General Michael Collins

Would you not regard them as Contributory to History, or a science of an independent nature? Either Way they are outside the main term "History" in my opinion. Obviously it's open to criticism and I may of course be wrong, but that's my view.

Jake10

While history can never be as clear cut as physics, for example, we need to keep in mind that even physics is under subjective analysis, as string theory shows. Yes, history combines elements from several different sciences, in terms of statistics, carbon dating, psychological analysis, medical evaluations, etcetera. It requires philosophy, and, while philosophy is not proven, historical events can be, and the advancements of the other sciences that are used to support history are making it more and more precise. The conclusions resulting from historical research are contestable, but this is also the case with other sciences, as I noted about physics. While I will be criticized for this, I will still venture to say that history is a science with subjective opinion being a part of it.

tjadams

Good observation. The EP freed few if any slaves, it was purely a political card Lincoln played to show the world that the North's war aims were more than suppressing with violence the South's desire to leave the Union.

Sharks and love

This is a map of the latest slave census, in 1860.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...laveryMap.html

It seems the answer to your question is yes, a significant number of slaves were freed.

This is the article that the above map is from:

Visualizing Slavery - New York Times

Edgewaters

Any and all historical interpretation is opinion. Assigning any signifigance is generally opinion.

Facts are things that by themselves, without interpretation, have no signifigance. This style of pottery was made in 3500 BC by so and so. The 5th Brigade boarded the SS Whatever on September 12th and unloaded on September 21st. Stuff like that, those are facts.

Once you start assigning meaning to these things or try to develop a "big picture" you're into the realm of opinion.

Comet

I've noticed some of you disregarding history as a science, but let me give you something to think about:

-History is apart of the Social Sciences...so technically, it is a "science". Simply type in "social sciences" to any search engine and any link should provide you with the numerous disciplines included in the Social Sciences.
-Like most sciences, there are numerous "theories" on how historical events took place (and just how much of an impact those events played on the development of human history). In my opinion, when someone provides evidence or documentation that supports their "opinion", then it can be considered a theory.
-The purpose of history is not necessarily what we can learn from it as it is a way to explain the development of events to how we got to where we are.

These are just a few things to think about as you continue to discuss this topic.

Comet

I would agree with you to a certain extent that modern and contemporary history can be proven simply because we can see it with our own eyes...there is also a lot of documentation due to the numerous ways we communicate information that helps as well. However, the further back you go the harder it is to say historical events (and with that comes the speculation of names, dates, purpose, motivation, etc.) can be proven. I think people who aren't used to dealing with history (researching, writing, and teaching) on an everyday basis become too comfortable with accepting historical events (and the things that shape those events) as fact.

BlackHoleSon

The winners of war tend to be the ones who get to write it from their perspective. The south wanted states rights and the north said "no, you are apart of America" and the south did what it thought it had to do.

There's no reason to be ashamed; if you personally didn't enslave someone it isn't your fault. Know your heritage and don't be ashamed that it happened because it made you who you are today.

General Michael Collins

The Purpose of science is to logically come to conclusions based on the results. What Conclusions would be drawn from e.g. collapse of the British Empire, other than the opinions and conjectures of those involved and Historians? What Conclusions could be drawn from an event so large as WW2? In my view, It's just the stories and pieces of relevant info used to support a story.

If you read a book of science, you will be presented with facts and neat formulas or experiments to show how that Result was reached. With a history book you become the judge in a court case: Both sides tell their side of the story and you decide who was right...

Comet

You could view it in that fashion...however, keep in mind that those conclusions are based on the evidence (such as opinions and conjectures of the time period as well as the critical analysis or interpretation of historians) that those stories provide.

To a certain extent your right. This is what makes history a unique discipline in that there tends to be no absolutes. On the flip side, the practice of studying history is very much scientific. You take historical events, create new theories, examine them to death, then come to your own conclusions based on the evidence you have before you.


I think the better way of thinking of this is as so: One examines both sides of an argument (story) and determines which one better supports the historical record.