I suppose that this issue makes me cranky because I am by profession an educator and historian. I have a strong interest in Watchtower history. I'm a fan of Schulz and de Vienne's work in this area. Maybe you've read their book Nelson Barbour, the Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. They write well documented, readable history. Most of why you will find on the internet is not of that quality. For instance there is an essay claiming to be the best short history of the Watch Tower. It is four-fifths inaccurate. To qualify as "history" the research should be reproducible. You should be able to find the original source, consult it, and see in it what the writer saw. One cannot do that with most of what is on the internet, EVEN if it is footnoted. A footnote does not make something scholarly.
When I was much younger than now the book None Dare Call it Treason was published. It caused a ripple through the student body where I taught. It was full of footnotes. I took a copy to our university library and went checking. The footnotes were faked. Beware of footnotes. Still you can tell much from the nature of footnotes an author uses. I can tell a huge amount about the quality of a student's research by the material he cites.
I have in manuscript form the nearly finished chapter one of Schulz and de Vienne's next book. This chapter as it stands is fifty-two single spaced pages long and has 234 footnotes. Most of those footnotes are from original sources. I will append some examples taken from their work shortly. They point to the location of rare documents. If a book is remarkably rare, they tell you where they found it. I've spent hours fact checking this manuscript. I ended up with six questions which I sent to Mr. Schulz and Dr. de Vienne. I got prompt answers with full explanations. They re-wrote two footnotes to clarify the points I raised. THIS is what good (in this case Great) historical research is like.
Here are some of the footnotes extracted from the first seven pages of their manuscript:
To the Honorable Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in the Matter of Joseph L. Russell, dated October 26, 1846, found in Allegheny County Archives. A passenger list exists for a Joseph Russell of the right age dated 30 May 1839. That Joseph entered through Boston and is listed as a laborer. He departed from Liverpool on the ship Massasolt, traveling alone. There is, however, no way to connect that Joseph with Joseph Lytle Russell.
Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at Boston, National Archives Microfil T938, Roll M277-12.
United States Census: 1840. Pittsburgh, Allegheny, Pennsylvania, Roll 441, page 477. U. S. Naturalization Indexes 1791-1992.
Death of Thomas Birney, Pittsburgh Press, January 17, 1899.
Obituary: Charles T. Russell, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Post, December 27, 1874. His death record says he died of chronic hepatitis.
Death of Thomas Birney, Pittsburgh Press, January 17, 1899. The obituary misnames his partner as James R. Woodwell. The membership list for St. John’s Lodge is found in An Address Delivered at the Request of St. John’s Lodge, no. 219, F. & A.M. at the 444th Stated Meeting, April 12th, 1883, on the History of the Lodge, and the Establishment of Freemasonry in Pittsburgh. Thomas Birney’s name appears in the membership list on page 112. No Russells find a place on the list, nor do they receive other mention.
Historical and Biographical Annals of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania, J. H. Beers & Co., Chicago, 1915, volume 1, page 339
Centenary Memorial of the Planting and Growth of Presbyterianism in Western Pennsylvania, 1876, page 141.
Encyclopedia of Genealogy and Biography of the State of Pennsylvania, Lewis Publishing, New York, 1904, volume 1, pages 427-428.
The Presbyterian Church Throughout the World, De Witt C. Lent & Co, New York, 1874, pages 709-710.
Indenture dated September 4, 1855, on file in Allegheny County archives.
Thurston’s Directory of Pittsburgh and Allegheny City: 1860-1861, page 273.
Robert Speel and Florence Cook: Relatives of Charles Taze Russell, Typescript manuscript. No date.
Died, Pittsburgh Dispatch, January 26, 1861.
See W. A. Lare and W. M. Hartzell: The Rebellion Record of Allegheny County, from April, 1861 to October, 1862: Containing the Narrative of the Organization of Companies and Regiments, the Pecuniary aid Tendered by Corporations and Individuals; the History of the Home Guards; the Operation of the Draft and the list of Exempts, Pittsburgh, 1862.
Ann Eliza’s will was filed with Franklin County, Iowa, on June 7, 1862. The filing is indexed as “Copy of Will,” and Ann Eliza Russell is listed as Grantor, Thomas Birney as Grantee. The earliest ownership record for the property in question (NE ¼ of Section 8 Township 91 Range 20, Reeve Township, Franklin County, Iowa.) is in Thomas Birney’s name. The record says he acquired the property from the Tax List. We are not absolutely certain that the original purchaser was Ann’s brother. It may have been her father. We simply do not know. Earlier records do not exist. There is no date on the original Birney purchase. Historical circumstances point to a purchase date of after 1851. Reeve Township was first surveyed that year. More likely, we’re looking at a date nearer to 1855 when the county divisions were first called “Townships.” – see Franklin County Historical Society Quarterly Newsletter, March 2009.
C. T. Russell: Joseph L. Russell Deceased, Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1, 1898, pages 4-5.
L. Jones [editor]: What Pastor Russell Said: His Answers to Hundreds of Questions, pages 40, 50, 158.
C. T. Russell: Take No Thought for Tomorrow, Zion’s Watch Tower, August 1886, page 5.
If the material you read on the Internet does not document its assertions with original source material of a similar nature, at the very least you should be cautious. Never take a writer's word for it. Never trust a footnote. Any fool or crook can write one. Assume some personal responsibility for what goes into your mind. Check. And do not read into something what is not there, just because you wish it to be there.
I'm sorry, but I can't post Schulz and de Vienne's work here. They own the blog I mentioned above. It's by invitation only. Contact one of them and ask about reading it, if you're that curious. They take a limited number of readers and readership rules are strict. The look for those who though they may not be experts in the field have a deep interest and who may be able to further their research.
I have issues with Watchtower governance and practice, but I would have fewer issues if the Society had produced a detail, forthright and accurate history, something like what Schulz and his partner write.
