Andersonville Prison and Felix de La Baume

Is the Rosewell women a myth? Is burning of Atlanta A myth? Is what Sherman said about his march to the sea a myth? Your basing your opinion on some one esle's opinion on what you read. I'm doing the same. Who is right?Just cause you say something doesn't make it right. We all have are opinion. Right or wrong.
8thvacav :shrug:
 
8thvacav said:
Is the Rosewell women a myth?

The claim that nobody ever heard from them again certainly is a myth. We've discussed the Roswell women on another thread, and the reality is far less than the anti-Sherman mythology.


8thvacav said:
Is burning of Atlanta A myth?

The neoconfederate spin on it is. Sherman burned militarily useful facilities when he left Atlanta, no different than what Hood burned before he evacuated. That doesn't mean the fire didn't spread unintentionally, or that some civilians didn't set other fires in Atlanta.

8thvacav said:
Is what Sherman said about his march to the sea a myth?

Which quotation in particular?

8thvacav said:
Your basing your opinion on some one esle's opinion on what you read. I'm doing the same. Who is right?

I'm basing my opinion on reading primary sources and reading what professional historians who have studied it have written. I'm not basing it on proconfederate propaganda like Mildred Rutherford, DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, Frank Springer, and their ilk.

8thvacav said:
Just cause you say something doesn't make it right. We all have are opinion. Right or wrong.
8thvacav :shrug:

All true. But IMO, basing it on professional historians and primary sources puts it on much more solid ground, don't you think?

Regards,
Cash
 
A myth, or facts exaggerated to a myth. There is enough question about the Roswell women to come to whatever conclusion best fits what you are predisposed to believe. How much of Atlanta did Shermans men really burn? Hood destroyed a large chunk before he gave up the city, Sherman destroyed everything he felt to be of military value, some private homes got fired in the mix by both parties. Was Atlanta razed to the ground and salt sowed? Absolutely not. Did Shermans men loot everything of value? No, there were at least 180 wagons full of loot as noted by the Governor of Georgia well after Sherman and all of his men were gone.

I've always been fascinated how easily some people listen to people who say nothing, absolutely nothing, positive about an individual and group of people... and then are indignant and suprised when someone points out an obvious bias or agenda. :shrug:

I'll stick to sources not ruled by emotion and anti-US rhetoric. Well researched w/ footnotes that can be checked and no distinctive agenda is also a plus. I think it better to build an opinion on solid research instead of by gosh and by golly or by outright fabrication. Which is what the Lost Cause has done. THanfully most of us here who are interested in real ACW scholarship recognize the work of the Lost Cause and only a couple espouse it; and they aren't too difficult to identify.
 
I guess you two think these professional historians don' enter their opinion in their books. Give me a break. I read about 100 pages of your God McPherson's book and I could see that. There is no history out there that hasn't been contaminated with time and authors opinion.
8thvacav :beer:
 
Actually, I don't consider McPherson a God... yes he has an opinion and it is interjected in his writing as is Sword or any other author but how much it colors their analysis... that is the difference between a Lost Cause Author and a historian. The day I come across a Lost Causer who has done even a 10th of the research he has... maybe I'll give them their worth. I consider DiLorenzo, the Kennedy bros etc as Lost Cause Authors. Of them all I regard the Kennedy Bros w/ the most respect. At least they have the integrity to declare their bias and don't really go out of their way to hide their agenda and I do believe some of their views have a valid point. While Dilorenzo is below contempt; he hides his lies, mischaracterizations, misquotes etc... or tries to.

Using any source the reader has to realize that there is an agenda... think I'm wrong? Read any issue of the NY Times from 1860-the present, pick out the bias and the agenda; it isn't difficult. Watch the news, read books. Everyone has a bias, do they use their position to try and decieve or try to hide their bias? That is the question one must ask about an author before deciding if he/she is legit.

I am no professional author, yet I know far more about some aspects of the War than some Professional Authors. I all but guarantee you that members here like Gary know far more about the arms used in the War than a pro historian like McPherson. Hence why there is the advantage of a Pro historian when errors are pointed out w/ valid research showing them as an error those errors are corrected.

If at the end of a book you have the distinct impression maybe the author would like a return to the good old days of slavery... hmmm. I do believe there might just be an agenda or what I might call a negative bias. If you finish a book on the CS and come to the realization that the author is praising the CS only so that he might further slander the US = agenda. As I've said often, Lost Causer does not equal Southerner or proud member of the SCV etc. What it does equal is someone willing to distort or outright lie to make the South look better at the expense of the rest of the country.
 
An opinion derived from study is still an opinion. It can be argued with, sometimes it can be changed, but when held by someone who arrived at it after impartial study, it is legitimate and neither right nor wrong.

I'm reminded of our British sparring partner, Bill. He has strong opinions and he arrived at them not by believing fairy tales, but by studying and debating. He's always open to a fact he hasn't happened upon by himself, and is always ready to be proven wrong.

If we could peaceably eliminate all myths, we'd be well on our way to searching out facts and developing opinions. To do that, we'd all have to want to eliminate them. Since joining this group, I've had a number of my accepted "facts" exposed as myths. I was delighted. This is history. Real history. Any myth interferes with it.

Ole
 
Ole,

Well said concerning our friend across the pond. There are few on this board who present the Southern viewpoint of the war as well researched as our Mr. Torrens, although I feel there are others in this country who do just as well in presenting their case.

I guess that is why I find it, at times, so frustrating to debate Bill, as he forces me to really think, instead of relying on my well used collection of previously studied resources, opinions and conclusions.

And for that, I thank him.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
8thvacav said:
I guess you two think these professional historians don' enter their opinion in their books.

Where they do give their opinion, it is plainly obvious that it is opinion and not fact, and their opinion is based on their research, not on fairy tales told around the family table. They can point to the evidence that backs up their opinions, and in most cases it is corroborated by several independent sources.

Regards,
Cash
 
Ok, but you get right down to it, it's their opinion based on some one else's opinion. Right? What makes them right? What makes the others wrong? Is it because your so biase that you believe only what you want believe and the rest is a myth. Your not going to change your mind and neither am I! So it's mute. Right?
8thvacav
 
8thvacav said:
Ok, but you get right down to it, it's their opinion based on some one else's opinion. Right?

Wrong. It's their opinion based on primary source data of what happened, what was said, what was written.

Regards,
Cash
 
Cash,
Give me a break.There is plenty of erroneous opinion out there written by Northerners.A rule of thumbe should be just because it makes the North look good and the South bad doesn't mean it is opinion based on fact.The same rule should apply in reverse to pro-Confederate authors.Any defense of Shermans character is shaky at best.Look at his quotes and tell me this man never committed bad acts.I think he would disagree with you.The same Northern way of attacking civilians was carried out against the Plains Indians as well.I guess that was all myth as well.Why in God's name would Abraham Lincoln go out of his way to make sure Yankee officers couldn't be punished as war criminals if they were as innocent as sonme believe.Now talk about believing a myth.
 
MobileBoy said:
Give me a break.There is plenty of erroneous opinion out there written by Northerners.

I don't equate professional historians with "Northerners." Why do you?


MobileBoy said:
Any defense of Shermans character is shaky at best.

I wouldn't defend him from charges of being a womanizer, but the charge that he raped and pillaged his way across the south is simply a fantasy.

MobileBoy said:
Look at his quotes and tell me this man never committed bad acts.

What he said is not what he did.


MobileBoy said:
I think he would disagree with you.The same Northern way of attacking civilians was carried out against the Plains Indians as well. I guess that was all myth as well.

The myth is that Sherman and his men attacked civilians.

MobileBoy said:
Why in God's name would Abraham Lincoln go out of his way to make sure Yankee officers couldn't be punished as war criminals if they were as innocent as sonme believe.Now talk about believing a myth.

Perhaps you could elaborate on Abraham Lincoln going out of his way to make sure "Yankee" officers couldn't be punished as war criminals.

Regards,
Cash
 
I don't equate professional historians with "Northerners." Why do you?

Maybe it's because ever time we give a source and it's from the South, it's no good. Some have made it plain that the truth is only in the north. There are two things that really offend. Being called a lost causer and a neo-confederate. What do we call you guys? Unionest. Is that bad?
8thvacav :shrug:
 
Maybe it's because ever time we give a source and it's from the South, it's no good.

There is a big difference between being southern and being a Lost Causer.

Bud Robertson and Jack Davis are southerners but aren't neo-confederates. I trust what they have to say.
 
So, if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions or it doesn't tell you what you want to hear, it's "Lost Causer" or neo-Confederate?

So, using that logic, are sources from left-wing academics revisionist? Or neo-Yankee? Is it PRO-SUBJUGATION HISTORY or VICTOR PROPAGANDA? Arbitrarily dismissing someones sources because it doesn't fit your agenda, or you don't like the writer's background, is narrow-minded.

The "lost-causer" label is just a lazy way to cut off debate or to dismiss someone else's opinion or beliefs. There is a serious lack of respect on this forum these days, and abrasiveness is becoming the rule.

John W.
 
johan_steele said:
Please define a Southern author. Maybe your definition of Neo-Confed, Lost Causer and Unionist might not be a bad idea.


A Southern author, to me is either a writer born and raised in the South, or someone who writes about the South.

As far as "Neo-Confed, Lost Causer and Unionist", again, why are labels necessary, unless, of course it's part of an effort to staunch debate or to condescendingly dismiss someone?

John W.
 
JohnW Ratfink:

Good observation. We tend to divide across unseen lines. Southern writers are as believable as their northern counterparts. But I think we have gone beyond that idea. The point is accuracy. South and North, there is one standard: shed the emotion, say what you can support, hang the consequences. Get published. Keep your job.

Please forgive, it's early Saturday and momma is out and I'm going to take my nap now because when she gets back I'm going to have to do something constructive.

Ole
 
Back
Top