First, thank you very much for becoming a paid subscriber. I very much appreciate your support. Yes, I deleted my Bluesky account earlier this week. Unlike twitter, there is no way to simply deactivate it temporarily. That said, I have no regrets. In fact, I haven't thought much about it at all. There have been way too many voices in my head of late and most of it is nothing more than distraction. I've come to realize that this site is really where I want to focus my efforts. My interactions here are so much more enjoyable and rewarding. Hope to hear more from you on this platform.
Yes that is in fact my real name, im named for my uncle who was named after his father’s friend, Kenneth Foster. Both he and my grandfather were pilots in the RAF in France in 1918.
I really appreciate your perspective regarding Jackson and the Confederacy overall. As a historian myself I see the issues regarding historical thought/memory being viewed through a partisanship lens. Each aspect of history is worthy of study regardless of one’s own personal political sentiment. I think both you and Pete Carmichael do an excellent job with objectively evaluating and expressing a historical topic. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ken. I completely agree that politics, more than any other factor right now, is influencing popular understanding of the Civil War era.
Studying major Confederate figures is a little like studying major German figures of the 20s to the 40s. These are generally not ignorant people who believed things we find difficult to understand today. I think it is important for historians to explore these people and what they believed so that we may better understand major events that shaped our world, and hopefully not repeat this events.
Yes, yes, yes, a million times, yes. The CW forums on social media are a veritable cesspool of this behavior. It’s intellectually dishonest and educationally destructive. I feel that those of us who recognize who these people were without being dismissive of how they thought or what they did are being drowned out by these factions that worship one side while demonizing the other.
Well said, Scott. I think it is important to engage these people to a degree, but at some point you have to acknowledge that such an approach is not only "intellectually dishonest," but not history at all.
Yes, empathy is needed! "What is commonly understood as the foreignness of history is discoverable when empathy is shown for all historical actors. Empathy should not be confused with acceptance of the unacceptable or conflated with sympathy for the detestable." Great quote.
In my experience, some younger historians my age when studying historians have had a bias on the events but not in a Lost Cause kind of way. I don’t mean to say that their love of Sherman, Grant, Lincoln and the Union isn’t in the right place, but being so subjective toward the Confederacy to the point where some foundational history is questioned. One example of this interpretation I’ve heard is that Antietam isn’t the bloodiest day in history because they don’t count the Confederate casualties.
Can't say that I've seen what you are describing re: Antietam, but I have heard it suggested that we not refer to Confederate military ranks because the Confederacy wasn't a legitimate nation. I find this to be an absurd suggestion. How do you write military history without referring to Confederate ranks?
I have been trying to construct a CWRT talk on the need for less "judgmentalism" in Civil War History. My particular focus is on a set of folks who have decided that the recent resurgence of interest in US Grant needs a course-correction---that every error or judgment in his Memoirs is based on a deliberate lie and an effort to elevate his buddies above his non-buddies. I'll not mention names, you can probably figure them out. This is the same kind of thing, just directed at a different person. Can't we just study and learn about these people without putting on a judge's robes to pass an historical sentence on everyone? Jackson was a significant (and interesting, and very flawed) figure in American history. Noting his 200th birthday is not necessarily proposing a big celebration of it. (I knew his birthday was around this point on the calendar, but did not know it was his 200th.)
I haven't taken any interest in the scholarship you reference. It reminds me of a string of studies of Robert E. Lee that appeared in the early 2000s. Bevin Alexander authored one of them. They were all poor rip-offs of Alan Nolan's LEE CONSIDERED. I like the idea you have in mind for your talk. Keep working at it.
A long time ago, on your original blog, you posted a link to a discussion of some of the errors in Frank Varney's work on Grant. It would have been shortly after his first book came out, it was LONG ago.
I realize this isn’t exactly your point; but I am not impressed with Bluesky. I finally got permission to set up an account thinking I was moving to something more positive than Twitter. Much of the discourse I have observed is of the caliber you site. I don’t see it as any better than what I observe on Twitter.
More to your point; I think Jackson is worthy of study for his use of light infantry and for the impact of his thinking on Confederate strategic thought. There is an argument that the he shaped the 1863 campaign in the East, prior to his death. But to study him is not to celebrate him.
Bluesky has grown on me. I use it to stay in touch with a small group of historian friends. I've managed to accrue a little over 2k followers, which continues to bring in new newsletter subscribers.
I couldn’t agree with your perspective more. How a historian is attacked for merely stating an indisputable fact and nothing more is beyond me. (It’s not like you added an exclamation point or smiley face I assume). There’s no way I could deal with the constant backlash, misunderstandings, and negativity from so many randos. It’s why I have never once posted or responded to anything on social media, and have never even heard of blue sky
I don’t belong to Blue Sky so I’m unable to see the comments. I believed you are merely noting the date of his birth and can appreciate his achievements for his side (just as we can appreciate Rommel) without endorsing the Confederate side. Nonetheless, as I posted on the Chat, his death was a blessing.
Thanks for the comment. Jackson was a military man and military men die in war. I've said more than once that I think the right side won that war. That's the end of it for me.
Have you been kicked off BlueSky? Or have you quit? kevinmlevin.bsky.social results in "Unable to resolve handle".
Hi Jim,
First, thank you very much for becoming a paid subscriber. I very much appreciate your support. Yes, I deleted my Bluesky account earlier this week. Unlike twitter, there is no way to simply deactivate it temporarily. That said, I have no regrets. In fact, I haven't thought much about it at all. There have been way too many voices in my head of late and most of it is nothing more than distraction. I've come to realize that this site is really where I want to focus my efforts. My interactions here are so much more enjoyable and rewarding. Hope to hear more from you on this platform.
Yes that is in fact my real name, im named for my uncle who was named after his father’s friend, Kenneth Foster. Both he and my grandfather were pilots in the RAF in France in 1918.
I really appreciate your perspective regarding Jackson and the Confederacy overall. As a historian myself I see the issues regarding historical thought/memory being viewed through a partisanship lens. Each aspect of history is worthy of study regardless of one’s own personal political sentiment. I think both you and Pete Carmichael do an excellent job with objectively evaluating and expressing a historical topic. Keep up the good work!
Ken Berry, is that your real name? My apologies if it is and you get this question all the time. You’re probably not the scourge of the west!
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ken. I completely agree that politics, more than any other factor right now, is influencing popular understanding of the Civil War era.
Studying major Confederate figures is a little like studying major German figures of the 20s to the 40s. These are generally not ignorant people who believed things we find difficult to understand today. I think it is important for historians to explore these people and what they believed so that we may better understand major events that shaped our world, and hopefully not repeat this events.
I couldn't agree more, Michael.
Yes, yes, yes, a million times, yes. The CW forums on social media are a veritable cesspool of this behavior. It’s intellectually dishonest and educationally destructive. I feel that those of us who recognize who these people were without being dismissive of how they thought or what they did are being drowned out by these factions that worship one side while demonizing the other.
Well said, Scott. I think it is important to engage these people to a degree, but at some point you have to acknowledge that such an approach is not only "intellectually dishonest," but not history at all.
Yes, empathy is needed! "What is commonly understood as the foreignness of history is discoverable when empathy is shown for all historical actors. Empathy should not be confused with acceptance of the unacceptable or conflated with sympathy for the detestable." Great quote.
In my experience, some younger historians my age when studying historians have had a bias on the events but not in a Lost Cause kind of way. I don’t mean to say that their love of Sherman, Grant, Lincoln and the Union isn’t in the right place, but being so subjective toward the Confederacy to the point where some foundational history is questioned. One example of this interpretation I’ve heard is that Antietam isn’t the bloodiest day in history because they don’t count the Confederate casualties.
Hi Sam,
Can't say that I've seen what you are describing re: Antietam, but I have heard it suggested that we not refer to Confederate military ranks because the Confederacy wasn't a legitimate nation. I find this to be an absurd suggestion. How do you write military history without referring to Confederate ranks?
I have been trying to construct a CWRT talk on the need for less "judgmentalism" in Civil War History. My particular focus is on a set of folks who have decided that the recent resurgence of interest in US Grant needs a course-correction---that every error or judgment in his Memoirs is based on a deliberate lie and an effort to elevate his buddies above his non-buddies. I'll not mention names, you can probably figure them out. This is the same kind of thing, just directed at a different person. Can't we just study and learn about these people without putting on a judge's robes to pass an historical sentence on everyone? Jackson was a significant (and interesting, and very flawed) figure in American history. Noting his 200th birthday is not necessarily proposing a big celebration of it. (I knew his birthday was around this point on the calendar, but did not know it was his 200th.)
Hi Jim,
I haven't taken any interest in the scholarship you reference. It reminds me of a string of studies of Robert E. Lee that appeared in the early 2000s. Bevin Alexander authored one of them. They were all poor rip-offs of Alan Nolan's LEE CONSIDERED. I like the idea you have in mind for your talk. Keep working at it.
A long time ago, on your original blog, you posted a link to a discussion of some of the errors in Frank Varney's work on Grant. It would have been shortly after his first book came out, it was LONG ago.
I realize this isn’t exactly your point; but I am not impressed with Bluesky. I finally got permission to set up an account thinking I was moving to something more positive than Twitter. Much of the discourse I have observed is of the caliber you site. I don’t see it as any better than what I observe on Twitter.
More to your point; I think Jackson is worthy of study for his use of light infantry and for the impact of his thinking on Confederate strategic thought. There is an argument that the he shaped the 1863 campaign in the East, prior to his death. But to study him is not to celebrate him.
Bluesky has grown on me. I use it to stay in touch with a small group of historian friends. I've managed to accrue a little over 2k followers, which continues to bring in new newsletter subscribers.
I couldn’t agree with your perspective more. How a historian is attacked for merely stating an indisputable fact and nothing more is beyond me. (It’s not like you added an exclamation point or smiley face I assume). There’s no way I could deal with the constant backlash, misunderstandings, and negativity from so many randos. It’s why I have never once posted or responded to anything on social media, and have never even heard of blue sky
There are good and bad parts. I tend to stay from political discussions on Twitter but in areas that I’m interested in, it can be helpful.
I’ve never posted anything or responded to anything on social media, unless this is considered social media, then I guess I have
I don’t belong to Blue Sky so I’m unable to see the comments. I believed you are merely noting the date of his birth and can appreciate his achievements for his side (just as we can appreciate Rommel) without endorsing the Confederate side. Nonetheless, as I posted on the Chat, his death was a blessing.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the comment. Jackson was a military man and military men die in war. I've said more than once that I think the right side won that war. That's the end of it for me.