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

43454Re: [civilwarwest] Re: McPherson's Flanking Movement at Port Gibson

Expand Messages
  • Steve Saultz
    Apr 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
                     Hi Mr. Keene
                              I am in agreement with you here....
       
                             William H Keene   wrote:  Frankly I think the impact of poorly
      written and researched books on the study history is huge.
       
                                Not to try to advertise or act as phishing... But I am a member of another history group dealing with Bloody Bill Anderson.... I use him as an example... For years it has been accepted as common knowledge he was killed in 1864 in Missouri. Within little less than year of digging in geneoligical, (sp??), state files, ect., this group has pretty much proved that this was not the case... Mr. Anderson, went on to live an old life in southwest Texas....
            This is one of the many "individuals" , like some of the battles that you guys speak of, that are taking or written as gospel... 
             Why is this?   Are we, or, are historians getting "lazier" with time?? Or have "they" reached a point where "they" think all or enough facts have been gathered, that it's irrelevent to study more..?? 
            Thios is probably a goofy question & I haven't worded correctly... But I'm curious never-the-less...??
             Thankyou for time & consideration...
             Respectfully your Humble Servant,
              Capt. McCracken.........


      William H Keene <wh_keene@...> wrote:
      So James, are these authors who you idolize infallible becuase of
      their alleged credentials? Frankly I think the impact of poorly
      written and researched books on the study history is huge.

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@... >
      wrote:
      > ...
      > --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > geez, how the heck did I do that?
      > >
      > > anyway, care to comment? My question was, what conceivable motive
      > > would there be to discredit McPherson? Is this a case of Bearss'
      > > interpretation becoming gospel, and many other historians
      following in
      > > unquestioning lock-step?
      > >
      >
      >
      > The "conceivable motive" is very simple, you find something that
      you do
      > not like in their work. What is is matters little, the important
      thing
      > is you want/need them to be wrong about this. Since Bearss &
      McPherson
      > have excellent credentials copule with an impressive body of work
      the
      > only option is to attack them. To make you idea sound better, you
      need
      > to do this at every opportunity and as often as possible. This
      works
      > best on the idea that if you throw enough, mud some of it might
      stick.
      > While I agree that no one is right 100% of the time, this type of
      > insessant personal attack is silly. In addition, none of these so-
      > called "errors" are more than small details that have little or no
      > impact on history. However, to the attacker, this so-call "error"
      > invalidate some very impressive work becuse they just know they
      > are "right".
      >
      > James
      >


    • Show all 28 messages in this topic