Posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:23 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
A Note on Footnotes
When I was younger I hated the fuss and bother of adding proper footnotes to my papers. I never thought my teachers would read them, and I almost never used them in the books I was reading. Some genres, like the science fiction I used to consume in bulk, didn't even have them. And when I indulged my appetite for history books, where they were to be found, I never looked at them.
All that has changed for me since I discovered the awful screed, The Real Lincoln, by Professor DiLorenzo. That book, which so completely misunderstands Lincoln's character and statesmanship, has made me a footnote addict, and opened my eyes to the extent of lies and half truths found in Southern revisionist writing.
It all started when I read the surprising claim that "in virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money ..." I had read the debates and taught them for over a decade, and I had never noticed this agenda of Lincoln's, so I looked for a footnote to help me locate the passage I had missed. Not there. Not only the footnote, but, as I found after several hours of intense re-reading, not the agenda either.
But there were a number of footnotes, taking me to the sources for other surprising claims, such as that Lincoln had mocked the claim that "all men are created equal[!]" I looked that one up in the place the footnote pointed to and ... NOT THERE! Then I did a word search on the complete Lincoln internet site. And I found the quote. Lincoln was citing another man's words, and stating his strong disagreement with them!
Another footnote in DiLorenzo's book is given to back up the claim that Lincoln, as a member of the Illinois legislature in 1857, urged a yes vote on a bill to spend money to deport free blacks. Wait a minute ... Lincoln wasn't in the legislature in '57. Checking the book cited, I found that it didn't say he was. Professor DiLorenzo had just made up that part. But the other book did say that Lincoln had supported the spending, and gave ... you guessed it ... footnotes. So I checked them. There are two, and neither one takes you to evidence of any kind for the claim.
Another search like this, in another revisionist book on Lincoln, turned up a spurious racist quote from Lincoln whose real original was in Tom Dixon's novel, The Clansman. That's the book used as the basis for the famous film, The Birth of a Nation.
All these are examples of false or unsourced claims intended to damage Lincoln, and one way you can sniff them out is by their odor of hatred, and their strangeness. "Lincoln didn't say that!" you think to yourself, and, sure enough, you find that he didn't.
Other cases are harder to track down, because they do sound like the words of the man in question. There is a little list of pro-enterprise and pro-responsibility sentences attributed to Lincoln which surfaces from time to time in GOP gatherings. I used to have a copy, but it's long gone now. No great loss, since Lincoln never said or wrote those things.
Many Americans, including President Reagan, used to quote Tocqueville in a long and moving passage that includes the words, "America is great because she is good." A lovely sentiment, and it sounds like Tocqueville. But it's not in Democracy in America, as was pointed out in the Weekly Standard a few years ago.
I guess there isn't too much damage done by this last instance, though truth is at all times to be honored. The lies told about Lincoln are quite another matter, and if you ever enter the eerie world of anti-Lincoln "scholarship, keep in mind what [I believe] Ronald Reagan really did say when he was President: "Trust, but verify!" And do follow a few of the footnotes.
Not a "neo-reb" - I'm American by birth - southern (Confederate) by the grace of God.
The convention was convened with the expressed purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. The Articles (that LEGAL government that the founders were operating under) contained a certain article 13 that required unanimous consent to changes (meaning 13 independent and sovereign states that existed prior to any union).
Washington, Madison and the rest spent the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia crafting a constitution that would allow a group of conniving self-serving politicians to ignore the legal requirements at their pleasure. Rhode Island didn't even send delegates, numerous delegates were appointed but never attended, and many delegates walked out before the convention was over, among them 2 from New York - leaving that state without a legal vote and authority to binding assent. Of those in attendance the day of signing were 3 that STILL refused to sign - among them was Elbridge Gerry - a signer of both the DoI and Articles.
Speaking of the Articles and that perpetual union, care to observe what Marshall stated about it?
Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new Government did not commence until the old Government expired. It is apparent that the Government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognised by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November, by the successive disappearance of its members. It existed potentially until the 2d of March, the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.The states of North Carolina and Rhode Island were not part of that new government. The union between them and the others had been dissolved. So much for binding legal arguments against secession, the "perpetual" union had been dissolved.
Chief Justice Marshall, Owings v Speed, 18 Wheat. 420, (1820)
My friend, there is a silver lining to all this. What will they argue about once the few corrections have been made to the book?
;-)
ROTFLOL! I suppose they'll reminisce about the "good ole days" when they had their little recycled list to complain about then continue complaining about it as if it were all still the same.
Actually, if I recall correctly the source from which DiLorenzo carried the error asserted that the statements were made by Lincoln in what he described as a speech given before the Illinois legislature, so the inference that he was in that body is there as well.
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma... Were all U.S. territory
The Louisiana Purchase, was made by United States
Florida was purchase from Spain by United States
And South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia ceded any pre revolution colonial claims to the area that became Tennessee Alabama, and part of Mississippi to the United States
"the most blantanly pro-CSA of the small ones is his account of the military campaigns, and especially his claiming that the Army of the Potomac didn't get within 50 yards of the CSA lines at Fredericksburg."
I got the following reply:
"To anyone familiar with that battle claim is clearly a reference to the sunken road where confederates took up their position at the base of Marye's Heights. DiLorenzo's claim is a perfectly reasonable presentation of what historically happened there. Most estimates of the battle put the closest distance the federals made it toward the stone wall at about 50 yards away. The most liberal estimate claims that the distance of 25 yards reached by a small portion of a single division out of a failed charge by Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys. This is unlikely as Humphreys' attack, in which he originally ordered a bayonet charge on the wall, was nothing short of disastrous. It was wiped out in two sweeps with Humphreys himself having two horses shot out from under him and barely escaping back to the trench. Conservative estimates put the mark at between around 75 yards. What is definately known is that:
A.The closest position the yankees could even come close to holding was a ravine 150 yards back.
B. Not a single yankee force successfully made it to the wall in front of the road in front of the hill upon which the confederates staked their position during the charge, dead or alive.
C. Most of the casualties fell at around the 100 yard mark, the point where troops along the wall unleashed a full open fire."
26 posted on 6/21/02 7:57 PM Pacific by GOPcapitalist
******
Now, this matter has nothing to do with who was right in the Civil War. It has to do with DiLorenzo's bias and careless writing. So I would ask anyone interested to attend to a few simple points.
First, DiLorenzo writes this, of the Battle of Fredericksburg: "More than 121,000 Federal troops attacked 80,000 Confederates in 13 charges across an open plain, but not one of them got as close as 50 yards to the Confederate battle line..."
I will take as my authority here the West Point Atlas of the Civil War.
In this battle, the Union forces were divided into two wings, of nearly equal numbers, the right wing facing Marye's Heights, where the CSA I Corps, under Longstreet held the line, the left wing, a bit down stream, facing Jackson's II corps. The USA commander on the Federal left was Gen. Franklin.
Here is what the West Point Atlas says about events on the CSA right.
"The ...attack was made by Meade's division, supported by ... Doubleday and ... Gibbon. Major Gen. John Pelham's horse artillery delayed Meade initially, but, once Pelham was forced to withdraw, Meade drove forward through a weak spot and surprised and routed Brig. Gen. Maxey Gregg's brigade in the Confederate second line. Gibbon, advancing on Meade's right, was initially successful."
Much more happened, the Union troops were driven back, and the CSA follow up was stopped by heavy artillery fire, and so forth.
Here's the point.
I called this a small error, indicative of bias on the part of DiLorenzo. I think that just right.
Of course Fredericksburg was a severe Union defeat. At the same time, it is simply not true to assert that no USA forces got "within 50 yards of the CSA lines at Fredericksburg."
We owe a duty of veracity and piety to our ancestors, on both sides. Meade's men had the only big Union success at this awful battle, and they ought not be denied it in polemical and revisionist writing.
Second, and more importantly, Dr. D. inserts this error into an account meant to show that the CSA forces were both nearly invincible, and in a superior strategic position in the weeks before the second and final release of the Emancipation Proclamation [Jan 1, 1863], and that Lincoln issued the Proclamation to save an almost hopeless military position.
Now, this is all half-truth at best.
Lincoln was, in fact, fearful that the Proclamation would appear an act of desparation, and that is among the reasons why he waited to make it public until a Union victory ... the tactical draw, but strategic victory at Antietam. That battle, and the similar events at Perryville in October of 1862, restored confidence in the Union cause, both here and in Europe. It should be noted that, at this point, both New Orleans and Memphis, two of the largest cities in the CSA, were under Union control, as were the capitals of two of the CSA states. After Antietam and Perryville, Kentucky and Maryland would not go over to the Rebels. The Union forces would grow ever stronger from then on.
It is perfectly true that the awful losses inflicted in the frontal attacks on Marye's heights, and the retreat of the Army of the Potomac were deeply demoralizing to the army and to the Unionists, including Lincoln. It is also true that in the spring and summer campaigns in the East that followed the Winter of 1862-3, Lee's men suffered casualties never to be replaced, and that from then on, the CSA was on a losing trajectory.
I beg anyone with an interest in these matters to read pp 38-43 of The Real Lincoln and the to ask himself whether what he has read is anything like a dispassionate and true account of the "The Military Context."
Best to all,
Richard F.
You're not a scholar, nor a professor, Dick.
You are saying Ferrier is not a professor, right? Am I correct in saying that you also characterized him elsewhere on FR as not being employed? (I suppose you mean other than by the Declaration Foundation.)
Am I understanding your assertions?
Could you please point out where the conclusion part of the article begins and ends?
I think that in this article the conclusion is that one ought to verify the sources cited in history books and be alert to poor scholarship. The article assumes (whether rightly or wrongly doesn't pertain to the overall argument) that DiLorenzo's thought about Lincoln is incorrect but examines DiLorenzo's use of historical material, real and unreal.
As far as I'm concerned, I have drawn no conclusions about Lincooln from DiLorenzo's book because it is unreliable. For all I know his thesis may be correct, though I doubt it. But his book does nothing to advance the thesis and rather advances -- a very little -- the opposing POV because of the startling inaccuracies and imprecision of DiLorenzo's work.
I will have to look elsewhere for reliable information, that's all.
I turned in a manuscript last month of 200,000 words with 40,000 of them in footnotes. I did it for disclosure and because I felt perspective was required on sources.
My publisher claims they'll keep 'em. We'll see. I do think footnotes are on the way back.
Endnotes suck.
In that case, one may see now that DiLorenzo was clearly referring to the charges on Marye's Heights, hence his assertion that the charges took place across an open plain. Your complaint is with Meade's temporary breach of the CSA right which, although it did happen, does not change or discredit anything DiLorenzo said. The open plains charges on Marye's Heights, themselves the core of the battle, were across the open plain, DiLorenzo's clear reference. All of them ended in disaster with not one man, dead or alive, reaching the wall.
I called this a small error, indicative of bias on the part of DiLorenzo. I think that just right.
And I asserted otherwise. I still assert otherwise as your own quote of DiLorenzo indicates that he was clearly referring to the charges on Marye's Heights, hence his mention of the open plain.
Of course Fredericksburg was a severe Union defeat. At the same time, it is simply not true to assert that no USA forces got "within 50 yards of the CSA lines at Fredericksburg."
But DiLorenzo did not say that. He said that none of the yankee charges across the open plain reached the confederate battle lines - an accurate statement. Meade sidestepped and hit the lines further up before being quickly overrun and repulsed. But he did not charge across the open plain on Marye's Heights, nor did he come within 50 yards of the confederate position on the wall at the hill's base.
We owe a duty of veracity and piety to our ancestors, on both sides. Meade's men had the only big Union success at this awful battle, and they ought not be denied it in polemical and revisionist writing.
Exactly where did DiLorenzo deny them? DiLorenzo's statement would have been innaccurate had they charged the wall and made it. But that did not happen. They did not even charge the wall. They slipped around the side of the other flank a good distance up the road. DiLorenzo does not mention that, as it did not affect the outcome of the battle or much of anything beyond a couple more casualties on both sides. But nowhere does he deny it either.
Second, and more importantly, Dr. D. inserts this error
What error? Your entire position is really a complaint that he didn't "highlight" a minor positive for the union in a battle that was a disaster for them. But that is not what yo are portraying it as. You portray it as a factual "error" for which he is to be faulted. But it is not. In reality, as indicated by the fact that he is clearly referencing the disastrous union charges across the plain, DiLorenzo made no error. He simply didn't highlight Meade's brief push on the line elsewhere, which you want to be included.
into an account meant to show that the CSA forces were both nearly invincible
Now that's an overstatement! DiLorenzo never portrays the CSA as some invincible and impregnable fortress. He only notes the historical fact that the confederates, for the first part of the war, were winning almost all the big victories. That fact is an undeniable part of history starting with the very first at Mannassas.
Lincoln was, in fact, fearful that the Proclamation would appear an act of desparation
Sure he did, and I believe DiLorenzo recognizes this, as he largely portrays it as that much.
As for pages 38-41, DiLorenzo is perfectly reasonable.
He starts off noting first Manassas - the first true battle of the war, and a major confederate victory.
He mentions the smaller western victories of the union in Tennessee. He puts Shiloh in perfectly reasonable context. It is considered a tactical union victory, but casualty wise the yankees suffered greater. More than anything else, Shiloh reaffirmed that the war was going to be a long one. He covers the events in Virginia throughout the next few months, which were predominantly either confederate victories or stalemates. Second Mannassas was another confederate win. Antietam was a stalemate, though you are correct it had effects in Europe - but not so much that the confederates lost something, but rather that they did not win it outright. Then there's the yankee disaster at Fredericksburg in December.
Oh. You are saying things you know not to be true in order to accomplish some goal. You call that "needling". Here we have another name for that kind of thing.
We all know the current state of higher education. It's precisely the large institutions which produce the most bilge. We all know the remarkable amount of tripe produced by professors laboring under the lash of "publish or perish", yet you seem to suggest that publication is a sign of reliability, that being a professor at a school which prefers teaching and study to grandstanding is somehow a bad thing.
The subjects under discussion include the reliability of a book, the causes and implications of the 1861-1865 war, and the character and motives of Lincoln. Into this conversation you insert statements you know not to be true about someone making arguments with which you disagree. To answer such personal attacks, even if they had a grain of truth, would be a waste of time. And when the attacker knows his attacks are false? What would be the point of replying? Once you know your interlocutor has despised the truth, conversation becomes useless.
DiLorenzo appears to have written things which he should have known were not so to support a controversial thesis, a thesis worthy of attention, even if many of his arguments are poor. To defend him against the charge of inaccuracy and imprecision you write things which you say you know to be false. To choose to be unreliable seems a funny way to defend someone else's reliability.
Precisely where does he make that claim?
People will check either because they question what they read or find the subject being touched on in a particular passage in a good book so engrossing they long for more (The latter case for me was a great read “The Coming War with Japan” the book was so good and so heavy with footnotes I ended up checking out and reading in part some 30+ of the referenced text)
The fact a footnotes for your source "fact" for a books should be a requirement the same as a hyperlink to a source "fact" for a post here
Just as here on Free Republic if you make and controversial assertion in a post the first question is what is your source (ULR) to back up your statement
So it is with a book if you make and controversial assertion in a print the first question is what is your source (book/footnote) to back up your statement
In both cases if an authors does not produce a source (via ULR or footnote) for there stated “fact” there statement is open to doubt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.