UN designates new historical sites… six areas join places like Yellowstone and Stonehenge
Ancient coins found in British cave… dig reveals stash that predates the Roman conquest
Strange changes to JFK Wikipedia entry… alterations traced to a government computer
Current poll rates Presidential intelligence… Clinton ranks highest in questionable data
Preservation groups buy more land in Tennessee… endangered Franklin battle sites to be preserved
Preserving Franklin for my sake
Originally posted on My Journey Through the Best Presidential Biographies:
“The Avenger Takes His Place: Andrew Johnson and the 45 Days That Changed the Nation” by Howard Means was published in 2006. Means is a former writer and editor for Washingtonian magazine, an editorial board member at the Orlando Sentinel and op-ed columnist. He has also written several books including a biography of Colin Powell.
Perhaps evident from its title, Mean’s book is less a comprehensive biography of Andrew Johnson and more an examination of the weeks following Lincoln’s assassination and Johnson’s ascension to the presidency. But lest the reader take the inference too far, while this book does not provide a systematic exploration of Johnson’s full life neither does it focus primarily on the first forty-five days of Johnson’s presidency.
In fact, although Means is an articulate and interesting writer, the most frustrating aspect of this book is its organizational structure. It is neither a biography nor a…
View original 344 more words
Originally posted on Emerging Civil War:
Colonel Joseph Thoburn
Today we welcome back guest author Kyle Rothemich.
Following Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early’s withdrawal into the Shenandoah Valley in early July 1864, thousands of Union soldiers followed in pursuit. Many of them were part of the Union 6th Corps under the command of Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright. Early’s retreat west was not met without resistance.
The Army of West Virginia was a conglomeration of Union soldiers from West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois and other ‘western’ states. Leading these men in the field was Brig. Gen. George Crook. Attempting to cut off Early’s retreat, Crook was ordered to move towards Harpers Ferry. Earlier in the summer, Crook’s men suffered defeat at the hand of Early at the Battle of Lynchburg and fled into the Allegheny Mountains. Resupplied and ready for a fight, the Army of West Virginia joined forces with Wright in the pursuit of Early.
View original 851 more words
Edmund Morgan passed away last year… to little fanfare outside academic circles. Morgan was an historian familiar to any student of history active the last 40 years. His studies of Colonial New England, like “The Puritan Family”, became standard reading in graduate history programs across the country. The trilogy of books he composed shed much needed light on Puritanism and life in Colonial New England. After 25 years of work, Morgan decided to study something else– academia shook.
From Massachusetts to Virginia- he had it covered
In 1975 he published… “American Slavery: American Freedom”, a study of the slave-holding society of Colonial Virginia. Could an historian of Colonial New England provide the same rigorous analysis to a different historical region? Winning the Parkman and Beveridge awards, the book exposed Morgan to a wider and more diverse group of future historians. The great historian, Bernard Bailyn observed of Morgan’s body of work, “He covered large territories of the past with great clarity, precision and wit…”
The spirit of discovery… and storytelling Edmund Morgan brought to academic history is essential for the viability of the discipline. New media and digital transfers are replacing libraries and traditional research methods. Historical dissertations are becoming so narrow, so specialized, as to render their readability moot. The best histories read like great stories, not explanations of tedious research– and master storytellers are becoming scarce in today’s compartmentalized field of historical study.
Peter Charles Hoffer sees nothing worse… than “consensus” historians selling millions of books. In his book, Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Frauds – American History From Bancroft And Parkman To Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, And Goodwin, Hoffer rails against the scholarly sins of popular historical writers Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Mistakes in citation now pass for pure plagiarism in academic circles, and Hoffer revels in tearing down the reputations of popular writers more familiar to the American public. He relentlessly assails Goodwin’s defense of her mistakes(she and Ambrose both claimed simple oversight due to volume of writing) – his attacks on Ambrose ring hollow considering the confrontation was posthumous(Ambrose died in 2002.)
No room for popularity
At the heart of Hoffer’s book is a struggle… for the spirit of American history. “Consensus history,” as it was labeled in the 1960’s, was the study of dead white men and their battles– exemplified by George Bancroft and Francis Parkman. Through their glorification of nationalistic images, America’s true history(usually class struggle) is lost. Hoffer judges his forebears “falsified and fabricated by omission and commission, and substituted opinion for scholarship” and equates it to the perceived wrongdoings of current popular history. As a former member of the American Historical Association’s Professional division, Hoffer wants to know why these “frauds” were not punished more harshly. Kearns-Goodwin is again a television pundit, Joe Ellis still writes bestsellers, and Ambrose, well, he’s dead- no fair!
No frauds on television
By the end of his book… Hoffer’s analysis borders on the absurd. He praises the sensationalism(some outlets likened it to a scandal of Nixonian proportion) of the media for ruining the reputations of the writers in question. The book poses the disturbing proposition- history is either going to be popular and unscholarly or erudite and inaccessible. The works of Nathaniel Philbrick, David McCullough, and Evan Thomas have shown just the opposite. Hoffer’s simplistic attempt to banish popular historians from academic ranks exposes a weakening grip the New Left has on American historiography.
Unite us, David
There is little need to manufacture a case… against the scholarship of Howard Zinn. Simply turn a few pages in his mammoth collection of neo-marxist myths and his utter lack of historical discipline is apparent. With sneers, winks, and contrived expertise, Zinn proclaims his biased interpretation of America’s founding documents. He offers no evidence to support his contentious positions- simply stating that “bias” excuses this lack of basic academic rigor.
Be sure to talk about tyranny ! The commoners think they hate that !
“All this language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks, was language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” Zinn cannot acknowledge that ordinary colonial citizens had a grudge with England. The wicked colonial elites used “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence to manipulate the masses into fighting the British. The obvious deduction is that Zinn believed Colonial grievances were not legitimate. His source material throughout this section of his book is Charles Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”- the long discredited study of the economic origins of our nation’s founding. Beard was taken to task by the next generation of historians, but Zinn refuses to acknowledge the deficiencies of his source material.
The people of Boston were clearly manipulated into dumping tea….
The academic dishonesty is the toughest part… of Zinn’s work to swallow. Ignoring volumes of well researched, balanced studies to persistently argue his “biased” view of history is what earns Zinn his “radical” credentials. The very core of his radicalism was a disregard to academic standards and peer review. The reputation he built as an anti-establishment hero protects his work from proper scrutiny. Enlisting celebrities for a dramatic reading of the A People’s History will further deflect attention from the lack of substance in the words Matt Damon recites. Zinn is definitive proof that lousy work can be remembered if it has been done colorfully.
Compare two descriptions of the same historical event… the American Revolution. The first is an introduction by the esteemed Colonial era scholar, Gordon Wood. The second passage is the analysis of “radical historian” Howard Zinn. Two very different ideas by men who cannot possibly be writing in the same discipline.
“The Revolution did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public or state power and brought about an entirely new kind of popular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder. . . . Most important, it made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people — their pursuit of happiness — the goal of society and government. The Revolution did not merely create a political and legal environment conducive to economic expansion; it also released powerful popular entrepreneurial and commercial energies that few realized existed and transformed the economic landscape of the country. In short, the Revolution was the most radical and most far-reaching event in American history.”
“Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”
Liberty, equality, pursuit of happiness… be damned. The founding of the United States was simply for exploitation and profit. Now, Mr. Zinn can prove all of this with documentation, right? Ummmmmm…..