PDA

View Full Version : Dixiepedia



goatgirl
08-01-2007, 06:18 PM
How many times have we read history books (not to mention posts!), and wished we could edit them and fix typos and information errors? At last, here is a history book all Southern sympathizers can edit. http://www.dixiepedia.org/

flattop32355
08-01-2007, 08:37 PM
One more time.....

Justin Runyon
08-01-2007, 09:41 PM
Great, some other faux-academic site where that the dim or easily fooled can rely on. A pox on the guy who came up with wikipedia.

reb64
08-02-2007, 04:44 AM
Great to have a sight that doesn't start out that slavery and ft sumter was the cause and beginning of the war. finally a site not influenced by northern biased academics

bill watson
08-02-2007, 05:11 AM
Type in "slavery" in the Web site search engine. The only entry is that there were black slaveholders. True enough, but I'd been under the impression there was a bit more to it than that. Guess I was wrong.

hanktrent
08-02-2007, 06:46 AM
Type in "slavery" in the Web site search engine. The only entry is that there were black slaveholders. True enough, but I'd been under the impression there was a bit more to it than that. Guess I was wrong.

I bet Alexander Stephens could fix up the slavery entries right nice, if he were still alive. Though I dunno, he might not qualify as a Southern sympathizer.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
08-02-2007, 09:44 AM
A pox on the guy who came up with wikipedia.

Actually because of the extensive comment and "peer" reviews that are constantly ongoing, wikipedia is not all that bad of a resource for many subject matters. I have found many excellent articles on modern historical events and science subjects - some as exoctic as sub-atomic particles and quark theory. Granted I have not looked at much of its Civil War subject matter, but if anyone has a problem with an entry there, feel free to post a correction. wikipedia is only as good on specific subjects as the reviewers that it has for those subjects.

As far as Dixiepedia, what I noticed was the absence of a broad range of sources - the exact opposite of what makes wikipedia so strong. If Dixiepedia wants to truly become a valuable resource, it needs to open up rather than narrow both its reviewer/adminstrator list and its referenced sources.

Justin Runyon
08-02-2007, 10:04 AM
wikipedia is only as good on specific subjects as the reviewers that it has for those subjects.


Tom,

That is precisely what I see as the downfall of the site. The fact that anyone can corret anything means that people who know absolutely nothing can add their two cents as well. Now sure, somebody who is an authority on a subject can correct it the next day and start the process over again. There are some good entries on that site, but the problem is if your not looking something up that onwhich you have a great deal of knowledge (for instance if I am looking up quantum theory or what have you) there is no way for the average person to ascertain what entry, or even what day, they should believe what they read.

The bottom line is, because of these shortcomings and inspite of some of the good entries, wikipedia is not a credible academic source. I have seen freshman university students cite it in classes and in papers. They regretted that both with regard to their reputation and grades.

With regard to dixiepedia, it would appear we agree. The web has enough revisionist history sites that misconstrue and twist history to their own liking, it happens across the board not just among neo-Confederated types. Bottom line is it all stinks, go out and get some good credible authors and some primary source material and one will be the better for it.

MBond057
08-02-2007, 10:50 AM
Problems with Wikipedia being used as a credible academic source.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation

http://sladow.wordpress.com/2006/06/16/wikipedia-not-an-academic-source/

reb64
08-02-2007, 11:30 AM
Type in "slavery" in the Web site search engine. The only entry is that there were black slaveholders. True enough, but I'd been under the impression there was a bit more to it than that. Guess I was wrong.


more to follow i'm sure but you r point is what? that this is wrong as opposed to school books showing only white slave owners?

reb64
08-02-2007, 11:33 AM
Tom,


With regard to dixiepedia, it would appear we agree. The web has enough revisionist history sites that misconstrue and twist history to their own liking, it happens across the board not just among neo-Confederated types. Bottom line is it all stinks, go out and get some good credible authors and some primary source material and one will be the better for it.

as opposed to those who slanted the history as put forth now?

Frenchie
08-02-2007, 11:34 AM
William, be gentle. ;)

hanktrent
08-02-2007, 12:58 PM
as opposed to those who slanted the history as put forth now?

Seems there are at least two viewpoints here:

Slanting history to promote an agenda is wrong; the goal should be to try to study the past objectively, as much as possible.

or

Slanting history to promote an agenda is good; the only problem is if it's not slanted to promote the right agenda.

I take the first viewpoint. It would seem you take the second?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
08-02-2007, 01:18 PM
The fact that anyone can corret anything means that people who know absolutely nothing can add their two cents as well.

Interestingly enough, recently I was reading an article about some of the moderators and super-moderators that referee the "corrections" and additions to wikipedia. These guys literally spend hours per day performing these tasks - to the point that it makes me look like an occasional visitor here. While I would not necessarily use wikipedia as a primary reference for fine details on specific events, I do find that it is a good source to get an overall picture of a topic, a starting point to point me in the direction for future research, or, for modern history, a good refresher for my memory. For highly scientific subjects, it can also be valuable because the material has to be written so that the moderators can actually understand what is being discussed versus a highly technical journal full of obscure jargon. When I get curious about such subjects as quarks, bosons, sterling engines, the seeback effect, etc., I have found it to be a good starting point.

Rob
08-02-2007, 02:17 PM
How many times have we read history books (not to mention posts!), and wished we could edit them and fix typos and information errors? At last, here is a history book all Southern sympathizers can edit. http://www.dixiepedia.org/

All I saw was a blank page. :confused:

Try here:

http://www.southernhistoricalreview.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

bill watson
08-02-2007, 03:42 PM
more to follow i'm sure but you r point is what? that this is wrong as opposed to school books showing only white slave owners?

I suppose my point would inevitably have to be that two wrongs don't make a right.

And remember my fairly well known tendency against rendering judgment: I usually find things "interesting" rather than good or bad.

In this case I found it "interesting," that's all, that this website of all things Southern had only one small article devoted to slavery, and that to an "interesting" and relatively unknown aspect.

Remember also that I'm the only guy in this forum and the only reenactor in the world who has written Civil War fiction based on Civil War fact in which a black Confederate soldier is a secondary but key character.

Darn it. :-)

Justin Runyon
08-02-2007, 11:23 PM
Thanks Hank, That sums up what I was going to say.

Clearly slanting History is wrong. As a trained Historian we attempt to remain as objective as possible and allow the primary source material to speak for itself. There is the risk of flaw within that interpretation but it is far less likely from academia than from some fly by night "South will rise again" or "Every southerner is Simon Legree" website.

I think, as Hank said, that too many think twisting History is wrong only if it contradicts what they believe.

RebelBugler
08-03-2007, 07:01 AM
"History is written by the victor." Unknown
While I realize there are issues with Wikipedia being used as a credible academic source, I find that some of the assertions, claims and information reported provide motivation to do independent research and verification. Sometimes the information is discredited and sometimes relatively obscure but documented historical information comes to light.

The same can be said for some of the historical works that do not meet the alleged peer review standard.

tompritchett
08-03-2007, 09:32 AM
Sometimes the information is discredited and sometimes relatively obscure but documented historical information comes to light.

There is nothing wrong with bringing the normally obscure information to light. The problem is when only that information is used to build your case rather than using it to present a balanced picture based upon the full set of documentation. Likewise, it is also wrong to ignore the more obscure information because that information does not fit one's preconceived view. If Dixiepedia and the various South Was Right books serve any purpose, it is to bring to light the more obscure information that is ignored by many, but not all, mainstream historians because it does not fit their preconceived notions. However, the major caveat to reading any of these pieces is that they too are ignoring an even larger body of information for exactly the same reason. In other words, these sources can sometimes be good for finding the more obscure pieces of information (e.g., the text of Lincoln's speech when he was addressing Texas's right to leave Mexico, or some of Lincoln's comments on the Negro race), but, when evaluating their overall message, it should be be remembered that the picture being presented is not a balanced picture based upon the full body of information.

Micah Trent
08-03-2007, 12:42 PM
Clearly slanting History is wrong. As a trained Historian we attempt to remain as objective as possible and allow the primary source material to speak for itself. There is the risk of flaw within that interpretation but it is far less likely from academia than from some fly by night "South will rise again" or "Every southerner is Simon Legree" website.

Intersting discussion. I agree with what Hank and Runyon have mentioned.
To me, one of the biggest problems we have today, when it comes to researching history in general, is the fact that much of the new material made available, wether it be by book or internet, is very opinionated. (I know, every author has their right to their opinions:rolleyes: ) But when you are tying to sale those opinions as facts...it's just wrong. Espceically, when sources are poorly given...if any at all...and credit not given where do.

RebelBugler
08-04-2007, 07:21 AM
I find it interesting that so much new historical material on Abraham Lincoln is now coming to light. For so long, historians have apparently ignored or suppressed his faults, portraying him with almost saintly qualities.

Much of the recently published information on Lincoln appears to be well substantiated, particularly with regard to his desire to preserve the Union at any cost and his willingness to usurp the Constitution. Curious as to why the mainstream historians overlooked or minimized Lincoln's faults for so many years, if historians are to accurately and objectively portray the truth.

bill watson
08-04-2007, 08:41 AM
I believe Lincoln's transgressions with habeas corpus and Constitutional issues were addressed at the moment they happened, by his critics and by Lincoln himself. And I know this how? By reading over the last 50 years. So I'm not sure what you mean by saying this is just coming to light or whatever. In fact, no disrespect, but I'm not sure how anyone couldn't know this already, given the amount of ink devoted to it since 1861.

His desire to preserve the Union at any cost was addressed by him in a letter published by newspapers in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

His upsetting of a Constitutional limit was addressed by him at the time by asking his critics if he should let the Constitution be destroyed because he would not set aside one part of it for a time. The exact quote escapes me, but it was the usual compelling logic expressed in words of few syllables that, as was said at the time, every ploughman in the nation could understand immediately.

MBond057
08-04-2007, 09:04 AM
History has taught us that the victorious ones dictate and articulate their point of view. There is no doubt “Honest Abe” throughout the Constitution to preserve the union. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and many Marylanders were arrested without charges for having southern sympathies.

Lincoln’s actions and writing are being analyzed by a new generation of historians who were removed from the emotional experience of those times.

After the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex parte Milligan (1866), ruling that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Taney explains in the Supreme Court ruling that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional because only the legislative branch has the power to suspend the writ, not the executive branch.

Many scholars have argued that the Constitution is a living and breathing document. As a republic we should always hold our elected officials accountable to uphold and follow our Constitution. Freedom is fragile if we allow the executive branch to suspend Constitutional rights and liberties in the name of National Security.

I believe Ben Franklin words ring true to this day:
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”.

Justin Runyon
08-04-2007, 09:16 AM
True, for many years Historians did not write about the many complexities of Lincoln, but it is not always the vicotrs that pull this off. For as many years, perhaps more, Lee has been held up as some sort of "Marble man". It has only been recent biographers that have really began to put a human face, with all his problems, failures, and victories, on Lee.

So you see, it's not just the big bad yankees that can pull this off. Further, as a man living in the 21st century, I do not see myself as victor or vanquished, so the victors got done writing history a century ago or better.

MBond057
08-04-2007, 09:28 AM
Justin,

Excellent point!

I believe each side during and after the Civil War celebrated their heroes with a little bit of truth and myth. This is how legends our born.

Thanks for the dialog.

RebelBugler
08-04-2007, 09:55 AM
True, for many years Historians did not write about the many complexities of Lincoln, but it is not always the victors that pull this off. For as many years, perhaps more, Lee has been held up as some sort of "Marble man". It has only been recent biographers that have really began to put a human face, with all his problems, failures, and victories, on Lee.

With no disrespect meant to anyone, I do not believe the level of recent criticism directed at General Lee even remotely approaches the plethora of criticism leveled at Abraham Lincoln.

While Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his sentiments to preserve the Union at any cost are well known, substantive additional information has been forthcoming.

Read the comments of nationally syndicated columnist and George Mason Professor Walter E. Williams in the Foreword of The Real Lincoln

tompritchett
08-04-2007, 10:17 AM
While Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his sentiments to preserve the Union at any cost are well known, substantive additional information has been forthcoming.

As were many of the actions of Jefferson Davis. Both men were complex men who saw the very fate of their nations at stake and therefore took whatever actions they saw necessary to preserve that which they had taken oaths to defend.

As to over-looking the faults of famous men in general, personally I don't think most serious historians do so, because most serious historians, through their research, realize that most men are complex in their nature and are often full of apparent contradictions. Unfortunately, most members of the general public do not want to hear about the complexity and apparent contradictions of our heroes and villains. We want "black" and "white" and can not deal with shades of gray. Therefore you see the over-simplifications with emphasize what the historians feel are their dominant color as the "historian" sees it.

goatgirl
08-14-2007, 02:36 PM
To me, one of the biggest problems we have today, when it comes to researching history in general, is the fact that much of the new material made available, wether it be by book or internet, is very opinionated.

The old books are not exempt from being very opinionated - authors such as E. A. Pollard were quite opinionated. In some ways they were more opinionated than some modern authors due to the fact many had laid their life on the line or lost family for one side or the other. Yet this brings up an interesting aspect.

What history books of The War, written by men who lived through it, are unbiased? Is Jefferson Davis’ Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government or Horace Greeley’s American Conflict strictly un-opinionated history? From those who take the Northern view, I would particularly like to hear which Southern history book of The War you think is least biased and most factual; from those who take the Southern view, which Northern account of The War you consider as least biased- again, by men who lived through the conflict.

jthlmnn
08-14-2007, 09:48 PM
Supreme Court Justice Taney explains in the Supreme Court ruling that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional because only the legislative branch has the power to suspend the writ, not the executive branch.

Forgive me if I misread, but I believe we may be confusing Justices, here.

Chief Justice Taney died on October 12, 1864 and was replaced by Salmon P. Chase in December of that year. I believe it was Sullivan who delivered the majority opinion in Milligan, and Chase the dissenting opinion. As I recall, Taney did offer an opinion much earlier than 1866, but did so in his capacity as a circuit judge and without a case in his court that pertained to the issue.
Oh, Taney also used much stronger language than that used in Ex parte Milligan. :-)

hanktrent
08-15-2007, 07:20 AM
Forgive me if I misread, but I believe we may be confusing Justices, here.

Chief Justice Taney died on October 12, 1864 and was replaced by Salmon P. Chase in December of that year. I believe it was Sullivan who delivered the majority opinion in Milligan, and Chase the dissenting opinion. As I recall, Taney did offer an opinion much earlier than 1866, but did so in his capacity as a circuit judge and without a case in his court that pertained to the issue.
Oh, Taney also used much stronger language than that used in Ex parte Milligan. :-)

I think we're shooting for ex parte Merryman, rather than Milligan, in 1861. Taney was chief justice of the supreme court, but was sitting as a Maryland circuit judge in between supreme court sessions at the time.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Che
08-15-2007, 08:38 AM
Read the comments of nationally syndicated columnist and George Mason Professor Walter E. Williams in the Foreword of The Real Lincoln Uh-huh. And Richard Gamble in Independent Review states that "The Real Lincoln (is) seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation."

jthlmnn
08-15-2007, 09:07 AM
I think we're shooting for ex parte Merryman, rather than Milligan, in 1861. Taney was chief justice of the supreme court, but was sitting as a Maryland circuit judge in between supreme court sessions at the time.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Bingo! And thank you for the correction.

toptimlrd
08-15-2007, 06:24 PM
Uh-huh. And Richard Gamble in Independent Review states that "The Real Lincoln (is) seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation."


I have quite a bit of repect for Professor Williams, he is a brilliant economist. Now my question is, why did he do a forward in a book on Lincoln? I would trust his judgement in books on the economy or the economic impact of the war perhaps, but a history book; well his credentials are somewhat lacking.

RebelBugler
08-16-2007, 06:37 AM
I have quite a bit of repect for Professor Williams, he is a brilliant economist. Now my question is, why did he do a forward in a book on Lincoln? I would trust his judgement in books on the economy or the economic impact of the war perhaps, but a history book; well his credentials are somewhat lacking.

I have read both of Professor DiLorenzo's books (The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked) and have found them to be most informative. To date, I am unfamiliar with any actual substantiation of the charge that the books are “seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation".

As to Professor William's credentials to write the forward, the books are written from the perspective of historical economics versus typical history. In fact, DiLorenzo is himself an economics Professor. The books go into a great deal of detail on the expanded centralization of government, central banking system, governmental subsidy of private ventures, taxation, how tariffs were detrimental to the South, economic reasons that the free states opposed slavery, and comparison of agrarian vs. industrial society.

toptimlrd
08-16-2007, 09:09 AM
I have read both of Professor DiLorenzo's books (The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked) and have found them to be most informative. To date, I am unfamiliar with any actual substantiation of the charge that the books are “seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation".

As to Professor William's credentials to write the forward, the books are written from the perspective of historical economics versus typical history. In fact, DiLorenzo is himself an economics Professor. The books go into a great deal of detail on the expanded centralization of government, central banking system, governmental subsidy of private ventures, taxation, how tariffs were detrimental to the South, economic reasons that the free states opposed slavery, and comparison of agrarian vs. industrial society.


If the books are on the economy of the era, I may have to give them a read through. As an economics geek myself I would probably find them interesting. I will of course have to look at the alleged inconsistencies as well and see if they bear merit.