In Starship Troopers, Heinlein has the commander at OCS scare his charges (who have just received their Third Lieutenant “commissions” and are about to ship out) by telling them the story of William Sitgreaves Cox, Third Lieutenant on the Shannon, who carried the wounded captain James Lawrence down belowdecks without being ordered to. While he was away, four levels of command above him were wiped out on deck, and Cox was charged with derelictioon of duty, since he left his post (and, effectively, command) without orders. According to ST, the family tried for over 150 years to have that conviction reversed. That would’ve been up to 1963, since the battle took place in 1813. ST came out in 1959, and is set much farther in the future.
Only it’s not true. Cox’s great-grandson campaigned for twenty years to have the conviction overturned, and in 1952 President Truman did so. That’s seven years before ST’s publication. The Wikipedia site claims that in Heinlein’s Future History, it turned out differently. But that smacks of retconning. This was already in the past when Heinlein was writing, and doesn’t materially affect any of his Future History for ST (Which isn’t connected with his formal “Future History” series).
So did Heinlein not know about this? (Seems unlikely) Forget about this? Or was he rewriting reality the way HE’D run it, if he were God?
It’s not as if he had to do this – the story of Cox is correct up to that point (as far as I’ve been able to check), and it’s already an effective story to tell for impressing his budding officers without any embellishment. Did Heinlein require that extra cherry of military justice absolutism to make his universe balanced, or something?
Because Heinlein recognized the need for “Truthiness” well before Colbert coined the term.
Or, (fan-wank alert) perhaps the Commander’s memory was faulty, and he “remembered” details that would make more of an impression on a shave-tail than the bald truth would.
Yeah, but, as I point out, it’s pretty impressive without it. “He was never rehabilitated” has a catchy, easy-to-remember awfuklness about it, but, in truth, none of this made any difference to Cox or the next couple of generations of his descendants – he was cashiered and disgraced for their entire lives, as Juan well knew. It’s a gnat’s eyelash of difference between that and being rehabilitated almost 140 years later.
There’s something almost mythically deranged and harrowing about a system that continues its willful disregard for correcting the record for literally centuries because said system cares so much more about its own authority than about an injustice that has been done. Practically speaking, I think it’s true that, for the dude who was himself unceremoniously given the boot from the service, the stain of a lifetime of dishonor with a posthumous pardon is no different than eternal dishonor. But we operate beyond practical concerns much of the time, and I think the lure of remembrance changes the situation.
Most all of us prolly have some hopes that memories of our lives will be an immortality of a sort, and despite the practical insignificance within our lifetime of a pardon a hundred years after our death, it would come as some relief to think that the heart of the system has some kindness in it somewhere that gives it a chance to reconsider when it’s given enough time to reflect. There’s the possibility that the system will correct itself, set the correct straight, and absolve those who were wrongly judged.
Heinlein takes all that away with the altered story. If you’re perceived as a fuck-up once, you’ll be known as a fuck-up forever and ever amen. And that’s just scary.
Such things do happen in the military, though. The Civil War has several instances of open insubordination or dereliction of duty or sheer incompetence never being punished, while some perfectly ordinary actions were punished ludicrously heavily because the senior officer felt like it.
As I recall, he wrote the book in 1958 as part of his being against the unilateral ending of nuclear testing by the US. Therefore, he wrote the book after the 1952 decision.
What I conjecture happened, is young Anson learned this very interesting piece of history while in the Naval Academy and had no clue about the obscure 1952 decision to overturn it. It is not like there was a wikipedia back then and the chances are neither he nor the editor bothered to fact check the case.
I would guess this was a minor news item and might be in an encyclopedia annual but not in any encyclopedia that Heinlein had.
Jim (I only learned this story from the book and I never bothered checking it, thanks Cal, interesting tidbit)
Why unlikely? This was * way * before Google. If Heinlein had read the story about Cox in a history book but hadn’t seen a newspaper article on the rehabilitation proclamation, it’s unlikely he would have known about it.
Because I get the impression that Heinlein kept in touch with what was going on his his old service (He was a Navy vet), and because that 1952 reversal was by no means a quiet correction. It was a presidential action, and was an interesting historical incident. It’s hard to keep that quiet, and most people don’t want to. The wiki article links to a contemporary Time magazine report on it. This would’ve made all the papers – Heinlein couldn’t have missed it.
It’s quite probable Heinlein missed it. News wasn’t as ubiquitous as it is today. If Heinlein hadn’t subscribed to Time when the article was printed, then there was a good chance he never would have seen it. Even if he subscribed, he may have skipped over the article.
Same for his newspaper. If it didn’t cover the event, or if he just didn’t see the article, then he wouldn’t have known.
You’re assuming Heinlein was living in 2007. In 1952, things were different, and people thought differently. The simplest explanation is that he happened to miss the article (easy to do when you only get one or two shots) and wrote the incident based what they taught him as a cadet.
Please don’t assume that you know what I’m thinking. You don’t
This was not as obscure an item as you folks are making it out to be, and it was right up Heinlein’s alley of interest. I think he would’ve known of it. Certainly if I were making a prediction about the future (Heinlein said that “his family has been fighting for 150 years to reverse that decision”, when 150 years had not yet passed), I’d want to do a quick check on my facts. One of Heinlein’s trademarks was getting his facts straight. Be boasted about doing hours of orbital dynamics for a throwaway line in Space Cadet.
It’s possible he missed this, but I’m not convinced.
I’m rereading this book right now, and had wondered how real the story was.
But I took it as a moral story anyway. “You three, don’t fuck it up. People will live and die by your decisions.” Which is essentially what her repeats several times.
Side note: The scenes with him and his dad are dang touching. Crossing paths, then in the drop room. Wow.
I’ve got the book on audio, and have listened to it several times on my current long commute. You hear things that your eyes missed in previous readings. (I’ve got Stranger in a Strange Land on audio, too. Dang, I wish they’d release more classic SF on audio.)
Yes, but I know what you’re saying, and your words show your assumptions, just as mine show mine.
Cite? What evidence do you have that he did?
On Wikipedia? A “quick check” in 1958" was not exactly quick – it would require going to the library and researching indexes (without knowing what date to look for). Is is worth going through 15+ years of the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature or the New York Times Index for something as trivial as this? Especially something that would ruin the entire point of the story?
(By using the words “a quick check,” you are proving my point: by using the phrase, you are assuming Heinlein had access to Wikipedia or the equivalent.)
But, at the same time, he gladly ignored the facts if they got in the way of the story. For instance, Heinlein wrote several stories set on Venus that were contradicted by known scientific facts of the time. So even if he was aware of this (and all there is as “proof” is your unsupported belief that “I think he would have known of it.”), he might simply have chosen to ignore it, since it got in the way of a good story.
So, ultimately, all you have is your unsupported belief, and not a single fact.