Biased Historians Rewriting History?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently Congress thought

This is your first mistake, General Bee. Congress doesn't "think."

Hooker was sacked by the president. His buddies in "Congress" looked after his backside. This is to be expected.

I'll continue to wait for actual evidence that Hooker had anything to do with the Accident at Gettysburg.
 
I'll continue to wait for actual evidence that Hooker had anything to do with the Accident at Gettysburg.

1. 'think' used as a figure of speech, Drew.

2. LOL. There is no evidence because Hooker did not plan Gettysburg! You are trying to get a fight out of me that is not there. Assumptions were made about Hooker's involvement due to

a. Politics
b. Politics

3. You want my personal belief on Gettysburg? Based on Sears, Pfanz and numerous articles, I believe that Gettysburg did not become the battleground of choice until towards the end of June. There ya go.

Okay, got suckered into another post on this, but it is unfair to the OP to continue.
 
Catton and Keegan, both extremely distinguished historians, don't treat McClellan very well.
I'd leave Keegan off my ACW reading list. His ACW material is strictly survey stuff, summarizing other, more thorough historians.

His signature book, The Face of Battle, is rightly considered a classic and a must-read. His long introduction to Six Armies in Normandy, in which he describes his own experience of World War II Britain as a child, is worth the price of the book alone. but when he goes far afield from the British military experience, or goes to sea (as in The Price of Admiralty), his stuff is perfunctory at best.
 
Last edited:
I'd leave Keegan off my ACW reading list. His ACW material is strictly survey stuff, summarizing other, more thorough historians.

His signature book, The Face of Battle, is rightly considered a classic and a must-read. His long introduction to Six Armies in Normandy, in which he describes his own experience of World War II Britain as a child, is worth the price of the book alone. but when he goes far afield from the British military experience, or goes to sea (as in The Price of Admiralty), his stuff is perfunctory at best.

I second this. Keegan had a limited understanding of the American Civil War.
 
I loved some of Keegan's books, but his later survey work only had flashes of insight. OK if you didn't know much about the topic. I understand he had serious health problems later in life. He made the mistake of testifying for David Irving in his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, which was a real mistake.
 
I loved some of Keegan's books, but his later survey work only had flashes of insight. OK if you didn't know much about the topic. I understand he had serious health problems later in life. He made the mistake of testifying for David Irving in his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, which was a real mistake.
My impression of Keegan's later work was that it was all driven by marketing for a popular audience ("what should I write about next?"), rather than being about subjects he was really invested in. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think one should look elsewhere for detailed and important studies on those subjects.

Same goes for Stephen Ambrose, entirely apart from the plagiarism thing.
 
Even if they're not deliberately trying to spin their account to their own advantage, eyewitness accounts are (by definition) limited both by what those people saw, and the limitations of human memory. The historian has to evaluate his- or her sources carefully and, ultimately, reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not an exact science.
------------------
Andy your post is 'spot on' with contemporary sources. I had the experience of gathering with most of my surviving platoon members from my war.
Honest to Goodness I wasn't sure that we were all in the same platoon! The remembrance we all had for any particular operation or LRP, wasn't consistent very much. One of us would tell of an incident & there would be very little accuracy in the story with different partners, squad members, enemies opposed or uniforms worn by them & time of year it took place in. NOBODY was BSing but almost 50 years later & with only some pictures &
scars EVERYONE of us would've of sworn that our version was the actual truth. In fact, as we soberly compared the versions of a particular firefight or battle, someone would say "I don't remember you being my partner on that OP! (A combat operation - not an 'Original Post'). Then a picture would be shown that would 'trigger' a memory & I knew I had confused people, places & actions. This was after not seeing & mostly no verbal communications with each other for some 48 years after the events plus speanding the same amount time trying to erase from our minds certain events that had taken place in that period of time because of the sense of loss & the pain involved in recalling them.
I reflect on memories written "strictly from memory" by an individual 40-50 years after the fact & take those statements with a large grain of thought. I don't think any of us were lying but simply patching together 'pictures & videos' in our minds of certain events.
I mention this only as a warning that 1st hand accounts can be incorrect in details, not because they're not true but because they might be confused with a similar event that the author may have been involved in earlier or later then they actually occurred.
I mention all this because I support Andy's statement "…The historian has to evaluate his- or her sources carefully and, ultimately, reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not an exact science."
Direct sources are very important & desirable but not necessarily the 'complete' truth or an irrefutable fact. Just look at the JFK assassination & from police interviews one might think JFK drove into a 360* ambush!
For example… I for one think Forrest snatching a Union solder & swinging him onto the back of his saddle is pure myth or at best he snatched one of his riderless camp servents on to the back of his horse & the story evolved from there. Just my opinion. I believe Sam Watkins was writing for his "little rebels at my feet." & took several liberties with the truth & was a victim of his own memories. Great story to read but a large part someone else's experiences, mixed with his own, someone else's story, mixed with his own, & self serving to be a bigger hero then he was in his "little rebels" eyes & I don't blame him a bit. I want my grandkids to be proud of me & my service to my country. Sam Watkins seemed like a typical CSA soldier but his memories are a bit flawed & inaccurate just as Joshua Chamberlin's or any other CW combatant. Both wrote what they experienced but not without their prejudices the same could be said for Grant & Longstreet or any news reporter… all flawed in their own ways.
 
------------------
Andy your post is 'spot on' with contemporary sources. I had the experience of gathering with most of my surviving platoon members from my war.
Honest to Goodness I wasn't sure that we were all in the same platoon! The remembrance we all had for any particular operation or LRP, wasn't consistent very much. One of us would tell of an incident & there would be very little accuracy in the story with different partners, squad members, enemies opposed or uniforms worn by them & time of year it took place in. NOBODY was BSing but almost 50 years later & with only some pictures &
scars EVERYONE of us would've of sworn that our version was the actual truth. In fact, as we soberly compared the versions of a particular firefight or battle, someone would say "I don't remember you being my partner on that OP! (A combat operation - not an 'Original Post'). Then a picture would be shown that would 'trigger' a memory & I knew I had confused people, places & actions. This was after not seeing & mostly no verbal communications with each other for some 48 years after the events plus speanding the same amount time trying to erase from our minds certain events that had taken place in that period of time because of the sense of loss & the pain involved in recalling them.
I reflect on memories written "strictly from memory" by an individual 40-50 years after the fact & take those statements with a large grain of thought. I don't think any of us were lying but simply patching together 'pictures & videos' in our minds of certain events.
I mention this only as a warning that 1st hand accounts can be incorrect in details, not because they're not true but because they might be confused with a similar event that the author may have been involved in earlier or later then they actually occurred.
I mention all this because I support Andy's statement "…The historian has to evaluate his- or her sources carefully and, ultimately, reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not an exact science."
Direct sources are very important & desirable but not necessarily the 'complete' truth or an irrefutable fact. Just look at the JFK assassination & from police interviews one might think JFK drove into a 360* ambush!
For example… I for one think Forrest snatching a Union solder & swinging him onto the back of his saddle is pure myth or at best he snatched one of his riderless camp servents on to the back of his horse & the story evolved from there. Just my opinion. I believe Sam Watkins was writing for his "little rebels at my feet." & took several liberties with the truth & was a victim of his own memories. Great story to read but a large part someone else's experiences, mixed with his own, someone else's story, mixed with his own, & self serving to be a bigger hero then he was in his "little rebels" eyes & I don't blame him a bit. I want my grandkids to be proud of me & my service to my country. Sam Watkins seemed like a typical CSA soldier but his memories are a bit flawed & inaccurate just as Joshua Chamberlin's or any other CW combatant. Both wrote what they experienced but not without their prejudices the same could be said for Grant & Longstreet or any news reporter… all flawed in their own ways.
Completely concur with the above. The biggest difference though is when the recollections were written. If one can find a number of recollections of a fight that were written shortly after the event and they support one another in substance, they can be considered hard evidence. It is very true though, that recollections of events that took place long ago will be recorded very differently.

It is finding the similarities in the two different groups that can help substantiate theories. But, all post war recollections have to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
------------------
Andy your post is 'spot on' with contemporary sources. I had the experience of gathering with most of my surviving platoon members from my war.
Honest to Goodness I wasn't sure that we were all in the same platoon! The remembrance we all had for any particular operation or LRP, wasn't consistent very much. One of us would tell of an incident & there would be very little accuracy in the story with different partners, squad members, enemies opposed or uniforms worn by them & time of year it took place in. NOBODY was BSing but almost 50 years later & with only some pictures &
scars EVERYONE of us would've of sworn that our version was the actual truth. In fact, as we soberly compared the versions of a particular firefight or battle, someone would say "I don't remember you being my partner on that OP! (A combat operation - not an 'Original Post'). Then a picture would be shown that would 'trigger' a memory & I knew I had confused people, places & actions. This was after not seeing & mostly no verbal communications with each other for some 48 years after the events plus speanding the same amount time trying to erase from our minds certain events that had taken place in that period of time because of the sense of loss & the pain involved in recalling them.
I reflect on memories written "strictly from memory" by an individual 40-50 years after the fact & take those statements with a large grain of thought. I don't think any of us were lying but simply patching together 'pictures & videos' in our minds of certain events.
I mention this only as a warning that 1st hand accounts can be incorrect in details, not because they're not true but because they might be confused with a similar event that the author may have been involved in earlier or later then they actually occurred.
I mention all this because I support Andy's statement "…The historian has to evaluate his- or her sources carefully and, ultimately, reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not an exact science."
Direct sources are very important & desirable but not necessarily the 'complete' truth or an irrefutable fact. Just look at the JFK assassination & from police interviews one might think JFK drove into a 360* ambush!
For example… I for one think Forrest snatching a Union solder & swinging him onto the back of his saddle is pure myth or at best he snatched one of his riderless camp servents on to the back of his horse & the story evolved from there. Just my opinion. I believe Sam Watkins was writing for his "little rebels at my feet." & took several liberties with the truth & was a victim of his own memories. Great story to read but a large part someone else's experiences, mixed with his own, someone else's story, mixed with his own, & self serving to be a bigger hero then he was in his "little rebels" eyes & I don't blame him a bit. I want my grandkids to be proud of me & my service to my country. Sam Watkins seemed like a typical CSA soldier but his memories are a bit flawed & inaccurate just as Joshua Chamberlin's or any other CW combatant. Both wrote what they experienced but not without their prejudices the same could be said for Grant & Longstreet or any news reporter… all flawed in their own ways.

And every one of them "was there." That's why "he was there" is a very weak argument in support of someone's claim made long after the fact.
 
You could ask two soldiers who stood side by side during a battle and they might tell two different stories. I asked a friend of my parents once about Iwo Jima. He said "Son, if you want to know what happened on Iwo, you need to read a history book. I had my head buried in the sand most of the time and never saw a live Japanese the whole time I was there."
 
Completely concur with the above. The biggest difference though is when the recollections were written. If one can find a number of recollections of a fight that were written shortly after the event and they support one another in substance, they can be considered hard evidence. It is very true though, that recollections of events that took place long ago will be recorded very differently.

It is finding the similarities in the two different groups that can help substantiate theories. But, all post war recollections have to be taken with a grain of salt.
---------------------------
Good play Gunny… the closer to the event the more reliance you can put on the statements.
 
I was thinking about what you had said and out of all the people we could talk about I' would think Jeff Davis had to write his book.. How else could this man explained the killing of a quarter million or more southern boys and crippling another 200,000 how do you sleep at night. And trust me it was all so he could be president Sam Houston said it right when he called him a snake after all Sam knew plenty of them. The kind of people who dress up in fancy clothes call themselves gentlemen only for the power and the money.ask yourself an honest question do you really believe they had to start a war over Fort Sumter really the South couldn't wait a couple of months or were they afraid that people may wake up and decide war is not in our best interest..
 
I read the book by Keegan where he tours Civil War battlefields but I can't, for the life of me, remember anything about it.
I think I had to read everything he wrote and that was on the list. May he rest in peace.

He makes a really biting statement about McClellan in that one... I loaned it to my father in law so don't have the quote handy, but it was a thorough indictment of Little Mac.
 
My impression of Keegan's later work was that it was all driven by marketing for a popular audience ("what should I write about next?"), rather than being about subjects he was really invested in. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think one should look elsewhere for detailed and important studies on those subjects.

Same goes for Stephen Ambrose, entirely apart from the plagiarism thing.

Keegan however taught the American Civil War at Sandhurst for a number of years
 
I was thinking about what you had said and out of all the people we could talk about I' would think Jeff Davis had to write his book.. How else could this man explained the killing of a quarter million or more southern boys and crippling another 200,000 how do you sleep at night. And trust me it was all so he could be president Sam Houston said it right when he called him a snake after all Sam knew plenty of them. The kind of people who dress up in fancy clothes call themselves gentlemen only for the power and the money.ask yourself an honest question do you really believe they had to start a war over Fort Sumter really the South couldn't wait a couple of months or were they afraid that people may wake up and decide war is not in our best interest..
Had Davis waited 24 hours, Lincoln could have easily been the aggressor. Many a northerner decide at that point that war was not the answer.
 
Had Davis waited 24 hours, Lincoln could have easily been the aggressor. Many a northerner decide at that point that war was not the answer.
Hard to say. From what I can read of Fox's re-supply mission, it seems the plan was for three warships to anchor in Swash Channel outside the harbor entrance, 4 miles from Sumter. I do not know if they would have been in or out of range of the batteries guarding the entrance to the harbor. From there, launches with supplies and soldiers would make their way into the harbor and to the fort, presumably passing well within range of the batteries at Fort Johnson and Moultrie. However, these launches obviously would not pose any threat militarily to those batteries. To me all that matters is who fires first. If the South does, than the North can still justify itself by saying that it was meant to be a peaceful re-supply mission. Both sides would likely claim the moral high ground, and the people of each region would likely side with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top