Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

39743Re: A brief look at Castel and bias

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    Jun 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,

      Top-posting away, I would agree with all of your points below.
      It's a great time to be researching the Civil War; the amount of
      available information is, of course, growing all time, and the ability
      to access it is also increasing quickly. The tools used in doing so
      are also better, cheaper, and more prevalent.

      An individual involved during the war will certainly have a knowledge
      and perspective--especially of small, discrete issues--which we can't
      replicate. But once it comes to questions concerning larger concepts,
      there's no comparison.

      That's not presumptuous at all.

      As to Castel's supposed bias, I would put his accuracy as to what
      happened during the Atlanta campaign, for example, far above
      Sherman's, whether or not Sherman was the commander of the Union's
      army group.

      Joseph


      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Today's writers have much more
      information/data/letters/manuscripts/ORs/eye-witness accounts than
      those who were there and wrote about their experiences. We can see
      from the discussion going on here how much truth there was/is in some
      of the "eye witness" accounts. Overall, today's writers are able to
      put together a more complete picture by using all the resources
      available to them and that weren't available in the late 19th century.
      >
      > I would even suggest that we have more information available to us
      than those who wrote their memoirs twenty years after the occurence.
      We can search ORs online, we have memoirs digitized and published
      online, you have national archives available for searching, and so on.
      >
      > I don't think I was being "completely presumptious", only realistic
      in today's information-centric world.
      >
      > Two questions I'll ask you again;
      >
      > 1) Why do you consider Castel's writings suspect?
      > 2) Who would you consider as writing "alternate history" to better
      their "bottomline"? Which batch of current authors fits into that
      category?
      >
      >
      > Thanx.
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: melchizedek22 <melchizedek22@...>
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:24:55 AM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A brief look at Castel and bias
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I believe it is much easier for modern writers to be more accurate
      > than "those who were there". They have ready access to more
      > information than just one's sometimes forgetful/faulty memories.
      > >
      > I couldn't disagree more,someone who is a eye witness,not only has
      > their own views of what they saw and heard,but also has their
      > commrades,and in the case of the Civil War,there enemys point of view,
      > its completely presumptious for anyone at this late date to know more
      > than the eye witnesses,try out your idea on some of the WW2 vets that
      > are still around,that modern writers selling books know more than
      > they what they saw! BvT
      >
      >
      >
      > > ----- Original Message ----
      > > From: Tom Mix <tmix@>
      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:53:42 PM
      > > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A brief look at Castel and bias
      > >
      > >
      > > Now that is interesting comment and I agree whole heartedly. This
      > is in
      > > regard to your fine comment on modern authors and memoirs of those
      > who were
      > > there.
      > > I understand "doubt" but I can't accept the "lie" statements and
      > accusations
      > > of those today.
      > > Tom
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > > Behalf Of melchizedek22
      > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:19 AM
      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A brief look at Castel and bias
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I'll have to take your word for it. I haven't read much on
      > > Vicksburg.
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message ----
      > > > From: Tony Gunter <tony_gunter@>
      > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:15:43 AM
      > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A brief look at Castel and bias
      > > >
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I'm voting for a difference of opinion.
      > > > > > I don't believe Castel to be a sloppy researcher.
      > > > >
      > > > > A difference of opinion would imply that he mentioned said
      > beeves
      > > and
      > > > > explained them away in the context of his argument.
      > > >
      > > > I should mention that I looked up this passage again, and it was
      > > *7000*
      > > > (not several hundred) beeves that had crossed the river at Rodney.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I find it strange that a General is suspect,because his memiors
      > > were written 20yrs after the event,but a writer selling books,who
      > was
      > > not there in person,142yrs after the fact is not?
      > > As for the kentucky 200,000,that quote was to win the war in the
      > > west,not just kentucky,and I think your very much aware of that Mr
      > > Rose! BvT
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Show all 51 messages in this topic