-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Terror on the Chesapeake
- Thread starter chuckpa
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Sorry I can't help on this specific Title or writer. Speaking in general,I tend to read everything I can find on a topic that interests me and that will provide a broader range of views. The topics that are beyond debate or at least treated in similar fashion by most writers can be generally considered reliable. Historical commentaries based upon conjecture and speculation are more subject to the personal bias of the author. The Battle of North Point in 1814 is an example. The Maryland National Guard History colors this engagement as a short but sharp skirmish by the American picketts followed by and orderly withdrawl to prepared positions. The British view, from both those who were there and modern British historians is that this was a second "Bladensburg Races". Based upon what happened next in the larger fight near Baltimore and the stated intent of the British campaigne in the Chesapeake, I would have to say the American view has more merit.
When attempting to evaluate a secondary source work of history, check the bibliography first. Then look at the citations in the footnotes, etc. Try to keep your eye out for gross surmisals and sweeping conclusions based on small bits of evidence.
As a broad generalization, a well trained historian will have plenty of diaries, narratives from the period, and government documents in the bibliography. There will be many well documented, accurate notes - mostly citing works in the bibliography. There shouldn't be hardly any of the third item, ideally naught.
Mr. George seems to have it figured out. I have "Terror...", but I had to put it down after reading the first chapter. Got stuck on another all-consuming project, but I'll get back to reading it. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't pass my criteria above. That's the great thing about[url] Amazon.com[/url]'s "Look inside this book" feature - you can seperate a lot of useless dross from the gold that way.
As a broad generalization, a well trained historian will have plenty of diaries, narratives from the period, and government documents in the bibliography. There will be many well documented, accurate notes - mostly citing works in the bibliography. There shouldn't be hardly any of the third item, ideally naught.
Mr. George seems to have it figured out. I have "Terror...", but I had to put it down after reading the first chapter. Got stuck on another all-consuming project, but I'll get back to reading it. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't pass my criteria above. That's the great thing about[url] Amazon.com[/url]'s "Look inside this book" feature - you can seperate a lot of useless dross from the gold that way.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 100
Hi Chuck,
Remind me to lend you "The Battle of Stonington" next time we're getting together. I think that's one you'll enjoy. Documents colonial use of torpedoes and submarines in the War of 1812 and detatils the defense of Stonington, CT against a British flotilla. Fascinating.
Kevin
Remind me to lend you "The Battle of Stonington" next time we're getting together. I think that's one you'll enjoy. Documents colonial use of torpedoes and submarines in the War of 1812 and detatils the defense of Stonington, CT against a British flotilla. Fascinating.
Kevin
