Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I remember one time finding what I thought was a great site! Pro-Union, anti-slavery, excellent articles, etc. Then I find out it is a site ready to bash England for every supposed evil in the WORLD! Lincoln's assasination, England, the Great Depression, England, Gay marriage, England and on and on and on! My God! How absolutely STUPID would I have felt giving that web site here on this board on one of my postings!
I know that I have said repeatedly that any site should be able to be viewed and judged by the members of this board, but I would like them to at least have been generated by someone on the planet Earth. And just think what Bill Torrens would have thought if I had posted such a site as 'proof' of my own ideas and opinions on the causes of the Civil War. Not that Bill puts a lot of stock in any of the research or proof I offer up now, but at least I want to appear that I am not doing my posting from a lunatic asylum or Bush Republican Headquarters.
And you are right. We owe to our fellow board members to do the best we can when we present our research and our supporting information here, either in the form of a web site or an article we have found on the internet. Just because it is posted there does not make it some sort of gospel or fixed truth.
While I have disagreed with you, Thea, Hal, Bill Torrens, Bill, Katherine, Jenna, (WOW! This is turning into a LOT of folks!), etc., I have NEVER felt like anyone was making up or feeding me false information to get their point across. That each and every one of them, no matter how much it bugged me or how wrong I thought their conclusions and views were, they were honest in those views and deserved respect for them (Not agreement, I hasten to add!).
I don't have to hope that this determination to present their side with factual and historical proof will continue. I KNOW it will. That's what makes it so darn hard to deal with and so much fun too!
Well, enough of this sugar binge, I'm beginning to feel a bit sluggish from it all. Back to the trenches, and DOWN REB!
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on October 07, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on October 07, 2004)
__________________ "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
Concerning your reference in an above post where you state the South did not have control of the government, I present the following article at the following website.
Roll your cursor over the article if the print is too small and then click when the enlarging icon comes up at the lower right of the article to enlarge.
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 realize that there is no such thing as a totally objective author on the topic of the war to force union.
So, I have no problem posting a link to a page from any site at all as long as the document I am providing access to is accurate. If I post a link, it does not mean I endorse the website it is on. I am just posting access to the document.
Neil: 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?
Epperson's intent is crystal clear to any objective observer.
Neil: 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.
Neil, please tell me it ain't so. Please tell me you are not defending that site!?
I have no problem with the accuracy of the documents listed. In fact, my experience with him is that he takes pains to insure such accuracy.
But that is not the point. The point is not the accuracy of the material he presents, but the material he selects in a blatant attempt to mislead people visiting his site for information on the causes of the war.
How can anyone in good conscience present himself as an objective source of information and at the same time justify a page so grotesquely entitled "Selected Quotations from 1830-1865" that reads as below? It should be entitled, Selected Quotations To Show That The War Was About Slavery:
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.
Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."
Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.
Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]
From the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)
From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]
During the 1830's occurred the Gag Rule controversy in Congress, during which Southern politicians tried to block even the presentation of petitions on the subject of slavery. The following quotes come from speeches made in the House and Senate during this time, taken from William Miller's book, Arguing About Slavery:
John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."
James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."
Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]
"Grotesque" is a mild description. I would give any defense of this page the same label.
His site should not be deceptively called "Causes of the Civil War," but it should be called "Selected Documents That Can Be Used to Show That Slavery Was the Cause of the Civil War."
Epperson has no credibility as an objective source on "The Causes of the Civil War."
Anyone who goes there should be warned of his agenda of distortion in order to mislead innocent seekers of understanding on the topic of Causes of the Civil War.
Enough about Epperson. As for my two cents on the quesiton of this thread:
The cause of the war was refusal to allow secession.
The cause of the sectional strife was the combination of our republican form of government and Manifest Destiny. This volatile mixture turned the territories into a battlefield and made slavery the most effective weapon as the States jockeyed for advantage and power within the central government.
Epperson has no credibility as an objective source on "The Causes of the Civil War."
Epperson has no crdibility according to yourself, as his material does not agree with your own.
Anyone who goes there should be warned of his agenda of distortion in order to mislead innocent seekers of understanding on the topic of Causes of the Civil War.
Can not the same be said of your postings by anyone that feels you are distorting to mislead innocent seekers of understanding.
Would you explain how you disagree with any of the material Epperson has related to? Am really interested in your comments on the following items: Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Are you trying to say that these articles were not as written.
Ignoring which of several sites this material is located at, why do you think these articles are unimportant or do not help to understand Southern thinking or ideas at the time they were published.
I Believe that the war was brought on by Sucession.
I further believe that Sucession was brought on by slavery.
I hear your 2 cents and present my own.
Chuck in Il.
Hal, are you saying that any site or individual who believes and has found evidence to back up the premise that slavery was the cause of the Civil War has no credibility? To me it seems Mr Epperson used the words of CSA officials of influence to put forward if not to prove his point...
I disagree w/ the idea that a site put forward has nothing to do w/ the root site... especially when you can easily back track the site to racist, neo nazi, kkk etc sites w/ a very... grotesque agenda and outlook. If I find a site such as I mentioned w/ easy links to a vicious agenda I have a tendency to believe the individual who posted such a link knew the root and is trying to further that organizations agenda... especially if the root site is a member only site.
Something Aphillbilly is very right to do is to check the sources he posts, I believe he has made every effort to check his sources which is why I eagerly check the links he provides. They are legitimate and generally well written, if I don't agree w/ the premise, fine; at least I know what the other side is saying. It's more important to know where your opponent is coming from than to agree w/ him.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Shane: Hal, are you saying that any site or individual who believes and has found evidence to back up the premise that slavery was the cause of the Civil War has no credibility?
Not at all. Please re-read my comments for clarification.
Shane: To me it seems Mr Epperson used the words of CSA officials of influence to put forward if not to prove his point...
Yes, that is what he attempts to do in large part.
At least you recognize that he does have a point he is trying to prove, rather than pretend he is being objective. I'm glad you see that. There is still hope for you Shane.
Shane: I disagree w/ the idea that a site put forward has nothing to do w/ the root site... especially when you can easily back track the site to racist, neo nazi, kkk etc sites w/ a very... grotesque agenda and outlook.
I never made such a point, so I hope you are not saying your disagreement is with something I said.
Generally speaking, when I go to a site for WBTS information, I am not interested in the site operator's opinion of this or that. I just want to main-line primary source documentation and form my own opinion if and when I feel like an opinion is appropriate to form.
Charles: Epperson has no credibility according to yourself, as his material does not agree with your own.
Would you explain how you disagree with any of the material Epperson has related to?
I am disappointed that I have communicated my point so poorly. No Charles, his material agrees perfectly with mine. I have no problem with his material. His primary source material is indeed "my" material. I even testified that he takes pains to make sure the material he puts on his site is accurate.
Over a period of time, I forwarded him several suggestions of secession era primary documents to put on his site, in hopes that he wanted to present a more credible site that wasn't so skewed. But once it became clear he was not interested in material that did not support his agenda, I gave up.
Charles, if you see no problem with his selections page on a site presenting itself as an objective one on the causes of the civil war, then I have no more to say, other than to, once again, suggest that Epperson rename his biased site and particularly his "selected quotes" page to reflect what it actually is. Because a fair representation of quotes and documents concerning the causes of the civil war, it absolutely is not. I really am embarrassed for him.
And if you refer someone to it, please make sure you attach a warning label so that they don't get hurt.
The only warning labels I need to attach are to full-blown sites that twist and turn facts. Ones that will only quote out of context a single sentence, or part of a sentence to 'prove' their point,and refuse to reveal their sources. When I request a source, it is not, to try and prove the speaker is wrong, but only to get hold of the material so that I can study it in full to try and see if I am wrong or not, and if so, to make changes to my ideas, my opinions. To Improve them to better fit the truth.
Mr. Epperson gets high ratings by many in the CW community, not just a few of us that don't know everything. Outside of yourself, I've never heard anyone, and I do know a large number of people online, speak of Mr. Epperson being biased. Every writer of every book has his own biases, his own agenda in writing the book, or making a website, so have you stopped reading because all books are biased in some manner?
But now we know why you think he an unacceptable source. He didn't consider changes you thought he should make to His site, so now you actually have a personal vendetta against the man.
You know, there is really nothing to prevent YOU from creating your own site, and present the material you want to present. It might even be helpful to many of us that read material online and in books.
Why limit yourself to teaching the truth as you see it, to just this forum, with a few people. Why not expand and give a lot more the opportunity to learn, based on your own unbiased knowledge.
If I can handle my own site, someone as smart as yourself should handle one with ease. And don't say you don't have time, you seem to spend a considerable amount of time 'proving' your point to this group, so the same material could be worked into a website with only a few more mins time.
I still stand by my comment that Epperson's sites are great and should be read and studied by anyone studing the CW. And I will not consider dismissing him simply because you have a dislike for the man.
I probably won't be back before Sunday afternoon, as I'm headed for Princeton, Il. for a CW re-enactment, meeting up with 2 friends from 1 of my CW groups, and to meet the couple portraying Lincoln and his wife, new members the same online group that I've not met face to face yet. Both are well known and in heavy demand in the Midwest for their presentation. Max is a bit over 6' tall so fits the part well.
Ya'll have fun,
Chuck in Il.
In regards to your post of October 07, 2004 - 12:35pm, in which you ask;
Neil, tell me it ain't so. Please tell me you are not defending that site!?
Of course I am Hal, just as I would defend any site that you might one day design and place upon the internet, even though I disagree with just about every conclusion or interpretation of the causes of the war you have presented, I would still not attempt to limit or discourage their presentation here on this board or on the internet.
To do so just takes me back to the days of the old South where any man who championed Union or tried to vote for Lincoln was threatened with bodily harm and sometimes even death. That any discussion of slavery and its eventual abolition was suppressed, discouraged and even considered an act of treason punishable as a high crime.
It even reminds me of those acts of oppression carried out in the North against those who spoke out against slavery and had their meetings broken up, their printing presses destroyed, and even had some of those folks hanged and murdered.
I may not agree with what you say, Hal, but I will defend your right to say it.
That's a promise that I have kept for 20 years in the military and to all the citizens of this country and words that I still live by today.
Everyone, Hal, deserves the opportunity to be heard.
Then those who decide to read or listen to him/her, can decide if such sites threaten their own convictions or not and can label such sites/articles/speech for themselves.
Instead of another deciding for them, by using one's own personal standards, would it not be the better choice of letting folks decide for themselves?
Much more democratic and free-speech like, don't you agree?
YMOS,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on October 08, 2004)
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
