Author's agenda

[midaeu]

Originally Posted by cici

Mike,

I do understand your frustration with some revisionist studies, but some have been important, critically so in changing our perceptions of the Civil War. For example, Thomas Connelly's Marble Man was important in showing how a group of men, Early, Pendleton, Fitzhugh Lee, etc shaped how the Civil War came to be viewed and more specifically, how the perception of Lee was shaped.

This is important because the Civil War's most influential historian, D.S. Freeman, based a good bit of his work on what these men had to say. Freeman's long shadow has been great and you can see it influencing Catton and Foote's very popular Civil War books as well as numerous and notable trained historians such as Emory Thomas and Frank Vandiver. Connelly's book shows how Civil War history was manipulated and an unfortunately, has shaped the way the Civil War is viewed. Of course, Connelly is known to go somewhat overboard (some would say greatly) with his arguments and I have listed those before.

Some of this revisionist historians have been important in righting the ship as far as our understanding of the Civil War. Just to give a different perspective.

I see your point on Freeman and tend to agree. I have always been a middle of the road person. Anytime you get to far one way, Freeman, and then to far the other, Connelly, it makes people tense up and want to argue instead of looking at the facts. Reading both can and should help. I just get discouraged by people going for shock value instead of truth.

[D1J1]

As bias and the opinions it helps shape is part and parcel of each of us it isn't feasible to keep same out of ones thoughts and communication. The use of multiple sources is the best course.

I have read the frequently cited Sear's "Landscape Turned Red" multiple times. Not so much because of his views on 'lil Mac (though I do tend to agree with him to an extent) but because of his thoroughly enjoyable and readable style.

I think the ability to touch a reader in that manner is the most remarkable attribute of an author. Though on the down side it may cause one to overlook flaws in the same work.

Regards,
Dennis

[Panzer Sturm]

Some people read lots of books by one author, craft the opinion of that author to their own, which makes it harder to deal with any opposing opinions that the reader may encounter later. I would suggest reading books with mild slants on a certain subject by a few different authors, the slants going both ways that way it helps form a more solid personal opinion. Books/authors that are heavily slanted are only gonna set you up for disappointment, especially if you take a liking to the author in question.

[sherlock]

I think that many, if not most, authors have pre-conceived ideas or biases about any upcoming project. If they are interested enough in a subject to invest their time in writing about it then it can safely be assumed that they studied it in some depth. During those studies they would have read the works of other authors. The opinions expressed in those would have affected those of the future author either negatively or positively towards his subject.
Our opinions of most historical events and figures are largely based on the opinions of others. We weren't present in most cases, so we have to depend on someone elses idea of what actually occured and why. That's the fun and challenging part of studying history. Deciding what is "true" and what is not.

[Eric Wittenberg]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

And I think Eric brings up an important point. It is very hard to write on battles without understanding the ground (it goes in with my point about understanding what battlefield information commanders had at the time). There is no better way to understand the ground but to walk it. Unfortunately, school has limited my battlefield stomping my local tours to Pea Ridge and Shiloh. This has rather limited my first attempt at a manuscript (a history of the Army of Tennessee), one that I won't attempt to finish or expand without visiting as much of the battlefields as I possibly and as I extensively as I can. In some cases such as in the Atlanta Battlefields, the grounds simply don't exist anymore as it did in 1864, so that also presents a challenge.

Chase,

A friend of mine, now disabled and no longer able to do so, largely as a result of a Vietnam combat wound, spent 26 years as a combat engineer in the Army. He retired as a colonel, and I know nobody with a better eye for terrain. He taught me what to look for, but more importantly, he taught me this mantra, which I never, ever forget: the terrain is THE primary source.

Eric

[cici]

Originally Posted by midaeu

I see your point on Freeman and tend to agree. I have always been a middle of the road person. Anytime you get to far one way, Freeman, and then to far the other, Connelly, it makes people tense up and want to argue instead of looking at the facts. Reading both can and should help. I just get discouraged by people going for shock value instead of truth.

Mike,

These authors are also a product of their times. Freeman, I believe, ultimately was trying to be a honest historian. But, Freeman, like many writers, especially during those days believed in the great man. Freeman had also met many of these soldiers and Early, especially had an influence on Freeman. The War of Northern Aggression was still quite fresh in the memories of many of these Southerners.

Freeman was a hero worshiper of Lee. But, to his credit, he on occassion criticized his hero. And, he was constantly modifying his views. One can see the difference in how he treats Longstreet in his biography of Lee, where he at times is extremely harsh on Pete, whereas his opinion of Longstreet in Lee's Lieutentant was more positive in it's assessment. Indeed Freeman stated to a colleague of his he wanted to rewrite his biography on Lee because, he thought he did many men an injustice, especially Longstreet. Of course he died and never had that chance.

Connelly, on the other hand began writing during the 60's and the Vietnam War influenced many of these historians. So, there was a tearing down the heroes mentality amoung many of these historians who wanted to show all the warts of these men who had been built up.

This Connelly did with Lee. Connelly is on firm ground when he shows how the Lee image was built. It is a fascinating history. But, many of his criticisms of Lee as a man and as a soldier shows that he had swung the pendulum to far in the other direction.

[D1J1]

Originally Posted by Eric Wittenberg

Chase,

A friend of mine, now disabled and no longer able to do so, largely as a result of a Vietnam combat wound, spent 26 years as a combat engineer in the Army. He retired as a colonel, and I know nobody with a better eye for terrain. He taught me what to look for, but more importantly, he taught me this mantra, which I never, ever forget: the terrain is THE primary source.

Eric

I learned a different one from a Civil War historian who is a retired army officer, OCOCA, that stresses the same thing.

O: observation
CO: cover
C: concealment
A: avenues of approach

I may have left something out or slightly "juggled" the anachronism (it was a while ago) but the gist is the same.

Regards,
Dennis

[Jack Torrance]

Are you familiar with Howard Zinn and his People's History of the United States, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train? Or For a rightwing slant "A Patriots History of the United States by Larry Schweichart?

I haven't read them but Thomas DiLorenzo has been identified with the neo confederate slant in his books on Lincoln.

IMO, these guys have a definite agenda.

[Phil Kost]

Originally Posted by D1J1

I learned a different one from a Civil War historian who is a retired army officer, OCOCA, that stresses the same thing.

O: observation
CO: cover
C: concealment
A: avenues of approach

I may have left something out or slightly "juggled" the anachronism (it was a while ago) but the gist is the same.

Regards,
Dennis

One minor correction...

O: Observation/fields of fire
C: Cover and Concealment
O: Obstacles
K: Key Terrain
A: Avenues of Approach

As an Infantry Officer, this is sort of part of our bread and butter.

Phil

[thejester]

If all historians did was write annotated timelines, history would be very boring indeed. There's a huge difference in my mind between a historian staking out a position and them being deliberately dishonest in assessment of evidence, which is what seems to be implied when people use the term 'bias'. To use the example in the OP (although I should emphasise I haven't read Sears' work), no historian is going to come to an ACW topic 'clean' after 150 years of historiography. It is to be expected and encouraged that historians will read and challenge existing orthodoxy based on both assessment of primary sources or flaws in the logic of the original argument.

[D1J1]

Originally Posted by Phil Kost

One minor correction...

O: Observation/fields of fire
C: Cover and Concealment
O: Obstacles
K: Key Terrain
A: Avenues of Approach

As an Infantry Officer, this is sort of part of our bread and butter.

Phil

Thank you! Like I said, it has been a while!

Regards,
Dennis

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by thejester

If all historians did was write annotated timelines, history would be very boring indeed. There's a huge difference in my mind between a historian staking out a position and them being deliberately dishonest in assessment of evidence, which is what seems to be implied when people use the term 'bias'. To use the example in the OP (although I should emphasise I haven't read Sears' work), no historian is going to come to an ACW topic 'clean' after 150 years of historiography. It is to be expected and encouraged that historians will read and challenge existing orthodoxy based on both assessment of primary sources or flaws in the logic of the original argument.

Excellent point. As to Sears I can't vouch for his overall accuracy but he doesn't appear to be dishonest, and he is a great writer besides.

[RuselUpsomegrub]

Originally Posted by Eric Wittenberg

Chase,

A friend of mine, now disabled and no longer able to do so, largely as a result of a Vietnam combat wound, spent 26 years as a combat engineer in the Army. He retired as a colonel, and I know nobody with a better eye for terrain. He taught me what to look for, but more importantly, he taught me this mantra, which I never, ever forget: the terrain is THE primary source.

Eric

Just out of curiosity, I read your book "One Continuous Fight" and I know the retreat covered a lot of territory and several towns and cities. Did you follow the actual ground of the retreat?

BTW, the book was great........

[Eric Wittenberg]

Originally Posted by RuselUpsomegrub

Just out of curiosity, I read your book "One Continuous Fight" and I know the retreat covered a lot of territory and several towns and cities. Did you follow the actual ground of the retreat?

BTW, the book was great........

Billy Ray,

Thank you! I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

I have followed the actual route of the retreat, and walked the ground of those battlefields, literally dozens of times, probably well in excess of 50 times over the years. I've probably led three dozen tours of the retreat myself, and I've also spent many an hour exploring the battlefields, the route taken by the main body of Lee's army, and the route of the Wagon Train of Wounded. I've been studying the retreat from Gettysburg for more than 20 years, and had my first tour of it 1993 or 1994. I do it at least twice per year every year, often more.

I had probably done the entire route at least 25 times before we ever put pen to paper to write One Continuous Fight.