Post by conz on Sept 22, 2008 14:21:19 GMT -6
Eric,
Good discussion on the techniques of history, and you may be correct...I'll have to read the book before I can comment on your specific criticisms.
Intuition is all well and good, and I can appreciate that factor.
However, if this stuff that Carhart claims actually happened, surely someone[/b][/u] would have documented it somewhere, and there is nothing whatsoever to support the contentions. NOTHING. [/quote]
I was long a member of Pohanka's CompuServe Civil War Forum, and I ran across such things much more than I think you perceive. I can well remember arguments over such things as "Was Warren's relief by Sheridan justified?" or "Why didn't Lee use his four brigades left behind by Stuart better?" ...and these things often have no basis in evidence, but rely upon a military man's perceptions and intuition as to what these players were really thinking, and how to properly judge their decisions.
These can be debated, but you must also realize that for a military mind, experience and intuition as to what is real IS all the evidence required. Military men of the period in question rarely write the truth, nor explain how or why they think, just as combat veterans rarely tell anyone outside their "circle" what they really think about their experiences. But a military man (or woman) will be able to read between the lines, or understand things never said or written, as if it was truth.
I've often argued that if you rely on evidence to form your understanding of history, you will never be able to understand it properly. This statement is anathema to some professional historians and some lawyers. <g>
A military man's intuition and opinion on certain military insider issues may be construed as a "fact." But that still doesn't mean that two military men can't construe totally contradictory facts on the same issue. <g> It is always interesting WHY that happens, when it does, though.
Certainly your right, and until I've read it I can't give you my perception of this particular work.
What I'll be doing is looking at what you say are his "facts," and determining how he came about saying it was fact...was he using his intuition? Or was he actually being intellectually dishonest just to bolster his weak theory?
You leaped to the second conclusion, and you may be correct, or you may have not considered before my points above. I'll be interested to see my perception of it...I could agree with you...it will all depend upon how he forms his "opinions/facts." If I perceive it is due to his intuition as a Soldier, I'll support him. If I don't see much basis, based on MY experience, that he did that properly, then I'll agree with your viewpoint.
At any rate, it brings up some interesting ways to evaluate history, and how history is written!
Clair
Good discussion on the techniques of history, and you may be correct...I'll have to read the book before I can comment on your specific criticisms.
Clair,
Intuition is all well and good, and I can appreciate that factor.
However, if this stuff that Carhart claims actually happened, surely someone
I was long a member of Pohanka's CompuServe Civil War Forum, and I ran across such things much more than I think you perceive. I can well remember arguments over such things as "Was Warren's relief by Sheridan justified?" or "Why didn't Lee use his four brigades left behind by Stuart better?" ...and these things often have no basis in evidence, but rely upon a military man's perceptions and intuition as to what these players were really thinking, and how to properly judge their decisions.
And the business about making things up, such as that Gregg lied to prevent Custer from getting credit, or that Lee intentionally shielded Stuart from criticism, are completely and entirely unsupportable; in fact, the historic record suggests that precisely the opposite is true.
These can be debated, but you must also realize that for a military mind, experience and intuition as to what is real IS all the evidence required. Military men of the period in question rarely write the truth, nor explain how or why they think, just as combat veterans rarely tell anyone outside their "circle" what they really think about their experiences. But a military man (or woman) will be able to read between the lines, or understand things never said or written, as if it was truth.
I've often argued that if you rely on evidence to form your understanding of history, you will never be able to understand it properly. This statement is anathema to some professional historians and some lawyers. <g>
To hold these things out as facts with absolutely nothing to support them is intellectually dishonest, consumer fraud, and unethical, to say the very least.
A military man's intuition and opinion on certain military insider issues may be construed as a "fact." But that still doesn't mean that two military men can't construe totally contradictory facts on the same issue. <g> It is always interesting WHY that happens, when it does, though.
That's why I am so vehemently opposed to this book and why I am so vehement in making sure that the consuming public knows about it.
Certainly your right, and until I've read it I can't give you my perception of this particular work.
What I'll be doing is looking at what you say are his "facts," and determining how he came about saying it was fact...was he using his intuition? Or was he actually being intellectually dishonest just to bolster his weak theory?
You leaped to the second conclusion, and you may be correct, or you may have not considered before my points above. I'll be interested to see my perception of it...I could agree with you...it will all depend upon how he forms his "opinions/facts." If I perceive it is due to his intuition as a Soldier, I'll support him. If I don't see much basis, based on MY experience, that he did that properly, then I'll agree with your viewpoint.
At any rate, it brings up some interesting ways to evaluate history, and how history is written!
Clair