When fiction meets fact

I have a choice that I am struggling with. In my fictional narrative, I have the 6^th Mississippi attacking the 25^th Missouri across a marsh and up a hill. This didn't happen, and yet somehow I put the two together thinking that it had happened, which then seemed to blend well with my storyline, having two characters meet at opposite ends of the firing line. They were to meet later in the story after the battle had ended and it all seemed to fit. Accept that it doesn't fit. This bothers me, as I've striven to portray a truthful rendering of the battle. There are those in the writing community who think that the story is far more important than the historical facts. In a narrative sense, this has some merit. For a novel, the story is what sells the book. A bad story goes nowhere. A good story sells the next novel. It has to be readable and memorable and therein lies where the fiction writer spins their tale using history as the backdrop but taking license where it suits the purpose.

I have taken license where it did not suit my purpose to do so and now I have to decide to correct it or make major changes to the storyline. The average reader will never know, but the historian or the reenactor or civil war buff will know or easily correct the error. I hate when I find inaccuracies in popular media, movies especially. What role does truth play in the writer's art? Some would say that they make their own truth by how they write or weave the story. But, as a historian I'm not so inclined to be cavalier about history or the record and factual events. So, it remains, alter the story to bring things more in line with what did happen or keep the sanctity of the narrative bent to my own will. And, back to the dilemma. How much to change?

In the real battle, the 6^th Mississippi ran up against an Ohio Regiment, the 54^th Ohio who had formed line in front of their camp on the brow of the hill upon which their camp was ensconced. Only the gallant 54^th Ohio in my story is instead the 25^th Missouri. The 25^th did make several stands before being broken on the outskirts of their camp and both resisted the Confederate onslaught bravely if not forlornly. So, some would say, what is the difference in the change in regiment number if the story is compelling? Is it not the story of human beings struggling with one another in combat that is the most important thing? There is another option, correct the error and re-write the sections containing the problem. I don't know if the re-write will take anything out of the story, but it will take changing whole sections to conform to the new narrative. Change the regiment involved and much of the back story must also be changed. Keep the characters in the same regiments but not have them meet under the circumstances already narrated. Or, chalk it up as a problem and hope it does not hurt the reputation of the book or the writer when those who do know point out the issue. One writes for themselves and for the story. The story demands certain things and so does the writer. Yet, History also demands something of me; the truth. The truth to a writer or even a historical fiction writer is oftentimes a nuisance. Or, there is the truth of the story as one envisions it and the truth of events being written about. How one deals with it will mean success of failure in a larger sense.