Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Cash, you still haven't grasped my point. Either that, or you still have a slightly different opinion. I'll keep trying after a pause for rest. Tim is getting closer. One out of two ain't bad. Tim's description earlier of the situation in Tennessee, by the way, is very well done and coincides closely with my impression of the facts and events concerning the war locally.
I grasp your point completely, Larry. I just think it's wrong. Everyone knew slavery was the reason for the war, and the majority of the Tennesseans who signed up to fight knew they were fighting for slavery and they were okay with that. Fighting for slavery was a motivating factor for many of them as early as the day they signed up. Manning's book is clear on this.
Most of those who joined up to fight for the Union were not fighting to eliminate slavery that early. But they very soon changed their minds, and the majority of Union soldiers favored destroying slavery PRIOR to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Manning's book is very revealing on both these points.
Tim, as you wrote earlier, opinions do differ. Slavery wasn't that big a deal to many of the folks involved. Others, perhaps more so. The phrase 'kill them yanks' had to have been based on more than slavery?
Yes, opinions differ. In TN and NC and VA you see a lot more of that on the secession issue than you do in the Deep South that seceded first. Heck, many people suspect Nathan Bedford Forrest was quietly a Union supporter before the war, even with his large plantation holdings in Mississippi -- but that he viewed himself as a Tennessean and went with his state, just as many other Southerners did.
Even in the Deep South, we can find dissent. One county in GA voted to secede from the state and join TN when GA voted for secession (nothing happened). But then one county in TN voted to secede from the state and join GA when TN voted against secession. People aren't plastic copies of one another and we are generally wrong whenever we believe they all felt one way -- or the other.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Manning's book is very revealing on both these points.
Regards,
Cash
Manning's book is neo-Radical slop.
Cherry-picked letters to lead you to believe something which wasn't true.
~
Cash loves this anti-South revisionist garbage.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Manning's book is neo-Radical slop.
Cherry-picked letters to lead you to believe something which wasn't true.
~
Now Professor Manning has multiple degrees from major academic institutions, an impressive record in her field, and her work has been reviewed by dozens -- heck, hundreds -- of experienced, knowledgeable critics of all political stripes. Her credentials are freely available and impressive. I've seen many reviews of her work myself, and not one says anything even close to the kind of flat-out nonsense you are trying to peddle here.
Let's talk about your credentials, now: what are they? We'd all like to know why we should believe that you have even the slightest clue about how to perform actual unbiased research, or even to recognize it when you see it. What is your training? What is your history?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Now Professor Manning has multiple degrees from major academic institutions, an impressive record in her field, and her work has been reviewed by dozens -- heck, hundreds -- of experienced, knowledgeable critics of all political stripes. Her credentials are freely available and impressive. I've seen many reviews of her work myself, and not one says anything even close to the kind of flat-out nonsense you are trying to peddle here.
Let's talk about your credentials, now: what are they? We'd all like to know why we should believe that you have even the slightest clue about how to perform actual unbiased research, or even to recognize it when you see it. What is your training? What is your history?
Tim
Tell us how having degrees and credentials insures that someone will be unbiased...
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
1. You claim Manning is biased.
2. Trice describes Manning's record as a scholar and notes her work was reviewed by many people posessing a great deal of expertise, and her book has been reviewed positively.
3. You claim Manning is biased.
Unless: Bias is defined with disagreeing a certain set of beliefs about the Civil War, then you haven't actually produced any evidence that she is biased, beyond that she disagrees with this set of beliefs. Phrases like "neo-Radical slop" as any Monty Python fan will recognize, isn't arguement, it's abuse.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 07-29-2007 at 10:25 PM.
Originally Posted by Battalion
Manning's book is neo-Radical slop.
Cherry-picked letters to lead you to believe something which wasn't true.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Now Professor Manning has multiple degrees from major academic institutions, an impressive record in her field, and her work has been reviewed by dozens -- heck, hundreds -- of experienced, knowledgeable critics of all political stripes. Her credentials are freely available and impressive. I've seen many reviews of her work myself, and not one says anything even close to the kind of flat-out nonsense you are trying to peddle here.
Let's talk about your credentials, now: what are they? We'd all like to know why we should believe that you have even the slightest clue about how to perform actual unbiased research, or even to recognize it when you see it. What is your training? What is your history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Tell us how having degrees and credentials insures that someone will be unbiased...
Please note that I did not say that "degrees and credentials insures that someone will be unbiased". I merely pointed out that she has solid and respected credentials, that her work is widely known and available, has been reviewed and criticized by many, but that nowhere do I see the kind of rabid claims you are making.
Then I asked what your credentials were, so that we could judge whether or not we should accept your opinion in this matter as worthwhile. You seem strangely reluctant to tell us what your credentials are, and fervently anxious to slur Chandra Manning. The more you post this kind of silliness, the more you damage your own credibility, and the more you will convince those who read this that all you are interested in is mud-slinging.
Now, once again, what is your background and how does it compare to Chandra Manning's? Why should we believe you instead of her?
BTW, for those who are wondering who Chandra Manning is and what her credentials are: Ph.D. in History, 2002 HarvardUniversity
A.M. in History, 1997 HarvardUniversity M.Phil. in Irish Studies, 1995 (first class honors) University College Galway, Ireland B.A. in History (summa *** laude), 1993 MountHolyokeCollege
SELECTED AWARDS William F. Holmes Award for best paper by a junior scholar, Southern Historical Association, 2005 C. Vann Woodward Prize, best dissertation in southern history, Southern Historical Association, 2003 Brendan O hEithir [sic] Prize for Best Thesis, UniversityCollege, Galway, 1995 Evelyn Church Wilbur Prize for best Thesis in American History, MountHolyokeCollege, 1993 Phi Beta Kappa Prize for best thesis, MountHolyokeCollege, 1993
She also spent two years teaching at Pacific Luthern University, and has job experience as a National Park Service Ranger,an education consultant and museum guide at Constitution Hall State Historic Site in Lecompton, KS, and was Senior Associate Editor for The Southern Historian from 2001-2002.
My question for you, Battalion: if she is so prejudiced against the South, how did she become Senior Associate Editor for The Southern Historian and why did The Southern Historical Association award her two highly prestigeous prizes in 2003 and 2005 on exactly the work you are criticizing?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Now, once again, what is your background and how does it compare to Chandra Manning's? Why should we believe you instead of her?
Tim
Just a quick not Trice...
I Know you are just trying to make a point... but nobody here can say they have those credentials so why should any of use be believed? I am not an historian but I beleive my opinions and knowledge have credibility because of the amount I've studied on my own. I would be willing to accept Battallions argument as valid if he
1. Formulated his own opinions instead of such generous use of copy/paste
2. In the least, tell us where he is getting this information from so we can weigh it and judge it for ourselves instead of relying on what he may or may not have omitted.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
I Know you are just trying to make a point... but nobody here can say they have those credentials so why should any of use be believed? I am not an historian but I beleive my opinions and knowledge have credibility because of the amount I've studied on my own. I would be willing to accept Battallions argument as valid if he
1. Formulated his own opinions instead of such generous use of copy/paste
2. In the least, tell us where he is getting this information from so we can weigh it and judge it for ourselves instead of relying on what he may or may not have omitted.
Well, sure. I don't have those credentials either, and I have a lot of respect for my own opinion. I agree with you.
But all those years of work do give a certain weight to Chandra Manning's work. Clearly she knows how to do research and has done a lot of it, is well-respected in her field, has received wide acclaim from a broad spectrum of people who can check all her footnotes and research methodology.
But battalion doesn't supply the sort of detail that allows people to check what he says, has no such reputation, and likes to just sling mud while avoiding direct questions. The only point of questioning his qualifications is to point out exactly how baseless what he claims is.
More to the point is that an organization like the Southern Historical Association (offices at Rice University and the University of Georgia) has twice awarded her major prizes. From their website:
=====
The Southern Historical Association was organized November 2, 1934. Its objectives are the promotion of interest and research in southern history, the collection and preservation of the South's historical records, and the encouragement of state and local historical societies in the South. As a secondary purpose the Association fosters the teaching and study of all areas of history in the South.
=====
Doesn't sound like the type of organization that would be awarding prizes to "neo-Radical slop" (whatever that is), does it? Nor does it sound like the type of organization to be rewarding people with an unthinking anti-Southern bias. Much more likely: they recognized that Chandra Manning had produced a work that advanced the purposes of the Southern Historical Association.
Chandra Manning also became a Senior Associate Editor of The Southern Historian, a publication of the University of Alabama. That also doesn't sound like a magazine for "neo-Radical slop" (whatever that is), does it? Nor does it sound like the type of organization to be rewarding people with an unthinking anti-Southern bias. So both of those credentials go to show that Battalion's "neo-Radical slop" post is more a look into his own mindset and credibility than an accurate portrayal of Chandra Manning.
But what do we know about Battalion? We know that he likes to make lots of posts that consist of snippets of quotes. In many cases, we have proven that those posts distort the meaning of the original document, by taking sentences and parts of sentences out of context, and deliberately omitting the parts that show what he posts is a deliberate distortion. We know he likes to reply to questions with questions, to avoid actually answering and showing clearly his meaning. We know he doesn't want to tell us anything designed to add to his credibility, and we know he has often proved his credibilty to be lacking.
So absolutely, the only point of asking Battalion about his credentials is to pin him by showing that he is merely engaging in meaningless mud-slinging, and to show that Chandra Manning's credentials are powerful by comparison. Sorry about that, but it is very tiring to watch him post all this empty rhetoric, and it seems to me that the members of any forum like this have a responsibility to challenge this type of crud. Casual browsers will not know Battalion's history of deception and might otherwise come away with a false impression of the worth of his posts if they are not strongly challenged. IMHO, of course.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
