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.
It is here where the "vast posting experience" is needed most, and at boards just like this one.
Too often baseless and poorly researched versions of history are tossed around the internet on boards like this and too many who do not know the history of the time are likely to come away with not just a wrong impression, but a complete distortion of American History.
And the history of the American Civil War is simply too important to be left laying around for anyone to come along and treat it like its silly putty, to be stretched and twisted into any shape someone likes better than the original.
Lessons will be lost and have to be retaught, over and over again, with possible tragic outcomes.
Do the research. Apply yourself. Have the courage to step outside that world you have created and gotten comfortable with. Add to your library, if for no other reason so you can 'know your enemy' on the 'other side.'
Or so that at least you'll know whose quotes are being given.
Unionblue
Now you are getting somewhere!
That is why I am here. That is why I involve in these conversations.
My one problem is this; as I have stated elsewhere. Both sides despise each other. There is no Third Line.
I bring in the sources I know about, and end up defending their positions because they all get ATTACKED! I end up
like some poor Southern Civilian; being swept up in a full scale range war, praying to see the rebel army, anywhere, and in any form, to save us from this reproach! (such as Cash's impugning my 'honesty' for presenting an opposing side of this thing). all because American History is now a contact sport, and not the deliberate research it should be.
There are no neutrals in this fight. Those neutral to it seem bored, and disinterested.
So, I can either 'become' you, or else 'oppose' you. And it becomes a war of words, then, and a force of wit. There is no middle ground.
History as supported by the Official Version is so clearly biased, and one-sided. (Of course, a former version of the USA, Lincoln's "federal government" is ON one of those sides!) In a court of law, as a judge, this side would have to recuse itself from the case, entirely, as a conflict of interest...
You have Abraham Lincoln "Award Winners" telling us about 'unbiased' history!
I am actually doing what you said to do; I am here, still listening to this back and forth... But it is clear that because the South lost, everything else they ever did is dirt, now! (Rather like the 2008 New England Patriots!) and yet,
the Confederate leaders were some of the best people this country ever produced. But instead of realizing where they got their ideas, and placing the blame on ambiguous 'founding fathers' and the greed and hostilities of The Second Party (North, and South!), we simply say the Confederates were at fault for challenging the 'very idea' of a Union...
If one tenth of the outrage thrown at Jefferson Davis (who was APPOINTED to his job, and was as he said, in a speech at the Confederate white house:
"Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction, one which I neither sought, nor desired...")...
if one-tenth of this outrage was thrown at the politicians who started all of this (Second Party people, North and South) we would begin to really understand what the war 'was really all about'...
It was in the issues the founding fathers (and Jefferson strangely absent, in Paris, and 'uninvited'?) smoothed over to get a collection of signatures, each side believing that
they had what they wanted, and needed, and neither side having really convinced the other...
When people like Patrick Henry wanted no part of it,
what does that say about it?
But until you are willing to expose your heroes to scorn, and really examine the disdain shown to the South, in the light of reason, instead of 'patriotism', you will never convince anyone but your followers.
Your description of 'your side', amusing though it was,
has, I fear, some basis in truth. I should seriously consider that paragraph, from time to time, if for no other reason than you remain satisfied that it does not apply to you.
My question was, "At what point does Freehling disprove the 40 bales theory?" All I read in there was McDuffie talking...
Freehling supposedly disproves this... I missed where, and how. (I did not get that he had disproved the theory by merely disparaging it!).
Beowulf
I suppose you'll have to actually do some homework and read the book on your own.
So, if I read all this right, Calhoun was basically interested in preserving the South, its institutions, and its colored folks from being spirited away on some Middle Passage or other... back to Liberia..
That's one, albeit racist, way of putting it. A more honest and forthright way is to say he was interested in preserving slavery and white supremacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
He was getting crafty, if I read this right,
Congratulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
and he wanted to see the tariff defeated completely by virtue of its lack of virtues. So, what, then? Not enough Southerners in on the ploy? Some good hearted yankees (ahem) voting against their own best interests - still not enough to defeat it?
There's your basic lack of intellectual integrity again. You're so caught up in "Yankees vs. the south" that you can't see or comprehend the truth when it's right in front of you.
Stuff like that makes you look incredibly bad.
Here's a clue for you. History isn't a sporting event where we root for one side or another. History is understanding what actually happened. Forget rooting for your team and rooting against the other team. That's the stuff that makes you look bad. Forget about your hatred of "Yankees."
History isn't a sporting event where we root for one side or another. History is understanding what actually happened. Forget rooting for your team and rooting against the other team. That's the stuff that makes you look bad. Forget about your hatred of "Yankees."
God, I wish I'd said that! Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
That is why I am here. That is why I involve in these conversations.
No, it is very obvious to anyone who reads your posts that is not why you are involved in these conversations.
My one problem is this; as I have stated elsewhere. Both sides despise each other. There is no Third Line.
Both sides do NOT despise each other. One side has an obvious disdain for history and the other does not. What you call the "Third Line" is an attempt to compromise history into something more comfortable, less truthful and far less accurate than it truly is. And this is being done not only today, but has been repeated in the past at various times with about the same amount of success. Zero.
I bring in the sources I know about, and end up defending their positions because they all get ATTACKED! I end up
like some poor Southern Civilian; being swept up in a full scale range war, praying to see the rebel army, anywhere, and in any form, to save us from this reproach! (such as Cash's impugning my 'honesty' for presenting an opposing side of this thing). all because American History is now a contact sport, and not the deliberate research it should be.
I'm surprised you were able to type the words, "deliberate research," and not have your keyboard explode. As for your sources, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised when you get up with fleas. If you based your research on actual period documents before and during the war, you would automatically garner a bit more respect. As it is, the only one making American History a contact sport are those who are butting their heads up against it without a helmet called "Deliberate research."
There are no neutrals in this fight. Those neutral to it seem bored, and disinterested.
Sadly, I don't believe this statement either. There are plenty of neutrals in this "fight." Those who would skip through the internet and find partisan sites or boards like this one, read a few posts and become convinced they know all there is to know about the American Civil War. That's why when you post here, you find so many who will challenge your views and statements, especially when they are based on false or twisted parts of history. They feel history should speak for itself, no matter who it hurts or how painful the lesson, to either those of Northern or Southern backgrounds, so that the lessons thereof may be fully learned without any filters of a modern-day agenda.
So, I can either 'become' you, or else 'oppose' you. And it becomes a war of words, then, and a force of wit. There is no middle ground.
You are finally correct in one statement. There is no middle ground when it comes to history. Having "middle ground" when it comes to historical events makes as much sense as being just a little bit dead. And you have not "become" or else "opposed" in your views here. You have made it plain where you stand and what you believe. These wordy contrivences that you are seeking the "middle ground" and just a tactic to present your own views.
History as supported by the Official Version is so clearly biased, and one-sided. (Of course, a former version of the USA, Lincoln's "federal government" is ON one of those sides!) In a court of law, as a judge, this side would have to recuse itself from the case, entirely, as a conflict of interest...
History that is painful, embarassing, exposing our mistakes and our outrages may seem one-sided when all of that pain is directed at us as a region or a people. The trick is to learn from them and move on and not repeat them. To deny, cover-up or seek the "middle ground" is to defeat us in our attempt to learn from those mistakes. It cheats us of the truth and the fact of what actually took place. It would be so convinient if the Federal government or Lincoln or PC agents were constantly busy subduing or holding the South down with the "correct" version of historical events. It is simply not the case. There is no sinister cabal at fault, no organized effort to distort our history in our classrooms or our government chambers. In fact, one could point to the press of time and the rush to test as American history being compressed into a few lines that tell nothing of one of the most important events in our history, the American Civil War and its causes. If you are honest with yourself, you know a slim chapter or two was all you ever read in high school on that time and hardly anything else. The "Official Version" of history of the United States is being lost to time compression and lack of interest, not by government plot.
You have Abraham Lincoln "Award Winners" telling us about 'unbiased' history!
Your point? Why are Abraham Lincoln "Award Winners" automatically suspect when it comes to Lincoln, the Civil War, etc? Learned men who have taken decades to learn their craft, research their subject, publish and verify, are somehow less because of, what?
I am actually doing what you said to do; I am here, still listening to this back and forth... But it is clear that because the South lost, everything else they ever did is dirt, now! (Rather like the 2008 New England Patriots!) and yet,
the Confederate leaders were some of the best people this country ever produced. But instead of realizing where they got their ideas, and placing the blame on ambiguous 'founding fathers' and the greed and hostilities of The Second Party (North, and South!), we simply say the Confederates were at fault for challenging the 'very idea' of a Union...
Loyalty to our ancestors does not mean loyalty to their mistakes.
If one tenth of the outrage thrown at Jefferson Davis (who was APPOINTED to his job, and was as he said, in a speech at the Confederate white house:
"Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction, one which I neither sought, nor desired...")...
Nor should have taken, having the present hindsight we now pocess. It's called history.
if one-tenth of this outrage was thrown at the politicians who started all of this (Second Party people, North and South) we would begin to really understand what the war 'was really all about'...
If one-tenth the deliberate research was conducted by those who rail against Lincoln, the federal government, the tariff, etc., outrage would subside and cool, deliberate debate could take place on many questions that vex such people.
It was in the issues the founding fathers (and Jefferson strangely absent, in Paris, and 'uninvited'?) smoothed over to get a collection of signatures, each side believing that
they had what they wanted, and needed, and neither side having really convinced the other...
Yet Jefferson became President, so what does that prove? Why the constant search for some conspiracy instead of coming to grips with actual historical events?
When people like Patrick Henry wanted no part of it,
what does that say about it?
It says Henry had his doubts, along with Franklin and others. Why read into that unless you can find something in history that proves otherwise? Why this constant need to twist, distort, and present the "other" history that simply did not happen?
But until you are willing to expose your heroes to scorn, and really examine the disdain shown to the South, in the light of reason, instead of 'patriotism', you will never convince anyone but your followers.
Sigh. "My followers." Beowulf, try and get this straight, please, for once, focus. This is ME speaking when I confront, argue and debate you. I sit in no Star Chamber consulting my "followers" seeking the best way to discredit you and those who feel as you do. Just me, in a double-wide trailer, after working a night-shift in my den/converted bedroom in front of a computer screen. As for my heroes being exposed to scorn, it happens every day here and at other boards, hence the little thing we call debate.
Your description of 'your side', amusing though it was,
has, I fear, some basis in truth. I should seriously consider that paragraph, from time to time, if for no other reason than you remain satisfied that it does not apply to you.
My "description" of "my side" should be taken for the sarcasm it was, but again, you must pump this up into a real concern so you can present to all your fight against overwhelming Northern odds. It makes for better reading of your posts. You think.
I have formally worked in the Army Security Agency, while I was in the US Army. I have also worked for the National Security Agency, the Air Force Security Service and the Naval Security Service and the Intelligence Security Command for twenty years while I served as a collector of intelligence. I can inform you that in all my years with those organizations, I never found an operation deployed against the people of the American South to deny them their history, to keep them in the dark, to make them ashamed of who they were or where they came from. I can also assure you that through our contacts with other Federal agencies (FBI, CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, etc.) none of those were concerned with those areas either.
I suggest that when one claims they are being held down by some outside force or agency, they first check their own mirrors.
Thank you for your insights.
Beowulf
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 have formally worked in the Army Security Agency, while I was in the US Army. I have also worked for the National Security Agency, the Air Force Security Service and the Naval Security Service and the Intelligence Security Command for twenty years while I served as a collector of intelligence. I can inform you that in all my years with those organizations, I never found an operation deployed against the people of the American South to deny them their history, to keep them in the dark, to make them ashamed of who they were or where they came from. I can also assure you that through our contacts with other Federal agencies (FBI, CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, etc.) none of those were concerned with those areas either."
First off, please allow me Sir to thank you for your service to our country. I do not have that service record myself, but I can assure you we share the same love for our country. My 'history' with this country includes three 'yankees' who arrived on the good ship Mayflower, a host of families in New England who worked the seas for a living, Dutch who ran afowl of the British heiracy and were forced to exit into a place they called New Amsterdam and were then chased into the wilderness into a place they later called New Jersey. After several decades they came south for warmer weather, winding up in mountains in western Virginia and North Carolina just as cold as the north from which they had migrated. My roots include the Iriquois and Algonquin who lived on the lands that became later known as Virginia and who defended that land as much as they could against the invading hords of Englishmen (also my ancestors). You can't get away from history in this world. The German migrants to Pennnsylvania, also my guys, came south to those same mountains and here I am today, having moved as a young man across the Blue Ridge, just to see what it's like and have discovered that the descendants of those same families were in this place fighting some silly thing they called a civil war. Trying to kill each other for numerous reasons. Those reasons, fully debated on this board, are our history. It ain't pretty, but it's us.
Southerners today champion the courage of those men and women who fought on both sides of the conlict for many overlapping and differing reasons. The facts are the facts and the efforts Neil and others have made to share those facts are a great contribution to our understanding of our own past and an aide to our decisions on what to do with our brief chance at shaping the future. That's the value of this board. May it long endure.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Marion Lucas, Bell I. Wiley, James M. McPherson, Gary Gallagher.
They say it's a fake.
He took every sensationalist story he could find, and never let the truth stand in the way of a better story.
Yep. See the above.
Nobody who knows the true history of Columbia would give that piece of used bathroom tissue a second glance.
Clear from the postings.
Regards,
Cash
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote, "whenever I read a detective story, I was also thinking that the fellow in question (the detective) was bound to give his reasons for the results at which he had arrived..."
Are there not one or two lines you could give where these august personages reveal exactly how they disproved these writings? Or, when they wrote of the deceptions, did they merely conclude FAKE, and you nodded knowingly, and in full agreement?
I realize there is power in the name, brother-elder, but
these names do not stir in me a sufficient Faith to believe upon them!
So, for the heretics in the group, could you 'Pray, be precise as to detail?'
Southerners today champion the courage of those men and women who fought on both sides of the conlict for many overlapping and differing reasons. The facts are the facts and the efforts Neil and others have made to share those facts are a great contribution to our understanding of our own past and an aide to our decisions on what to do with our brief chance at shaping the future. That's the value of this board. May it long endure.
Not just Southerners, Larry. You won't find a single one of us on the "other" side that does not honor the REB. And the Reb has earned his monuments and his flag. He ought to have them without the stain of freakish racists and other sillies who take his flag and pervert it.
Now. If we could just stick with that, we'd all have a marvelous Christmas. But, you must admit, we get the League of the South and runaway SCV groups who must carry it well past that simple, original mandate. Aside from giving the Reb his due, we must also find excuses for the people who sent him onto the field. And their motivations.
Gimme a break. Johnny stands alone. He showed himself to be a man and a warrior. That's the end of it. Good men. Everyone of them. And I will salute them.
But to carry his valiant service into a "the south was right" screed does him a disservice. He was doing what he thought was right. There is no dishonor in that.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Now you are getting somewhere! 
Linear Mode
