Biased Historians Rewriting History?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joshism

Captain
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
I saw this in another thread and thought it merited a separate discussion of its own.

Do not forget the biased spin historians who rewrite history to suit their own view of the past, present, and future... and then publish their take on history as being the only true history.

Jeff Davis' self-serving two-volume history of the Confederacy seems like an example of this, but I would be interested to hear who the OP had in mind when this comment was made. Or for that matter examples of what others think falls under this category.
 
I saw this in another thread and thought it merited a separate discussion of its own.



Jeff Davis' self-serving two-volume history of the Confederacy seems like an example of this, but I would be interested to hear who the OP had in mind when this comment was made. Or for that matter examples of what others think falls under this category.
Jubal Early " the Lost Cause" comes to mind.
Leftyhunter
 
All writers are inherently biased. This has been brought up before, and fairly recently. From the selection of sources they choose to use to how they interpret those sources...it's all biased. You can't escape it, it's human nature. As I've said before, the good writers are the ones honest enough to admit their biases and actively try to reduce it in their products.
 
I saw this in another thread and thought it merited a separate discussion of its own.



Jeff Davis' self-serving two-volume history of the Confederacy seems like an example of this, but I would be interested to hear who the OP had in mind when this comment was made. Or for that matter examples of what others think falls under this category.
Not exactly a history writter but Thomas Dixon Jr certainly had a major effect of public perception on the Civil War with his novel " the Clansmen" which D.W.Griffith adopted in the mega hit movie "Birth of a Nation".
Leftyhunter
 
To paraphrase the late Barbara Tuchman, all historians have their own biases, and characters in history that they like or dislike. It's better when it shows, so the reader can take it into account.

She was speaking about writing biography, but I think that applies to history generally.

And in response to this:

. . . historians who rewrite history to suit their own view of the past. . . .

People who write history do so because they believe they feel have something new to say, or a different way of looking at events in the past. If it's not "revisionist" in some way or other, there's no point in writing it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I saw this in another thread and thought it merited a separate discussion of its own.



Jeff Davis' self-serving two-volume history of the Confederacy seems like an example of this, but I would be interested to hear who the OP had in mind when this comment was made. Or for that matter examples of what others think falls under this category.

Stephen Sears regarding George McClellan.
 
Look at how he treats McClellan. Little Mac can do no right, and is one step above an outright traitor according to Sears.

As I recently learned from the Winter Lecture Series at Gettysburg National Military Park, so much of what happened at Antietam has been exaggerated & oversimplified at the same time. That so many parts and pieces of McClellan's army did not come together, the numbers en masse did not reflect the actual working parts of the army. For this, McClellan has been made to look much worse than he should.
 
Look at how he treats McClellan. Little Mac can do no right, and is one step above an outright traitor according to Sears.
Certainly many in congress thought that to be true. On the other hand might be something to it has the forum has had many sharp debates over McCellan. Do you have a specific example that is unfair to McCellan. After all Lincoln did fire McCellan although has we know Burnside was not a huge improvement to say the least.
Leftyhunter
 
Can you provide an example. I own two Sears books one on Antitam and one on Gettysburg and Sears appears to be a very good history writer.
Leftyhunter

Here's all the absolute clangers in one paragraph: http://67thtigers.blogspot.be/2014/10/research-exercise-how-many-mistakes-in.html

In this paragraph Sears actually invents an episode that never happened - McClellan eating dinner on the Galena whilst the army fought. The primary source Sears used is now freely available and so can be checked, and Sears actually frequently misquotes la Comte during his work. In another example Sears misquotes la Comte to write out McClellan's command actions at Seven Pines for example. Being difficult to access, Sears' mistranslations and misquotes have gone unchallenged.
 
In this context, its historians whose research is too complete, arguments too strong and whose books are too long to be addressed, let alone refuted. But they contradict some beloved myth about our heroic ancestors. So the partisan reaches for the last arrow in his quiver: "he's/she's......biased!"

Then the partisan slumps back relieved and wipes the sweat from his brow. His view is still intact. He is safe from heresy. And he didn't even have to read some long, boring history book.
 
I believe there was am entire thread on the subject of 67th Tigers' defense of McClellan for those interested in that subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top