Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday"

From McClurken Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Deprecated: Optional parameter $attribs declared before required parameter $contents is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Xml.php on line 131
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
The issue over the "truthful" history of the Civil has been a common link between all the various readings this week, especially in McPherson's essay concerning textbooks.  He mentions how Rutherford created her own "facts" surrounding the Civil War which were completely false.  How do you think this push by the South to embody the Lost Cause rhetoric in textbooks has affected the memory of the war today?  Also,  do you think these "facts" presented by Rutherford should be considered as historical interpretations of the war despite their untruthfulness? -ABratchie
 
The issue over the "truthful" history of the Civil has been a common link between all the various readings this week, especially in McPherson's essay concerning textbooks.  He mentions how Rutherford created her own "facts" surrounding the Civil War which were completely false.  How do you think this push by the South to embody the Lost Cause rhetoric in textbooks has affected the memory of the war today?  Also,  do you think these "facts" presented by Rutherford should be considered as historical interpretations of the war despite their untruthfulness? -ABratchie
 +
 +
 +
I have never learned about some of the beliefs that Grant had about the Civil War that he wrote in "Report to Congress." In particular, Grant said that South's advantages offset Northern superiority and that Northern soldiers fought just as well and under more difficult circumstances to that of the South. Do you agree with these statements? Do you think the South really did have more advantages in the war or was this just a ploy by Grant to get people to believe the North had to work harder in order to win? -Avanness
 +
 +
 +
To add to our conversation from Tuesday, the essay in Fahs and Waugh on textbooks talked about how veterans wanted to keep the "Confederate heritage alive through children of veterans." Do you think these textbooks and the push to get the "correct" history of the war written down from the South's perspective are two reasons as to why the Lost Cause view is still around today and just as popular especially in the South? Were the ex-Confederates trying to create a legacy they knew would continue to be alive more than 100 years later because of their children and future relatives? -Avanness

Revision as of 21:40, 9 February 2011