Resources:Citations

Citations (footnotes and endnotes) do more than show the location of quoted material and ideas borrowed from others, although such citations are essential. Citations are really part of the argument, and they can be used to give the reader a sense of the depth and breadth of an author's knowledge and research. Used properly, citations can buttress as author's authority in the eyes of the reader. They can also help authors write concisely without appearing superficial, since the citations can be used to note additional examples or the location of material that might be of interest to a reader but is not really crucial to the argument of the author. Discussions of method are often difficult to integrate into a historical narrative, and they can frequently be relegated to the notes. What follows are examples of the way in which one can use citations to

1. INTRODUCE THE READER TO THE LITERATURE: Note the way in which the citation includes references to sources other than those mentioned in the text, using a "For other examples see" construction.

#. Russell F. Weigley, History of the United States Army (New York, 1967), 265; Robert M. Utley, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891 (New York, 1973), 59; Allan Reed Millett, The Politics of Intervention: The Military Occupation of Cuba, 1906-1909 (Columbus, OH, 1968), 1. For other examples see Barton C. Hacker, "The United States Army as a National Police Force: The Federal Policing of Labor Disputes, 1877-1898," Military Affairs, 33 (April 1969), 256 & 262 in particular; C. Robert Kemble, The Image of the Army Officer in America (Westport, CT, 1973), 97; Heath Twichell, Allen: The Biography of an Army Officer, 1859-1930 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1974), 291n; Jack C. Lane, Armed Progressive: General Leonard Wood (San Rafael, CA, 1978), 148.

2. PROVIDE A SHORT HISTORIOGRAPHICAL COMMENTARY:

#. For examples of army humanitarianism in the Indian Wars, see George Crook, "The Apache Problem," JMSIUS, 7 (1886), 257-69; and Richard Henry Pratt, Battlefield and Classroom: Four Decades with the American Indian, 1867-1904 (New Haven, 1964). Richard N. Ellis has argued that in their dealings with the Indians of North America officers often manifested "humanitarian attitudes," and he characterized commanders such as O.O. Howard, George Crook, and John Pope as "sincere and benevolent men performing a difficult job." See "The Humanitarian Generals," Western Historical Quarterly, 3 (1972), 178. In another article Ellis concluded that such humanitarian attitudes were not limited to general officers. See "The Humanitarian Soldiers," Journal of Arizona History, 10 (1969), 55-62. See also Gilbert C. Fite, "The United States Army and Relief to Pioneer Settlers, 1874-1875," Journal of the West, 6 (1967), 99-107; and James T. King, "George Crook, Indian Fighter and Humanitarian," Arizona and the West, 10 (1968), 333-48. On the army during Reconstruction, see John and LaWanda Cox, "General O.O. Howard and the Misrepresented Bureau," Journal of Southern History, 19 (1953), 427-56; and James E. Sefton, The United Stats Army and Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (Baton Rouge, 1967).

3. NOTE SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AFTER CITING SOURCES MENTINED IN THE TEXT:

#. Frederic J. Brown, "The Army and Society" in Richard G. Head & Ervin J. Rokke, eds., American Defense Policy (3rd ed., Baltimore, 1973), 603 & 610. Charles C. Moskos, Jr., "The Emergent Military: Civil, Traditional, or Pluralistic?" in John E. Endicott & Roy Stafford, Jr., eds., American Defense Policy (4th ed., Baltimore, 1977), 535 & 528. For similar views by other officers and civilian scholars see William L. Hauser, America's Army in Crisis: A Study in Civil-Military Relations (Baltimore, 1973), 202; John H. Garrison, "The Political Dimension of Military Professionalism" in Endicott & Stafford, 578; Philip S. Kronenberg, "The greening of the Brass: Emerging Civil-Military Relations" in John P.Lovell & Philip S. Kronenberg, eds., New Civil-Military Relations: The Agonies of Adjustment to Post-Vietnam Realities (New Brunswick, NJ, 1974), 322-323 & 338.

4. NOTE SOURCE STHAT DEMONSTRATE A PARTICULAR POINT FOR WHICH NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WERE INCLUDED IN THE TEXT:

#. For examples see Mrs. Orsemus B. Boyd, Cavalry Life in Tent and Field (New York, 1894), 233; Frances M.A. Roe, Army Letters from an Officer's Wife, 1871-1888 (New York, 1909), 332; Martha Summerhayes, Vanished Arizona: Recollections of My Army Life, ed. Milo Milton Quaife, 3d ed. (Chicago, 1939), 297-98; Lydia Spencer Lane, I Married a Soldier (Albuquerque, 1964), 183; and William Haymond Bisbee, Through Four American Wars: The Impressions and Experiences of Brigadier General William Henry Bisbee (Boston, 1931), 215-26.

5. INDICATE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION: In this case the conclusion noted in Guttmann deals with the professionalization of military officers, the topic summarized in the second source cited.

#. Allen Guttmann, "Political Ideals and the Military Ethic," American Scholar, 34 (1965), 226. For a short survey of other works on the professionalization of military officers, see George A. Kourvetaris and Betty A. Dobratz, "The State and Development of Sociology of the Military," in George A. Kourvetaris and Betty A. Dobratz, eds., World Perspectives in the Sociology of the Military (New Brunswick, NJ, 1977), 11-22.

6. INDICATE SUPPORT IN THE SECONDARY LITERATURE FOR A SPECIFIC POINT FOUND IN A PRIMARY SOURCE: Carter's article is the primary source.

#. William H. Carter, "The Training of Army Officers," The United Service, 2 (1902), 3341-42. See also "The General Staff" by "An Army Officer" in The United Service, 5 (1904), 1; and Timothy K. Nenninger, The Leavenworth Schools and the Old Army: Education, Professionalism, and the Officer Corps of the United States Army, 1881-1918 (Westport, CT, 1978), 7-8.

7. PROVIDE A GENERAL CITATION TO AVOID A STRING OF IBID. REFERENCES:

#. Except where otherwise indicated the summary of the army's work in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines that follows is taken primarily from annual reports of the War Department for fiscal years 1898-1902. A scholarly treatment of the soldiers' work in Cuba is in David F. Healey, The United States in Cuba 1898-1902: Generals, Politicians, and the Search for Policy (Madison, 1963), in particular chs. 5,6&15. See also Lane, Armed Progressive, chs. 5-8. ON the army's work in Manila, see Gates, Schoolbooks and Krags (Westport, CT, 1973). For Puerto Rico, see H.K. Carroll, " What Has Been Done for Porto Rico under Military Rule," The American Monthly Review of Reviews, 20 (1899), 705-09; and Edward J. Berbusse, The United States in Puerto Rico, 1898-1900 (Chapel Hill, 1966), ch. 3 in particular. For McKinley's instructions, issued on 18 July 1898 after the occupation of Santiago, see Correspondence Relating to the War with Spain, April 15, 1898- July 30, 1902 (Washington D.C., 1902), I, 161-63.

8. NOTE SOURCES ON TANGENTIAL SUBJECTS: In the case below the tangential subject is the power of a particular individual, the Adjutant General.

#. T. Bentley Mott, Twenty Years as a Military Attache (New York, 1937), 49-50; Vandiver, I, 157-68; A. W. Greely, Reminiscences of Adventure and Service (New York, 1927), chs. 13-16. The political connections of such a powerful figure as Adjutant General Fred C. Ainsworth were almost legendary. See Mabel E. Deutrich, The Struggle for Supremacy: The Career of General Fred C. Ainsworth (Washington D.C., 1962).

9. DESCRIBE METHODOLOGY:

#. Of the 32 West Point graduates mentioned specifically by name in Peter Karsten, "Armed Progressives: The Military Reorganizes for the American Century," in Jerry Israel, ed., Building the Organizational Society (New York, 1972), 197-232, over a third graduated between 1875 and 1879. Statistics compiled for a control group (graduates between 1870 and 1874) indicate more officers with military science instructorships among the 1875-79 group (24 percent vs. 21 percent for the 1870-74 group) and fewer officers whose only duty among civilians was recruiting (7 percent for 1875-79 graduates vs. 25 percent for the control group). The 1875-79 group also had a lower attrition rate (36 percent vs. 48 percent). In a more general sense, however, the two groups were similar, and if one includes eastern recruiting service as duty in a civilian environment, then the 1870-74 graduates had as high a percentage of such duty as did graduates of 1875-79.