Dubious claims authors make

[Red Harvest]

From time-to-time in reading ACW books I read things that prompt an immediate, "That doesn't sound right." A recent example is the uncited claim:

Historical Note: It is said that when Lincoln was asked about letting the southern states secede he replied: 'I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government.'

This one sets off the first bell immediately..."It is said." And no citation follows, which is the historiography equivalent of saying, "I was listening to Glenn Beck on talk radio the other day and as he put on a tri-corn hat and grabbed his N.B. Forrest negro-skinning cavalry sabre he said..." No context is given either, another indication of unreliable sources. If someone can point to a reliable source and context, I would like to examine it. Without that, this one is pegging the BS meter.

Other dubious claims followed in this particular work such as:

Slavery was never abolished in the United States. It is still legal under certain circumstances as defined by the United States Constitution -- an examination of Amendment 13 is encouraged. )

To which I would respond: indeed, examine the amendment and explain how chattel slavery is still allowed. If you can, then a corneal or perhaps cranial transplant is in order...or an emergency cranial-rectal extraction.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

The sad thing is that neither statement contributed in any positive way to interpreting the subject matter at hand, to which the author had clearly devoted a great deal of study. Instead, they are editorial distractions that reflect poorly on the author's ability to weigh evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[tmh10]

I always take almost anything I read with a grain of salt. Then I read more and try to get to the truth of the matter.

 

[Victoria]

From time-to-time in reading ACW books I read things that prompt an immediate, "That doesn't sound right." A recent example is the uncited claim:



This one sets off the first bell immediately..."It is said." And no citation follows, which is the historiography equivalent of saying, "I was listening to Glenn Beck on talk radio the other day and as he put on a tri-corn hat and grabbed his N.B. Forrest negro-skinning cavalry sabre he said..." No context is given either, another indication of unreliable sources. If someone can point to a reliable source and context, I would like to examine it. Without that, this one is pegging the BS meter.

Other dubious claims followed in this particular work such as:


To which I would respond: indeed, examine the amendment and explain how chattel slavery is still allowed. If you can, then a corneal or perhaps cranial transplant is in order...or an emergency cranial-rectal extraction.



The sad thing is that neither statement contributed in any positive way to interpreting the subject matter at hand, to which the author had clearly devoted a great deal of study. Instead, they are editorial distractions that reflect poorly on the author's ability to weigh evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Will you please give the name of the book and the author?

 

[Red Harvest]

Will you please give the name of the book and the author?

Since you asked, I will. Understand however that I am not trying to villify the author (which is why I didn't name names in the original post), but rather the method employed. This appears to be an example where a pairing with a moderate co-author/critical editor could have eliminated this sort of unfortunate excess and strengthened the retelling.

I'll be giving a more detailed impression of the work's strengths later, so don't take this as absolute condemnation. More like a "WTF?" reality check, caveat emptor.

The book is Kirksville: The True Story of Urban Warfare in America's Heartland by D. Craig Asbury, 2012. The urban warfare part sounds like a massive stretch when one considers a small town at the center of a battle, but it appears the author has some valid points in that regard, so I'll grant considerable tether there. It appears to be self-published and unvetted by critical eyes (no reviewers/contributors listed, no foreword, no editors.)

 

[Victoria]

Since you asked, I will. Understand however that I am not trying to villify the author (which is why I didn't name names in the original post), but rather the method employed. This appears to be an example where a pairing with a moderate co-author/critical editor could have eliminated this sort of unfortunate excess and strengthened the retelling.

I'll be giving a more detailed impression of the work's strengths later, so don't take this as absolute condemnation. More like a "WTF?" reality check, caveat emptor.

The book is Kirksville: The True Story of Urban Warfare in America's Heartland by D. Craig Asbury, 2012. The urban warfare part sounds like a massive stretch when one considers a small town at the center of a battle, but it appears the author has some valid points in that regard, so I'll grant considerable tether there. It appears to be self-published and unvetted by critical eyes (no reviewers/contributors listed, no foreword, no editors.)

Thanks!