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.
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.
You certainly implied that in your original statement.
Again, please explain how having a degree makes someone unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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 Harvard University M.Phil. in Irish Studies, 1995 (first class honors) University College Galway, Ireland B.A. in History (summa *** laude), 1993 Mount Holyoke College [Massachusetts]
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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
They are probably loaded with the same neo-Radical academics (the trend).
__________________ 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."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You certainly implied that in your original statement.
Again, please explain how having a degree makes someone unbiased.
Nope. Still no shame: this is the very definition of a strawman argument. You invent words that I didn't say and demand that I explain them. I urge you to stop damaging your own credibility like this.
So once again, what makes you think you are qualified to criticize Chandra Manning's work? As someone asked you earlier, and as you managed not to answer that question: have you even read Chandra Manning's work? If not, doesn't that make your criticism of it worthless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
They are probably loaded with the same neo-Radical academics (the trend).
ROFL.
1) please explain what you mean by "neo-Radical slop"
2) please explain the connection between "neo-Radical slop" and the Southern Historical Society, headquartered at Rice University in Texas and the University of Georgia.
3) please explain the connection between "neo-Radical slop" and The Southern Historian, a publication of the University of Alabama.
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.
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.
Regards,
Cash
If you think my points to be wrong, that might prove their accuracy? (just kidding).... I diagree with the obove part of this concerning the guys who fought early versus the later arrivals to the Confederate army. I believe the reality of the situation was reversed. Early in the war there was much excitement for a quick victory, one seated in the support of the 'southern aristocracy'. Shortly after that time, by 1863 the new had worn off. Many of the first round of Confederate participants were simply dead. Not disheartened, dead. The next crop were younger men and older recruits drafted with little choice. These were the men fighting the war in 1863-64. Not slave owners nor supporters, just soldiers, too young and too old.
I don't have those fancy degrees. I slept through history class, and given the opportunity, would likely do it again. I write from my heart and from 60 years on this earth, the last few decades considering the Southern and Northern points of view. Yes, I even read a book occasionally, but try not to let that get in the way of my emotion. This era 1860-1865 is probably the most complicated social and political model of modern times. Fun, aint' it?
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
If you think my points to be wrong, that might prove their accuracy? (just kidding).... I diagree with the obove part of this concerning the guys who fought early versus the later arrivals to the Confederate army. I believe the reality of the situation was reversed. Early in the war there was much excitement for a quick victory, one seated in the support of the 'southern aristocracy'. Shortly after that time, by 1863 the new had worn off. Many of the first round of Confederate participants were simply dead. Not disheartened, dead. The next crop were younger men and older recruits drafted with little choice. These were the men fighting the war in 1863-64. Not slave owners nor supporters, just soldiers, too young and too old.
Probably one of the things not studied enough is the disillusionment of the average Southerner with the war as time went on. You hear far more about Union war-weariness and draft resistance, etc. while the South is treated as if the war-weariness in the South suddenly arose with Sherman's March.
It would also be interesting to see a study of who was actually serving in the main armies in 1864-65, and how long they had served. I have seen one survey of Sherman's army on the March that goes into this (by Glaathar (sp?)). He looked at 25 regiments and found that they were overwhelmingly men who enlisted in 1861-62 (close to 90%), and that about 50% of them had re-enlisted in 1864 to continue the fight. Sherman had deliberately stripped that army down before leaving Atlanta, though, so you would expect it to be exceptionally loaded with veteran troops.
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.
So once again, what makes you think you are qualified to criticize Chandra Manning's work? As someone asked you earlier, and as you managed not to answer that question: have you even read Chandra Manning's work? If not, doesn't that make your criticism of it worthless?
There are many here (probably including yourself) who have criticized works they believe to be biased. Using your prerequisites how are they qualified to do this?
__________________ 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."
No matter what the work is you always have to consider an author's background, affiliations, etc. to determine how those factors could effect or influence an objective analysis. For instance, if you read Stephen Ambrose, most Americans would hardly call him 'biased', but certainely his view of WWII is clearly pro-American.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
You certainly implied that in your original statement.
Again, please explain how having a degree makes someone unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Nope. Still no shame: this is the very definition of a strawman argument. You invent words that I didn't say and demand that I explain them. I urge you to stop damaging your own credibility like this.
So once again, what makes you think you are qualified to criticize Chandra Manning's work? As someone asked you earlier, and as you managed not to answer that question: have you even read Chandra Manning's work? If not, doesn't that make your criticism of it worthless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
There are many here (probably including yourself) who have criticized works they believe to be biased. Using your prerequisites how are they qualified to do this?
Once again, an attempt to avoid answering direct questions by you, and yet another strawman argument. I said nothing at all about what credentials are required to criticize someone, so I have no "prerequisites". This is merely more evasion by you, another example of you inventing things not said.
I did, however, ask you what your credentials and background are. You've now made several posts trying to avoid answering that and inventing falsehoods along the way. I urge you to stop damaging your own credibility this way.
How about just answering this question, which you have been asked more than once: have you even read Chandra Manning's work?
And right behind that one: how can you criticize her work if you haven't read it?
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.
Biased, or not? This is a matter of the observer's personal opinion, which requires no qualifications as a researcher.
I've never been so amused as watching the straining at gnats that occurs here. Enjoyable. Thanks to you all.
I am sure you noticed then that the only one making a charge of "bias" on Chandra Manning's work is Battalion -- and that he refuses to say what he bases it on.
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.
Once again, an attempt to avoid answering direct questions by you, and yet another strawman argument. I said nothing at all about what credentials are required to criticize someone, so I have no "prerequisites". This is merely more evasion by you, another example of you inventing things not said.
Uhhh?
Is this not what you have been stating for the last several posts?
__________________ 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."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
