Here's a Different Look

[samgrant]

This one is titled: Appomattox: One Hundred Years Later

It was apparently written in 1965, which accounts for references to that era, but I think some of the things the author (the guy who wrote those Union Cavalry books I was asking about in the book/movie review section!) addresses hold true, 142 years after Appomattox.

What do you think?

http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/one_hundred.html


-

 

[unionblue]

samgrant,

Read and printed this one out a long time ago when I was debating Bill Torrens way back when. Enjoyed seeing it again.

Thanks,
Unionblue

 

[formerYank]

unpleasant mistaken anti-history blather

Thank you for posting the article.

While the author is very careful to quote and reference previous historians and suggest that the subject is controversial he quickly exits the world of objectivity required of better historians and enters one of anti-confederate bias and screed.

The author is deeply biased against the South. Closer to political agitprop than to true historical study, the author's falsehoods might fool some of the people some of the time but certainly not all of the people all of the time.

As a long time student of the War, I do not recall reading a piece more overtly partisan, inflammatory, and unbalanced than this one. The War is far more complex than unfortunate attempts such as this article to lay blame on one party make it seem.

This is propaganda disguised as historical analysis. A more biased, unfortunate, and misbegotten analysis you are not likely to find. The only thing controversial here is the author's bias.

 

[matthew mckeon]

What sections did you feel were falsehoods? This is a genuine question, I didn't read it very carefully.

 

[cw1865]

States Rights Party 1960s

He's drawing a parallel between the state's rights position of 1860 with the state's rights position in the 1960s. The author's bias isn't controversial at all, the author is clearly anti-segregation and the article even admits that contemporary events in the 1960s color people's judgments of historical events in the 1860s.

One of the primary motivations for creating the 'Federal system' was because the Founders feared that centralized power far away (read: London) was undesirable. The fear was is that a large, centralized Federal government would trample individual rights and liberties. While I can understand where this principle comes from, the state government exerting its inherent 'police power' (state has wide latitude to regulate for 'health, welfare and safety') has constantly and consistently been the agent of suppresion (and I don't just mean the South, I mean ALL state governments. Ironically it has been the Federal government which has come to the assistance of people whose Federal rights have been infringed by state action (this is beginning to change as the Federal government asserts more and more police power)

And conversely, has the Centennial given us the incentive to ask if what we know about the Civil War and its background may not serve as a warning and a guide in dealing with the desperately complex dilemmas of our own time?

Historians feel just as strongly about these questions as do the rest of us, and their convictions on, for example, the issue of States' Rights today are bound to color their appraisal of the States' Rights controversy of 1850 or 1860. The past few years have not been a good time to view the issues that led to the Civil War with the objectivity and detachment that are needed for a new historical synthesis.

I have now stated my case, and in the process, have said enough to let you deduce certain striking similarities between the state of mind of the Deep South in 1860 and today.

There are days, when we read of another Negro church burned down, of another midnight bombing committed by the heroic descendants of the Confederacy, when one is tempted to think that Lincoln's vision of a truly free America is as distant today as it seemed in the summer of 1861. But let us take comfort in the thought that whereas William Lowndes Yancey spoke for the entire South in 1860, neither the sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, nor His Honor, Governor Wallace of Alabama, speak for the entire South in 1965.

 

[formerYank]

agitprop

hello,
the first fifth of the piece was setting himself up as an expert historian, giving a thorough review of previous historians. but very quickly thereafter the tone changes drastically to condemnation and anger on the author's part against the south. his approach is very simplistic yet disguised as a complex historical analysis. it's really quite a shameful affair, and something of an embarrassment. his bias and his very very strong anti-confederate opinions are quickly obvious. he spends the remainder of the screed beating the audience over the head with his figurative sword hilt til the message of confederate blame, ignorance, moral, ethical, and cultural confusion, and political and social shallowness is obvious even to the most doltish and intellectually challenged of his readership (in his opinion). this is an inflammatory rant unworthy of a published civil war historian and detrimental to his stated purposes of enlightening the audience as the causes of the war. even the most brilliant writers/historians like the author of this piece appears to be, retreat to the simplistic explanation of very very complicated matters. nothing wrong with having an opinion and sharing it. but pretending that very strongly held partisan opinion is actually historically valid fact is not a scholarly or reasonable approach to historical study.

 

[cw1865]

But...he says so

"Historians feel just as strongly about these questions as do the rest of us, and their convictions on, for example, the issue of States' Rights today are bound to color their appraisal of the States' Rights controversy of 1850 or 1860." [emphasis supplied]

His bias is plain as day.

 

[formerYank]

yes, but...

yes, of course this is true.
my point is that he is giving historical "evidence" to back up his very strongly biased opinions as if he is being an historian going about his business rather than anti-confederate/anti-south partisan delivering a screed.
of course this address was delivered at the height of the racial tensions in the south during the centennial and it was certainly in the context of the time for liberal minded folks everywhere to dislike the rascism and sectionalism common in the south at the time. the more unpleasant aspects of southern culture and politics are easily attacked and not worthy to defend. but these are not the causes of the war, and to suggest that they are is wrong-headed in my opinion.
my only complaint is that he is putting his rant in the guise of a historical speech. it's incredibly one-sided and slanted, even with his apologia.

 

[OpnDownfall]

One can express facts in a controversial manner and the facts still be true. The manner of expression does not automatically, cancel out the facts.

 

[ole]

What parts did you feel were falsehoods?

I'd very much like to examine the falsehoods and would appreciate having one or two pointed out.

ole