Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
You are not going to deny that those 'opinions related to the bible or the church' are not trying to invoke the name of God for support of slavery or they are not stating that it is God's will that slavery is condoned as a Christian duty?
Are you saying you need a note from God direct in order to believe such went on?
If so, please notify me when you find God's website with his published notes and speeches. That one I will definately add to my 'favorites' list!
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I don't think that Lee was antislavery. I don't think he was proslavery. I think that he was a thinking man, ever changing, learning, as we all do as we make our way through trials and travails common to us all.
I think that if one is to analyze someone's beliefs on the basis of historical documents, then what is written must be taken at face value. However...knowing about the culture, the environment, the history behind the historical document lends a wholistic, true picture of the circumstances the document was written in.
IMHO, that is partly what is wrong with constitutional law in the U.S. today. Too many opinions and not enough history of why certain Articles were written.
The reasoning of southerners, justifying slavery, is important, to this board, only insofar as that reasoning affected the Civil War.
The war was fought to the bitter end, because the leadership of the south (and was supported in this, by a significant porportion of its ordinary citizens) was not willing to accept independence without slavery. This unwillingness, was so staunch that even after it was too late, they still would not voluntarily free their slaves.
I don't think that Lee was antislavery. I don't think he was proslavery. I think that he was a thinking man, ever changing, learning, as we all do as we make our way through trials and travails common to us all.
Well, his letters show a thinking man, but one who was not "ever-changing." Ditto for his tactics during the war. The man who ordered the charge up Malvern Hill was the same man who ordered the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge at Gettysubrg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
I think that if one is to analyze someone's beliefs on the basis of historical documents, then what is written must be taken at face value.
I disagree. People have reasons to lie, to shade the truth, to couch concepts in words that leave false impressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
However...knowing about the culture, the environment, the history behind the historical document lends a wholistic, true picture of the circumstances the document was written in.
And comparing what an individual wrote in various circumstances lends a truer picture of the individual than a single phrase from a single letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
IMHO, that is partly what is wrong with constitutional law in the U.S. today. Too many opinions and not enough history of why certain Articles were written.
Texas2nd
Even if the reasons for those articles have changed? Not many British troops are being quartered in the homes of Americans these days. Nothing remains constant, and unless you want to rewrite the Constitution every decade or so [can you imagine the fights that would ensue over that?] we're going to have to stick with what the Constitution means today. And since today's Supreme Court justices are not the Founders we necessarily have to have opinions.
Why the Confederacy stuck it out to the bitter end? Defending homeland became the overriding reason, in my estimation.
I think the South justified it's belief in slavery all the time. I just don't think REL was doing it in his letters.
Texas2nd
Ran across something cool...
Revival of Nationalism...This old theory is enjoying new life.
The new studies 2006 -2007 are centering in on the old world view of slavery, "protectionist vs. free-trade" and on the ideology and identity of Nationalism in the South as root causes.
Nationalism also existed in the North but gained in importance after the ACW, mostly in answer of european criticsm, particularly from the French and the British. I had never put 2+2 together, but the North had to justify the War to the World after it was over.
Well Cash,
We'll have to agree to disagree about historiology! I think time and place are important.
REL wasn't a known liar.
The reasons the Articles were written are solid. The armed forces better not try to quarter anyone in my home,, and particularly not without restitution!
That 2nd amendment thing better stick too!
Texas2nd
The North fought the CW precisely, because of its belief that the nation of the United States of America, was greater than the sum of its parts. That the Union (the USA) was so important, that leaving the Union was a matter of decision for All the states forming the nation of the USA.
Though still in the process of full articulation, the concept of nationalism had already taken hold of the majority of the citizens of the USA, and came to fruition in 1865., for all the world to see, not just the French and British.
The next time southerners fought in a way they would fight as Americans.
P.S. Texas2d, did the leaders of the south really want independence without their slaves?
Sure there was nationalism during the war. But the FEds were intensly protective of the belief in exceptionalism and winning because civic virtue and morality. The war was won becasue of superior numbers and industrialism.
THe North liked to portray itself as a spontaneous uprising of citizens ready to fight for right. We know that too isn't totally true.
I'm off to Father's day trip. I've got gobs of sources and will share with ya'll later.
The North fought the CW precisely, because of its belief that the nation of the United States of America, was greater than the sum of its parts. That the Union (the USA) was so important, that leaving the Union was a matter of decision for All the states forming the nation of the USA.
Of course this is how the North wants to portray their motives in the war....all noble and such...
...never mind that Secession meant the loss of 100s of millions to the Northern economy.
The basic motive for war is self-interest.
Secession had the prospects of being an economic bust for the North while a great boon for the South.
If there was one thing the North could not stand for more than a rival in goverment...it was a rival Nation on its border.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnDownfall
did the leaders of the south really want independence without their slaves?
By late 1864 they were willing to do this. There were many in government who were proponents of emancipation-
Jefferson Davis, President
Robert E. Lee, C. in C. Confederate Armies
Judah P. Benjamin, Sec. of State
...and several others including governors of states.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
...never mind that Secession meant the loss of 100s of millions to the Northern economy.
Actually, while I've seen a lot of rhetoric about this, I have never seen anything that would count as a proof of the proposition. Other than snippets of quotes from newspapers and speeches indicating that some people believed it, do you have any solid evidence of this statement to lay before us? By that I mean actual economic data and statistics -- not just another quote from a British literary figure who had been in the United States exactly once before the Civil War, or the "King Cotton" speech of a secessionist. If you do, please post it. If you don't, please acknowledge that you have nothing.
It is probably more likely that the newly independent Confederacy would have discovered they had landed themselves in an economic and political disaster with their impetuous arrogance in seceding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The basic motive for war is self-interest. Secession had the prospects of being an economic bust for the North while a great boon for the South.
Actually, it is clear that secession was driven by what self-interest of a particular group of Southerners. There is no evidence it was driven by the North or Northerners in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
If there was one thing the North could not stand for more than a rival in goverment...it was a rival Nation on its border.
I understand that you seem to believe this. There is not any evidence that it is true that I am aware of. Please present some.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
