Slavery; THE Cause?

[unionblue]

Hal,

Concerning your thoughts on Mr. Epperson's web site, it could be said that one man's intent could be another man's bias. But all deserve to be heard, do they not?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Ye Gods and little fishes! My sentence "Those that started the War WON it. " was meant to relay this message: The UNION STARTED the war and the Union WON the WAR! Can I make this any plainer?

Neil,
The right to speak and deserving to be heard are two entirely separate issues. I fully support the former while completely disagreeing with the later. I am not saying that like our wonderful government you only deserve to be heard during events in 'free speech zones' which are akin to concentration camps or you cannot hold a placard that condemns the current president anywhere along his parade routes. While pro president signs are fully allowed. One can get you arrested but the other won’t. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that in this instance, websites, or newspapers etc, I do not see deserve has anything to do with it. Like Hal, I disagree with Chuck’s claim it is a ‘must read in any study of the causes of the war.’ I think a fairer statement would be ‘must read in any study that has the intent to show one side.’ You, I or anyone can glean any info anywhere they wish. We all do. While you find his listing sources as a litmus test, I would like to point out that a140 years from now, when the historians look into the cause of the last war in Iraq. Those who trust only documentation of our politicians, citizens, media etc PRIOR to the war, the documents will show the cause was weapons of mass destruction. The idea only info pre circa 1860 seems to matter is not fully justified. As with almost any intellectual endeavor, the truth is often only seen after the fact. My advice to everyone seeking knowledge. Question Every site. Regardless of how fair or important it is. Double check when you can. And remember the words of Mr. Pope.
A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain; And drinking largely sobers us again.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I fully agree with your statement, 'Question Every site. Regardless of how fair or important it is. Double check when you can.'

But one has to read it before one can do any of those things, correct? Any attempt to discourage that viewing seems a bit like censorship to me. It seems very evident to me that members of this board have the intelligence and knowledge to know if a site has anything to offer or not and if it has a certain agenda. Let's let them decide for themselves, as you and Hal have seem to have done for yourselves.

While I agree that Hal or anyone has a right to say, that in his opinion, the site presented by Mr. Epperson may strive to represent a point of view, the documents listed there seem to be correct and not edited in any way. Do you perceive that to be the case and if so, which documents have been tampered with? I am NOT trying to be coy, slick or even funny when I ask this of you. If there is such an attempt in altering the documents shown on the site, I would appreciate knowing about it.

But because someone lists said documents in support of his own agenda or cause or uses them to support his arguments, would we not have to disregard almost every site supporting it's version of the causes of the war?

This make's your advice given above doubly important. Question every site, regardless of how fair or important it is and double check when you can. But to disregard viewing it because you disagree with it's conclusions, that is dangerous.

And Thea, I believe Shane was merely trying to point out that he disagreed, as I do, over your conclusion that the side (the Union/North) that started the war, which it did not, won the war. I could perhaps direct you to a site on the web that states the South started the war and the Union won it, but you may have already seen such a site, if I am not mistaken.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 07, 2004)

[thea_447]

It is my opinion, Neil, that the Union started the war when they invaded the South, i.e., Fort Sumter, and that they also won the war. I do not want to beleager the point any more. I think we have wasted quite enough time on one sentence that obviously means one thing to me and quite another to you.

Neil,
I was not contending the translations of the documents had been altered. I'm not going to cross check something I do not plan on using. But whether they are unaltered or not, my point was "deserve" and "must read" are just not truths here. For me there are few things such as a must read. Although we all tend to use the phrase. Generally the basis by which that is decided it too relative. As to deserve, aside from Rights, that denotes respect. Or a vested interest that deserves to be heard before it's judges. This site meets neither requirement for me. I have found tons of sites like it. Both North and South. Some better, some worse. Some come with inroads to legitimate organizations, some that do not. You can use documents to support either side. Regardless of the truth. Hal is correct though, the site has an obvious agenda other than merely presenting the truth. It never hurts to remember, facts and truth are not the same thing. If I am writing in my diary or giving a speech and I say that you are the murderer of JFK, that is a fact. If historians report I said it. That is a fact too. If years later a website pops up with the documentation on it, it is still a fact.
The question would still remain. What were you doing in Dallas anyway?


I generally will read most any link provided on here. I believe if I recall I might have pointed out to you at least one you had provided whose owner had a vile agenda that you were unaware of. (no, I have no idea which one but I'm 99.9% sure it happened) If I can remember to do so, I 'generally' do not provide websites without at least providing a disclaimer that it is pro or con etc. It's tough though. We have to weed through so much. Throw in that the CW is not my main interest and what I know about it compared to other things is miniscule, I just don't have the disc space in my brain to read everything I come across. I try to look for sites that contain info from both sides. I save time and that way I get an idea what the info I provide will be countered with. Finding that which cannot be countered is what I seek. That and things that are interesting, unusual and puzzling.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Thanks for going into more detail by saying what you meant. I agree entirely with you observations and I do recall the site/incident in which you asked me to look a little deeper into who was doing the posting and why.

Thea, you are entitled to your opinion and I will not belabor the point with you as per your request.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 07, 2004)

Neil,
I'm not trying to side track the thread further but do you remember what site that was? It really bugs me when I cannot remember something. I cannot even remember what it was about now durn it. For some reason Texas is all I can think of. This is like trying to remember someone's name when it is on the tip of the tongue. If you cannot recall it. No worries. In an hour I will have forgotten about it. See the theme?

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Sorry, no, I can only recall I was a tad shocked when I checked the site's homepage and I have now made that an automatic check whenever I view a site someone puts up or recommends. But I seem to remember it was quite a long while ago, perhaps even years ago.

I am afraid my memory is also fading from that dreaded disease, 'Oldtimers!'

YMOS,
Unionblue

Neil

I do the very same thing. When I present news articles I try my best to get them from legit online news media outlets. But that is getting hard as well as now there are thousands of them. Many of the most atrocious look, at a glance very legit and respectable. I live in fear of presenting an article from some neo nazi or some fringe agenda type news link. My pc what it is, I cannot check as much as I used to.