For Those Interested in American Civil War History

[Morris]

I figure this thread will get away from the typical stuff that goes on this board.

I recently finished a rough draft of a paper dealing with controversial Confederate cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest. The final product, which I had to do for graduating from school, will likely be submitted for entry in an academic journal.

The paper looks at the public's perception of Civil War history (starting at war's end), Civil War historiography, Forrest historiography and public perception of Forrest's reputation, determining how all of these different aspects interconnect and influence each other. I chose Forrest because he was the most controversial Southerner, and he is credited with founding the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee during the late 1860s.

So for those of you interested at all in American history, specifically Civil War history, and race relations, I put up the rough draft at http://www.users.qwest.net/~msims1/NBF.htm

The paper's about 27 pages along, so you've been warned If any of you do read it, feel free to comment on it. Thanks.

 

[Jokerman]

It was very good. I tend to not like academic writing, but this wasn't bad. The only thing I know about the Civil War is from Lincoln's writings, reading about five or so biographies of Lincoln, and from movies. Never really delved into the Civil War itself. It seemed like a full-time job. So all I can say about your paper is that there wasn't anything I would disagree with.

I once read a good book about Lincoln that went over the change in the public's perception and understanding of him over time. Can't remember the name of it, but it was fascinating. Obviously, historical and cultural relativity play a part in the writing of history. How people think is pervasively shaped by the time and place in which they live, as well as social and economic class. Our concepts, images, language, knowledge, beliefs -- even our thought processes -- are all profoundly shaped by culture. I'm thus suspicious that any historical account can be absolute fact or absolutely objective.

 

[Morris]

Obviously, historical and cultural relativity play a part in the writing of history. How people think is pervasively shaped by the time and place in which they live, as well as social and economic class. Our concepts, images, language, knowledge, beliefs -- even our thought processes -- are all profoundly shaped by culture. I'm thus suspicious that any historical account can be absolute fact or absolutely objective.

This mindset/frame of reference, believe it or not, is only about 15 years old. Only now are historians starting to look at cultural studying of history. In the case of the Civil War for example, 85% of the writings focus on the military history aspect of it. What you said seems obvious to us now, but it's basically a brand new current of historiography.

I'm surprised more people didn't bother commenting on this, since we all like to talk so much about racism and history in here.

If you don't want to read 27 pages, my paper does sum up its findings in the last 5 pages or so.

I once read a good book about Lincoln that went over the change in the public's perception and understanding of him over time. Can't remember the name of it, but it was fascinating.

I didn't know how shifty Forrest's reputation was before I came up with the topic.

Perhaps the most interesting figure to look at is Lee, since he was morphed from military leader of failed/divisive rebellion to one of the most celebrated Americans ever. And ironically, the public's perception of him was controlled by unrepentant Confederates.

 

[Zero Cool]

Very interesting article Morris.