was instructed to establish a liaison program, recruit clerical assistants, and provide for the routine logistical needs of the program (space, furniture, housing, and method of pay, for example). Krueger hurriedly complied with his instructions. He also took time to meet the German officials, whom he charmed with his linguistic and cultural knowledge, and to copy some records as an opening precedent. 16 Everything went well.

In late June 1922, Krueger left Berlin after hurriedly briefing his replacement, Col. Lewis S. Sorley. The latter quickly shifted his working area from Berlin to Potsdam, where the Germans had their archives, and started work. The German archivists, all former army officers, gave Sorley a room for his use and some battered chairs and tables. At first the Germans treated Sorley with some disdain and reminded him about America's late entry into the conflict, which they considered highly unfair and unprofessional. Eventually they lowered their intellectual guard and gave him a larger room. It contained a spacious metal locker with a heavy lock where he could keep documents as long as he needed them. At first Sorley selected the materials for copying and gave them to the two German secretaries for typing. He copied the maps himself, though he later received help with this laborious chore. Out of fear of a possible change in the German government's attitude toward the document exchange program, he worked very hard to copy as much as possible. Quantity was more important than order, plan, or study. Once a week he visited the office of the American military attaché in Berlin and sent the week's materials to the Army War College. 17 Within a few months Sorley's activities had matured into an efficient and very successful operation.

16 Memo, Spaulding to Colonel Krueger, Feb. 28, 1922, ibid.; Col. Lewis S. Sorley to author, Feb. 25, 1964. Krueger copied only 60 pages from a divisional diary, but his action confirmed the arrangement. For a careful analysis of the collection and the various selectors, see Maj. J. P. Ratay, "General Index of Records Sent to the [Historical] Section by the Berlin Representative," RG 165, NA. When he departed for a new assignment, Krueger wrote a letter of appreciation to his hosts (Krueger to Ritter Mertz von Quirnheim). It is in the Walter Krueger Papers, U. S. Military Academy. Unfortunately, it is the sole reference to his Berlin activities.

17 Spaulding gave Sorley the most general instructions, providing the latter with a maximum of freedom. Sorley was responsible for providing those materials which he believed would be most appropriate and valuable to the War College. Sorley to author, Feb. 25, 1964.

Sorley's progress encouraged Spaulding to initiate negotiations for similar exchange programs with Paris and London. In both places he encountered evasive tactics. Neither France nor England possessed a full-scale historical program. Aside from uncertainty over the reasons for the American proposal, neither country was interested in revealing secrets concerning their wartime activities. Their receptiveness to Spaulding's proposals was limited. Certainly the behavior of these two former allies was in sharp contrast with that of the former enemy, Germany. Even after the London authorities accepted the idea of an exchange, the program was further delayed by Spaulding's inability to find representatives acceptable to the British. He finally settled on Maj. Thomas C. Lonergan, then a National Guard instructor in New York. Lonergan arrived in London in November 1922 and remained until December 1924.18

The French similarly delayed the final arrangements for a short time. They could not afford, however, to allow the matter to be delayed indefinitely, while the German program proceeded successfully. The invidious comparison of attitudes between friend and foe made delay embarrassing, a fact which Spaulding recognized and exploited. In April 1923, Maj. William C. Koenig became Spaulding's first official representative to France. Thereafter the French allowed limited access to their records. At the same time, they pursued a highly inconsistent policy toward the American representatives. They first allowed access to records and then withdrew it; they permitted copying of some records while denying access to less significant files; and, generally, they prohibited any sustained, organized research work. The French also harried the representatives with income tax demands, questions about their status, and currency restrictions. The program continued until August 1937 when the American military attaché in Paris assumed responsibility for completing it. The last document copies secured from the French Section Historique were dated August 26, 1940.19

18 Memo for the assistant chief of staff, G2, Mar. 25, 1922, Thomas, "2444 compilation"; J. E. Edmonds to Lt. Col. C. A. Bach in File 2600, Hist. Sect., Army War College correspondence file. The British records have a detailed card index which runs to some 9 linear feet, but there is no ready finding guide.

19 Thomas, "1096 compilation"; Lt. Col. R. B. Cocroft to Spaulding, Feb. 11, 1936, ibid. This report contains a general

In Germany the American representative enjoyed continued cooperation and success until the Nazis assumed power. By early 1935 the Nazis, following a thorough internal reorganization, appointed Dr. Manfred Zipfel to run the Reichsarchiv. He removed many senior archivists and replaced them with more politically reliable if less competent persons. The American representative, Capt. John P. Ratay, proposed that he be assigned to the German Army Historical Office rather than the Reichsarchiv. He found the former office more professional and efficient than the latter. His superiors accepted this idea and shifted his assignment. Working with the professional people in the military office, and using extensive tobacco bribes, Ratay kept the operation alive for some months further.20 He departed in April 1938, but the military attaché, Col. Truman Smith, kept up the program. The final installment of documents carried the date March 4, 1940.21

list of the French records copied until 1938. Various reports concerning the difficulties of the office are in HRC 314.71 AWC, Hist. Sect., vol. 6. On a related discussion of the French military archives, see Lee Kennett, "World War I Materials in the French Military Archives," Military Affairs 47 (Apr. 1973):60-61; and Jean Nicot, "L'histoire de la premiere guerre mondiale: L'apport des Archives de l'Armee," Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 15 (July-Sept. 1968):535-542. The representatives in France, with their ranks as of their service time, were Maj. William C. Koenig, Maj. Richard C. Burleson, Maj. R. B. Cocroft, and Capt. Royden Williamson.

20 Capt. J. P. Ratay to Col. W. D. Smith, Army War College, Sept. 2, 1935, Ratay to Spaulding, Sept. 6, 1937, File 2444, Hist. Sect., Army War College correspondence file; Ratay to author, Nov. 17, 1964.

21 Thomas, "2444 compilation"; Col. Truman Smith to au

The foreign collection programs, despite the many official difficulties, personnel changes, and limited support, brought to the Historical Section a vast number of documents. Certainly the acquisition figures provide a comment on the undertaking. There are approximately 96,000 German, 66,000 French, and 12,000 British documents in the National Archives.22 Given the losses in the European archives during the Second World War, these documents represent a magnificent treasure trove.23 They may hold the last unused sources for the history of the First World War.

thor, Nov. 10, 1963. The best finding guide is Ratay, "General Index." A portion of this index, unfortunately cut down for space reasons, is in Gerhard L. Weinberg, "Abschriften deutscher Heeresakten aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg im National-Archiv in Washington," Jahresbibliographie Bibliothek fur Zeitgeschichte 1963 (Frankfurt, 1965), pp. 504-509. The representatives, with their ranks as of their service time, were Col. Walter Krueger, Col. Lewis S. Sorley, Col. Carl Müller, Maj. Bertram Cadwalader, Maj. Otto Wagner, and Capt. John P. Ratay.

22 Historical Division, Department of the Army, United States Army in the World War, 1917-1919, vol. 1, Organization of the American Expeditionary Forces (Washington, 1948), p. 425. The histories of the First and Second Divisions employed useful translations selected from these records.

23 Some details concerning the destruction of the German military archives are in Karl Rupprecht, "Heeresarchiv Potsdam, 1936-1948," Der Archivar 3 (Dec. 1950):177-179; and Bernard Poll, "Vom Schicksal der deutschen Heeresakten und der ämtlichen Kriegsgeschichtsschreibung," Die Welt als Geschichte 12 (Dec. 1952):61-68. A general survey is Harold Jaeger, "Das militärische Archivgut in der Bundesrepublik für die Zeit von 1871-1919," Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 2 (1968):135-138.

hoy (McPherson) Tate and was not related to McGillivray as Pickett had represented. The Pickett-Woodward controversy extended to the question of whether the mother of Lachlan McGillivray, father of Alexander, was a full blood Tuskegee Indian or the half blood daughter of a French Captain Marchand.5 Consequently, Benjamin Hawkins's 1810 statement provides an excellent basis for further consideration of the Tate-McGillivray genealogy.

Does the genealogist's responsibility to assess the value of the document end with this observation? The answer is a resounding no. The ability to observe the historical as well as genealogical usefulness of a record, hopefully, will someday be a researcher's standard judgment. It is not, however, any more appropriate for the genealogist to attempt to analyze the historical significance of a record than for the historian to comment on genealogical conclusions. Historians and genealogists will continue to maintain their separate areas of expertise. Bonds of mutual benefit should nonetheless exist between historians and genealogists. Ideally, each can serve the other by recognizing and suggesting the potential value of records which one or the other may discover.

Genealogists should consider the possibility that a variety of scholars might be interested in any given record. For example, a genealogist who discovered the Hawkins letter should recognize that it gives information pertaining to questions regarding the extension of civil jurisdiction of a United States Territory into Indian country, the ability of an Indian to appear before a court, and the role and responsibility of the United States Indian agents. The genealogist would render a genuine service by including such observations in his footnotes. Likewise, the historian who located the record could cite the document's possible genealogical value. Hopefully, such interdisciplinary cooperation will become the rule rather than the exception.

4 Thomas S. Woodward to A. J. Pickett, June 21, 1858, and Woodward to J. J. Hooper, Oct. 31, 1858, in Thomas S. Woodward, The American Old West: Woodward's Reminiscences (reprint of 1859 ed., Mobile, 1965), pp. 52-53, 77-78.

5 Pickett, History of Alabama, pp. 343-345; Woodward to Pickett, June 21, 1858, in Woodward, Reminiscences, p. 53.

carry

it

before the

Kiniro to cation of those seriously interested in such research by sponsoring the National Institute on Genealogical Research, directed by Bill R. Linder. Published aids, such as Guide to the National Archives of the United States, "Select List of Publications of the National Archives,” and "Genealogical Records in the National Archives," also increase the ability of researchers to utilize successfully records of the federal government.9

Experienced genealogists know that a source of information for them is, like oil, located where you find it. Because genealogists realize that it is difficult-sometimes impossible-to cite a particular source as a sure location of desired data, they are now directing their attention to an incredibly wide range of records. Today at the National Archives genealogists may be found reading letters received by the Cherokee Indian Agency and searching entry papers of the General Land Office, as well as checking census records or examining pension applications. The researcher knows he might

"Lester J. Cappon, "Genealogy, Handmaid of History" (Washington, 1965), National Genealogical Society Special Publication No. 17.

'Milton Rubincam, "Introduction," in Val Greenwood, The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy (Baltimore, 1973), pp. xiii-xv; Winston DeVille, "Manuscript Sources in Louisiana for the History of the French in the Mississippi Valley," in John Francis McDermott, ed., The French in the Mississippi Valley (Urbana, 1965), pp. 217-228; Willard Heiss, Genealogy (published eight times yearly by the Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, 1973- ).

8 For further information write to Bill R. Linder, Director, Central Reference Division, National Archives and Records Service (GSA), Washington, DC 20408.

9 National Archives and Records Service, Guide to the National Archives of the United States (Washington, 1974). The leaflets mentioned are available upon request from NARS.