So Mississippi is celebrating Confederate History Month

[Mims44 1,969]

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

The context in which McPherson uses it here:

This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

refers to it in the sense of negationism, which is inherently bad.

Again, it's a crappy slang term.

I get that is just the way it is... still annoys me

[AUDub 11,784]

Again, it's a crappy slang term.

I get that is just the way it is... still annoys me

It's hardly slang.

[Mims44 1,969]

I'd be happy if we called southern revisionism simply 'Tardness' or "herp derp history"

[AUDub 11,784]

I'd be happy if we called southern revisionism simply 'Tardness' or "herp derp history"

I like the way you think!

[telling tiger 156]

I'd be happy if we called southern revisionism simply 'Tardness' or "herp derp history"

I like the way you think!

Far kinder than what I'd call it.......kudos

[Mims44 1,969]

Again, it's a crappy slang term.

I get that is just the way it is... still annoys me

It's hardly slang.

I don't like it's use by laymens

and I don't like it's use in academics in a negative light either, but it's expected.

Ever had to read a students revision paper covering revision of Southern revisionism? The paper will be covered in that word, and just like the previous sentence, 2 of the times will simply be academic and the third will be a historical tag for actions.

[AUDub 11,784]

I don't like it's use by laymens

and I don't like it's use in academics in a negative light either, but it's expected.

Ever had to read a students revision paper covering revision of Southern revisionism? The paper will be covered in that word, and just like the previous sentence, 2 of the times will simply be academic and the third will be a historical tag for actions.

Well just so long as you know we're not using it in a lay sense.

[aujeff11 6,243]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

[aujeff11 6,243]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

You wasn't supposed to know what that meant Titan ;)/>

[AUDub 11,784]

You wasn't supposed to know what that meant Titan ;)/>

Titan wasn't born yesterday.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I have pre-teen daughters. It's my job to learn what the acronyms mean.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I have pre-teen daughters. It's my job to learn what the acronyms mean. :)/>

Ha. I feel sorry for the kid that ever writes that to your daughters and you catch it. He might have to go to Germany to receive a donated set of testacles.

[homersapien 12,172]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

On the surface states rights and slavery both adequately show the reason, the states right of course being the right to own slaves.

What's turned most people off to the use of "States rights" as an answer (you too I'm sure) is the reason most people will say states rights instead of slavery is to either evade the slavery issue altogether or to at least downplay it out of some sense of southern guilt.

It's the same as saying wealth & power caused the Civil War, or more accurately the threat of losing that wealth & power caused secession. but since the wealth and power were both built on slave labor, slavery is still the reason.

Unless someone is doing an academic study based on wealth & power to secession fervor or trying to incite new thought into an old thought process, there isn't much reason to say one instead of the other except to deflect.

The threat of losing their wealth didn't even cause the secession. Many wealthy slaveowners( and remember the resources were highly consecrated) didn't even want to secede from the union. They felt their wealth was safe only in the union. The threat of adding more free states to the union, allowing an overwhelming majority against the south was the reason the south chose to secede... after they exhausted all legal possibilities possible.

Nobody is trying to evade the issue either. We can have a discussion like grown men and discuss things in a reasonable manner. The slaveowners made morally bankrupt choices but I'm arguing that they believed they had the right to make those choices.

But what's your point? They were rich oligarchs. Secession was never subjected to a popular vote.

Went ahead and made that part big for you, I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. Just about everyone who has fought for anything ever has believed they had a right to some thing. You would be hard pressed to find a country or people willing to fight and die for something they believed they did not need or deserve.

IE: Even pedo's will do mental jumping jacks until they have proven to themselves that they have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to bang little kids.

The reason I asked is I don't think the southern oligarch's self-rightousness has ever been in dispute.

And no doubt that most of them had the courage of their convictions. Many of them sacrificed their lives for it. But there's no redemption in that. It was an evil cause, even at the time.

Their conviction is a moot point.

[homersapien 12,172]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

"Lost cause" revisionism was so pervasive in the early 1900's - and has since been recognized as such - that it earned the term as a movement.

It was that specific episode of revisionism - which ignored the original documents - I was referring to.

[homersapien 12,172]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

This is the downside of the internet. No one reads books anymore.

[Mims44 1,969]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

On the surface states rights and slavery both adequately show the reason, the states right of course being the right to own slaves.

What's turned most people off to the use of "States rights" as an answer (you too I'm sure) is the reason most people will say states rights instead of slavery is to either evade the slavery issue altogether or to at least downplay it out of some sense of southern guilt.

It's the same as saying wealth & power caused the Civil War, or more accurately the threat of losing that wealth & power caused secession. but since the wealth and power were both built on slave labor, slavery is still the reason.

Unless someone is doing an academic study based on wealth & power to secession fervor or trying to incite new thought into an old thought process, there isn't much reason to say one instead of the other except to deflect.

The threat of losing their wealth didn't even cause the secession. Many wealthy slaveowners( and remember the resources were highly consecrated) didn't even want to secede from the union. They felt their wealth was safe only in the union. The threat of adding more free states to the union, allowing an overwhelming majority against the south was the reason the south chose to secede... after they exhausted all legal possibilities possible.

Nobody is trying to evade the issue either. We can have a discussion like grown men and discuss things in a reasonable manner. The slaveowners made morally bankrupt choices but I'm arguing that they believed they had the right to make those choices.

But what's your point? They were rich oligarchs. Secession was never subjected to a popular vote.

Went ahead and made that part big for you, I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. Just about everyone who has fought for anything ever has believed they had a right to some thing. You would be hard pressed to find a country or people willing to fight and die for something they believed they did not need or deserve.

IE: Even pedo's will do mental jumping jacks until they have proven to themselves that they have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to bang little kids.

The reason I asked is I don't think the southern oligarchs self-rightousness has ever been in dispute.

No doubt that most of them had the courage of their convictions. Many of them sacrificed their lives for it. But there's no redemption in that. It was an evil cause, even at the time.

It's a moot point.

Word.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I have pre-teen daughters. It's my job to learn what the acronyms mean. :)/>

Ha. I feel sorry for the kid that ever writes that to your daughters and you catch it. He might have to go to Germany to receive a donated set of testacles.

Yeah, his life will become exceedingly uncomfortable in record time.

[homersapien 12,172]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

Michael T. Griffith is a Mormon apologist.

Yes. Mormon apologetics is a thing.

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master's degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

James McPherson is generally grouped with Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote as the authors of the best books on Civil War history.

I've never even heard of Michael T. Griffith. Did he even produce a book on the civil war?

[homersapien 12,172]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

That's because he, like damn near every other historian is a revisionist.

Explaining history from the original documents is hardly revisionism.

Perhaps you are referring to his revising the actual revisionists?

[aujeff11 6,243]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

Michael T. Griffith is a Mormon apologist.

Yes. Mormon apologetics is a thing.

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master's degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

James McPherson is generally grouped with Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote as the authors of the best books on Civil War history.

I've never even heard of Michael T. Griffith. Did he even produce a book on the civil war?

I don't know. Are books the requisite medium needed to prove knowledge these days?

[homersapien 12,172]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

No it's not, at least if used to correct the record. And that is the context in which McPherson used it in the cited piece on the Iraqi war.

But the term "revisionism" can also be used to apply to simple lying when the revised history moves away from the original documents and relies on some new philosophical or economic interpretation not supported by the actual evidence. This is what was done by the revisionist school in the early 20th century concerning the cause of the Civil War.

That form of revisionism is not correcting past histories for accuracy, it's about distorting or lying about the original evidence.

[homersapien 12,172]

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

The context in which McPherson uses it here:

This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

refers to it in the sense of negationism, which is inherently bad.

Again, it's a crappy slang term.

I get that is just the way it is... still annoys me

It's not slang. It's one of those words that can refer to entirely different things, depending on context.

[homersapien 12,172]

I'd be happy if we called southern revisionism simply 'Tardness' or "herp derp history"

I am OK with "lying".

[homersapien 12,172]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.

Im just messing with you Ben. You can call me a neo confederate or whatever you want but you failed to see my point which is my fault because I couldn't articulate it better. I will advocate for the satanists, neo-nazis, meat heads, weirdos, etc if I feel those groups had rights infringed upon in America. We all know slavery is bad but the commerce (3 billion dollar commerce at that) that slavery brought was infriged upon after hundreds of years of use. If the United States was morally against slavery like William Lloyd Garrison, they would have cut off the money line a long time ago. Garrison burned the constitution in 1854 in disgust because he was the only one of a few to have the balls to call slavery what it really was. Lincoln was nothing more than politically opportunistic when he called for the ban of the slaves almong the rebel states. He, himself, said things far worst about the slaves in his speeches than the states in their declarations of secession. I feel the south got a bad rep and they were taken through the grinder after the war. Long ago I asked on here, " why did the United States struggle with departing from slavery when compared to Britain's easy transition." The response, because slavery carried much more weight in the economy than it did in Britain. If that's the case, how were yall expecting the south to survive if they were willing to depart of the slaves on their own free will? It's not like the south had machinery or the cities that carried could pick the economy right off the bat.

No one has claimed the Southern position of slavery was illogical from a practical standpoint, at least from the perspectives of the oligarchs who benefited from it.

[homersapien 12,172]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

Michael T. Griffith is a Mormon apologist.

Yes. Mormon apologetics is a thing.

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master's degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

James McPherson is generally grouped with Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote as the authors of the best books on Civil War history.

I've never even heard of Michael T. Griffith. Did he even produce a book on the civil war?

I don't know. Are books the requisite medium needed to prove knowledge these days?

Apparently not these days.