Judgement

[1950lemans]

How do you perceive Civil War history? When you read about and investigate the Civil War what kind of judgement do you make?

Example:
Do we leave the present and intuitively try to learn about the past? We don't assume people in the past acted like today so we need some imagination to interpret historical data. We believe past people operated on different assumptions than our own. This goes as far as learning about the past but not from the past because every situation is different.

Another example:
Do we assume people in the past thought and acted like we do today because human nature is constant? The Civil War was only a "blink in the historical eye" - it was yesterday. Is this an attempt at learning from the past? Is this trying to learn about us today through backward glances?

Another example:
The past is completely alien. You can read about it, research it to get the facts correct, but it has nothing in common with now - today. It's like science fiction! That's what makes the Civil War so fascinating.

Or:
You read and investigate it but don't try to grasp any meaning from it. It's a good story; a good narrative. You don't stand in judgement of the war.

Or something else? Your thoughts.

 

[Nathanb1]

As Scarlett said, "Tomorrow is another day." Can I think about this till then?

 

[Elennsar]

Me:

Just as modern society is shaped by our understanding of what is right (on for example the nature of disease, as well as matters of the conscience), the past was shaped by the understanding of people back then of what is right.

I want to understand why notions different than what we hold today were held then, and just as importantly, to weigh whether those notions in the light of my knowledge in the present - including the knowledge of our past - in regards to decisions for the future.

Just as I try to learn from my personal past and my understanding then versus now.


It also makes a hell of a story, but as far as judgment goes, I assume the people of the past shaped their society as they desired it to take form - "the norm of the time" did not exist independently of the actions and beliefs of its inhabitants.

 

[damYankee]

Does man shape history or does history shape man ?

 

[ole]

Does man shape history or does history shape man ?

Excellent question.

My opinion: Humans are basically animals; i.e., animal instincts. Me first. Family second. Clan third. History has nothing to do with it. Difference is accepted now when it wasn't. Is that shaping? Or are we just conforming? The difference isn't gone; it's just pushed back.

Nevermind. Just jaw-jacking.

 

[Rebforever]

I started years and years ago reading narratives about the CW. Not until the last 6 years have
I investigated CW history. An the reason for that was I accidentally discovered my G-Grand fought
in the 52nd Virginia Infantry during that war signing up at the age of 12.

The discovery of the above facts lead me all over battlefields following his footsteps, learning as much as I can
about him and wondering what he could have possibly signed up for. Money for the family which
there were 8, and also I believe at that age he may have been good working with horses because
there was a Wagon Factory close by and I understand he work there after the war plus farming.

He was wounded at Bethesda Church battle, wounded and was taken to the Chimborazo Hospital for
recovery.

Not only did I study G-Grand I had the discovery excitement of finding where my GG-Grand was
buried and placed a headstone for his remembrance.

Life is Good!!

 

[Elennsar]

Good on ya for placing the headstone. One's ancestors should not be forgotten.

 

[John Winn]

I try very hard not to impose presentism on my reading and interpretation of history, CW or otherwise. I believe you can't really understand history unless you try to put yourself in their mindset and try to envision the world they lived in: what they knew, what they didn't know, what they believed, what the mores and customs were, etc.

I sometimes read just to get facts and in those cases I'm not prone to making any judgments. Other times, though, I do judge what the author said in light of my understanding of the times. I also make some judgments about people of the CW era but, as I said, try not to do that based on today's standards. There were bad people then just as now.

Human nature doesn't change very quickly so I don't think nineteenth-century people were fundamentally different than us but they did live in many ways in decidedly different circumstances. So I do think we can learn something from them. Also, 150 years isn't as long ago as it seems and I think we are dealing with some of the fallout of the war even today. We can also see parallels in current events to the same types of decisions those folks made under duress of warfare or politics.

In short, I suppose I don't see "History" as some static 'thing'; it's the story of how we got where we are now.

 

[damYankee]

Man is, as far as we know, the only creature on earth that records events in chronological order and passes these records down. Not all societies did so, the Native Americans handed down their history verbally, however for some reason man is driven to record events, preserve ideas, and sadly to carry grudges for generations.
We all desire to be judged as individuals but we reserve the right to judge others on past events that predate us or them.

 

[Elennsar]

What people do is based on their choices. I judge people of the present and the past based on their choices.

No outside and inhuman force made the 18th century the age of certain attitudes and magically changed things so that the 19th century would be an age of different attitudes and then changed things again so the 20th century would be different than before.

I'm all for learning why earlier centuries held to different beliefs than our own, but that our beliefs have changed over time (either speaking of ourselves as individuals, or as in human society not being the same as it was in the past) does not support that those attitudes could only change when the right century had occurred.

 

[1950lemans]

Do any forum members know of any CW historians, their research, their books, their interpretation of events, etc. that have been marginalized to the "dust bin of history" because their interpretations are no longer valid? Their judgement was off.
Have you ever read any of these?

 

[Elennsar]

The closest I can think of is dismissing certain writers as not credible based on research showing they made up stuff, but for example Freeman is still referred to when studying Lee despite his work approaching three-quarters of a century old.

And I've read Lee's Lieutenants (all three volumes), if only pieces of his biography of Lee (which might be dismissed more, I don't pay as much attention to biographies for some reason, and thus don't know where his stands compared to modern studies).

 

[ole]

Freeman has been honored as a scholar. He's also been denounced as a worshipper. The hard part is deciding who is slavish and who is strictly objective.

It's quite easy to say that the Brothers Kennedy and DiLorenzo are bent. It's quite another matter to determine if McPherson or Gallagher are bent. Only time will tell.

 

[Barrycdog]

Do we assume people in the past thought and acted like we do today because human nature is constant? The Civil War was only a "blink in the historical eye" - it was yesterday. Is this an attempt at learning from the past? Is this trying to learn about us today through backward glances?

I agree with this view. Human nature hasn't changed or gotten any more loftier. I find new things from time to time and different views. As far as judgement goes what is your meter stick. I mean many so called scholars label bravery. For example a columnist Tom Teepen made a statement that a Confederate soldiers bravery was no bravery but merely ironic. How does he measure bravery? How does a person who spent his life in academia and having never served in the military or on a battlefield grasp what seeing the elephant was? How do people measure morality? You may say we have a different morality in the 20th Century or do we? I believe a fire and brimstone preacher from the 1860 would die of an stroke screaming about what he saw today.

If we are learning from the past and I in particular am reminded daily of how wrong slavery is, then why are we still buying things from countries that practice slavery in one form or fashion. Why is America letting it go on? My thought about judging the past is before I pull a splinter from a veterans eye I need to remove the railroad tie from my butt.

 

[Elennsar]

How does being in academia and not the military prevent one from knowing what bravery is and was?

I haven't read Teepen's statement, either in or out of context, so I can't weigh what he said with any seriousness. But facing bullets and shells flying at one's self is not the only or the highest kind of bravery, that I do know.

 

[Rebforever]

Street fighting is stupidity.
Fighting for what one believes is bravery.

 

[John Winn]

Do any forum members know of any CW historians, their research, their books, their interpretation of events, etc. that have been marginalized to the "dust bin of history" because their interpretations are no longer valid? Their judgement was off.
Have you ever read any of these?

William Dunning comes to mind, particularly his work on reconstruction. He was well-respected in his day and wrote a number of books but I don't see him quoted. His reconstruction work is usually now only mentioned to say how it was wrong.

 

[godofredus]

As Scarlett said, "Tomorrow is another day." Can I think about this till then?

My wife's favorite saying.

 

[Nathanb1]

Do any forum members know of any CW historians, their research, their books, their interpretation of events, etc. that have been marginalized to the "dust bin of history" because their interpretations are no longer valid? Their judgement was off.
Have you ever read any of these?

I do think Freeman has sort of been shoved in the corner because he's considered a "Lee worshiper." Problem, to me, is that he used some darned good scholarship in -- for example -- Lee's Lieutenants. His footnotes, as I've said before, are as good as the book itself. We might quibble with some of his characterizations, but he did a great job of writing.

 

[CSA Today]

William Dunning comes to mind, particularly his work on reconstruction. He was well-respected in his day and wrote a number of books but I don't see him quoted. His reconstruction work is usually now only mentioned to say how it was wrong.

William Dunning spent years at Columbia University back in the good old days of genuine academic freedom, can't see the leftist dogmatists allowing that today.