Michael T. Griffith - writer and book reviewer

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by factasy.com

Way is Mr. Griffith's A liar.

Mr. Griffith, in my opinion, goes far afield from historical fact to prove his point of view. He seems not to be above quoting out of context nor of highlighting one area that appears to favor his point-of-view at the expense of other, just as significant areas that would mellow or disprove his point.

And way is the norther people so angry at the southern,it seems like it still is war

Ann, the majority of Americans, both in the North and the South, could care less about the history of the American Civil War. A large majority could not tell the difference or the actual participants in either the American Revolutionary War or the War of the Rebellion/American Civil War. The sad fact of the matter is, American history is not really emphazied at all in our grade and high school levels and few really take it into consideration or study at the college level.

The reason you detect so much "anger" by me and others like me, is the flat out attempts at some to revise history into something that it was not. The idea that slavery had nothing to do with the war, or that it was over tariffs or that the South was simply trying to protect and maintain "States Rights" is where you begin to see some very spirited debate happen. Bring up tens of thousands of "Black Confederates" serving in the Confederate armies and then you really start to see some "anger" over the missinformation presented or the history twisted out of shape to make these made up "facts" fit in that agenda.

The truth of the matter is, there is a war going on, and its going on with boards and forums like yours and this one and on countless others. There is a deliberate attempt by some to destroy or hide history either to come to terms with their ancestors and their actions during that time or to advance a modern day political agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with what actually occurred during the Civil War. I despise these attempts and loath them to the depths of my soul, as they are nothing but attacks on the history of MY nation.

These ongoing battles would rob my children, my grandchildren and any and all who visit here, the chance to learn the true lessons of history created by the Civil War. And this would be tragic beyond imagining.

You call it anger when you see these harsh responses or blunt posts in reply to those who would willingly change history from the hard truth to a softer, easier version that would benefit no one, because it is not the truth and it cannot be compromised with, not one little bit. To do so would betray millions, from that time and this one, first doing an injustice to those of the past who died and knew what they were fighting for and what they were trying to preserve and protect. It would also betray our millions here, leaving them nothing of worth, nothing to learn from and in no way be able to advance to a brighter future from lessons, true lessons, learned from our rougher, harsher past.

Sorry it comes across as anger, but anger is not always as bad thing.

Ann

And now Ann, you must read, research, and decide for yourself on how you are going to view history. Do you like a version of history because it sounds good and agrees with your beliefs?

Or will you research, study, read, even the books you don't like or agree with, and find out what really happened?

Good luck.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by factasy.com

Way is Mr. Griffith's A liar. And way is the norther people so angry at the southern,it seems like it still is war
Ann

"The North is fighting for Empire...the South for Independence"
-British Foreign Secretary, 1861

~

Note the imperial tone of the Northerns that replied to your question.

Empire. Not only the war...but history also.

~

On the internet we Southrons have an opportunity to disrupt their imperializing of history. They simply cannot stand it.

[ole]

Ann:

Few people on this board really hate the south or the north nor each other. We could probably sit down at dinner together and have a good time -- so long as no one mentions the USCW.

Back in the Thomas DiLorenzo thread you will find examples of quotes that were never made (or can't be shown to have been made). And you will find snippets of quotes that seem to mean one thing but, when placed back into context, show no such meaning. This DiLorenzo did, time after time and, I suspect, so did Griffith.

A few posts back, (maybe on another thread) a statement was credited to Conner as an historical fact -- something to do with the "Lincoln-controlled 36th Congress." If you're curiosity is only broad-based or social, you might not have noticed that the 36th Congress went home beginning on the day that Lincoln took office. The 37th Congress was called into special session by July 4th. And, you might not have noticed that the Lincoln's Congress was not exactly under Lincoln's thumb.

In a more genteel parlor, such claims might pass with the claimant patted on the head and ignored as uninformed. But this board is stacked with some unusually well-informed individuals who do not let misstatements pass. Hence, occasionally spirited discussion challenging the statement.

The sole object of most is to have an understanding challenged -- after all, it is the facts we want. If someone could prove that Lincoln was gay and a philanderer, I and others would have to choke down our disappointment and accept it -- but it would have to be darned good proof.

There are a number of bogus historians out there who write what their audience wants to hear. The problem is that their audience actually believes it and accepts their words as the revealed truth of the Gospel. If you have a particular leaning, read something you don't want to hear. There are a great many historians whose sympathy lies with the south, but it is impossible to find them conniving to twist facts to fit their sympathies. Of those whose sympathy lies with the north, you will likewise find it impossible to find them conniving to twist facts to fit. Griffith, DiLorenzo, and Conner are not among them. Actually, none of them are historians.

ole