id
was set in the arguments array for the "side panel" sidebar. Defaulting to "sidebar-1". Manually set the id
to "sidebar-1" to silence this notice and keep existing sidebar content. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 4.2.0.) in /home/netscrib/public_html/civilwarcavalry/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4239id
was set in the arguments array for the "footer" sidebar. Defaulting to "sidebar-2". Manually set the id
to "sidebar-2" to silence this notice and keep existing sidebar content. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 4.2.0.) in /home/netscrib/public_html/civilwarcavalry/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4239Suddenly, he’s a self-pitying alcoholic and his bad habit is being covered up by no one other than the President and top officials. So I naturally get the material from all three authors to determine what information they are using to write about this new revelation and they all quote each other but not one has any documentation. Pure conjecture based on what??
I’ve been able to pretty much knock the legs out from under the conclusion but there are three books out that completely revamp history with a new ‘myth’ that has no basis in fact.
So, keep knocking out the myths.
]]>Before folks make an assessment on something as “big” as the effects of Stuart’s ride, it help to have all the information possible. We have put it all in one book, for the very first time, for folks to then judge for themselves.
J. D. Petruzzi
]]>But I agree that is difficult to separate myth (‘a collective opinion on’, so to speak) from opinion, propaganda and mistakes. The use of logic should sort that out. I must say I have some problems with myth-debunking as a start for research, it reminds me too much of bad revisionism.
]]>J.D. Petruzzi
]]>I agree with JD’s interpretation of my words. I view my role as making sure that myths–things that are not true, but which are accepted as true–are eradicated.
Eric
]]>J.D. Petruzzi
]]>This sort of depends, doesn’t it? I hardly consider the point of the discussion between mrs Petruzzi and Kelly a form of mythbusting. It is my view that a historian should research any subject without any bias, with respect for the people involved. I wouldn’t regard the perpetuation of myths nor its busting a primary task.
]]>I guess it’s in the semantics to a degree. The definition could be applied to the armies as a whole, but not to Buford and Heth in my opinion. I guess I look at it this way – if the definition of “meeting engagement,” as I see it anyway, doesn’t apply to the two units involved in the initial clash, then it doesn’t apply to the resulting battle.
Others see it differently, and I respect that.
J.D. Petruzzi
]]>Eric
]]>