The Journal of the Alamo Battlefield Association states: |
From: William Bonham
Date: 03/01/00
Of course it is often necessary to hypothesize in order to explain— and ultimately understand—history. The conclusions may not always be totally correct, but sometimes it's all we have. Insistence on 100% documentation can itself be misleading… is it better to depend on a clock that is consistently a minute slow (i.e., never quite right), or one that is absolutely correct twice a day because it is stopped ?
It seems to me that one of the jobs of an historian is to take what facts are available and make sense of them. Depending on whether more or less facts are available, the historian must more or less hypothesize. Some do it conscientiously and well, and others ... not so well. But there is no reason to preclude a carefully formulated thesis if it helps to arrive at understanding, and quite possibly the truth.
Wm. N. Bonham
San Antonio
From: Richard O. Cook
Date: 03/07/00
Hypothetical scenarios are "valid" in that they are based on "hard facts." Facts do not change, but hypothetical situations are subject to change as facts are discovered.
The key to using hypothetical scenarios is the hardness of the facts. Two things come to mind that illustrate this regarding the Alamo-related research: first; some are making hypothetical scenarios on the death of David Crockett based on the information in the de La Peña diary. But there is tremendous controversy over the validity of the diary itself. I feel that the origin of the diary is questionable and, therefore, until hard facts are discovered that prove this diary is genuine, it cannot be regarded as hard factual information.
Second; there is factual information that New Orleans Greys Captain William G. Cooke proposed Ben Milam to lead the assault against San Antonio de Béxar in December of 1835. Cooke also personally went through the lines calling for volunteers to make the assault. The facts that support this are in two documents written by Cooke himself stating such. One is in a letter to his brother written in 1839 and the other in a manuscript he wrote at the request of Mirabeau Lamar in 1844. Siege of Béxar veterans Creed Taylor and Herman Ehrenberg have also described how William G. Cooke served with distinction at the Siege of Béxar.
The scenario I conclude from this is that Cooke proposed Milam who immediately accepted the nomination and made his famous request for those to follow him in battle. In summary, the "validity" of hypothetical situations are only as good as the hard facts they are based on, and they are subject to change by on-going research.
Richard O. Cook
Stonewall, Texas
From: Maria Kristina McKeehan
Date: 03/09/00
I think that hypothetical scenarios are entirely valid, especially in light of the comments that have already been posted. These hypothetical scenarios form a parallel between history and science. Science is a methodology in which we are given hypotheses to go by until they are disproved by experimental evidence. The hypotheses can also be proved or supported by experimental evidence. This such experimental evidence is the "hard documentary" evidence stated above. This makes historical research much like scientific research. If you look at the history of science, you will see that hypotheses provided a base for new hypotheses to sprout from by either disproving or altering them. There was no way for thinkers to know the "absolute right" way as they developed their theories. In this way these hypothetical scenarios facilitate growth and historical development. Without them, we would never make any progress. We should focus on the process of discovering and developing history, not reaching the "absolute" event. That is the beauty of history.
Maria K. McKeehan
Houston, Texas
The value of theory in any form of study, is obvious. I have an acquaintance who has stated on several occasions, that the study of history should be looked upon from the point of an archeologist. Layer over layer of information should be examined and facts gathered until, in time, an obvious conclusion emerges. I disagree, the study of history should be viewed from the point of a detective. In the beginning facts are gathered until a viable hypothesis can be developed. Then, further study will ultimately prove, modify, or disprove the theory. A carefully checked imagination has long been known to be a valuable tool in the study of history, science, and other disciplines. I believe that Albert Einstein even once stated "imagination is more important than knowledge."
The pitfall develops when theory becomes fantasy, or when the researcher will not "let go" regardless of the facts, or lack thereof, that discredit the scenario. In these cases it is common to find the facts twisted, almost to the point of innuendo, to support a hypothesis. All too often, sensationalist history theories are sold to the public using this tactic.
On the other hand, fantasy itself, while it may not have a place in historical research, definitely has a place in the study of history. Many people tell me that history seems to them, an endless progression of names, dates, and places, which quickly become boring. A vivid imagination along with a proficient knowledge of history can be used to create an interesting and educational text which propagates the knowledge of history while holding the interest of the reader. The popularity of Mr. Harrigan's recent novel, "Gates of the Alamo" is an excellent example of this.
History is an ever evolving form of knowledge. Theories long accepted, are disproved, and new ones emerge each day, as facts become available and proliferate. Hypothetical scenarios are an invaluable part of his evolution, but the historian must always caution himself to rely, in the end, upon the fact and not the fantasy no matter how seductive the aspect of discovering an intriguing historical revelation may be.
Glenn Hadeler
From: Wallace McKeehan
Date: 03/11/2000
In my opinion all history as we will ever know it is a "what might have occurred" situation, a hypothetical scenario, fantasy if you will, "a fable agreed upon" as Napoleon is once to have remarked. Only the hypothesis part of the scientific method can be applied, performance of the experiment to test the hypothesis, and the reproduction of it by all which is essential to the scientific method is impossible. A historical event is a one time occurrence. The number of those agreeing on "what might have occurred" or to the hypothesis, fantasy, fable of history, is determined by the opinion of the observer of the event, or the observer of the remains of the event, which then evolves with the opinion of the observer of the observer and his observations ad infinitum. The largest number of those in agreement is the closest one can come to "hard documentary evidence."
Wallace L. McKeehan
From: Kevin Walters
Date: 03/14/ 2000
The posts so far deal with "evidence" and "facts," but I think history is about the truth. The facts can obscure the truth as much as any fantasy. The Alamo serves as the quintessential example. New evidence appears all the time and the legends are just pre-existing hypotheticals. I was told when I was young that everybody at the Alamo died fighting bravely. Since then my belief in the legend has been utterly shattered along with my innocence. You may be upset that Crockett surrendered (might have, I should say), but I'm shocked that he probably looked nothing like Fess Parker. All the same I still believe the main truths of the exaggerated story. With or without the line in the sand, those men saw it coming and stayed anyway, and Santa Anna wanted to make an example of them. From that more mature point of view I can see why an evidently foolish military stand with high material loss could have a true effect on an eventually successful cause.
Of course, finding the truth in the myth is like trying to catch a fish with a bare hand. The evidence serves as a nice net and the facts as good bait. It would be a lot more fun, however, to run around without the net and maybe catch a fish once or twice, hypothetically speaking of course.
Kevin Walters
From: Brenna MM Warden
Date: 03/27/2000
Hypothetical scenarios serve as "sounding boards" for whatever documentation/observation does exist in history. Even in current events witnesses seldom have identical recollections of occurrences. Hypothetical scenarios bridge this problem. They give the researcher something to test and prove or disprove. Others can then evaluate the research and have other possibilities to weigh for their impression of the "correct" scenario. I am not sure there is such a thing as a "correct" version of any event, just the version most people agree on.
Bob Warden
 |
THE
WAR ROOM ARCHIVES Previous War Room Questions |
