GDG- Killing Lincoln

CWMHTours at aol.com CWMHTours at aol.com
Sat Jan 14 17:35:10 CST 2012


Chet, Sir-
 
I like you.
 
It is hard to dispute your points.  I pretty much agree  with them.
 
In history it is like mathematics- or geometry.
 
History is measurable.
 
It can be defined in terms of true or false.
 
In history events can be pinpointed and  defined. 
 
They are measurable.  They are  specific.
 
Picketts Charge happened around 3-4 PM on the aftn of  7/3/63.
 
I haven't yet read O'Reilly.  But if word comes back that  it is full of 
errors like Linkn met Grant in the non-existent Oval Office  doesn't that make 
it "untrue"?
 
I mean... It is either true or false.
 
Historical events are black and white.
 
Maybe the recording of them may be faulty but it is either in  the end 
black or white.  Fact is truth.  Fiction is  false.
 
 
 
Your  Most Obedient Servant,
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/14/2012 6:14:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
agatematt at gmail.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
>
> Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes:
>


> So, Chet, if a book inserts make believe  events into the  naration you
> would still call that  "history"?
>
> Your  Most Obedient Servant,
>  Peter
>
> The amount --- and supposed seriousness --- of the  errors in "Killing
> Lincoln" by all indication is a matter that is  still much in dispute. 
That
> is certainly reinforced by the variety of  opinions that have been posted 
by
> esteemed members in this discussion  thread.
>
In direct answer to your question, would I  call a book which "inserts
make believe events into the narration ..  "history?" --- No, I would not
but then in regards to "Killing Lincoln"  that is an accusation which has
not yet been proved to my  satisfaction.
Too often, when one person sees a set of  possible historical actions in
one way and accepts it and then writes it in  anything from book form to a
discussion point in this group, there are some  who refuse to take it as
simply an interpretation with which they disagree  with and instead is is
something that is at best historical error and at  worse something
nefarious.
People can --- and do --- see  historical "facts" in different ways. As
an example, I will point to the  many discussions this group has had over
the years as to what Stuart was  suppose to do at Gettysburg on July 3.
There are those who take it as a  historical certainty that Lee gave his
cavalry commander specific orders to  place himself on the Union flank to
attack when the forces of  Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble broke the AOP line and
forced that army to  retreat. Other esteemed members believe that to be so
much non-historical  hogwash, but I have yet to read a member accusing
another of fabricating  the truth because they see facts in a different
light.
Besides, what is truly a fact. Given that much of the narrative of  any
event is based upon the gathering of evidence from eye-witnesses, all  of
whom may see the same event slightly different or radically  differently.
That is evident by just going to the Official Records and read  the after
battle reports of units which opposed each other. More often than  not, the
text reads in a way to make it seem that neither unit was not on  the same
piece of the  battlefield but probably not on the same  planet.
OK, which author's work is the lie? And which one  should historians
choose? And if they choose one then do those who take the  other side as
gospel then have the right to label the opponent's version as  having
inserted "make believe events."
With regards,
Chet
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives




More information about the Gettysburg mailing list