07 October 2009

Denying The Obvious

Evidently, my post from yesterday hit a raw nerve with Kevin Levin. (Facts are stubborn things.) He attempts to refute what is so blatantly obvious and common knowledge with ridiculous ad hominem (exposing the weakness of their position) attacks and obfuscation. It's quite interesting to observe how an "uneducated" non-academic like myself can cause such heartburn among the intelligentsia in academia.

Perhaps Kevin and his readers should revisit some of my older posts on the same subject. In this post, even Professor Peter Carmichael acknowledges that at least some of my criticisms were on target:

"I agree with some of your initial comments (Richard) about academia and professional history in general."

Loud denials of that which is obvious only call more attention to that which is obvious. Please, do keep it up.


Chaps said...

When my son, now a U.S. Marine, was in school, he partially offset bias by basing his papers, as much as possible, on original sources. It frustrated profs no end when they tried to say that authors were misinformed about events in which they participated. No always applicable but generally very useful.

Michael Bradley said...

I was amused by Levin's reaction to the news that a statue of General Patrick R. Cleburne has been erected at Ringgold, GA. Levin asked "Why Cleburne?" and then wandered off into a discussion of Cleburne's proposal to end slavery.

Is Levin ignorant of what happened at Ringgold? It would appear so, unless one wishes to argue that he is wilfully ignoring the factual reasons why a statue of Cleburne is appropriate on that spot.

It is also amusing that Levin dismisses the Cleburne proposal as showing no interest in the slaves but being focused solely on a Confederate military victory. Just what does Levin think Lincoln's proposal had as its focus?

In September 1862, when the preliminary announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, Lincoln said that any state "still in a state of rebellion" 90 days later would have all slaves within its borders set free---a punishment for rebellion. Lincoln continued that if a state gave up its attempt to gain independence and returned to the Union within the 90 day period the slaves in that state would remain slaves.

Does this sound like compassion for slaves or is this clearly an attempt to ensure the preservation of the Union?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Kevin is just following the template. No surprise here.