RE: [civilwarwest] Grant, Smoking & Drinking
- That is a conclusion we are free to reach.
We can also conclude that since we have corroborated accounts of some officers being intoxicated during the conflict that at least some did. Physical evidence is preferred and objectively testable, but corroborated statements are acceptable for reaching such conclusions.
If you prefer you can demand physical evidence. That is your privilege. I prefer it because it can be evaluated by other disciplines, but I also know that I cannot always obtain it, and as time goes by less and less of it survives. But that's how the historical sciences work. Often we have to work with corroborated accounts (three officers who arrest a drunk at his headquarters, for instance), or with those that fit existing and more-or-less unchangeable evidence (like distance between two unmoving points).
But if you prefer you can hold out for physical evidence for everything. I don't, and I never said I did.
John D. Beatty
Co-Author of "What Were They Thinking" from Merriam Press/Lulu
"History is our only test for the consequences of ideas"-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Grant, Smoking & Drinking
Date: Tue, April 28, 2009 5:29 pm
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:06:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com writes:
How many photos do we have of generals in the act of drinking? I cant think of any but I've never searched for them.
--Nick-----------So obviously not a single general ever drank during the war.Regards,Cash