GDG- Killing Lincoln
CWMHTours at aol.com
CWMHTours at aol.com
Sat Jan 14 17:35:10 CST 2012
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
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,
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,
> The amount --- and supposed seriousness --- of the errors in "Killing
> Lincoln" by all indication is a matter that is still much in dispute.
> is certainly reinforced by the variety of opinions that have been posted
> 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
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
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."
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg