And that is fine, if you want a good story, Foote is an excellent read. My point has only been that he is not a historian, does not work like a historian, and that therefore his conclusions are at best unreliable.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And that is fine, if you want a good story, Foote is an excellent read. My point has only been that he is not a historian, does not work like a historian, and that therefore his conclusions are at best unreliable.
Every author pro, or not contains bias, thats not the problem.
The problem is claiming a bias exists, and being unable to show anything to support that claim. You see a bias because you want to see one, not because one is present.
Sigh, show me in any of the volumes where a conclusion he draws, can be deemed unreliable. McPherson for instance makes unrelable conclusions in BCF and can be shown to have done so. All you need do is show where Foot does so.
Yes, that is what I said. The problem isn't that Foote is biased: That's normal. The problem is that becuase he doesen't cite his sources, it is impossible to reconstruct his work and verify it.
Really?, i can find exactly where he got his information from for the vast majority of his work. Not hard, he tells us where he got it from, it just takes longer to find it. if im intrested enough to check it up. For instance when Foote wrote Col lee was at HF in command of the Marines, because thats his rank when commanding the Marines, see the document i linked to where he is adressed as the Col and signs as a col in command of the marines, is dismissed as wrong by your troll who stats he is a Lt col, Lee also held the rank of Lt col in the 2nd US Cav, but not at HF in command of any cav, hence Foote as military man is aware of what rank lee is operating under, and your troll is not.
Like say linking me to an internet blog, written by a poster who works in HR, without an education in American history and posting a revisionsist version of history , which btw shows not a shred of bias in Footes work, but a deep level of ignorance of American history. Ill ask you again, what support for the varied claims of bias do you have?, because you have made a claim and failled to support any of them.
Using footnotes are not required of any historian, and you just through out every historian before the 20th century as being worthless.
The point I would make is that the novelist and the historian are seeking the same thing: the truth – not a different truth: the same truth – only they reach it, or try to reach it, by different routes. Whether the event took place in a world now gone to dust, preserved by documents and evaluated by scholarship, or in the imagination, preserved by memory and distilled by the creative process, they both want to tell us how it was: to re-create it, by their separate methods, and make it live again in the world around them."
Shelby Foote
This is why Footes a cracking read and most others fall short of his skill set in telling history.
Like say linking me to an internet blog, written by a poster who works in HR, without an education in American history and posting a revisionsist version of history , which btw shows not a shred of bias in Footes work, but a deep level of ignorance of American history. Ill ask you again, what support for the varied claims of bias do you have?, because you have made a claim and failled to support any of them.
Using footnotes are not required of any historian, and you just through out every historian before the 20th century as being worthless.
The point I would make is that the novelist and the historian are seeking the same thing: the truth – not a different truth: the same truth – only they reach it, or try to reach it, by different routes. Whether the event took place in a world now gone to dust, preserved by documents and evaluated by scholarship, or in the imagination, preserved by memory and distilled by the creative process, they both want to tell us how it was: to re-create it, by their separate methods, and make it live again in the world around them."
Shelby Foote
This is why Footes a cracking read and most others fall short of his skill set in telling history.
Last edited:
Anyway that new DK "The American Civil War" publication, arrived and it is excellent. Provides a lot of facts and history I did not know, it also explained what was going on with congress and the senate with the slavery divide between North and South from 1800-1860 and what they did to make compromises, even mentions some ridiculous decisions made by the Supreme Court at the time. It's probably not as detailed as Shelby Foote's work of course, this is as refined you're going to get if you want to explain the Civil War in full whilst keeping it to 400 pages and have maps, photography and art from the period.
Dred Scott was meant to resolve the question once and for all; and like most final decisions, all it did was throw gasoline on the fire.
But the United States Supreme Court is hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to the concept of right and wrong, they have been known to entirely change the US domestic policy on key issues on fraudulent 'what if' legal cases that were blatant manipulation of public opinion.
Congrats on your recent purchase!
If you have any questions on its contents just post them here. Which SC judgments have you in mind? USSC or just SC?
Foote did not intend to write a scholarly work, but a readable, enjoyable work for the masses. He succeeded in this.
McPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom' is the same sort of work - an approachable, narrative-like retelling of the major points of the war. It is not a scholarly work and not to be held up as such.
McPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom' is the same sort of work - an approachable, narrative-like retelling of the major points of the war. It is not a scholarly work and not to be held up as such.
This often comes up in discussion but gets overlooked when talking about Lee's strategy for the third day of Gettysburg. But do you guys think it was remotely possible for Stuart's Cavalry to thunder through the Union's rear on cemetary ridge (provided they avoided Culp's Hill) and to have linked up with Pickett's division charging the centre? This is assuming Custer's cavalry wasn't able to impede Stuart's. Was it the Union's luck that Custer managed to intercept them earlier in the day, or was it considered strategy as such an attack on the rear from the town and extreme right was to be expected? Even if the Union thought Lee would order a charge on the centre. Was it just miscommunication of orders to Stuart and bad timing that botched Lee's strategy? Would it have made a difference if Custer was waiting for Confederate cavalry to show up at any other time anyway? I'm assuming his cavalry was protecting the supply trains along with what was left of Buford's cavalry.
Last edited:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lees-Real-Plan-at-Gettysburg/dp/0811700542
This theory, and thats all it really is, is an intresting read, but extremly short of factual evidence. 150+ years and no one else found what he found from looking at the same evidence.
This theory, and thats all it really is, is an intresting read, but extremly short of factual evidence. 150+ years and no one else found what he found from looking at the same evidence.
I have a question about Stonewall Jackson's 1862 valley campaign. After defeating Banks' army and elements of McDowell's, Why didn't he and Ewell march on Washington rather than joining Lee's army near Richmond? Sure, Richmond was in danger from McClellan's army, but marching on Washington may have drawn him North, and or made him retreat earlier. Or would Banks' and McDowell's armies still present a big enough danger to Jackson's small army to discourage him from going East to Washington?
The South had ZERO desire to make war on the North. Their strategy was to defend their homelands, and force the North to accept seccession peacefully. Which is why the War of the Rebellion is frequently referred to by Southerners as The War of Northern Aggression.
It was not until the middle of the war when the South was beginning to feel the effects of war and their hand was forced that they set foot in the North.
Good question. One place to look is Stonewall Jackson the man the myth the legend, as it contains an acount of the orders sent under which Jackson operated.
https://www.amazon.com/Stonewall-Jackson-James-Robertson/dp/0028646851 not all acounts give you that kind of detail.
Lee (April 21) send 3 conditional operational guidlines to Jackson, First, if Jackson thought it practable, combine with Ewell and drive Banks down the valley, if defeating him to drive towar4ds Wshington if Banks was too strong, Ewell was to retire to Virginia Central RR, and from their reinforce either Fields force around Fredricksburg or Johnstones army or Jackson, thirdly, if Jackson thought he could contain banks on his own, Ewell was to move to Richmond.
Before engeing Banks in the valley with Ewell and achieving success, his orders, replacing the 3 guilines, of 18th may from Johnston, were to march to Richmand unless that concentration made it to late to catch Banks.
Jackson replies on 23 that he will attack, and if wins drive on harrisonburg, if defeated or banks too strong, he will retire to Swift runn gap and block Banks. Lee reply to that, was if defeated to sever Union supply and communications by moving on from there to Warenten and northern Va . But he wanted a "the blow, whever struck, must be successfull, be sudden and heavy"
Jackson combines and defeats.
June13 after his success, he sends and aide, A Boteler ro Richmond, asking for 40,000 more men, so he can drive down the valley and plunge into the north, "By that means Richmond can be relieved and the campaign transfered to PA".
June 16th Boteler returns to Jackson, lee explains that no such support can be sent and that Jackson and his command is to come to Richmond as speedily as possible and help drive Mc away from the capital. He was to mask this deployment, which he did, so effectivly that the Union thought he was comming down the valley with 20,000 reinforcements. "Unless McClellan can be driven from his entrenchments he will soon be in posistion under cover of his heavy guns within shelling distance of Richmond.I know of no know of no surrer way of thwarting him than that proposed".
Hope that helps.
Ps lee was not able to give orders to Jackson at some points as he was acting for the President and not going through the chain of command. Jackson was thus put in an awkward spot as orders from his superior johnstone did not conform to lees suggestions.
As this photo shows, Banks was well supported.
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/e7c6a94d8cead9f317dec53f6084da12626b66175138ede151844c0c7bd2e311_1.jpg
Last edited:
Yeah, this is utter nonsense. The South not only attacked into the north early, they fired the first shots of the war. This is a completely ahistorical account.
Meh. It's more nuanced.
Raids were conducted North of the seceding states...but the policy of the CSA was not to invade the north in the first year. CSA policy wasn't as strongly enforced as US war policy (a failing of Davis and his cabinet)...and so you have a few instances of small attacks north in contravention of the policy.
It really wasn't more complicated. The south seceded and attacked the north to preserve slavery after they lost a democratic election. The war literally started when the Confederate rebels attacked supply ships.
Your past two posts suggest to me you either have an issue with geography or vocabulary. Since I'm not sure which, i'll try both.
If your problem is geography; Charleston, South Carolina, is well below the Mason Dixon Line.
If your problem is vocabulary, Google is your friend. The term TheExecuter used is 'nuanced'. This suggests an argument has layers, and subtle shades of meaning, and that perhaps you simply missed the point being made.
To re-explain to you; yes, the Fire-Eaters in Charleston South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter, acheiving Lincoln's goal of having the South start hostilities. This has absolutely nothing to do with the previously mentioned policy instituted by Jefferson Davis at the outset of the war ordering the Confederacy focus on a defensive cordon and protecting her home territory rather than wage offensive operations in the North.
I hope this helps. Have a nice day.
The CSA planned to invade the North from the very start of the war, as part of how they expected to win, June 1861, ie before Mannassas, Trimble proposed to occupy Hagerstone and from there invade PA, while a second column was to attack Baltimore and Dc if succesful. Davis rejected it. Beuregard also had a plan presented to Davis/Lee /Cooper before Manassas, Beuregard would unite with Johnstone, combine with Holmes and push Mcdowel back into the defenses of DC, majority would then move to Shenadoah combine with Garnet and clear it of federals under Mc, before turning back to DC from the North to invest it while Beuregard had it contained from the South.
Davis/Lee/Cooper all liked the second plan,but informed Beuregard that it would be better to execute this plan at a future point in time, but now was not the right time.
Stonewall in Oct proposed to invade North of Potomac, with 25000, occupy Baltimore, draw the AoP out to fight and defeat it and drive it back to the defenses of the capital, and then invade PA, living of the land, destroy the coal mines of Pa, and sieze Phily. Rejected as unable to bring his strength up to 25,000. He then proposed in to do it with 40,000, and include taking Pitsburg. Davis aproved subject to lee aceptence, but lee had his own plan and Stonewall came to help drive the frederals away from Richmond instead. Lee liked jackson plan but could not aprove it while Mc was moving to invest Richmond and any invasion of the north would have to wait till that menace was dealt with.
Popular in the north is the idea that Davis fought a defensive war, this is because very few northerners bother to read what the southern leadership planned to do, instead reading what authors explain they did do. Which was to invade the North in 62 when they thought the circumstances right and do so again in 63 and 64, they could have done it in 61 but lee judged the circumstances not right.
Marshal, lees ADC wrote post war what the grand stratergy of Lee was." Battles and strategic movements which atracted so much attention were not seperate and distinct events, independent of each other, but formed part of one plan of warfare, adopted by General lee when he took command of the army and steadily pursued till all means of doing so where exhusted." CSA always planned to invade the North, it was meerly when the circumstances were right to do so as part of the war aim of securing independence.
Davis had a cordon defense upto Bull run, and an offensive defensive policy, including invasion of the border and Northern states, therafter.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b_u04XF665AC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=The+time+and+place+for+invasion+has+been+a+question+not+of+will+but+of+power.+There+have+been+occasions+when+it+seemed+to+me+possible+to+make+aggressive&source=bl&ots=8jJ9VbnXT_&sig=vz1dKxwltIy_PoTfs0hVYO8Qhvo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_iJW9tfvbAhUKbcAKHa5lAOsQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=The time and place for invasion has been a question not of will but of power. There have been occasions when it seemed to me possible to make aggressive&f=false
"The time and place for invasion has been a question not of will but of power." Davis
Last edited:
Your problem is of being uniformed to the highest degree, as your many post on every subject testify.
vocabulary, naunced, as in your reply to the question Julius asked for Jackson in 62, and you got wrong in every detail.
Geography, CS policy in 62 included invasion of both border and northern states.