Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States History This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

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)[reply]

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 -- 20:29, 4 April 2007 128.143.167.233

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)

"...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)

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)[reply]

"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)

"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)[reply]

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)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 -- 09:31, 15 April 2008‎ User:Flohru

I thoroughly disagree with your assertion that Bowers wasn't a scholar. He most certainly was. If by scholar you mean he didnt have a Phd or any level of post undergad work thats a defintion no serious person would consider. A scholar is anyone who produces work that contributes to a body of knoweledge, that is the standard defintion. His literary output qualifies him as a scholar. Differences within a school of thought certainly dont disqualify him from being considered within that school. He most certainly is a representative of the Dunning school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stampp was not as kind to the previous generation of reconstruction historians as the previous wording seemed to suggest. I read his book a while ago, and it's an indictment of the whole school. To characterize it as "they got a lot of things right", but "they didn't tell the whole story" is completely dishonest. Stampp was writing to say that they got everything wrong, although he was following DuBois.Likebox (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous wording that you deleted was fully sourced and consisted of Stampp's actual words -- did you notice that the material was in quotes? If you read the book "a while ago" perhaps you should look at it again. To further quote Stampp (page 9), "In short, they have not turned history on its head, but rather, they recognize that much of what Dunning's disciples have said about reconstruction is true." You really ought to be awfully sure of your "facts" before you accuse other editors of dishonesty. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "The previous wording" "consisted of" "material...in quotes". But "If you read the book" I think "you should ... recognize" that it was "turned... on its head,... awfully". the effect makes Stampp look ridiculous. It's unfair. He was a serious guy who didn't support any of this Dunning nonsense. The quotes were painting an unrepresentative picture. While Stampp said stuff like "much of what Dunning's disciples have said about reconstruction is true", that's just faint praise, the prelude to a BUT. The historical content of Stampp's book is a straightforward rebuttal.Likebox (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, you can add as much BUT as you want to -- as long as it's sourced. I personally think there is already plenty of BUT -- both in the Stampp paragraph and the rest of the section. Phrases by Stampp already in the article such as (1)“Dunningites overlooked a great deal” (2) “the two-dimensional characters that Dunning’s disciples have painted” and (3)“distortion by exaggeration, by a lack of perspective, by superficial analysis, and by overemphasis” are pretty strong stuff. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty strong stuff, under normal circumstances. But since this is Dunning et al, their racial slant is so idiotic that to make it sound like a polite disagreement between professional colleagues is an insult to Stampp. He was clear--- he thought the Dunning people were spouting nonsense to advance a racial agenda--- but what's in the article does not represent his views accurately. The article makes him sound overly respectful to Dunning, which he was not.Likebox (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are such the expert on Stampp, then I will AGAIN suggest that you add properly sourced material to make your point. If Stampp directly accused Dunning et al of being racists, provide the quote or the source. In fact, what Stampp actually did do was put Dunning in the context of attempts to reconcile northern and southern versions of the war while acknowledging the general racist attitudes that were part of the era when the Dunningites were writing. I find it odd that you keep removing "revisionist" since this is the term Stampp himself used -- perhaps you don't know as much about the subject as you suggest. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I am not an expert in anything, and I don't claim that I have any special knowledge. My sole qualification is that I read Stampp's book. It was really good, and I don't think this article is doing it justice. When he was writing, it was appropriate to call him a revisionist, but you can't call him a revisionist today, his view is the commonly accepted one.Likebox (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure its appropriate to say that Stampp led the revision movement, because DuBois was saying much the same thing many decades earlier, and I think DuBois was echoing the general sentiment in the black community. I remember a quote somewhere, perhaps in the introduction to Stampp's book, where an elderly black man who remembered the era was complaining about the then current historical record in much the same terms.Likebox (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The revisionist school has a very distinct meaning today when referring to Reconstruction history -- it is a current and acceptable term. And actually the revisionists were followed in the 1980s by the post-revisionists. Stampp was a leader in the revisionists both because of this book and an anthology of revisionist writers that he edited with, I believe, Leon Litwack (I'm on the road and don't have my library with me). Please quit editing this article based on your memory and your guesses about historiographical terminology. Get the book and do some actual research. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of doing research? If I say something stupid you (and thousands of others) can easily correct me. It's always possible that I made a mistake, but I am pretty sure that the picture that this article is painting, especially for a reader unfamiliar with the people involved, is misleading. When I read it, my first impression was "This is not what Stampp said at all!", in particular, it gives the impression that Stampp supported aspects of the racial narrative. It does not make it clear that Stampp opposed Dunning in a clear enough way as to leave no doubt about where he stood regarding race-prejudice. This is important--- Stampp's entire reputation is built on his opposition to racist narratives.

The fixes I am suggesting are simple

1. do not put in that ridiculous quote that "much of what Dunning said is true", because it is not representative of Stampp's book, it is a classic example of a quote pulled out of context.
2. If you insist on using the term "revisionist", which I agree was the standard name for the Stampp type stuff, explain that it dates from a time when Stampp actually was a revisionist. The reconstruction revisionists won--- they aren't revisionists anymore, unlike say the "holocaust revisionists" or whatever. To quote from historical revisionism: "Revisionist historians contest the mainstream or traditional view of historical events". Since Stampp's view is nowadays the mainstream one, if Dunning were to be resurrected and started writing again, it would be he would be the revisionist.
3. Acknowledge that the criticism of the Dunning school dates back earlier than Stampp, and was in fact the mainstream black position. I can't do that, because I don't know enough about it.Likebox (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readded the sourced material you keep deleting and expanded it to provide the proper context. Rather than the quote being "pulled out of context" the quote sets the proper context for the criticism that follows -- not just from Stampp but from the other historians cited. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The context clears it all up.Likebox (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novick material has been restored. It provides both criticism and an explanation for the views held by the Dunning School. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this paragraph is problematic, because what is in the article is not a criticism. It belongs in a section on "explanations for the rise of the Dunning school" or "typical Dunning comments" not in a section entitled "criticism". Here's the deleted material:

Historian Peter Novick noted that two forces, the need to reconcile the North and the South after the Civil War and the increase in racism as Social Darwinism appeared to back the concept with science, contributed to a “racist historiographical consensus” around the turn of the century on the “criminal outrages” of Reconstruction. ^[3] Novick provided examples of the style of the Dunning School approach when he wrote:

James Ford Rhodes, citing [Louis] Agassiz, said that “what the whole country has only learned through years of costly and bitter experience was known to this leader of scientific thought before we ventured on the policy of trying to make negroes [sic] intelligent by legislative acts.” John W. Burgess wrote that “a black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in subjecting passion to reason.” For William A. Dunning, blacks “had no pride of race and no aspiration or ideals save to be like whites.” Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer quoted approvingly the southern observation that Yankees didn’t understand the subject because they “had never seen a nigger except Fred Douglass.” Blacks were “as credulous as children, which in intellect they in many ways resembled.”^[4]

Where's the criticism? This is an explanation of what the Dunning school said and why it was accepted in some circles.Likebox (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terminlogy of revisionists is still the dominant term used. recent examples available online include http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=300901196284168 and http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/37.2/br_10.html. I have yet to see where an actual historian of reconstruction refers to themselves as a neoabolitionist -- Foner and Stampp certainly have not used this term which often has a negative connotation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for clarifying. I thought it was the opposite. Sorry.Likebox (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why "1950s" was changed to "1930s". As far as the textbooks used in southern states are concerned, such views sometimes persisted significantly beyond the 1950s... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunning School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213110155/http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelapdex.htm to http://www.blackmask.com/books11c/sequelapdex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is any mention how lack of cooperation and lynchings affected government, Juror1 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a group of scholars after Reconstruction, not about the Reconstruction period itself. AnonMoos (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the Wiki page for the Dunning School of American Historiography is comprised almost entirely of criticism. Editors over time have not contained quotes from critics of the school (such as Eric Foner) to the appropriate criticism section. Because of this, there are contained in the article almost no objective or pro-Dunningite sources, leaving us with an incredibly biased article.

I intend to move all the criticism of the Dunning School into the "Criticism" section (where it belongs), and to add direct quotations from the authors working within the School to provide their view on their mission and the mission and approach of the School writ large. I have tried to retain all of the substance of the critical lines, simply moving them into a more appropriate section. St.Sidonius (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section. Direct quotatations are primary sources and should be used with care, see WP:PSTS. WP follows mainstream, which the Dunning School is no longer part of. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]