A Quote by Louis Moreau Gottschalk

The amazing thing since so many variables enter into historical judgments, is not that historians disagree but that they agree as often as they do. — © Louis Moreau Gottschalk
The amazing thing since so many variables enter into historical judgments, is not that historians disagree but that they agree as often as they do.
No, this customary aim of research by excavators is completely foreign to the historical work with which I am occupied... my sole and only aim is to be able to establish a historical fact, on which I disagree with some eminent historians and geographers.
It is my melancholy fate to like so many people I profoundly disagree with and often heartily dislike people who agree with me.
Most academic historians accept that historians' own circumstances demand that they tell the story in a particular way, of course. While people wring their hands about 'revisionist' historians; on some level, the correction and amplification of various parts of the past is not 'revisionism' as it is simply the process of any historical writing.
For a lot of readers these days, a book is something you have to agree or disagree with. But you can't agree with a novel. For my generation, it was assumed that a book is a dramatic thing, that the eye of the book is not telling you what to think.
The historical profession is nowhere famous for its tolerance, but there are not many countries where historians can expect to pay for their opinions with penal servitude or the firing squad.
Wage concessions are difficult to quantify, since their magnitude depends on many operating variables.
The enormously diverse culture where people can agree and disagree is just amazing, and to learn about the events that took place here over millennia has been fantastic. It's a trip I'll never forget.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, I would say.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, in the band, I would say.
Since history has no properly scientific value, its only purpose is educative. And if historians neglect to educate the public, if they fail to interest it intelligently in the past, then all their historical learning is valueless except in so far as it educates themselves.
The characteristic feature of a free society is that it can function in spite of the fact that its members disagree in many judgments of value. Freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes.
There are people that say you should never use humor to talk about anything that's important or hard, and since I don't believe that, at some point there has to be a level of "agree to disagree."
The thing I like about our fans is that they are smart, they are good-looking and we can agree to disagree
I was trained as a philosopher never to put philosophers and their ideas into historical contexts, since historical context has nothing to do with the validity of the philosopher's positions. I agree that assessing validity and contextualizing historically are two entirely distinct matters and not to be confused with one another. And yet that firm distinction doesn't lead me to endorse the usual way in which history of philosophy is presented.
I always enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. I often agree with him. Sometimes I disagree with him.
At Silicon Valley, I'm extremely sympathetic to the revolutionary response. I not only agree with it emotionally. I agree with it practically. And the only thing I disagree with is, I don't think Donald Trump is that. Trump is blow it up for no good reason at all. You want to actually do revolution with a target, with an idea, with building a new system.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!