(Aspiring) Civil War Novelist Seeks Your Advice
Dear Professional and Amateur Historians:
I need your assistance. Four years ago I began a novel manuscript based on an actual political scandal involving a member of Missouri’s notorious 1864-1868 Radical Legislature. Being a novice regarding the American Civil War, I found it necessary to complete a great deal of research to make my story believable and interesting. Unfortunately, some of the information I came across seems to contradict common beliefs about the era. I am afraid if I use this material readers will consider my story historically inaccurate.
My main concern is over the use of contractions by 19th Century soldiers and citizens. I have heard civil war reenactors state that soldiers of that period would never have used contractions in speech. I have also read this on the Internet. Tom Yearby, in his article Creating the Persona of a Southern Soldier, writes; absent in 19th century writing, and therefore in its speech, are the contractions that are present in modern English. We say, “can’t’ they said, “can not.”
In my research, however, (which admittedly is humble compared to those who have studied the Rebellion much of their lives) I have come across several uses of contractions in letters, diaries and other sources. Although I have found no examples of pronouns being contracted (IE. I’d, he’d, she’ll, etc.), I have found where verbs were contracted, including; can’t, didn’t, shan’t and even a few uses of shouldn’t. This stated, the words were often not punctuated as we do in modern English (example: cant, didnt and dont).
I am hoping those of you with extensive experience studying the Civil War era will help me resolve this dilemma, as I do not wish to attempt to publish a novel which will be considered inconsistent with the period.
Please share your view on the matter. Did 19th Century Americans use contractions? Or, to state the question differently: If you were reading a novel about the Civil War era, and some of the characters spoke in contractions, would you consider it historically inaccurate? Please click on the ”Leave a comment” button below and share your opinion.
Thank you for your assistance.
John A. Reed
May 1, 2008 at 12:54 am
I have much faith in the author and historical investigator at hand! His resources seem very reputable. Look forward to what true reader and personal historians have to say!
May 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm
They spoke and wrote both with and without contractions but no apostrophe.From diaries and letters I have read I found both…The Life of Johnny Reb by Bell Irvin Wiley has an example of a letter written by a soldier from Alabama…pg. 232…and pg. 283 poem using do not in the first stanza and cant in the second…Sounds like both are okay as they were written as well as said. Hope this helps you…both would sound okay to me…read other CW historical fiction and you’ll find both…try…Copperhead by Bernard Cornwall…
May 2, 2008 at 1:23 am
I received an e-mail from a fellow reenactor detailing your question, and providing a link to this blog.
Short answer: “Of course they used contractions.”
First of all, I must point out that writing and speaking are two different forms of communication. I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we use the same language for both (although historically this wasn’t always the case — there was a time when most Europeans only wrote in Latin, regardless of what language they spoke).
You probably need to widen your search a little bit. Upon reading the e-mail I immediately thought of Marcy’s “The Prairie Traveler,” written in 1859. An excellent resource, which you can find online: http://www.kancoll.org/books/marcy/index.html
But reproductions of the book are also available.
Here is an anecdote from chapter 6, pgs 186-87:
[quote]While surveying Indian lands in the wilds of Western Texas during the summer of 1854, I encountered a deputy surveyor traveling on foot, with his compass and chain upon his back. I saluted him very politely, remarking that I presumed he was a surveyor, to which he replied, “I reckon, stranger, I ar that thar individoal.”
I had taken the magnetic variation several times, always with nearly the same results (about 10° 20′) ; but, in order to verify my observations, I was curious to learn how they accorded with his own working, and accordingly inquired of him what he made the variation of the compass in that particular locality. He seemed struck with astonishment, took his compass from his back and laid it upon a log near by, then facing me, and pointing with his had toward it, said,
“Straanger, do yer see that thar instru-ment?” to which I replied in the affirmative. He continued,
“I’ve owned her well-nigh goin on twenty year. I’ve put her through the perarries and through the timber, and now look yeer, straanger, you can just bet your life on’t she never var-ried aary time, and if you’ll just follow her sign you’ll knock the centre outer the north star. She never lies, she don’t.”
He seemed to consider my interrogoatory as a direct insinuation that his compass was an imperfect one, and hence his indignation. Thinking that I should not get any very important intelligence concerning the variation of the needle from this surveyor, I begged his pardon for questioning the accuracy of his instru-ment, bid him good-morning, and continued on my journey.[/quote]
Notice the use of “I’ve” . . .
I believe this style of quoting speech in the vernacular was popular during the mid 19th century, and I’m sure with some research you will find more. You might want to look at novels, short stories, and jokes. Sometimes I think newspapers would print them. I have to admit that I haven’t done that much research either, and most of the replica books I’ve read are of a technical nature.
I’ll admit that it’s possible that people who wrote a LOT, might develop the habit of speaking in the manner that they wrote — but that’s just a guess.
May 2, 2008 at 6:15 pm
sur:
any1 ho thinks ther r absolutes bout thangs in 19th cintiry amerika is a Fool.
perhaps mark twain captured mid-19th century missouri speech as well as any. rely on him (and other legitimate observers of 19th century missouri). tom sawyer, huck finn, or life on the mississippi. there’re lots of contractions (grammatical and ungrammatical) used by blacks, poor whites, and the middle class (when they aren’t putting on airs, and active politicians definitely dont).
contractions then, even more than now, were not commonly used in written communication. there are substantial differences between the spoken and written language.
most reenactors’ blogs dont meet any standards for peer review or completeness. i wouldn’t use such for a single source.
so my advice for dialog in ANY novel, particularly about 19th century missouri, is: look to mark twain!
that aint no lye.
ur pal,
kurly
May 2, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Greetings and Salutations Mr. Reed.
Hope this letter fines you and yours well and good.
I am currentltly faced with a Herculean task, but expect to have it completed in a week or so, when I hope to answer your request more fully. But in the Mean time, I will leave you with this.
We Can only Judge Victorians (The Civil War being in this time,) by what they wrote, since we have no recordings.
But in General, Victorians love long words, Never use one word when they can use 5 and use lots of Classical illusions.
Writing and Manners are more formal, so we image speech was as well.
Hope this helps.
Curtis.
May 2, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Dear Mr. Reed,
I am glad to hear of your interest in the American Civil War period. To aid in your writing, I would suggest you reference the diaries of the soldiers you intend to represent in your writings. Many of them have been published and some are available through local libraries.
Another suggestion would be to post your letter requesting help on several reenator web sites.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/
http://www.westcoastcampaigner.com/
There are some on these web sites that are very knowledgeable and may offer assistance.
Brian Wiswell
May 2, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Dear Sir,
Kathy Wagner forwarded your email on the topic of Civil War speech, contractions, and pronunciations. As Mrs. Wagner may have informed you, her husband is very ill and unable to respond.
A highly recommended resource (one that you might have already consulted) is Civil War Spoken Here: A Dictionary of Mispronounced People, Places, and Things of the 1860’s by Robert D. Quigley (C.W. Historicals: 1st edition, December 1, 1993).
My own experience in reading Civil War letters tells me that many folks used contractions in personal letters, but rarely in official correspondence.
Hope this helps.
John Deppen
John Deppen
Office of Professional Support Services
Box 213
Lewisburg, PA 17837
570-523-1155, x. 2203
“Academic excellence alone will not win you friends. You must be considerate to others and never be mean or sarcastic.”
- Lt. Gen. Tadamichi Kuribayashi, commander of the Japanese garrison on Iwo Jima, to his daughter Takako, January 18, 1945
May 2, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Dear Mr. Reed:
I was quite interested to read your e-mail and commend you for your efforts to keep your work historically accurate. As a reenactor, I’m captain of the 22nd. In real life, I run a historical society and also do some writing of historical fiction myself. So I can certainly identify with your quandary.
Having read many letters from the period, I had seen a number of contractions used and always felt that the belief that they “never” used contractions should be taken with a grain of salt. They did indeed use them. But not as often as we do today. I decided that the best way to answer your question was to run a quick computer search of some letter transcriptions from the Civil War era that we have here at the historical society. I found exactly what you described to be true. There were many instances in the letters of “can’t,” “don’t,” “isn’t,” “shant” and a few “shouldn’ts.” (I should mention that “cannot” was much more common than “can’t”). But I did not find any examples of “I’d,” “I’ll,” “he’d,” “she’d,” etc. Your point about pronouns is interesting in that I never noticed this before. So, it seems they would commonly contract “not” but didn’t typically contract “will” or “would.” It seems pronouns were not entirely off limits, though, in that I did find examples of “I’m” but not “he’s” or “she’s.”
I hope this information is useful.
Best,
Patrick Browne
22nd Massachusetts
(also of the Duxbury Rural and Historical Society)
May 2, 2008 at 6:52 pm
my research shows that contractions were common in speech but not in writings by educated folks. the less educated used contractions out of lack of knowledge of the language.
there is a general misconception that civil war folks spoke in elizibethon english. their language and vocabulary was exactly like todays with the obvious exception of modern terms, computer, etc.
btw, “ok” was a common term.
dave shackelford
May 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Not having been concerned with this aspect of Victorian times I have no previous research to reference.
On reading the previous entries I decided to test some of the answers by random selections through my library.
I picked Letters from Gen. Lee, As Seen From the Ranks, In Camp and Battle with the Washington Artillery and Daring and Suffering.
I found no contractions in random samples of the pages from Gen Lee, or Col Owens ( In Camp…) but easily found quotes in “As Seen from the ranks” by a General to a Col.Ketcham with the use of “I’ll” and “We’ll”.
On the only page I opened in “Daring and Suffering” I found “don’t” in a paragraph that was describing his interrogation.
The ease in which I found these contractions on such a random sample of quotes indicate, at least to me, that contractions in speech were common.
Paul De Nubilo
President American Civil War Association
May 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Stan Prater of the 8th MO Volunteer Infantry (US) passed your request on to me because I do some historical research for the 8th MO website.
It looks to me that your own research does show that people in the 1860’s used contractions. So, I would go ahead and use them if you think they enhance your book.