June 3, Cold Harbor. I Was Made Up

If so, I personally don't see the big deal. The story of "I am killed" reflects the downtrodden morale the Union held at the time. Now if he had said his books were strictly non-fiction, then yeah...it may be an issue. But the guy knew how to tell a story.
I have stated that from the second post.it is not a scholarly historical work.
 
Some trouble could brew if others then took his works as non-fiction and spread it as non-fiction, but they may have used it simply to paint a picture.

Funny I was just reading about Cold Harbor on stone sentinels.com. I missed walking around Hanover County Park as part my visit there 2 years ago.
 
Cash you apparently know nothing about rhetoric or fallacious reasoning. Go over this very carefully, understand who made the original claim and understand what shifting the burden actually entails--you want me to defend my denial of YOUR fallacious claim and I won't do that. "Shifting the burden" is:
Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory--you have no "well-established fact or theory"!

Projection.
 
I take it that no one in the forum has ever seen a letter or other primary source that mentions this alleged diary, since my request for a primary source has been met with insults, attacks, and others claiming it doesn't matter if Foote fabricated it or not. Yet we will, in the future, hear from many that Foote was a distinguished historian who should be believed. Go figure.

With no corroboration, we should conclude the diary is a fictional account from Foote's imagination.
 
I take it that no one in the forum has ever seen a letter or other primary source that mentions this alleged diary, since my request for a primary source has been met with insults, attacks, and others claiming it doesn't matter if Foote fabricated it or not. Yet we will, in the future, hear from many that Foote was a distinguished historian who should be believed. Go figure.

With no corroboration, we should conclude the diary is a fictional account from Foote's imagination.
Who really cares .it is not presented as fact
 
We note that other "noted historians" have attributed Foote as a source for this diary, have included this diary in their "historical" accounts of the battle, footnoted the attribution, and published their works on Cold Harbor.
By using this citation and including it their acknowledged "historical accounts" of the battle of Cold Harbor, the diary has become part and parcel of the narrative of Cold Harbor and is, therefore, for all intents and purposes, established as fact.
Unless, of course, one wishes to "fact check" every citation in every history on any topic, statement, quote, assertion, etc. of every history written about Cold Harbor or any other aspect of the Civil War or any war, or occurrence, or noteworthy happening made by any historian or, even, narrator to establish that such citations do not carry the weight of being true.
 
Last edited:
I hunted up a little on Ken Burns' about his epic film and why he used Shelby Foote. For the same reason he used Barbara Fields. Both had unique, valid and opposite interpretations. Foote was used much more because he had a lot to say about battles and soldiers - but the juxtaposition was deliberate. And Burns knew one was an historian and one was a narrator. The narrative, as defined in literature, is a series of connected stories, an ongoing voyage - this is how Shelby Foote saw the Civil War, and how many Southern people still see it. It isn't past. It wasn't 25 years ago, and it wasn't 150 years ago. Fields - same sense. This is a view of history that is not static, cut and dried, finished. Never is. Fields was not used as much because her focus was slavery and the black experience - which is also a narrative that continues today. The two people who stood out were two people who loved history but saw the same thing through completely different lenses. That was the core theme of Burns' documentary.

The soldier's diary? Meh. Still say it was a long time piece of info picked up somewhere that stuck as fact - no deliberate deception, no agenda, no harm done. Burns knew exactly who Foote was and where he was coming from and that was perfect for his film that made Foote famous. It doesn't matter if there's a nit to pick - there is with some primary sources as well. Take Mary Chesnut! A lot of people wonder about the accuracy of her diary...but she's a great story teller.
 
Burns knew exactly who Foote was and where he was coming from and that was perfect for his film that made Foote famous.
Absolutely correct, like the use of the beautiful strains of "Ashokan Farewell" that sets the mood, Burns correctly chose Foote to add a lyrical quality to his opus and both were well chosen. This creation of Burns' is a true gift to America! Foote adds immeasurably to the treasure with his well measured insights into the Southern view of the war.
 
Wrong. It is Foote who should prove his claim... (had he been alive) and no historian should use it, because there is no evidence that the diary exist.

You can't prove that something don't exist.

There are several possible assertions.

1. There is no evidence that the diary exists outside of Foote's report.
This is self explanatory and stands until someone comes up with evidence.

2. Foote was wrong, committed a fraud and so one is making an assertion requiring evidence. The burden of evidence falls on the person making the assertion even if that assertion is in the negative.

 
Last edited:
I can start a very boring thread based on a peer reviewed article.
If anyone is interest. I have to pay for it and research it which is harder than just plain arguing.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
The Truth of Historical Narratives
C. Behan McCullagh
History and Theory
Vol. 26, No. 4, Beiheft 26: The Representation of Historical Events (Dec., 1987), pp. 30-46
 
Last edited:
Good! Now that Rhea has made a debatable assertion to that effect that you seem intent on defending, then I would love to see evidence. Is Rhea making a statement of fact, a comment or is it like like ober dictum. Be sure to rigorously define historical novel in that context.
 
A narrative, in order to be one, has information in it but it doesn't have to be firmly stuck in cement immovable fact. An historian, having the academic standard, must provide this firmness or a colleague might challenge what he has to say and prove him wrong!
I agree there is academic peer reviewed history and there is this. Applying standards of academic peer reviewed history seems inappropriate, but pulp fiction it is not.
 
From Rhea's book is this passage offered into evidence in this thread, which asserts that something recently surfaced in a 1974 book by an author who died in 2005. This appears to me to falsify the evidence. I'd rather bet on the diary instead of a historian that makes this sort of blunder.


https://books.google.com/books?id=zq6PDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Gordon+C.+Rhea+Shelby+Foote's+historical+novel&source=bl&ots=WCvWfwjibd&sig=-1gUaFhEL9UsL8-BzWJ3ow2x3Xk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVhKCxjZDYAhUJNSYKHQWtDFEQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=Gordon C. Rhea Shelby Foote's historical novel&f=false

aJSvTAcLkmzfJwBla4mT6CQ4sYNzWwTNiH0XesJKnW6FacxL8dKnCyPSIhH0BglnEdrW2K2wo3fOz2OkBXJDUrlZg52-MGdw.png
 
Back
Top