Talk:Dunning School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To say that the Dunning School approved the policy of Lincoln seems problematic, in that it basically accepts the Dunning School's view of what Lincoln's policy would have been. To say that they approved of the policy of Johnson is also, I believe, problematic - my understanding was that the traditional Dunning School saw Johnson as flawed, and blamed him, in part, for the failure of presidential reconstruction. Here's what Foner says in the preface to his Reconstruction:

Despite their critique of Republican rule in the South, Dunning and Burgess had placed much of the blame for the postwar political impasse on Johnson, who, they charged, had failed to recognize that Congress had a perfect right to insist on legal and constitutional changes that would "reap the just fruits of their triumph over secession and slavery."

Foner goes on to say that later biographers of Johnson in the Dunning School (Robert Winston, George Milton, Howard Beale) rehabilitated him, but it seems problematic to say that the Dunning School, as such, particularly approved of Johnson. john k 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere, historians have not completely demolished all of the framework bequeathed to them by Dunning and his students. In fact, a careful perusal of the endnotes of works by Michael Les Benedict, Michael Perman, and William Gilette all reveal the ways in which scholars continue to debate issues first articulated in Dunning's Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction and Reconstruction.-Sean

Contents

[edit] Unsupported claim

The following appears in the article on Reconstruction and in this article, yet provides no citation. It is removed from this article, pending provision of citation.

They generally agreed with the policies of Abraham Lincoln and especially Andrew Johnson, and sharply condemned Ulysses Grant as corrupt. They saw the "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as corrupt, and believed the freedmen were unready for full participation in politics. Skywriter 05:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the prominence given to his views (uncited ones at that) about voting and the right to bear arms. I fear that this is being used for POV pushing as an attempt to discredit Dr. Dunning's contributions to scholarship. It inclusion at this juncture in the piece gives undue weight and does not logically belong to the sentence in which it appears. I have requested citations for the questionable material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant claim

"Princeton University historian James M. McPherson wrote that the accepted "facts" at the start of the 20th century "supported the prevalent belief in the mental inferiority of black people" and this "conservative interpretation dominated Civil War historiography for many years." This claim has no logical place in this article and will be removed within 24 hours if it is not tied into Dunning school explicitlyDie4Dixie 04:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anyone famliar with the Dunning School and the racial situation in the early 1900s is already aware that the racist attitudes demonstrated by Dunning et al were simply a reflection of the entire society, North and South. Rather than deleting this section, you might want to tap into your own research of this topic and provide the needed linking language. As far as I'm concerned the statement is not sourced and can be eliminated, although giving whoever added it more than a 24 hour ultimatum to provide the source would seem like the polite and civil way to treat an apparent good faith effort-- or is there some urgency that I am unaware of. Perhaps when I have more time or get otherwise inspired, I will add a badly needed background section that describes the conditions that allowed the Dunning School to become as dominant as it was during its time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
your original research is cute about the link; however, you must include a third party cite that makes that link for you.Die4Dixie 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More irrelevancies

"...who opposed allowing black people to vote or bear arms..." this has no bearing on the school and its placement gives it undue weight. I remove it now. Before reverting, please discuss here. Die4Dixie 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Criticism

The criticism section needs some paring down . It is longer than the description of the School of thought. If we can't do without all the criticism, I suggest that we create two articles.One just about the Dunning School, and another entitled "Criticism of Dunning School".Die4Dixie 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Six paragraphs to describe the critcisms of the Dunning School is hardly excessive. The current size of the article would need to expand several times over, under Wikipedia guidelines, before we would need to consider splitting it into a separate article. I agree that the rest of the article should be expanded -- just because nobody to date has decided to do that doesn't mean that other relevant material should be eliminated. Wikipedia articles all go through stages of developement -- the current one is still basically just a stubb. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

"In a series of state-by-state monographs, as well as large-scale histories, Dunning School historians contended that Reconstruction was badly handled after the Radical Republicans won the 1866 elections. John Hope Franklin, former president of the American Historical Association, said Dunning offered "no economic, geographic, or demographic data" "to support his sweeping generalization."[1]::

The direct quote at end is not what the source says. The juxtaposition of this quote with the proceeding part of the paragraph deliberately gives the impression that the sweeping generalization was the first part. The cunning change of "this" for "his" in the direct quote furthers compounds the problem. I am removing this whole paragraph, so that someone can try again. Whoever is editing this article needs to hold himself to accepted conventions of honesty and the use of quotes. I will assume good faith and that the editor doesn't know how to quote properly, rather than is deliberately dishonest. I can only think of a couple of academic disciplines that this type of shoddy work would be tolerated;however, I would not accept it from a tenth grader in a general diploma track, and I won't accept it in an article to which I contribute.Die4Dixie 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed for Irrelevance

"In the 1940s a different approach was pioneered by Howard K. Beale. Beale's approach combined "racial egalitarianism and an insistence on the centrality of class". He claimed that even some of the more progressive southern historians maintained ther[sic] belief "that their race must bar Negroes from social and economic equality." Among those Beale indicated were making positive contributions were "southern liberals" like C. Vann Woodward and Francis Simkins.[1]" This has nothing to do with The Dunning School. Perhaps it might fit in some category like " History of Historical Schools of Thought". This is really getting tiresome. I see that I am going to have to go through someones edit history and check up on a lot of editing. This editing is freshman at best, and has no place logically in this article. Die4Dixie 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

it certainly is relevant. As anybody who is familiar with the historiography of Reconstruction knows, Beale et al were instrumental in the movement away from the Dunning School. You are perfectly free to review the Novick book, which is used in graduate level historiography clases, to verify the context. Within the context of this article, it leads directly to the next section on criticism from the 1950s on. For someone who asks people not to revert his/her changes, you don't seem to hesitate to do it to others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph does not make it clear how it elates to Dunning Theory. In the form I deleted it was not presented relevantly. I see you have failed to address your problematic quoting.the heading under which it is placed is "About". This is clearly not about.Die4Dixie 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

[edit] More Removed

"Dunning believed that allowing blacks to vote and hold office had been "a serious error".[2] ". Current not listed anywhere. Page 213 of what? Due to all the other problems this shoddy article has had , it is MHO that radical use of the editing scalpel is needed. After the earlier quote problem, I'll not leave this to chanceDie4Dixie 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pay attention before you delete. Current is very clearly is listed in the bibliography. Have you actually added a single word to this artcle? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01
19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you haven't found ANYTHING wrong wth any quote I've provided to the article -- I hadn't edited this article at all until today. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, not sure how I missed that one. I would suggest that the validation of Dunning Theory that appears in the criticism section be moved to main "About" section. I'll be going to the library to request some of your references. I will also be checking out Dunning Theory subscribers so that Dunning et al. can be directly quoted rather than being characterized. The continuous use of "quote bombs" in your style of editing, to misuse an expression from Logic, "begs the question": Have you ever submitted any writing of an academic nature on a post secondary level, and if so , what was the style manual that you used? Cordially, Die4Dixie 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
I find quote bombs are necessary in contentious articles which includes virtually any article on Reconstruction, the politcs relating to the Civil War, and race. I see no purpose in moving anything out of the Criticism section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowers a member of the Dunning school?

I don't think, Claude Bowers should be listed as a "Representative Dunning School scholar". First he was not a scholar at all, second he was not a disciple of Dunning at Columbia like all the other listed scholars (except Coulter) and third and most important while he was sharing some (most) thesis of Dunning and his associates, there were also some differences, e.g. the completely different evaluation of Andrew Johnson, who was highly praised by Bowers and highly discredited by Dunning and even more by Fleming for his stubornness. Fleming wrote: „Johnson was ill-educated, narrow, and vindicative and was positive that those who did not agree with him were dishonest.“ (p. 71, Sequel to Appomattox) Bowers on the contrary portrayed Johnson as a "Honest, [...] tender, able, forceful [...]" Gentlemen (p. 43-44, Tragic Era)

It would be more correct to list Bowers "Tragic Era" as a best-selling book, which helped to present some of the general themes and thesis of the Dunning School to the public. Flohru