Biased Historians Rewriting History?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To rely purely on first hand accounts from those who were there would be to completely to ignore the important role of archeology which continues even now to provide us with valuable information that often confirms or calls into question those accounts.

So just for that alone we cannot rely on the memories of those who were there, all of whom had specific agendas be it to protect or reinforce the reputation of themselves or others or to spin events to reflect their personal political viewpoints.

If you don't like the 'spin' of a particular historian, it further reinforces the need to read many historians to get a broader picture and form your own opinion. Sometimes it even provides the information you need to determine the factual truth.


There is nothing wrong with learning from archeology. I was at a gun show, a very high end auction, where they had a saber recovered from Little Big Horn. There have been digs there which have uncovered a trove of bullets, all of the locations marked, the bullets ID, which we are fortunate to have. There may have been one survivor but even if there were he spoke little english and the unit was split so at the end of the say he could reveal little.

When the historian becomes agenda driven, and rewrites history on the basis of what they want it to be, it troubles me.
 
I get the same feeling after reading anti-Southern polemicists such as the likes of Foner and McPherson.

What about Foner do you find biased or "anti-Southern"?

I'm listening to Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 and actually have been surprised how balanced he is. Often I find he's given the pro-Confederate South view the benefit of the doubt more than I might.

Any historian that names slavery as the cause of the war rather than tariffs is the worst of the worst

You are being sarcastic, right?

How about everyone involved in one sentence back and forth of "they are biased" "no they are biased" start providing some context, substance, and anything to back up such claims.
 
To rely purely on first hand accounts from those who were there would be to completely to ignore the important role of archeology which continues even now to provide us with valuable information that often confirms or calls into question those accounts.

So just for that alone we cannot rely on the memories of those who were there, all of whom had specific agendas be it to protect or reinforce the reputation of themselves or others or to spin events to reflect their personal political viewpoints.

If you don't like the 'spin' of a particular historian, it further reinforces the need to read many historians to get a broader picture and form your own opinion. Sometimes it even provides the information you need to determine the factual truth.

This is a very good point. Eye witness accounts are often considered one of the worst forms of evidence. Three people can see the same thing and perceive it completely differently. It's even worse when working with recollections as well, memory is not static despite most people wanting to think. Our memories of previous events can completely change even adding in new people, different events, etc.
 
Anyone who thinks Foner and McPherson are anti-Southern or polemicists has no idea what they're talking about.
What about Foner do you find biased or "anti-Southern"?

I'm listening to Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 and actually have been surprised how balanced he is. Often I find he's given the pro-Confederate South view the benefit of the doubt more than I might.



You are being sarcastic, right?

How about everyone involved in one sentence back and forth of "they are biased" "no they are biased" start providing some context, substance, and anything to back up such claims.

Really? Were you surprised that he doesn't mention the black militias in the same vein as he does the KKK. What about Radical Republican corruption? Does he wag his finger in disapproval in the way he does to his perceived conservative Southern reactionaries?
 
Really? Were you surprised that he doesn't mention the black militias in the same vein as he does the KKK. What about Radical Republican corruption? Does he wag his finger in disapproval in the way he does to his perceived conservative Southern reactionaries?

Were the black militias comparable to the KKK? Documented lynchings of whites? Organized terrorism?

I know that these discussions usually boil down to "Northern bias" or the reverse, but since I am neither ( based on post Civil War actions of the US army I could harbour my own grudges) I am simply interested if there are mainstream sources that document comparable actions committed by black militias with photos etc.
 
There is nothing wrong with learning from archeology. I was at a gun show, a very high end auction, where they had a saber recovered from Little Big Horn. There have been digs there which have uncovered a trove of bullets, all of the locations marked, the bullets ID, which we are fortunate to have. There may have been one survivor but even if there were he spoke little english and the unit was split so at the end of the say he could reveal little.

When the historian becomes agenda driven, and rewrites history on the basis of what they want it to be, it troubles me.
The written story of the battle of Isandlwana was pretty much disproved by archaeology.

The spend brass cartridges was still there giving us a very clear idea about where the brits had been.
 
Were the black militias comparable to the KKK? Documented lynchings of whites? Organized terrorism?...

On November 1, 1868 , two days before the Arkansas general election, Governor Clayton declared martial law, which triggered four months of terrorism and internal civil war. The militia battled the KKK, and/or civilians they presumed at their discretion to be KKK members. (The accused could not appeal to civilian authorities.) The the entire population of some towns in the path of the militia fled as the soldiers roamed the country and tortured those they captured.

Commanders admitted that some militia were guilty of offenses ranging from larceny to rape. When militia commanders took prisoners they so often reported, "The prisoners were killed while attempting to escape," that even governor Clayton expressed a wish that more details surrounding the circumstances had been provided.

Source: Stanley Horn Invisible Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1939), 258-60
 
Last edited:
Really? Were you surprised that he doesn't mention the black militias in the same vein as he does the KKK. What about Radical Republican corruption? Does he wag his finger in disapproval in the way he does to his perceived conservative Southern reactionaries?

So a couple disclaimers:

1) I'm only listening to this on audio book, I do not have a physical or e-book version to reference (though I guess it doesn't matter much since you didn't reference anything specifically in the book either)

2) I'm only partway through, I listen while working out so a lengthy audio book like this is spread out over weeks for me, so I don't have a fresh recollection of it all


With that said, no I don't recall him mentioning black militias (yet) though he does bring up claims of black violence against whites just like he brings up claims of white violence against blacks. As Bee pointed out the actions of KKK like groups vs "black militias" don't seem to quantitatively balance out, please reference something that suggests otherwise. The data seems to suggest it happened far more one way than the other, so his representative seems proportional.

Regarding "Radical Republican corruption", he certainly mentions these scenarios. He brings up cases of Northerns coming down to exploit the opportunities they see. He makes no effort (that I can tell) to hide their intentions and that some manipulated the system to try to get it. He also points out multiple times the very severe limit of what "freedom" meant for the Blacks to many Northerners. He points out the "paternalistic" views and attitudes towards the Blacks by Northerners coming down. The resistance at first of allowing Blacks to teach Blacks, etc.

Again it's not all fresh in my head but just in the last couple hours I listened the above was covered multiple times. So far the North doesn't come out as some shining positive example.

He also made very clear the issues newly freed Blacks had with many Union military run governments... He referenced first hand accounts of Union soldiers rounding up freed blacks at gunpoint for labor, first hand accounts that suggest it was no better than slavery, etc.

Have you actually read it? I'm surprised you missed all those areas.
 
...

With that said, no I don't recall him mentioning black militias (yet) though he does bring up claims of black violence against whites just like he brings up claims of white violence against blacks...

See below:

On November 1, 1868 , two days before the Arkansas general election, Governor Clayton declared martial law, which triggered four months of terrorism and internal civil war. The militia battled the KKK, and/or civilians they presumed at their discretion to be KKK members. (The accused could not appeal to civilian authorities.) The the entire population of some towns in the path of the militia fled as the soldiers roamed the country and tortured those they captured.

Commanders admitted that some militia were guilty of offenses ranging from larceny to rape. When militia commanders took prisoners they so often reported, "The prisoners were killed while attempting to escape," that even governor Clayton expressed a wish that more details surrounding the circumstances had been provided.

Source: Stanley Horn Invisible Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1939), 258-60
 
Were the black militias comparable to the KKK? Documented lynchings of whites? Organized terrorism?

I know that these discussions usually boil down to "Northern bias" or the reverse, but since I am neither ( based on post Civil War actions of the US army I could harbour my own grudges) I am simply interested if there are mainstream sources that document comparable actions committed by black militias with photos etc.

My opinion from what I've been able to read so far is that the violence of the Union/Loyal League and black militias were one of the factors that prompted the KKK to turn violent in response (remember that the KKK started as essentially a social club for a small group of ex-Confederates), and that overall the KKK soon surpassed what the black militias had done in terms of violence and terrorism, though there were areas where the militias were just as bad. But we generally only hear about the KKK, and rarely are the actions of the black militias brought up.
 
Last edited:
My opinion from what I've been able to read so far is that the violence of the Union/Loyal League and black militias were one of the factors that prompted the KKK to turn violent in response (remember that the KKK started as essentially a social club for a small group of ex-Confederates), and that overall the KKK soon surpassed what the black militias had done in terms of violence and terrorism, though there were areas where the militias were just as bad. But we generally only hear about the KKK, and rarely are the actions of the black militias brought up.

The power of the Black Militia was not merely in acts of violence, it was also in the deterrence to non-Republican voters faced with the intimidating threat of voting under the glitter of Republican-sponsored bayonets.

In the 1868 presidential election, for example, Grant was victorious in Tennessee, Florida, the Carolinas, and Arkansas where the militia was organized before the election. He lost in Louisiana and Georgia were the militia was not organized until November.
 
See below:

I never denied such things happened, but that doesn't address any point I made... the scale of comparison. In what I've heard so far (again I have much to go) Foner does mention multiple times on Black aggressions towards Whites.

Again based on all I've heard the proportion was much larger White aggression towards Blacks and I think his representation is probably proportional. You are welcome to give me numbers suggesting otherwise, I'm open.

Pointing to a single large event of Black violence is not that, your reference lacks both any form of quantitative scale of the event referenced and a comparison to other events in reverse to establish relative scale.
 
I never denied such things happened, but that doesn't address any point I made... the scale of comparison. In what I've heard so far (again I have much to go) Foner does mention multiple times on Black aggressions towards Whites.

Again based on all I've heard the proportion was much larger White aggression towards Blacks and I think his representation is probably proportional. You are welcome to give me numbers suggesting otherwise, I'm open.

Pointing to a single large event of Black violence is not that, your reference lacks both any form of quantitative scale of the event referenced and a comparison to other events in reverse to establish relative scale.

See below.

The power of the Black Militia was not merely in acts of violence, it was also in the deterrence to non-Republican voters faced with the intimidating threat of voting under the glitter of Republican-sponsored bayonets.

In the 1868 presidential election, for example, Grant was victorious in Tennessee, Florida, the Carolinas, and Arkansas where the militia was organized before the election. He lost in Louisiana and Georgia were the militia was not organized until November.
 
My opinion from what I've been able to read so far is that the violence of the Union/Loyal League and black militias were one of the factors that prompted the KKK to turn violent in response (remember that the KKK started as essentially a social club for a small group of ex-Confederates), and that overall the KKK soon surpassed what the black militias had done in terms of violence and terrorism, though there were areas where the militias were just as bad. But we generally only hear about the KKK, and rarely are the actions of the black militias brought up.

Do you have any source on this? I'd also be curious if the events, timeline, and facts bear this out outside of KKK too. Did other White groups use violence that resulted in a Black violent uprising, etc.

Let's also not forget Slavery existing... Reconstruction didn't start out of a void. It started after generations of Blacks had been enslaved. I'd fully expect some to reciprocate with violence once given some measure of freedom to organize and strike out.

If you're wrong you realize you might be blaming the victim.

Maybe you should start a thread on Black Militias. Maybe their impact was larger than thought, though I strongly suspect they were like slave uprisings in the South, actually few and rare but scared the Whites dramatically.
 
See below.

You could be mixing up cause and effect. The strong Republican presence might have resulted in Black militia presence.

Additionally Black militias aren't inherently bad. As a now freed group naturally some will want to band together for self defense (clearly anyone sympathetic with the Confederacy won't fault them for that, not sure if you are of course).

Again your reference is missing a lot of context to make a point on mine. What evidence exists they caused such impacts, what evidence exists all of those made massive violent impacts, how does that compare to White to Black Reconstruction violence, etc...

Again Foner does talk about Black violence against Whites. I still haven't seen anything to suggest his proportion of talking about it is different than the proportion of events.
 
Really? Were you surprised that he doesn't mention the black militias in the same vein as he does the KKK. What about Radical Republican corruption? Does he wag his finger in disapproval in the way he does to his perceived conservative Southern reactionaries?

I'm not surprised that he doesn't adhere to the **** baloney of "black militias" being on par with the KKK.

As to corruption, the index of Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution lists these pages under Corruption and the Republican Party: 384-90; 486-87; 493, 498; 523; 566; and 603. There are a number of other entries under corruption as well.

I don't know what you mean about wagging his finger, since I've never seen him do that in any of the videos I've seen of him. Perhaps you have some specific examples to back up your statement that he wags his finger in disapproval?
 
On November 1, 1868 , two days before the Arkansas general election, Governor Clayton declared martial law, which triggered four months of terrorism and internal civil war. The militia battled the KKK, and/or civilians they presumed at their discretion to be KKK members. (The accused could not appeal to civilian authorities.) The the entire population of some towns in the path of the militia fled as the soldiers roamed the country and tortured those they captured.

Commanders admitted that some militia were guilty of offenses ranging from larceny to rape. When militia commanders took prisoners they so often reported, "The prisoners were killed while attempting to escape," that even governor Clayton expressed a wish that more details surrounding the circumstances had been provided.

Source: Stanley Horn Invisible Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1939), 258-60

Speaking of biased history, we have a book-length KKK apologia put forward as if it were a credible source. Sorry, but I prefer not to take the white racist view of history as a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top