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.
Go back and reread my post .Perhaps you should have listened more in school.You see I'm FRANKLY troubled that you don't know the difference between a citizen and a person.You see my confused friend a tourist from Belgium visting the gulf coast is a person residing in the South.IF this is too complicated for you I can backtrack.Is that person a citizen of the United States I ask you?The answer would be NO.You see my friend the words citizen and poeple are not nor have they ever been synonymous.How can I word this more plainly so you can get it?What would you have me do limit my vocabulary(which is not extensive anyway)so you can follow.
Ashley,
I direct you to Neil's Post #86 on the "A Moment for Statesmanship" thread, posted on the 29th of September, in which he broke down the numbers for the 450,000. The numbers have been available to see, and yet you still accused others of deliberately lying. There were 450,000 southerners in arms against the confederacy. Now, if you want to play word games in ignoring black soldiers and claiming people are lying, that's your business, but nobody was trying to deceive anyone. Neil's post is very clear:
"Statistics indicate other Southerners' ability to cool white Confederates' ador; and the numbers illuminate but the tip of the iceberg. Southern blacks supplied close to 150,000 Union soldiers and sailors (northern free blacks provided another 50,000). Border South whites added 200,000 and Confederate state whites 100,000 soldiers to Union troop strength. The resulting total of 450,000 Southerners who wore Union blue, half as many as the 900,000 Southerners who wore Confederate gray, replaced every one of the Federals' 350,000 slain men and supplied 100,000 more men besides--a number greater than the usual size of Robert E. Lee's main Confederate army."
Now, I know you have the ability to read a post and remember the gist of what is in it to apply to another thread, so I won't insult your intelligence the way you insulted me above. I'll just say that the numbers have been spelled out and there's no need to repeat that everytime we mention the 450,000 southerners who fought for the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
And nobody today except maybe you considers Missouri to be Southern including Missourians themselves.To refer to Missouri as a slave state or border state would be accurate.
That's a false statement, Ashley. Missouri was and remains a southern state. Not only is this spelled out in Freehling's The South vs. The South but you'll also see it in Daniel Croft's Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis. Note from the "Confederate Military History:" " All that was required to put. the State in line with the other Southern States was prompt and decisive action." http://www.civilwarhome.com/missouri2.htm
Border states were merely slave states that bordered free states.
Rightly or wrongly, Negroes were not citizens of the Confederate States of America.
It is outrageous, and I don't use the word lightly, to insinuate that Ashley has suggested that Negroes are less than human. An apology is due to him.
Bill,
I note that your outrage doesn't extend to his falsely accusing others of being liars. The makeup of the 450,000 southerners who fought for the Union has been discussed more than once in this forum, and it was again broken down by Neil on the 29th of September, including the 200,000 black soldiers from the south who fought for the Union. In his falsely claiming I was lying when I used the 450,000 southerner figure, he listed ONLY white soldiers. The fact that the number includes blacks was clearly spelled out earlier, when he was on the board and participating in the thread in which it was spelled out makes it appear to me as though he were deliberately excluding black soldiers, which is why I very clearly said that is the way it seemed.
When your outrage is more bipartisan I will consider your suggestion of an apology.
Cash:
You have made a comment that has caused some considerate consternation. Will you make a statement as you did and as I did on another post, with added clarification by the one whom you possibly slandered, and not take prompt responsibility for your actions? Cash, I did.
Where you and I both come from, the honorable thing to do is offer an apology. Your honor Cash, like mine, is your bond.
Cash:
I can say with great certainty, Ashley considers blacks as people. His words concerning his point did not direct me otherwise. Ashley is an Educator and some of his students are black. I truly and honorably submit to you as a friend and fellow member, lurking but learning, please re-read what he really said and really meant.
Respectfully, Rob Adams
Rob,
Thank you for your comments.
I am faced with these facts:
1. Neil very plainly spelled out the makeup of the 450,000 southerners who fought for the Union, very plainly saying that it included 200,000 blacks.
2. I used the 450,000 southerner figure in a subsequent posting, showing that 1/3 of all southerners in arms fought for the Union--not white southerners, not white southerners from confederate states, but southerners.
3. Ashley accused me of lying and listed only white southerners.
If he did not accuse me of lying but instead stated he wished to explore the numbers further and wanted to make distinctions between the various categories, I would have had no problem. Instead, the response he provided, that I was lying about 450,000 southerners fighting for the Union and supporting it by only showing numbers of white southerners, indicated to me that at best he did not consider the black soldiers from the south to be southerners.
I regret to say that I have lost the capacity to enjoy conversations with you. You have virtually (perhaps actually) libelled MobileBoy twice today. I'm afraid I cannot have any further communication with you on this or any other thread.
It is no small matter to insinuate that someone is a racist. This can't be shrugged off or laughed away.
Bill
Once again, Bill, your outrage doesn't extend to falsely accusing someone you disagree with of being a liar, so I must say the outrage rings rather hollow. It would have far more impact if it were bipartisan.
1. It has been clearly laid out in a thread Ashley was participating in, just a few days ago, that the 450,000 southerners who fought for the Union included 200,000 southern blacks.
2. I used the 450,000 figure in a subsequent post.
3. Ashley accused me of lying and provided ONLY numbers that referred to white soldiers. I was not the only one who noticed this.
With those facts, it appears, and that's the phrasing I used, as though Ashley at best does not consider those blacks to be southerners.
Perhaps you can explain why it does not appear that way.
Cash:
You have made a comment that has caused some considerate consternation. Will you make a statement as you did and as I did on another post, with added clarification by the one whom you possibly slandered, and not take prompt responsibility for your actions? Cash, I did.
Where you and I both come from, the honorable thing to do is offer an apology. Your honor Cash, like mine, is your bond.
Most Respectfully,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)
Rob,
If I find I have falsely besmirched Ashley I will indeed apologize.
But consider once again:
1. The fact that the 450,000 southerners figure included 200,000 blacks was clearly spelled out in a thread in which Ashley was participating just a few days ago.
2. After I subsequently used the 450,000 southerners figure, Ashley called me a liar and listed only numbers for white soldiers.
Given that, it does appear, and that is the type of phraseology I used, as though he at best does not consider those black soldiers to be southerners.
Thus far his response to my concerns has been to insult my intelligence, which does nothing to alleviate those concerns.
Please remember to be kind, and courteous and civil to eachother.
You don't have to agree, but you have have to stop the bickering, and complaining. I have had enough complaints, and unless you want me to go on a thread closing rampage, you will all play nice. - I am being funny here, please don't whine about my sense of humor.
Cash,
I'm going to follow my friend Bill's example and cease all communication with you.You continue to be totally unreasonable.Now you're claiming I called poeple liars.I have never called anyone a liar in my entire life.If I don't spend my time frustrated at your erroneous remarks then I'll really be able to spend my time more effectively.I also have found I've allowed myself to take out my frustration of dealing with you on other's with pro-Union sentiments who don't deserve it.
Ashley
I suggest that we follow Ami's advice on this thread. I also suggest we return to the original premise of this thread and discuss Mr. Torrens view that Ft. Sumter and slavery were irrelevant as to the Civil War.
May we also dispense with the added 'labels' we tend to give one another when trying to attribute a reason behind a members views or postings? While I admit, it does add spice once in a while, it serves no real purpose other than an attempt to 'score' points or insert a personal 'dig'. So let us drag back the temptation to 'strike a blow' and get back to the idea of presenting our views in a polite manner.
Mobileboy, if I may, I have read your post number 74 and am a bit confused on the comment, "Was that not willful misleading? Why didn't you post the data per my request from the Confederate states?" May I ask what you are inferring by this as I am totally confused by it.
I will also confess that I have a 'glaring personal bias' but I assure you, as others on this board will atest, I have no problem stating when I am wrong or in error. I will state that as of this moment, I stand by the figures I have given you and have yet to detect an error in them. That is why I was curious to check the National Park Service's numbers and to see where and how they broke down the figures. I did not state they, as a source, were 'Neo-Confederate' or any such.
As for my implication your were giving Prof. Freehling 'short shrift' your previous posting left little to the imagination on how you felt about him and his views. But per your observations on another thread, I feel we now understand one another on this point.
I am also a bit confused over your concerns over what comprises a Southern 'citizen' and who should be considered 'Southern.' I am of the opinion, from what I have read, that Missouri and the citizens of this state at the time of the Civil War considered themselves Southern by nature and makeup, considering many of its citizens could trace their beginnings from other Southern states.
As for advancing an agenda, ah, there you have me, friend Ashley. We all come to this board with agenda's, maybe not very well defined ones, or even conscious ones at first. But we all join or develope one eventually. There is no difference between us on that score, I will wager.
But, truly, Ashley, I came to this board to learn, as you have, and I continue to learn everytime I log in. But I confess, I cannot help what conclusions I draw from the information and ideas presented here that help me develope that agenda. That's entirely my fault, as I choose what to consider factual and true, and what is wistful thinking and myth. You, of course, are entirely free to disagree with my own conclusions or viewpoints, as I do not consider such disagreement a blood feud or some such.
If you wish to carry on this debate concerning the number of Southerners who fought for the Union, I know that there is a thread I started with this issue as it's topic. I suggest we meet there for further debate, and let Bill and others continue on this thread with the theme he wished to pursue.
I see in one of your postings above, you consider some of the references and books posted by Shane as to be biased in your opinion. You might want to reconsider that on at least one of the books he gave. Disloyalty In The Confederacy, by Georgia Lee Tatum, is written by a Southerner (although she was born in Blue Springs, Missouri, she was raised in, and taught college in Mississippi).
The book was also read and praised by the founding President of the Southern Historical Society, E. Merton Coulter, and her sources for the book are the Offical Records of the Civil War.
Give it a look and I think you will find it interesting.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Thank you for the link to the nps.
__________________ "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 will do my best to follow Ami's advice as well as your own.I have never complained to Ami about anyone,but I'm sure I've veen complained about.Yes I agree that personal labels don't contribute anything healthy.As I told you on the other board I did feel like you were trying to mislead.You let me know that you weren't and I told you I believe you.I told you then as I say now that I was wrong to jump to conclusions and I'm sorry.I like Freeling as I told you over there.I read the book you're talking about where he states the figures we were debating expecting to learn this glorious new revelation.I learned what I already knew that in the border states remaining in the Union more poeple enlisted in the Union ranks.In Missouri alone there was almost 200,000 enlistments.I 'm not sure Freeling counted African-American units.I honestly can't remember.Using the website I gave you on the other board(which I assumed didn't count black units)by adding the almost 100,000 from the Confederacy,200,000 from Missouri,50,000 from Maryland, and 100,000 from Kentucky you almost get his number exactly.Perhaps my numbers I posted did include African-American units but I assumed not hence I said citizens.Unfortunately the flood from Katrina destroyed my books or I'd just grab the book,As I said I don't think Freeling included them either but maybe you know.I was mad at Freeling for what I felt was misleading me when I read the book.I wouldn't have spent the money on somethimg I already knew.Neil maybe just I associate Southern with Confederate.
I honestly have never considered Missouri a Southern state.Maybe I'm wrong on that count ,but I honestly don't consider it Southern.Saint Louis to me is not in the South and never has been.Maybe that is just how poeple where I live feel I don't know.Anyway enough of taking up this thread.
Also I apologize for directing my anger at you and others due to another's actions because you share the same viewpoints.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
, she was raised in, and taught college in Mississippi).
Linear Mode
