1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

The Sunken Fact: Lincoln Instigated the War

Discussion in 'Battle of Fort Sumter' started by W. Richardson, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. W. Richardson

    W. Richardson Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
    americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Lincoln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html


    Respectfully,

    William
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    Something tells me that the people who refer to Rhea as a "part time historian" and such are not going to hold that against Joe Ryan, but the people who have studied this in depth will notice its resemblance to other demolished arguments.
     
    StephenColbert27 likes this.
  4. Barrycdog

    Barrycdog Major

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    Messages:
    7,249
    Location:
    Buford, Georgia
  5. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    When a man tells you that he can reveal the truth of a conspiracy, the appropriate response is to put one hand on your wallet while backing away slowly.
     
  6. W. Richardson

    W. Richardson Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Mt. Gilead, North Carolina

    Thank you Barrydog !

    Respectfully,

    William

    I have not yet seen this demolished, I have seen different interpretations and denials. I have, myself conducted a great deal of study into this subject and have found it hold water. You may and probably do disagree and that is fine.

    Respectfully,

    William
     
  7. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    Ryan's attempts to treat the subject like it was a court case before a jury where his job is to make a believable-sounding argument instead of like a historian whose job is to report the facts weakens an already dubious proposition.

    I would hope that any study on your part rests on a better foundation than how any proposition can be presented as if it was true without regards for whether actual facts are used or if they are, to present them as they were rather than how suits one's case.

    I have not read Godwin's work, so I have no intention of claiming anything on it in particular.
     
  8. Scotsman

    Scotsman Sergeant

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    853
    You don't think historians interpret the past and argue their point of view?
     
    Andersonh1, Viper21 and uaskme like this.
  9. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,623
    Location:
    Kansas City

    With all due respect there is nothing new in that. Just the same old claim that Lincoln's refusal to allow the Sumter garrison to be starved into surrender was an act of aggression that caused the war and forced the Confederacy to fire.
     
  10. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,623
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Then you have missed a very good read.
     
  11. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    What Ryan is doing is akin to selling something, not interpretation of the past.
     
  12. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,623
    Location:
    Kansas City

    "The crucial period in which the premeditated schemes of the fanatic were put into operations so as to inaugurate actual war, was from March 4th to July 4th, 1861; before Congress was allowed to meet, to consider it."

    Finally a fair and unbiased account of what actually happened. </sarcasm>
     
  13. brass napoleon

    brass napoleon Colonel Retired Moderator Member of the Year Honored Fallen Comrade

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    14,988
    Location:
    Ohio
  14. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    Making a cat wear a tinfoil hat? Now that's just not cool.
     
  15. JPK Huson 1863

    JPK Huson 1863 Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    15,325
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania
    No. Historians present the past and explain why events occurred the way they did by presenting evidence- if it must be argued it's because they're busy shoving dead red fish under the sofa with one foot.
     
    Canadian likes this.
  16. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,623
    Location:
    Kansas City
    From the expression on the cat's face I'd say he agrees with you.
     
  17. Scotsman

    Scotsman Sergeant

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    853
    I am not speaking of Ryan's article; I am talking about the study and writing of history in general. Historians do not just recite facts. They interpret those facts and then present them, often in the form of a thesis statement or argument, defended with evidence.

    Often historians do present their work to a reader as an attorney would make a case to a jury.
     
  18. Scotsman

    Scotsman Sergeant

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    853
    The term "argument" in this matter does not mean screaming and yelling, but presenting a specific interpretation. Historical scholarship and writing requires an element of interpretation, which in turn requires the presentation of an argument (ie. thesis) supported by facts.

    Not all interpretations or arguments are equal, of course.
     
    Rebforever likes this.
  19. DR_Hanna

    DR_Hanna First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    North East GA
    The cat clearly is wondering what made "the voices" go away...
     
    O' Be Joyful likes this.
  20. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    California
    A (credible) historian writes about the facts and how they come together to present the truth. Neglecting or misrepresenting inconvenient facts to strengthen an argument is the stuff of polemics and hagiography, not history.

    To the extent a historian treats the subject of presenting the truth as equivalent to presenting an argument before a jury where "a convincing argument" does not have to be a factual one, a historian is not doing his job.

    If I wrote an essay on - for example - the subject at hand (the coming of the Civil War), it is my responsibility as a historian, if an amateur one, to present what happened whether it supports or undermines Lincoln's decisions, and if the facts produce a different result than I might like, that's my problem and not an excuse to neglect facts contrary to my beliefs.

    Facts are not obligated to be likable or convenient - just as when talking about scientific study.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2014
    Canadian and thomas aagaard like this.
  21. cash

    cash Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    31,725
    Location:
    Right here.
    Joe Ryan. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! If you believe Joe Ryan I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you for a good bargain.
     
    StephenColbert27 likes this.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)