17 April 2012

Finally, Diversity Of Opinion Regarding The WBTS

*Update - Kevin responds here. Of course, he misses the whole point - or chose to ignore it since he didn't quite know how to respond. He does insinuate in one of his follow up comments that I'm not qualified to criticize academia because I don't know anything about it. So, since I'm not part of academia, I can't observe and form opinions, based on facts and empirical evidence? That's quite an interesting position to take. Logic would then dictate that Kevin will no longer be able to observe, post, and comment on organizations like the UDC (I don't think he qualifies for membership), nor the SCV (I don't think he qualifies for membership), nor living in the South (since he doesn't), nor any aspect of Southern heritage (since he has none). Unless, of course, there is one standard of posting and commenting for him and a different one for everyone else.

Moreover, he calls my frequent references to academia "tired." If that's true, why does my hit count from .edu IP addresses always go up when I comment on that topic?
(End of update.)

Among academic historians. 

*Kevin Levin believes the Confederacy was the forerunner to the Soviet Union. They loved centralization of power.

David Blight believes the Confederacy was the forerunner to the modern Tea Party. They hated centralization of power.

A rather adaptable bunch, ain't they?

Of course, Kevin seems to forget this was a war-time government fighting what they viewed as an invasion. The CSA never knew anything other than a war footing. The war drove every decision and there is no other time nor circumstance with which to compare. That tends to skew any discussion or comparison regarding centralization of power in the Confederate States.


Anonymous said...

It is worth noting that Pulitzer Prize winning author James M. McPherson, who many Southerners love to hate, might be seen as joining DiLorenzo in seeing the South as counter-revolutionary- witness his essays complied in the 1992 publication Abraham Lincoln And The Second American Revolution. The revolution he refers to is the political revolution that took place in the North. Evidence of this revolution is available in hard copy, black and white print, known as the Amendments to the US Constitution. McPherson points out the negative liberties replete in the Bill of Rights contrast greatly with the those that followed with the 13th in 1865. Six of the seven amendments that followed the Bill of Rights expanded the power of the central government, including the beloved Sixteenth. The Bill of Rights contains phrases such as "Congress shall make no law", "reserved", and abundant "shall nots", all purposing to restrict the power of the central government. Six of the next seven amendments radically expanded that power with repeated usage of phrases such as "Congress shall have the power". Using different tactics, we're witnessing in modern times a similar usurpation of the supremacy of the Constitution.

At least DiLorenzo can claim he's in good company by pointing out sectional differences in respect for the Constitution.

Posted by Doug Hill

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Doug - excellent points! Thanks for the comment. It's a salient point to add that both McPherson and Blight publicly endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 (revealing their love for big government)and both have repeatedly referred to the South's instinctive and inherent revulsion to centralizing power in Washington. When you consider both of these facts together, it leads one toward certain conclusions, doesn't it?

13thBama said...

You're still reading Civil War Mammary?

dtb said...

How do we know the academic left reflects the one correct view on a given subject? Because they have unanimity of opinion. Why do they have unanimity of opinion? Because they are correct.

What part of this are you failing to grasp? It all seems so simple.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Why do they have unanimity of opinion? Because they are correct."

Really? Unanimity determines truth? Since when? Interesting position. There was once unanimity about the earth being flat, about blood letting - need I continue?

Besides, there is not unanimity of opinion, except among the intellectually incestuous. But you're right, it is simple - simple-minded.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

13B - yes. I like to know what the other side is thinking, though its usually quite predictable.

dtb said...

I actually don't believe that, I was just sarcastically pointing out the "logic" of the left on these issues. I really believe many on the left don't accept there can be more than one side taken on issues. Actually, they believe there are two, theirs and the wrong one.

A good example is global warming. They don't see how anyone can possibly deny their point. Ironically, if you go to the New York Times in the 1970's you will see academics arguing we were about to enter the next ice age.

It's a phenomenon I call the "all right thinking people syndrome". If you hear someone start an argument that way, or in a fashion which suggests it, run the opposite direction because the last thing they are interested in is an exchange of ideas.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Sorry DTB.

"A good example is global warming."

Yes, a very good example, as is their near uniformity in supporting Marxists like Obama and every other kooky, nutty cause.

"if you go to the New York Times in the 1970's you will see academics arguing we were about to enter the next ice age."

Yes, I featured that Time cover in a previous post. Thanks for the comment.