Can I just jump in here? I think my training in the dark arts of historical research may shine some light.
Just one point which is worth repeating, the notion of the 'victors' writing the history here simply does not apply for almost a century after the war ended. Sniper, I urge you to find some writing on the historiography of the war - the history of the writing of its history (I'll try to find something, perhaps shek has something too). What is clear is that the way the war was understood for almost a century was largely shaped by southerners or people sympathetic to the southern perspective.
Not necessarily. The issue is the quality of the info. The fact that it is not widely known doesn't make it untrue (which I think is what you have been saying elsewhere about the 'southern view' of the war).
Why do you assume anyone was hiding anything? Remember that the narrative about the Nth being worse on civil rights than the Sth was treated as 'truth' for generations. The sort of research entailed hare is not like popping down to the library & checking out a book. It can involve months or even years of first finding & then trawling through archives just trying to find info that is relevant. Also keep in mind that these were the record of a political entity that ended almost 150 years ago - this means there may not be continuity in record keeping.
Histories based on extensive archive searches rarely take place immediately after events take place. Records tend to be classified for a period of time, or at least subject to restriction. Further, the nature of history is that it is written time time later. In this case people in the Sth had better things to do in the aftermath or war than trawl though often obsucre Confederate records to write history. Such early documents as were used most likely were stuff like cabinet & Presidential level papers. The most interesting stuff is often the minutae stashed away in boxes for decades. In this case the narrative was set decades before historians would normaly start lookign at records anyway. For those who considered the matter closed, why go looking for evidence of something you don't think exists?
Also, you are looking at this in terms of someone looking for 'justification' for the war. Not fair. Most people who do this sort of research are simply looking to find out something. They probably have a bunch of questions, but not everyone is running some agenda. It sounds like this guy wanted to find out something he didn't know & got a surprise.
I'm pretty sure distrust of the government pre-dates the war & is not an exclusively southern thing.
Just one point which is worth repeating, the notion of the 'victors' writing the history here simply does not apply for almost a century after the war ended. Sniper, I urge you to find some writing on the historiography of the war - the history of the writing of its history (I'll try to find something, perhaps shek has something too). What is clear is that the way the war was understood for almost a century was largely shaped by southerners or people sympathetic to the southern perspective.
Originally posted by 7thsfsniper
View Post
Fair is fair, I'm open. This is what is fishy about the whole thing. What did the south have to hide? The worst thing you could think of was already enough justification for Lincoln to fire it up. Slavery, right?
Histories based on extensive archive searches rarely take place immediately after events take place. Records tend to be classified for a period of time, or at least subject to restriction. Further, the nature of history is that it is written time time later. In this case people in the Sth had better things to do in the aftermath or war than trawl though often obsucre Confederate records to write history. Such early documents as were used most likely were stuff like cabinet & Presidential level papers. The most interesting stuff is often the minutae stashed away in boxes for decades. In this case the narrative was set decades before historians would normaly start lookign at records anyway. For those who considered the matter closed, why go looking for evidence of something you don't think exists?
Also, you are looking at this in terms of someone looking for 'justification' for the war. Not fair. Most people who do this sort of research are simply looking to find out something. They probably have a bunch of questions, but not everyone is running some agenda. It sounds like this guy wanted to find out something he didn't know & got a surprise.
Emancipation was the northern narrative, was it not? Furthermore, no, its not over. Damdest thing, but I don't think it is. Distrust of our current US government was bred in 1860 in the south and has been spreading ever since. It is not a north vs south thing anymore though. It is a freedom loving citizen vs BIG central govt thing now. I made this part bigger so anyone reading this at least should read this. ;)
Comment