Dead Confederates Blog

[jgoodguy]

Fork from
Civil War History - Battle Forums > The Eastern Theater >The Crater at Petersburg.
to discuss the accuracy of Dead Confederates Blog

 

[wilber6150]

I find it a very intersting and fair minded blog using sources from both sides...

 

[Nathanb1]

It's a great and even-handed source of information and ideas. And I liked it way before I knew the author.

 

[jgoodguy]

Jgoodguy,
Only the fact that have James Loewen's book is convincing me that the blog is strongly biased. Loewen, who is a sociologist, not a historian tries to prove, by focusing on some texts and omitting others, to tell us that the sole cause of the war was slavery and that money or states' rights had nothing to do with it. He tries to prove that the South's secession was unconstitutional, yet the Northern invasion of the South was constitutional. I wonder, can't Loewen just continue his sociology courses or write about his science and leave history to historians?
Civil War Scholar.

You either have evidence or it is simply an opinion. Do you have quotes to prove this.

As to facts.

The Southern Secession was not constitutional according to the Supreme Court Decision Texas v White.
6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States
That is fact. Anything else is opinion.

Northern invasion of the South was constitutional.
Art I section 8 US Constitution

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[chellers]

" "Dead Confederates" is a blog. I have read several segments and it exhibits strong bias against the South.
Civil War Scholar."

The blog does not exhibit an anti-southern bias. Period.

 

[cash]

The blog is completely reliable and biased toward the truth.

 

[rpkennedy]

I agree with all the thoughts so far on the reliability of the blog.

R

 

[CSA Today]

The blog is completely reliable and biased toward the truth.

If there was ever a moment of doubt about the Dead Confederate blog, Cash's endorsement should reassure us all.

 

[Nathanb1]

If there was ever a moment of doubt about the Dead Confederate blog, Cash's endorsement should reassure us all.

I like to check out things for myself. It is.

 

[cash]

If there was ever a moment of doubt about the Dead Confederate blog, Cash's endorsement should reassure us all.

Perhaps you can provide specifics. Did you learn how to do that when you (edited by Moderator NB1) earned your MA?

Watch the insults. If I can't call people names, neither can you guys.

 

[jgoodguy]

I can imagine how excited you would get if a pro-Southern poster started quoting from a Dead Yankee Blog.

I'd be very excited if his facts out numbered his rhetoric.

 

[John Winn]

I don't get into these discussions nowadays but I do stand up and testify when appropriate so for the record:

IMO the afore-mentioned blog is not biased and the entries are based on sound research and source materials.

Call me what you will.

 

[Nathanb1]

I don't get into these discussions nowadays but I do stand up and testify when appropriate so for the record:

IMO the afore-mentioned blog is not biased and the entries are based on sound research and source materials.

Call me what you will.

I'll call you right.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

As I noted in the previous thread:

Most of the people objecting to the blog in question aren't specifically arguing with anything specific written in the blog; they mostly seemed to be insisting it's "biased" based on the name... which is bizarre, when you consider that, by definition, all Confederates are dead.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I can't render an impartial judgment on the blog in question; but I have always found the blogger to be clear-thinking and evidence-based.

 

[jgoodguy]

Icarus Phoenix,
How could I "decide what is right" if I hadn't looked on websites and books that support one side or another and neutral material, too? I have spent years on learning facts about the Civil War, have been almost living it myself. Are others posting "sources" I am wrong? I never keep repeating the same statements without adding a further proof or historical evidence.
Going now to Lee's mine. Lee himself in his very report wrote his mine was in retaliation for Burnside's atrocity.
As for the blog, why did the writer choose the name "Dead Confederates"? It sounds malicious. Also, the blog itself is not accurate in several parts.
Thank you,
Civil War Scholar.

More opinions with no evidence.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

In what way is "accurate" the same as "malicious"?

 

[jgoodguy]

In what way is "accurate" the same as "malicious"?

When it does not agree with your position.

 

[ole]

Notice that the author is not here defending his blog? He won't, because that would be as silly as the attacks.

 

[ErnieMac]

I had forgotten Andy was the author of the blog when I cited it in the Crater thread. Having seen Andy's posts on our Forum and in his blog and I won't hesitate to cite him in the future.