Considering the recent exchange over this post in Richard Williams’ blog, I wonder…
If working beyond James I. Robertson’s traditionalist approach to the Stonewall Brigade, if an historian dug a little deeper, what might the reaction be if the results of the study proved less than favorable/honorable? What if, for example, someone started examining the motivations of the soldiers in the brigade, focusing specifically on the desertion rate. I think most of us are aware of the brigade and the iconic place that it holds in the annals of the history of the Confederacy, so certainly, questioning this must result in some consequences. Worse yet, if the study not only questioned the reputation, but blemished it, what would happen?
Since such a study would bring the brigade (and possibly the commanding officers) under scrutiny, would the study be considered “liberal history” or, at the very least, a study spurned by the “liberal-minded” within the halls of the academy? Would the “bad thing” be the actual act of bringing the men of the brigade into question, since the brigade holds a high place in Confederate history? Would it be criticized because of the record of the historian who does “the deed?” What if the historian was new to the field and this was his/her first major work? I have no doubt that some would see it as “revisionist history” just for bringing the brigade into question (after all, it would be seen by some as yet another attack on an important part of Confederate history), but would it also be considered among the products of the liberal institution? If so, how and why?
Cenantua's Blog 
Kevin
October 27, 2008
Robert, — It’s quite telling that I’ve never actually read Williams offer any kind of analysis of an academic work of history in the area of the Civil War that would qualify as “liberal” or “revisionist” or any other vague label that he wishes to apply.
I am on the editorial board of the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, which is a pretty prestigious academic journal. Most of the essays published are written by academic historians. As an editor it is my job on occasion to review submissions. Of course, I take this responsibility very seriously. My job involves analyzing how well the historian interprets evidence and relevant secondary sources as part of the process of forming an argument. There are standards that must be met for an article to be accepted into this journal. I’ve never inquired into the author’s political beliefs; in fact, because it is blind review I don’t have any clue as to who the author is. At the same time my own politics have nothing at all to do with how I judge an essay. The judgment is not about me, but about how well a fellow historian has gone about the process of researching and writing about the past.
Williams has absolutely nothing interesting to say about professional historians because there is no evidence that he even understands what historians do when they research and write about the past. This is not meant as an insult, but an observation based on his own approach to the issue, which is to focus on the group w/o any interest in the craft of history. Finally, isn’t it interesting that he has yet to cite one example in the field of Civil War of a historian whose liberal bias shines through in his/her writing. It’s a waste of time to engage him on this issue.
cenantua
October 27, 2008
Kevin,
Maybe I should have titled this post something like “Just when you thought it was no longer necessary to warn your children of the boogeyman” or “Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!” In the wake of my last comment, I noticed yet another post (with the “quote” that is lacking an author/aka lacking substantiation… “Most of our students come in as good Republicans, but that’s just because they’re ignorant…”) doing the same thing all over again… and still no distinction and/or clarification in the attacks. What a fine way to waste my day.
Apparently, as products of a post-traditionalist academy laden with (according to him) liberals who warp our minds, we’re not actually being objective but conspiring to deconstruct both “Southern” (aka… apparently… Confederate) culture and the “last bastion of Judeo-Christian conservatism.” Great googly moogly! I’ve had enough of that garbage. It’s time to get back to memory of the Civil War.
Well before today’s exchange, I was thinking these “liberal academy” attacks seem awfully familiar. Then it dawned on me… it’s just like what we see in politics! What, for example, is a course of action if one is not strong on the issues? Distract with wild allegations, perpetuate mythology, scare, and redicule. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, vote, not intelligently, but filled with fear and suspicion!
The funny thing is, while directing this attack against the “liberal academy,” as you state, he has yet to cite liberals in the act of stating agendas in their practice (or specific citations of hidden agendas at work), yet all of the sources he cites have conservative agendas, clearly stated. So, if one does not clearly state a conservative agenda, is it indicative of an underlying liberal agenda? Riggghhhhhht… give me a break. I thought the beauty of real-life experience was in a comment to one of your posts… that story about the “dyed-in-the-blue conservative” who blatantly made a point of tying agenda to historical practice.
Thanks for commenting Kevin… and doing your job as an historian.
Kevin
October 28, 2008
Richard clearly believes that the practice of history is part of the broader culture wars and since he is unable to analyze individual works of history as analytical interpretation he is stuck in a defensive mindset.
cenantua
October 28, 2008
I agree Kevin. What’s even more amazing is how, with the defensive mindset, he can consider a comment that I made as “over the top” when it is clear he takes the cake in that respect. It’s interesting that he talks about a certain former professor of an institution at which I took a round of doctoral courses. Granted, that professor was long gone by the time I attended (and from what I have heard, I think I’m the better for it), but he calls the institution “respected,” and I fully agree, and I’d go back if I ever got the opportunity to do so! Yet, I suppose he will have to pull that comment considering my having attended that institution (even if only for a semester) and my being unable to see the stealth-like efforts of liberal academia to brainwash students such as myself. Apparently, even that well-respected institution has fallen prey. For that matter, for my having attended three of six respected universities in the Commonwealth of Virginia, he’ll have to reassess his opinions regarding the quality of education of each one. Alas, it appears that Virginia has fallen!