 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 513 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Since it is obviously incongrous with the rest of the States Rights and Slavery thread, I guess I should step out of the shelter of said thread to continue with the "author bias" train of thought, which started with this exchange:
Ole: " Among the stable of published historians, name one who writes with a bias."
Me: James M. McPherson.
My question would be 'is McPherson biased *because* of his research or *in spite* of it?' If the former, bully for him; if the latter, watch out.
Albert Castel gets skewered for his 'anti-Sherman bias'. Interestingy, in his preface, he writss that he was a Sherman fan prior to resarching 'Decision in the West' but his research lead to a different conclusion which he then passes on to the reader.
Historians are not journalists; their job is to distill facts and actions into lessons.
HankC