The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Saturday, July 02, 2011

Hearsay evidence


Ramsdell doesn't like the Reconstruction Act(s): p. 148. He likes their justification even less:

Never, perhaps, was punitive legislation founded upon a more distorted array of evidence, upon a worse misrepresentation as to facts. Some few select witnesses had been examined, a great number of anonymous complaints of persecuted loyalists had been aired, but in the case of no state had there been an honest effort to gain an impartial knowledge of the whole truth, certainly not in Texas. It should be remembered that the accused were given no opportunity to state their own case, or to answer the allegations against them; at best, their protests were simply ignored. The only statements that gained credence were those of military officials, usually not unprejudiced and frequently imposed upon by designing persons, and of local radical politicians who were laboriously striving to excite feeling against the state government in order to serve their own ambitious purposes.

He says the 1800s case against the South was all hearsay. Isn't the whole modern case against the South, that the Southerners had their own tradition of hearsay? But... but I thought that we were supposed to ignore Nordhoff and contemporary newspapers. Only Eric Foner and WEB DuBois could be trusted to deliver this history accurately. (h/t, Michael July 1, 2011 12:23 PM.)

I'm all set to lose my faith. Tell me it ain't so!


posted by Zimri on 18:07 | link | 0 comments

On this site




Sophia



Politics



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved