Is the Abbeville Institute a Reliable Source for Information Related to the Civil War?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Does anyone deny that Guelzo, Foner and Blight are agenda-driven?
All have an agenda to remove at least some, perhaps many or all, Confederate statues as indicated in the quotes below.

1. Foner: “The key thing to remember about this statue, and most of these statues, is that they have very little to do with the Civil War.” That is an outrageous lie.

2. Guelzo: "You look at that period, 1890 to let’s say 1930, and the first thing that springs to mind of course is Jim Crow. There is a sense in which a lot of these monuments really are about white supremacy." That lie is like Foner's.

3. Blight: "It isn’t history that the statues’ defenders want to preserve, Blight insisted, but a memory that distorts or denies history." That is overwhelmingly untrue.

Like it or not, they are respected historians.
Presently, yes, but their bias is pronounced and should be taken into consideration.

Their viewpoints were not dominant prior to 1970. Earlier historians allowed dissenting viewpoints, enabling these guys became mainstream. It is narcissistic to assume that modern historians have an uncorrupted pipeline to the truth anymore than those in the past. Yet that is precisely the zeitgeist. The great sin in today's academy is the censorship of dissenting opinions. That is why the Abbeville Institute formed.

Perhaps, for example, you can cite academic discussions about Confederate statues that include the voice of a Confederate defender. I'd genuinely like to see them.

Finally, the perspectives of Foner, Blight, Guelzo and their acolytes are nearly everywhere, including CWT. Nobody can miss them—a good reason to read them critically. Conversely, I'd bet that few CWT members have read Ludwell Johnson's Disunion and Reunion, which covers the 1848 - 1877 era from a different viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DanSBHawk

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Does anyone deny that Guelzo, Foner and Blight are agenda-driven?

Guelzo argues "the South lost the war but won Reconstruction." In response I sent him the picture below and asked that he identify the Reconstruction winners. He never replied. . .

View attachment 348247

. . . because the winners were north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers.
As noted in another thread, I'm not sure what this photo is supposed to show. Do you think the north was unaffected by the Depression?
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
"And always remember that victors write and propagate the history of great controversial events. Be always ready to identify and question such “history” and look for the real motives behind supposedly virtuous actions.


In fact, White has indeed identified many of the failings of academic historians of today who care not about the history that people actually lived but are eager to force artificial theories onto the experience of humanity. It is to the non-professionals that we too often need to look to understand the past of our kind"

Not this fallacy again. Always remember that losers too write and propagate the history of great controversial events.

Who were more motivated to justify their actions?

1. Winners who won the war, achieved their goals such as preserving the Union, abolished slavery and experienced a period of rapid economic growth and financial prosperity dubbed as the Glided Age

or

2. Losers who lost the war, failed to achieve their goal of establishing an independent Republic to protect and spread slavery and were in financial ruin after the War.

Of course, it was losers had more reasons to come up with excuses for the War that they lost.

However, I think it is irrelevant. History is history. It should be studied objectively and impartially, not by people who are driven by their bias and try to pervert history by treating it as some sort of sports game between "us" vs "them".

By the way, who is this Mr. White? Why is this guy worth a mention? Why should people trust him over other historians when he isn't a historian? The article seems like a book promotion for Mr. White by Mr. Wilson. In fact, I clicked the link and it led me to Mr White's book which had no review. I checked his other books available on Amazon and it seemed like they were either usual "the South is good. Yanks are bad" cr*ps, his novel of CSA which is unrealistic and probably only exists in his fantasy world and some creationism stuffs.

It is fine by me if the institute continues to support their little echo chamber. It is a free country and their constitutional right for free speech is guaranteed. However, they shouldn't expect others to take them seriously as a reliable source with their blatant bias and agenda-driven lies, deceits and perversion of history.

Then again, I don't think it would stop some people with "us vs them" mentality. They will continue to degrade history as some sort of sports game between Patriots vs Cowboys or Red Sox vs Yankees or Lakers vs Celtics and keep performing mental gymnastics to justify their wrong-doing by using "You too" fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DanSBHawk

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I disagree. His work on Calhoun is indeed, superb, as is his work on the tariffs. And as I said, Dr. Wilson is a pillar of the community, and truly a splendid example of good manners, decency, and elegance. Really, he is everything a man should be.
Wow. This seems almost cult-like.
 

DanSBHawk

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Wow. That comment is dripping with cultism. So could the haters of the Abbeville Institute be described as cultist fanatics?
No, those of us who dismiss the Abbeville Institute, do so because we are skeptics and read history to learn rather than just to confirm our biases.

There is not a single historian that I would fawn over and describe as "everything a man should be."
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
No, those of us who dismiss the Abbeville Institute, do so because we are skeptics and read history to learn rather than just to confirm our biases.

There is not a single historian that I would fawn over and describe as "everything a man should be."


Honestly, I could not possibly care less who you would or would not describe as "everything a man should be". Again, could not possibly care less.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Not this fallacy again. Always remember that losers too write and propagate the history of great controversial events.

Who were more motivated to justify their actions?

1. Winners who won the war, achieved their goals such as preserving the Union, abolished slavery and experienced a period of rapid economic growth and financial prosperity dubbed as the Glided Age

or

2. Losers who lost the war, failed to achieve their goal of establishing an independent Republic to protect and spread slavery and were in financial ruin after the War.

Of course, it was losers had more reasons to come up with excuses for the War that they lost, especially when they lost $3 billion worth of properties in chattel slavery as a result of the war.

However, I think it is irrelevant. History is history. It should be studied objectively and impartially, not by people who are driven by their bias and try to pervert history by treating it as some sort of sports game between "us" vs "them".

By the way, who is this Mr. White? Why is this guy worth a mention? Why should people trust him over other historians when he isn't a historian? The article seems like a book promotion for Mr. White by Mr. Wilson. In fact, I clicked the link and it led me to Mr White's book which had no review. I checked his other books available on Amazon and it seemed like they were either usual "the South is good. Yanks are bad" cr*ps, his novel of CSA which is unrealistic and probably only exists in his fantasy world and some creationism stuffs.

It is fine by me if they want to support their little echo chamber they call Abbeville Institute. It is a free country and their constitutional right for free speech is guaranteed. However, they shouldn't expect others to take them seriously as a reliable source with their blatant bias and agenda-driven lies, deceits and perversion of history.

Then again, I don't think it would stop some people with "us vs them" mentality. They will continue to degrade history as some sort of sports game between Patriots vs Cowboys or Red Sox vs Yankees or Lakers vs Celtics and keep performing mental gymnastics to justify their wrong-doing by using "You too" fallacy.
Practice what you preach.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
I disagree. His work on Calhoun is indeed, superb, as is his work on the tariffs. And as I said, Dr. Wilson is a pillar of the community, and truly a splendid example of good manners, decency, and elegance. Really, he is everything a man should be.
If we’re taking about Clyde N. Wilson he is far from what anyone should be. He helped found The League of the South Edited.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Not this fallacy again. Always remember that losers too write and propagate the history of great controversial events.

Who were more motivated to justify their actions?

1. Winners who won the war, achieved their goals such as preserving the Union, abolished slavery and experienced a period of rapid economic growth and financial prosperity dubbed as the Glided Age

or

2. Losers who lost the war, failed to achieve their goal of establishing an independent Republic to protect and spread slavery and were in financial ruin after the War.

Of course, it was losers had more reasons to come up with excuses for the War that they lost, especially when they lost $3 billion worth of properties in chattel slavery as a result of the war.

However, I think it is irrelevant. History is history. It should be studied objectively and impartially, not by people who are driven by their bias and try to pervert history by treating it as some sort of sports game between "us" vs "them".

By the way, who is this Mr. White? Why is this guy worth a mention? Why should people trust him over other historians when he isn't a historian? The article seems like a book promotion for Mr. White by Mr. Wilson. In fact, I clicked the link and it led me to Mr White's book which had no review. I checked his other books available on Amazon and it seemed like they were either usual "the South is good. Yanks are bad" cr*ps, his novel of CSA which is unrealistic and probably only exists in his fantasy world and some creationism stuffs.

It is fine by me if they want to support their little echo chamber they call Abbeville Institute. It is a free country and their constitutional right for free speech is guaranteed. However, they shouldn't expect others to take them seriously as a reliable source with their blatant bias and agenda-driven lies, deceits and perversion of history.

Then again, I don't think it would stop some people with "us vs them" mentality. They will continue to degrade history as some sort of sports game between Patriots vs Cowboys or Red Sox vs Yankees or Lakers vs Celtics and keep performing mental gymnastics to justify their wrong-doing by using "You too" fallacy.
Certainly has a Yankees vs Red Sox feel on here at times😁
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Practice what you preach.
I believe I do, though? Again, this is "You too" fallacy (+ resorting matters into personal). I have no personal attachments to "either sides" of this nasty football game. I am sympathetic to both sides, but try to study history impartially and objectively as possible. However, this is not about me, but about the organization that is clearly politically motivated and tries to promote their modern agendas therefore is NOT a reliable source for studying history.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

BuckeyeWarrior

Corporal
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Inappropriate Content (Level 2)
Wow. This seems almost cult-like.
Well if they are taking about the this Clyde Wilson;
“In 1994 Wilson was an original founder of the League of the South, which advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates", using as an example, "Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc."The League of the South has been described as a white supremacist and white nationalist organization.

We’ve definitely gone into a rather bad area.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
All have an agenda to remove at least some, perhaps many or all, Confederate statues as indicated in the quotes below.

1. Foner: “The key thing to remember about this statue, and most of these statues, is that they have very little to do with the Civil War.” That is an outrageous lie.

2. Guelzo: "You look at that period, 1890 to let’s say 1930, and the first thing that springs to mind of course is Jim Crow. There is a sense in which a lot of these monuments really are about white supremacy." That lie is like Foner's.

3. Blight: "It isn’t history that the statues’ defenders want to preserve, Blight insisted, but a memory that distorts or denies history." That is overwhelmingly untrue.
Thanks for your response.
Sharing their opinion on the Confederate Monument Controversy (something many members of this Forum have done) does not prove that these historians have an agenda.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
An appropriate proverb for the many Abbeville critics in this thread.
Thanks for your response.
Among others.

Their viewpoints were not dominant prior to 1970.
Thanks for your response.
That is because the Lost Cause mythology prevailed throughout our country before that time. Many of our older members have shared how they were taught history 'back then' in accordance with that mythology.

UB, I highly recommend a course of study at McClanahan Academy. 😊
Is it credentialed? Some denigrate PragerU for not being a real institute of higher learning. Does the little-known McClanahan Academy pass their test?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Philip Leigh

formerly Harvey Johnson
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Thanks for your response.
That is because the Lost Cause mythology prevailed throughout our country before that time. Many of our older members have shared how they were taught history 'back then' in accordance with that mythology.
As opposed to the mythology that is taught today under the tyranny of censoring minority perspectives?

Seriously, can you cite any examples where a discussion of Confederate symbols includes a defender of Confederate heritage? I'd really like to find some.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top