Was Cobb really as people perceive him???

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mattsey9

I don't get my history from Hollywood. I hold a MA in American History and defended a final paper dealing with Progressive Era New South. While it's not my exact era of study, I've read more than I care to remember about the Civil War.

The war wasn't fought because of what individual soldiers believed in. The war was fought because state leaders in the South realized that Lincoln was serious about abolishing slavery. Their articles of secession are quite clear about this. Did many soldiers fight for other reasons? Most assuredly. But the underlying theme was the slave issue. Any other reason pales in comparison. The governments on both sides realized this and didn't try to hide it at the time.

There were racists on both sides. I've read passages from Jane Addams about blacks getting the right to vote before women that would make your blood boil. The northern industrialists even helped foster the post-Reconstruction New South that ushered in Jim Crow in an attempt to reconcile the country through capitalism.

On topic: Of course Cobb was a racist when he played. That puts him on the same level as the nearly unanimous majority of white Americans in his era.

Not that you are one, but plenty of ignorant people hold MA's - using a degree to defend your position, as opposed to facts, is worthless in my opinion. I gave examples of individual soldiers' opinions because I wanted you to know that I'm not pulling this out of my *ss. I also gave the exact title of a book that you could read if you are not firmly entrenched in your opinions. But, I know - you have an MA in History, so that ends the discussion.

[Runscott]

One additional comment and then I will bow out of this one: the Civil War is over. I've always been perplexed at the need for some people to continue to line up on one side or the other, 150 years later. I don't really need to express my opinions here on the reasons for the Civil War - many who have researched the topic much more than you or I, have written books specifically on that subject. If you need to vent over things that occurred 150 years ago, and it helps you, then do so. If you are interested in learning, read a book.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Not that you are one, but plenty of ignorant people hold MA's - using a degree to defend your position, as opposed to facts, is worthless in my opinion. I gave examples of individual soldiers' opinions because I wanted you to know that I'm not pulling this out of my *ss. I also gave the exact title of a book that you could read if you are not firmly entrenched in your opinions. But, I know - you have an MA in History, so that ends the discussion.

im pretty sure someone with an MA has opinion on books to read as well. Im sure there are books that take different positions on most subjects. Quoting one book does mean something but its the open course of discussion where there becomes a certain consensus on what the facts are when going through all information as people have to defend and listen to other positions....usually the discussion is between published scholars which later becomes the established consensus..there are always outliers

in any event, i not saying who is right...but just saying pointing to one book as dogma basically is just as bad or maybe worse as someone thinking since they have a degree they know it all too (not that someone did that)

[packs]

The South would spend the next century enacting Jim Crow laws to re-establish a white dominated society. They didn't spend the next century trying to preserve a stronger Union. That tells me the war was more about one thing than the other, even if individual soldiers didn't know it.

[thenavarro]

Ordered Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty today. Hope it's a good read