quote:

---

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Lee's umpteenth rule: Always look at the bottom line.

quote:

---

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wraith:
MM: If you want my opinion of postmodernism just go and read Arthur Marwick's The Nature of History.

---

For mine, read The Pessimist's guide to History.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Interpretation of history. The models used. This is the heart of the question. Take for example the fact that few Civil War buffs know that the Secession of Tennessee was not only illegal, non-binding,and an act of treason by corrupt confederate sympathizers,It was also a subject of great interest to Lincoln and his cabinet. Andrew Johnson who would replace Lincoln as president,tried with all his might to have the truth told, as did W.G.Brownlow Governor of Tennessee. Who prevented the truth from being told? The Democratic Party thats who. They used every trick at their command to prevent the guilty from being punished. So the history books simply state that Tennessee was Confederate without any explanation. Those who have studied the actual chain of events Know otherwise. Back to the main topic though Are these Theories being accepted today? and what effect does such thinking have on students of today?
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
History books state what they state because the people who write them have Opinions.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
In too many cases their opinions mean nothing, because they never researched the subject well enough to form an opinion. An example of how lack of basic information can lead to error in evaluating a historical event. Most people believe that the Middle East was always dry dusty dessert landscape. Recent achaeological finds as well as research into the details of Roman military operations in that region paint a very different picture. Deforestation of Palestine began with the Roman Legions' need for wood. They stripped bare most of the region and helped set into motion the changes in the local ecology seen today. Europe was in the last stages of what is called a mini ice age. The journals of Arab explorers mention retreating glaciers where none are to be found today. Reading History books that give names dates and places gives little insight into the driving forces of Civilization. Why cultures change,why migrations and invasions take place, are the points often overlooked.

[ September 25, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
MM: I am forced to ask you exactly what kind of histoy books do you actually read? From your posts, I'd have to say pretty old ones; most of what you seem to regard as being 'covered up' (the Tennessee thing, for example) just isn't. I haven't read a single book about the US Civil War which doesn't discuss at least briefly, the voting in Tennessee.

Historical judgement does change over time, as new sources come to light or new methods are utilised, it's not a matter of people not researching the subject well enough. And the why factor is often the most important thing in any history book, the bit given the most consideration! Granted, the mass market books don't go into quite as much detail as true academic volumes and you do have to be careful which historian's books you buy but your contention that the 'why factor' is overlooked is pretty ludicrous.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Wraith, you seem to have a bit better outlook than some people. I checked out the author you mentioned, and was impressed by a reply to the reviews of his book. Fact is though, most and I mean nearly all people, think Tennessee was a willing partner to the Confederacy. Its just not true. If it were not for loyal patriotic Tenneseans the War might well have gone the other way. Brief mentions just don't cut the mustard. Full and accurate accounts are needed. The names of all those involved and the part they played in derailing the democractic process in order to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the people of the United States, should be remembered in the same way as Benedict Arnold. If not for the belief that they could use Tennessee as a base of operations without contest, the Civil War might have be settled in months instead of years. Maybe if Hollywood made a few movies about the situation then more people would have heard about it. Instead the South always comes off as the brave underdog,instead of as the murdering traitors that they were.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
1) Benedict Arnold was one of the good guys .
2) The US Civil War most decidedly did not depend on the people of Tennessee. The Union had 4 million men of combat age, half of whom joined up. The Confederacy had approximately 1,140,000 men of combat age, about 850,000 of whom fought. The north had 100,000 factories, employing more than a million workers. The South had 20,000 factories employing about 100,000 workers. Lowell, Mass. had more spindles turning thread in 1860 than the entire CSA. The North had 20,000 miles of railway, the South had 9,000. the North had $189 million in bank deposits and $56million in gold. The CSA had $47 million in bank deposits and $37 million in gold. The US outproduced the CS in every agricultural catagory except cotton. The USA had the advantage both economically and militaryily.

And in those areas of Tennessee with a slave population of 30% (in the centre and west of the state) voted for seccession by a margin of 7 to one. In the east, the seccession move was defeated 2 to one. As for murdering traitors, well that's debateable. Obviously I'm not in favour of slavery but were the confederates traitors? Or were they merely being loyal to their country, ie the south, and their states? Were they any more traitors than the rebels of the American War of Independance? As for murdering, yes I'm sure that went on in Tennessee on both sides and throughout the war on both sides. After all, even anit-slavery people could be brutal murderers- need I mention John Brown in Kansas?

Oh, and the liklihood of Hollywood making a historically accurate movie about anything is around nil.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
The Strategic position of Tennessee made it the key to any attempt by the Confederacy to wage war against the USA. In the final stages of the War,calvary sweeps that began in east tennesse crippled the Souths ability to wage war. The East Tennessee resistance to rebel rule prevented their being able to supply their troops in the field with the resources of our state. The Vote would never have turned out the way the Traitors claimed, they rigged the entire process, murdered political and religious leaders, used troops to intimidate voters. Prevented all opposition voters from reaching the polls in some middle Tennessee counties. Stole all records of the state returns and the returns of seven counties. Tennessee was a key prize for the Confederacy. They could not attempt to opperate here unless they had the ability to treat pro union forces as illegal combatants not subject to the rules of war.
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
A grand total of two people give a crap about whether Tennessee supported the union or the confederacy.

I'm tired of seeing threads turn into little more than arguments about a *VOTE* during a war that happened a hundred fifty years ago.

Mountain Man, you are clearly not Flare material. If you're going to drone on and on, at least do it about something original. And for God's sake, learn how to press ENTER once in a while.

If you dare mention Tennessee again, your posting permissions are getting yanked, probably for good. Anyone that persists on the issue will get similar treatment.

This is the third topic I've ended up closing in the past month or so. That's an all-time record. Let's not try for four, eh?
 

---