USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting.

Always good to know where this stuff comes from.

Thanks Mr. Fun.

[Patroklos]

Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America by Garrett Epps (2007)

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863 - 1877 by Eric Foner (2002)

Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction by Eric Foner and Joshua Brown (2002]

Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory by David W. Blight (2006)

That explains your interesting views on the Civil War if all you read was revisionist crap published 150+ years after the event. Hint: History gets better with age, not the books about it.

Did your professor bother to use any of the texts from the great land grant colleges? You know the ones writen when primary sources were still available? I suppose Livy and Tacitus are irrelevant to Roman history as well

Btw, when did you graduate because two of the books you listed were published in 2006, whcih means there is little chance they made it into the classroom as text books until 2007.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That explains your interesting views on the Civil War if all you read was revisionist crap published 150+ years after the event. Hint: History gets better with age, not the books about it.

Did your professor bother to use any of the texts from the great land grant colleges? You know the ones writen when primary sources were still available? I suppose Livy and Tacitus are irrelevant to Roman history as well

Btw, when did you graduate because two of the books you listed were published in 2006, whcih means there is little chance they made it into the classroom as text books until 2007.

I used plenty of primary sources in my research papers. And two of those books I listed were not used in a classroom, but ones I have purchased for myself.

And by the way, good scholarly history work is revisionist in nature. You utilize primary sources and sometimes you gain new insight on the historical issues of those time periods along with use of good, quality secondary sources by professional historians. And besides that, the historians who wrote those books used . . . . guess what . . . . .

PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS!

You may use the word "revisionist" in a derisive manner, but that's only because you're ignorant about how the study of the past is dynamic, rather than static or stagnant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if all you read was revisionist crap published 150+ years after the event

Woohoo.. unless history was written that day, it's bull****! No one can analyze primary source documents and see which were trumpeted up for propaganda or exaggerated (on whichever side). Nope, that's just revisionist 'crap'!

[Patroklos]

You may use the word "revisionist" in a derisive manner, but that's only because you're ignorant about how the study of the past is dynamic, rather than static or stagnant.

A quick look at the historiography lays bare the stench of ideology based revision prevalent in most modern pop history of all sorts, especially the Civil War. No doubt your library is full of Ambrose Pierce

The point Mr. Fun, something you should know if you have a masters since I assume historiography is still required, is that the views and opinions of the war you hold are very recent developments as far as historians are concerned. For that reason, to avoid falling prey to the biases of any time frame past or present, your reading and study should include more than just modern sources.

I note the two obviously race based titles are the ones NOT used in your class.

Woohoo.. unless history was written that day, it's bull****! No one can analyze primary source documents and see which were trumpeted up for propaganda or exaggerated (on whichever side). Nope, that's just revisionist 'crap'!

Obviously the further from the even you get the less primary sources are available. History always gets less accurate over time, unless you discover new primary sources.

You would have a point Imran, if when listing his course books he had included at least one of the seminal text on the subject (again the great land grant volumes, nearly all written in the North btw), or not listed books not from his course work. I suspect his course work did include those very texts, and he left them out on purpose.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously the further from the even you get the less primary sources are available. History always gets less accurate over time, unless you discover new primary sources.

Primary sources are just about always highly biased. Only with the passage of time can various primary sources be compared in a more objective manner (there will always exist some bias, but it will be more removed as there is less personal stake in the matter).

"Revisionism" as a derisive term is simply something thrown around by folks who don't like the biases removed from history. Mostly because it deflates national myths (ie, like what happened to the Native Americans... its "revisionist" to call it what it was, an attempted ethnic cleansing).

[Patroklos]

Mostly because it deflates national myths (ie, like what happened to the Native Americans... its "revisionist" to call it what it was, an attempted ethnic cleansing).

What historian has ever claimed it wasn't ethnic cleansing, or whatever term was used for it at the time?

The only "revisionism" to that effect is the historians claiming we did not intentionally wipe the natives out with disease, which happens to be true.

For revisionism to exist there has to be history to revise. In the case of the civil war the historiography is clear, Mr. Fun's version as well as the people he gets it from is at odds with 100+ years of work on the subject.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What historian has ever claimed it wasn't ethnic cleansing, or whatever term was used for it at the time?

The primary sources. Those claimed it was just warfare and self-defense.

The only "revisionism" to that effect is the historians claiming we did not intentionally wipe the natives out with disease, which happens to be true.

Well, there were smallpox blankets, but I see there is some "revisionism" you like then .

[Patroklos]

The primary sources. Those claimed it was just warfare and self-defense.

Interesting that apparently the actual motivations of those fighting are irrelevant when discussing the actual motivations of those fighting. I am sure all those confederate soldiers had such farsighted predictive capabilities to purposely lie to their wives, parents and friends when writing home from the front, lest 150 years from now those letters fall into the wrong hands and someone find out that they were actually fighting for slavery, the anti christ under the 7th seal, communism, and proto Hitler.

Well, there were smallpox blankets, but I see there is some "revisionism" you like then

That would actually be a revision of a revision. In other words no revision at all, simply a debunking of sensational pop history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Interesting that apparetnly the actual motivations of those fighting are irrelevant when discussing the actual motivations of those fighting.

Stated motivations and actual motivations are two different things.

Like the stated motivation for going into Iraq (whether you consider it to be WMDs or democracy in the Mid East) being completely bull****.

That would actually be a revision of a revision. In other words no revision at all, simply a debunking of sensational pop history.

Which historians claimed that the Europeans deliberately were wiping out the natives? Well, I guess aside from smallpox blankets, which DID occur.

[Patroklos]

Like the stated motivation for going into Iraq (whether you consider it to be WMDs or democracy in the Mid East) being completely bull****.

Just because your reason is bull****, doesn't mean it wasn't the actual reason. In fact there is a thread about this already

Which historians claimed that the Europeans deliberately were wiping out the natives? Well, I guess aside from smallpox blankets, which DID occur.

Which happened in one recorded instatace at small fort in Ohio (I think), a far cry from "wiping out the natives" all couple dozen million of them that died from disease.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Just because your reason is bull****, doesn't mean it wasn't the actual reason. In fact there is a thread about this already

My point was that it was a bull**** reason, designed to get the people on board, or to convince others of the correctness of the actions after the fact. People tend to do that sort of thing a lot throughout the course of human history.

Which happened in one recorded instatace at small fort in Ohio (I think), a far cry from "wiping out the natives" all couple dozen million of them that died from disease.

I think I asked which historians claimed that.

An example of revisionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

Agincourt

The Battle of Agincourt was for centuries believed to be an engagement in which the English army, though overwhelmingly outnumbered 4 to 1 by the French army, pulled off a stunning victory. However, recent research by Professor Anne Curry using the original enrollment records, has brought into question this interpretation and although her research is not finished[3], she has published her initial findings[4], that the French only outnumbered the English and Welsh 12,000 to 8,000. If true, the numbers may have been exaggerated for patriotic reasons by the English.[5]

A country puffing up the enemy's numbers for patriotic benefit?! No!!

Military leadership during the First World War

The military leadership of the British Army during the First World War was frequently condemned as poor by historians and politicians for decades after the war ended. Common charges were that the generals commanding the army were blind to the realities of trench warfare, ignorant of the conditions of their men and were unable to learn from their mistakes, thus causing enormous numbers of casualties ('lions led by donkeys').[9] However, during the 1960s historians such as John Terraine began to challenge this interpretation. In recent years as new documents have come forth and the distance of time has allowed for more objective analysis, historians such as Gary D. Sheffield and Richard Holmes observe that the military leadership of the British Army on the Western Front had to cope with many problems that they could not control such as a lack of adequate military communications, furthermore military leadership improved throughout the war culminating in the Hundred Days Offensive advance to victory in 1918. Some historians, even revisionists, still criticise the British High Command severely, but they are less inclined to portray the war in a simplistic manner with brave troops being led by foolish officers.

There has been a similar movement regarding the French Army during the war with contributions by historians such as Anthony Clayton. Revisionists are far more likely to view commanders such as French General Ferdinand Foch, British General Douglas Haig and other figures, such as American General Pershing, in a sympathetic light.

New documents and the distance of time allowing for more objective analysis? No, that's revisionism! How dare they try to exonerate these obviously incompetant military leaders!

[Patroklos]

My point was that it was a bull**** reason, designed to get the people on board, or to convince others of the correctness of the actions after the fact. People tend to do that sort of thing a lot throughout the course of human history.

Unfortunetly the primary sources, not the ones after the fact mind you, do on follow with the "it was all about slavery side." That goes for both sides as well, the Union troops were not fighting for the emacipation of the slaves.

I think I asked which historians claimed that.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

From one of the worlds most beloved revisionists, no less...

Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record."

An example of revisionism:

I made the caviout that modern history can revise the old if new primary information is found.

I will also add that if old history is found to be unscholarly it can be disregarded. This is not the case with Civil War history however.

It should also be noted that the histories of the Civil War I speak of are dated to the early twentieth century, not immediately after the war. However, primary sources, such as the people themselves, were still available for research at that time. Chances are the primary sources most of the historians of today are using are the very sources the historians they are trying to refute researched.

The simple fact is the historians of today have less to work with than the historians of yesterday. WWII history is taking a nose dive now that the veterans are gone Do you think Band of Brothers would be half as good or accurate if the actual people were not here to tell the makers how it was?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hah, you guys are funny, is there even a Virginian out of the whole lot of you?

Lee's loyalty was to Virginia

'My country (or in his case, my state) right or wrong' is about as sensible as 'My mother, drunk or sober'.

He may have felt he owed more loyalty to his state, but he also owed loyalty to the United States and to the army of the United States. He made a choice- a choice to serve the side which supported a war based on the principle that soem people were inherently inferior to others because of their ethnicity or skin colour.

Beig born a Virginian presumably didn't deprive him of having a conscience or being able to make choices based on moral or ethical princilples.

Cromwell is also a good example.

No, he isn't. It wasn't a provincial revolt that Cromwell led, or even a revolt of one country against another. It was a revolt based upon opposition to a king who showed increasing signs of going down the route of Continental absolutism, owing to his personal belief in the Divine Right of kings.

Parliament (and some of the aristocracy) opposed this trend and ultimately war broke out in England (conflict had first occurred in Scotland with the First Bishops' War).

As I said before, the War For American Independence is the better parallel with the wars between the monarch and Parliament in the 17th Century.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunetly the primary sources, not the ones after the fact mind you, do on follow with the "it was all about slavery side." That goes for both sides as well, the Union troops were not fighting for the emacipation of the slaves.

Interestingly enough, most of the legislative history of the debates for secession hold slavery as a KEY reason. They all talk about slavery as the main reason to leave the union. I seem to recall Dr. Strangelove would post a bunch of them in these type of threads, but he's perhaps gotten tired of it.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

From one of the worlds most beloved revisionists, no less...

Wow... Ward Churchill.

That's like me using an argument by Newt Gingrich (a historian, btw) to describe some sort of revisionist trend. Most historians slammed Ward Churchill's findings on the matter of deliberately using smallpox as a killer, including the article you linked.

Using one historian as evidence of some sort of revisionist trend doesn't exactly bolster your case here.

Chances are the primary sources most of the historians of today are using are the very sources the historians they are trying to refute researched.

So if they are BOTH using the same primary sources (there has been additional scholarship on the matter since, but disregard that for the moment), why is one group so much worse than another? Because the early 20s folk talked to veterans? How does that have much to do with leadership's motivations?