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.
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.
Channing shows your theory isn't accurate. I suggest you read her book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
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?
So you're claiming to be right because of emotion rather than facts?
“Social historians are often driven by activist goals. Historical research becomes not an attempt to understand the past but a propaganda tool for use in modern political and social power struggles.”
Tom Dixon, The Death of Truth
__________________ 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."
Uhhh?
Is this not what you have been stating for the last several posts?
Nope. As repeatedly stated, this is merely your invention. You often use this tactic of claiming someone said something they did not and then demanding they justify it. It is cheap and degrading to you, damages your credibility, and I urge you to avoid it. Simply read the posts as they are instead of talking to your own imagination.
Have you even read the work of Chandra Manning, which you are categorizing as "neo-Radical slop"?
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.
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.
Very good point. You're probably familiar with it, but Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War touches on this topic.
“Social historians are often driven by activist goals. Historical research becomes not an attempt to understand the past but a propaganda tool for use in modern political and social power struggles.”
Tom Dixon, The Death of Truth
And your point is?
For those who might wonder who Tom Dixon is:
=====
Tom Dixon is an elder at Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus, Ohio. He also serves as Xenos High School Ministry Director. Tom holds a B.A. and M.A. in history from The Ohio State University. He is known as an exciting lecturer and communicator through numerous groups he leads in central Ohio.
Taken from http://www.xenos.org/MINISTRIES/crossroads/contrib.htm
=====
For those who might wonder what Xenos is: http://www.xenos.org
=====
For those who might wonder what the book The Death of Truth is about: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Truth-Re...5804209&sr=8-1
It is worth noting that a book like Chandra Manning's really doesn't fit into the Postmodernism trends The Death of Truth is criticizing. You might even say that it is directly opposed to them. Hard for me to see where this snippet of a quote applies to Manning or her work.
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.
Very good point. You're probably familiar with it, but Gary Gallagher's The Confederate War touches on this topic.
Thanks. I've seen it mentioned, but haven't gotten around to it yet. So many books, so little time ...
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.
Chandra Manning stands in a tough spot. A new book on a relatively new and certainly controversial subject is the object of intense scrutiny by scholars and historians of all stripes and flavors.
Consider the flap over a few apparently sloppy footnotes in Goodwin's, Team of Rivals. If Manning's work is biased (my definition: any intentionally slanted presentation of fact made by omission or distortion of supporting documentation.), it has yet to be revealed by her peers.
Presenting an interpretation is not, by itself, bias--especially if the interpretation is logical and supportable.
I've read most of Manning and have concluded that she hasn't totally destroyed the idea that some southern boys didn't enlist nor subsequently fight to preserve slavery--just that more did than some would like to believe. That the logic of "why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?" just doesn't hold up under Manning's study.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I've read most of Manning and have concluded that she hasn't totally destroyed the idea that some southern boys didn't enlist nor subsequently fight to preserve slavery--just that more did than some would like to believe. That the logic of "why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?" just doesn't hold up under Manning's study.
Like you, I read most of Manning's book (not all; I was short on time to return it to the library when I had it, so I skimmed about 20-30% of the whole). In general, her book is about general trends in what she found, and seems heavily based on a statistical analysis of what she found rather than imposing any particular worldview onto the results. Anyone who wants to criticize that book should try to find specific fault with her methodology and data, which is clearly explained and consistent throughout the work. Any such attempt would be interesting to see.
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.
Statistical Analysis? Ugh....sounds dry, but I suppose we can send some copies to the actuaries...
Essentially, she set up parameters for what she was going to study, went and found examples that fit the criteria, looked for key information in the data, totalled them up, and based her results on that. Her approach is well-described in her book, with many examples and footnotes. She focused on letters written at the time and the camp newspapers of the regiments, visiting archives in a dozen states along the way, eschewing post-war memoirs and accounts. She might be right or wrong, but the way to challenge her results and conclusions would be by repeating the same approach -- not tossing epithets about.
Although this sounds dry as can be, her writing is pretty good and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in what the soldiers (North and South) actually said at the time of the war.
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. 
Statistical Analysis 
Linear Mode
