![]() ![]() ![]() They seem to prove that teachers of speech can write good, conventional history rather than to demonstrate that the historian has much to learn from a sister discipline. ![]() These essays contain surprisingly little on die techniques of nineteendi century oratory they do not give much close attention to the structure of the orations here discussed or much detailed analysis of the rhetoric. The professors of speech contributing to this volume differ hardly at all from the professional historians here represented in either die questions they ask or the answers they suggest. Auer's compilation derives from a certain uneasy feeling that Antishvery and Disunion challenges traditional historical methods all too little. Indeed, one's only serious complaint about Mr. There is hardly one of these articles which would not make a creditable showing if published in a historical journal. ![]() All the essays are fair-minded and objective all are based upon considerable research in the primary, and frequently in the manuscript, sources. Although most of die contributors are newcomers to the field of history, they have handled die took of dieir adopted discipline admirably. Douglas' Soutiiern campaign in 1860, lead to more interesting interpretations. But others, like Ralph Richardson's careful assessment of Jefferson Davis' apparendy inconsistent speeches in 1858 and Lionel Crocker's close study of Stephen A. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ฤก02CIVIL WA R HISTORY lyceums. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |