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.
In regards to the "who brought up Fort Pillow" frst matter. I appreciate your apology and of course forgive you. No problem what-so-ever. Where we come from, we are men!
Now, my CWT pard...lets please resort to some common courtesy and respect for ALL opinions. The Board would greatly improve if this is carried out in good faith.
Do we have a good faith agreement, my friend?
Yours Most Respectfully,
Rob Adams
-----
Depends on the opinion. Not all opinions deserve respect. For instance, Person X could hold racist opinions. Do they deserve respect? Obviously not. Opinions about history should be based on historical fact. Why should opinions based on historical myth deserve respect? I will respect the person who offers the opinion just as I respect you, Rob, provided they show respect themselves, but I cannot respect a false opinion.
The reason I like to cite professional historians is because one of the things they do is identify and explode myths with solid research and evaluation of sources.
Re: some people can't apparently read & interpret history..<liberally paraphrased but close>
An analogy, if you will, please: Do you think people who can't read & interpret should not be allowed to vote?
After all, they do not have ALL the facts? I believe that history is a very open ended topic when discussing the WHY some particular people made decisions to do what they did. Hence...history is not an exact science but a recording by mere mortals leaving info for us to discern via various ephemera and etc. Here comes the hard portion...so-called 'factual' interpretaton post fact by professional historians.' Most men are incessantly, and many times unwittingly providing their personal interpretation of an event which preceeded them by many, many years. I don't care how unbiased they perceive or desire their interpretation, it will always include some degree of contamination. Many times this contamination is intentional, many times not. We as history buffs pick one of these interpretations and either dig deeper for the answers or take a Professor's word as THE gospel. I appreciate any Prof. who attempts to bring a better understanding to WBTS history but I realize they are not exact on anything.
I remain and TAKE MY STAND ;-), that my ancestors did not fight the WBTS to keep anyone in bondage. My ancestors fought an invading army, sent by people who couldn't/wouldn't mediate fully and let them peacefully leave the Union. Not ALL northern people wished to deny the south it's secession but were drafted into an army, anyway. This was the law.
In SUMMATION: Many different issues caused the WBTS, not JUST slavery. No 'pro historian' will EVER convince me otherwise, no matter what their credentials. But I appreciate the attempt. ;-)
I applaud your sterling astuteness in observing my & Cash's debate. I take heed and will comply, my friend and supermod.
Please note that Cash and I never take our ramblings personal and no bad feelings were intended on my part, nor perceived by my neo-union counter-pard. I think we were just attempting to help the board , but I'll limber my 'field guns.' :-) Thank you Ami for your kind undestanding.
Please don't take this as an interjection to that 'dispute' between you and Mr. Cash.
However, just to address you last post:
"I remain and TAKE MY STAND ;-), that my ancestors did not fight the WBTS to keep anyone in bondage. My ancestors fought an invading army, sent by people who couldn't/wouldn't mediate fully and let them peacefully leave the Union. Not ALL northern people wished to deny the south it's secession but were drafted into an army, anyway. This was the law."
First of all, I would agree that your ancestors (unless they were a part of the wealthy slave holding 'aristocracy') most likely did not fight to keep anyone in bondage, but to defend against an invading army. Your ancestors did not start the war either, but after it was started by the politicians and 'powers that be' at the time, your ancestors did what they thought was the right thing, to go out and defend against the 'aggressors'.
But to the last two sentences of your post (above), I do have an objection.
In the early stages of the war there was no draft in the North. Those young men and boys who went to war volunteered out of a patriotic duty, in a manner similar to that of your in ancestors. They too are innocent of 'starting the war'. They, likewise, did not go to war to free anyone in bondage, but later, as they witnessed the horror of slavery in the South slowly came to the idea that they were doing a good thing, not only fighting for Union, but also freeing mortal human beings from oppression.
So, largely, for your ancestors and those boys from the North who fought,
the war, at least initially was not about slavery.
However, those innocents did not start the war.
It is undeniable that the central issue that lead up to the war was slavery, and if it was "not JUST slavery", any other issues offered as issues were at best peripheral.
While the issue of slavery was central to the causes of the dispute that led to secession, it was the preservation of the Union which the North was (initially) fighting for. In Lincoln's words: "I consider the central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves."
I am personally of the opinion that it was ultimately a good thing that the U.S. did not submit and allow the South to "peacefully leave the Union". We are all better for it today, both North and South, and today we can have these discussion about the history of our nation as fellow countrymen rather than as 'foreigners'.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Re: some people can't apparently read & interpret history..<liberally paraphrased but close>
An analogy, if you will, please: Do you think people who can't read & interpret should not be allowed to vote?
After all, they do not have ALL the facts? I believe that history is a very open ended topic when discussing the WHY some particular people made decisions to do what they did. Hence...history is not an exact science but a recording by mere mortals leaving info for us to discern via various ephemera and etc. Here comes the hard portion...so-called 'factual' interpretaton post fact by professional historians.' Most men are incessantly, and many times unwittingly providing their personal interpretation of an event which preceeded them by many, many years. I don't care how unbiased they perceive or desire their interpretation, it will always include some degree of contamination. Many times this contamination is intentional, many times not. We as history buffs pick one of these interpretations and either dig deeper for the answers or take a Professor's word as THE gospel. I appreciate any Prof. who attempts to bring a better understanding to WBTS history but I realize they are not exact on anything.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with the above, but let me offer that on a group dedicated to discussing historical events, opinions that are backed by actual historical evidence are far more respected than opinions that have no basis in history. That doesn't mean the person with those opinions is not respected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
I remain and TAKE MY STAND ;-), that my ancestors did not fight the WBTS to keep anyone in bondage.
I can't speak to their personal motivations, but remember they didn't start the war, nor did they set policy for the confederacy. Had the confederate army won, though, slavery would have been perpetuated on this continent far into the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
My ancestors fought an invading army, sent by people who couldn't/wouldn't mediate fully and let them peacefully leave the Union.
As the Federals determined that unilateral secession was against the law, they were enforcing US law. Using the same logic you're using, then, you would presumably think it would be okay for people to shoot at policemen trying to apprehend bank robbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
In SUMMATION: Many different issues caused the WBTS, not JUST slavery.
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
No 'pro historian' will EVER convince me otherwise, no matter what their credentials.
So your mind is completely closed and you refuse to pay attention to any facts whatsoever?
Richmond, of course, was burned by retreating confederates. Federal troops put the fires out.
Cash:
..."to honour civilians who were injured or killed as a result of Sherman's campaign through the South; and also to capture the remnants of what were once beautiful, prosperous cities."
Was Richmond not once a beautiful, prosperous city? Could these women be mourning the loss of their homes and loved ones?
That is why I posted this photo and many others; and why I started this thread...to show the loss and cost in human suffering.
"It is difficult to imagine the conflagrant hatred of an army whose sole purpose led to the destruction of a State whose only 'crime' was to exercise the right to liberty and self-determination. It is even more difficult to understand that this army unleashed it's terror on the remaining inhabitants of cities such as Columbia, which consisted mostly of women, children, and those too old or sick to fight. The Leiber Code of Conduct did not seem to apply to the citizens of the South."
Dawna, I am sorry, but from this statement I gathered you were trying to also establish blame for supposed attrocities done by Sherman's army's march to the sea and their later march through South Carolina, not just to show the loss and cost in human suffering.
Did I draw a wrong conclusion?
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
Dawna, I am sorry, but from this statement I gathered you were trying to also establish blame for supposed attrocities done by Sherman's army's march to the sea and their later march through South Carolina, not just to show the loss and cost in human suffering.
Neil:
"That is why I posted this photo and many others." The photos capture the remnants of what were once beautiful cities. "The loss and cost in human suffering" are a result of Sherman's march to the sea, South Carolina being the 'avengement' state.
Is my mind closed?...I'm afraid this would apply to only one matter often discussed; the folly belief that only slavery caused the WBTS. Otherwise, no. I'm open to everything else discussed with moderation & good spirit. And yes, this includes the "facts."
Forgive my brevity, but I kindly suggest we reapply our thoughts to the "Avengement of...." Post. ;-)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
