tribe) had 22,200 pounds worth of goods of a grand total of 48,7000. This means the Osage portion was 45.58% of the total trade. Incidentally, you will also note in the source document that “forbidden” is written beside both Little Osages and Great Osages. This means that trade was legally forbidden (and had been since 1773) because the Spanish were “punishing” the Osage for depredations. The Spanish hoped to gain more compliant behavior from the Osage by depriving them of trade goods. In reality, the trade ban was being lifted so Piernas is reporting the anticipated level of trade based on what was being authorized for the upcoming trade season, not how much trade was actually taking place.
Next the author leaps ahead to the 1794-1795 trading season and tells the reader he will apply the same basis for calculating. What really happens is that he makes the same math mistakes again. In addition, his citation declares that the data for 1794-95 came from the same page in the source as the previous citation. It clearly did not. The volume cited ends with the year 1781 so the base numbers must have come from a different volume.
The last statement from the excerpted passage requires the reader to make yet another leap of faith with the author. We are told quite plainly, “No figures are available for theArkansastrade, but the Osage portion…would be at least half.” There is not the slightest clue as to how the author arrived at such an assertion.
In conclusion, writers must take great care in documenting their work. The sources must be properly cited and the sources must be fairly / accurately used. If we are true to our discipline, we will judge books not by their covers, but by their content.