I’ve seen many places on this thread where FLT-bird claimed to have posted data, quotes, etc.
I can’t recall any place where you actually did, or even posted a reference back to your previous quote posting, i.e., “See my post # 123 above”.
As the poet said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
LOL! As if this were the first thread on the subject....as if you and I had not posted back and forth 100+ times already. It is I who think the lady doth protest too much.
Noooooo, the Civil War is the most written about subject in America, with litterally libraries full of books these past 150+ years.
How many support Lost Cause Myths, is it 1% or .1%?
A small number.
The rest use credible sources to write real history, from the beginning.
Pure fantasy. The majority opinion of PC Revisionist Academia today was not the majority view even within Academia a generation ago. The “its all about slavery” mantra really got going again in the 1980s after having been dismissed as the laughable propaganda it was generations earlier.
That’s not to say some historians don’t disagree, of course they do, always will.
But the pack of lies which falls in the category of “Lost Cause Myth” is not history, never was, never will be.
Its the pack of lies that falls under the category of PC Revisionism that is not history, never was and never will be. Notice how its invariably the hardcore Leftists who push this line of BS?
And here’s why: whatever parts are true are real history, whatever is lies is Lost Cause Myth.
Real history are the facts and quotes and sources I’ve provided numerous times. PC Revisionist lies and propaganda are the “its all about slavery” and virtuous North myths.
Well... lady or not, I do protest your repeated complaints about being asked to provide sources & quotes.
You are here trying to defend the Lost Cause myths that 99% of historians view as little more than self-serving revisionism.
So you start off with the disadvantage that nobody can take your opinions seriously.
The way you add weight to mere opinions is by citing the sources & quotes you took them from.
Now some of us are somewhat familiar with various arguments and have seen where they come from.
So we know sources for some arguments and may not challenge you on that at first.
But whenever you concoct something new, then we'll want to see where you got it and if all you do is blow smoke in response, we'll write it off as being nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.
You might look at it this way: a request for sources is also an offer to take your argument seriously, if the source proves legit.
That's why I keep dozens & dozens of sources, quotes & data summaries handy just in case I'm challenged on them.
Plus I know how to look up many more whenever something new comes along.
Let me put it this way: your opinions are only as valuable as the data they're based on and if you refuse to supply us sources, then your opinions, by themselves, carry no weight here.
Flt-bird: "Pure fantasy.
The majority opinion of PC Revisionist Academia today was not the majority view even within Academia a generation ago.
The “its all about slavery” mantra really got going again in the 1980s after having been dismissed as the laughable propaganda it was generations earlier."
So now you are also an expert in Civil War historiography and in intellectual trends in academia?
And you acquired this expertise where, exactly?
I'm no expert but do remember being taught as a young man that Charles Beard's "progressivism" and "economic determinism", aka Marxism, were at the root cause of Civil War.
I didn't believe it then and don't now because that's not what those people said at the time.
What they said then was slavery was their number one reason for secession.
That makes slavery important regardless of how sophisticated intellectuals with their Marxist theories might try to explain it away.
Flt-bird: "Its the pack of lies that falls under the category of PC Revisionism that is not history, never was and never will be.
Notice how its invariably the hardcore Leftists who push this line of BS?"
No, if you review the list of Civil War "schools" in my link, you'll see that the Marxists, Progressives & leftists have always emphasized economic determinism over slavery or race.
Flt-bird: "Real history are the facts and quotes and sources I’ve provided numerous times.
PC Revisionist lies and propaganda are the 'its all about slavery' and virtuous North myths."
Facts & quotes are "real history" and I've not seen those from FLT-bird.
"Schools of thought", interpretations, theories, points of view, etc., are all matters of opinions, all subject to scrutiny and revision.
Opinions unsupported by substantial "real history" are worth only the electrons used to distribute them.
By the way, one leader of the Comparative School, which does emphasize slavery, was Eugene Genovese who in the last decades of his life became a solid Southern conservative.