Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

[M.Latham]

Well, at least she's a history professor...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/10/the_revisionist/

Thoughts and comment?

Mark Latham

[Spinster]

Re: Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

Dr. Gilpin-Faust brings together a vast array of under-represented sources, from voices not often heard.

Just as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's revisionist may also be another woman's historian who simply gives voice to a part of the society and societal undercurrents often ignored.

A number of years ago, I deliberately chose to limit my impression to the working poor underclass of the Deep South. Its wayyyyyy underdone, but its also culturally who I am. Along the way, I have learned much of the depth of influence of matriarchial power and its exercise within Southern culture. Dr. Gilpin Faust's work in Mothers of Invention was no small influence in that education. Her additional work in dealing with sexuality and its use in dominance and control in the upper classes is also a valuable resource.

Just as the war had many causes, so did its end. A woman's voice and admiration can send a man off to war---and a woman's plea can bring him home--especially when all he sees is devastation around him.

[unclefrank]

Re: Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

So this is where our most intellegent young minds go off to be educated eh! :sarcastic

[Gary of CA]

Re: Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

So the South lost the war because the rich women failed to support the war effort? Isn't that overstating the role of the affluent women, a very small minority of the overall population of the South. I guess having more men, ships, guns, better generals, superior railroad, production capability, financial assets, didn't have a role to play in the war. Secondly, if the gud prefessah is right, then the affluent Northern Women aren't receiving their due credit for the Union victory over the South.

[hiplainsyank]

Re: Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

Have ya'll read the book? I suspect that the only one here who has is Mrs. Lawson, and don't you think it a bit odd to tear into something in which you have not read, not seen the citations? Since I live now in Massachusetts and originally read this article in my morning paper, I will probably read the book.
However, even if Gilpin Faust was overstating her case a bit, you just about have to do that these days with the sheer volumes of Civil War scholarship just to get any notice. As someone who reads a lot in two areas like this (the Civil War and theology), this tends to be the case more often than not for new scholars trying to break into an established and immensely studied field.
And no, it does not follow logically that northern wealthy women won the war for the Union if the southern elite women helped the Confederacy lose it. In fact, I strongly suspect from the little I know that most elite northern women were barely touched at all by the war because, as Shelby Foote put it, the north was fighting with one hand behind its back.
In any case, all of these debates regarding why one side won and the other lost go back to the core debate of whether one believes the Confederacy had a legitimate chance to win or not. And people are all over the map on this one.

[Spinster]

Re: Harvard University, New President and New Thinking...

:p Here, here, Miz Grimshaw--now you are actually expecting folks to read a scholar's work before commenting upon it. Looks like you are in the running for the John Stillwagon Award (a former moderator who actually did expect folks to read books)

The war had many causes and effects--and did not occur in a vacumn. Each and every one of those military men was first a civilian, and the effects of the war on the civilian population had a deep effect on men so far from home--whether Federal or Confederate.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the particular viewpoint expressed is only valid if one has actually read the work at hand, and has a passing understanding of the depth of the arguement and the sources cited. I don't buy all of it, but I have made the effort. No short article scanned upon the net is a substitute for actually reading the work. My second copy of this book is approaching the 'worn out' stage.

And on the flip side of this arguement- I've long acknowledged my ignorance of many matters military---and Mr. Heath had to beat me over the head to make me understand that a woman of my age and station in 1860 would have had a better knowledge of such than I currently do.

I'm on a campaign to remedy that this year, and my reading list is pretty hefty. One would hope that a number of military men would make the same effort in learning civilian life and societal influences.......

[Edwin Carl Erwin]

Mothers of Invention

Read The Mothers of Invention nearly 10 years ago & found interesting Dr. Faust's social, political, & sexual interpretation regarding the upheavals of the war. She holds a variety of critical lenses up to the Byzantine complexities of the times. I remember there were aspects of the book that I both agreed & disagreed with. Doubtless, you may do the same on reading the book.

[Custerboy]

Re: Mothers of Invention

Read The Mothers of Invention nearly 10 years ago & found interesting Dr. Faust's social, political, & sexual interpretation regarding the upheavals of the war. She holds a variety of critical lenses up to the Byzantine complexities of the times. I remember there were aspects of the book that I both agreed & disagreed with. Doubtless, you may do the same on reading the book.

This book was one of the texts in a CW History class I took last semester. I agree with your critique - good research, but perhaps I'm still seeing things through a male perspective.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

We All

see the world through our imprints.

Dr. Gilpin-Faust is not going to do it any differently, she is going to see history through the lenses of whom she is. A good historian can overcome their own biases and write decent history. A bad one just interpets history the way that suits their personal biases best.

To pinpoint the cause of a lost war as the lack of enthusiasm by a relatively few non-combattants/policy/decision makers is a remarkable leap in logic to say the least.

Based on what is in the article her conclusions are an interesting intepetation of a statistically insignificant group of people. You can prove almost anything you want if you select data that suits your premise and then limit it to a small enough group.

Was it a contributing factor, maybe. The cause? Doubt it and by the tenor of the article so do most of her peers.

Of course she would appeal to revisonist thinkers of a particular persuasion. To assume that a small group of women, as opposed to the 3+ Million men that fought the war decided the outcome will be accepted in some circles and rejected in most.

But as well all know America's higher education system has a distinct bias to it and it is of little wonder that she would appeal to that group given her conclusions.

But then again, this is America if that is who the University wants they are entitled to have her and let the chips fall where they may.