I’m working on a post about the Fetterman “massacre.” But I’m having a hard time, because I’m too close to the material. So, while you’re waiting, perhaps you’d like to familiarize yourselves with the 10 “Most Dangerous College Courses” in America. For some reason, the author doesn’t include my seminar on knife fighting or the lab component of Eric’s very popular “Introduction to Biowarfare.”
Brought to you by the brilliant Fontana Labs at Unfogged, which, it should be said, is ranked atop my list of America’s 10 most dangerous blogs.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 21, 2007 at 11:29 am
Jamie T.
Ugh, reading that “analysis” made me lose my appetite. What a load of bs. Since when did Chris Matthews become “far left?”
December 21, 2007 at 1:13 pm
idontpay
Wasn’t Fetterman widely recognized as a foolish hothead even at the time? Are there many examples where grievous tactical errors were recognized as such, and there was no consequent rallying of the cause or any other repercussions? In other words, are timing and pretext the real story?
December 21, 2007 at 1:57 pm
ari
There has been a minor effort of late to rehabilitate Fetterman’s reputation. The arguments I’ve seen — I’ll link later, if possible — have all been empirical. The more interesting thesis, yet to be articulated, is that Fetterman was portrayed at the time as a bumbler and egomaniac in service of suggesting that officers who lost large-scale (for the Indian Wars) battles to Native people must have been incompetent (Fetterman), crazed (Chivington), or betrayed by circumstances (Custer). But now I’m stealing thunder from my own post, which will be up later today.
As to your second question, Sand Creek was widely recognized for what it was: a massacre. And bad tactics to boot. So even though it was a victory, nobody outside Colorado celebrated it.
December 22, 2007 at 3:52 pm
idontpay
Here’s the case that the received story is a nonsensical fabrication:
here
Dr. Brady’s “Indian Fights and Fighters” was in fact my source, I love 19c accounts, but in this case seems very wrong. Most people seem to know the story from Dee Brown.
December 26, 2007 at 5:57 am
JC
ARI WROTE: “….what should he have done? Allowed the Union to blow apart to avoid bloodshed?”
***BINGO, what a brilliant solution, Ari! Since the Union was CREATED by the states (not the other way around, go look it up, Ari), the Union was the States’ “agent” and you ALWAYS have the right to fire your own agent.
THINK ABOUT IT, once Lincoln established the principle that NO state is allowed to leave the Union, then the states are at the Fed’s MERCY. If we passed a law that said that no wife was allowed to leave her husband once married, do you think wives would be treated better or worse? AN ENTITY’S RIGHT TO LEAVE A SITUATION OR ARRANGEMENT IS THE MOST POWERFUL RIGHT THAT ENTITY HAS! Without the right to leave, you really have no rights at all. Think “East Germany” and the “Berlin Wall” if it helps you there, Ari.
This concept ain’t exactly “rocket surgery”, Ari. What a pity that you simply cannot fathom it… 8-)
December 26, 2007 at 9:10 am
Länkar at Det perfekta tomrummet
[...] Family Security Matters sätter samman listan över de tio farligaste kurserna på amerikanska universitet. [via historikerbloggarna Eric Rauchway och Ari Kelman.] [...]