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.
My prayers are sincerely with you and your little girl. I hope she recovers very soon my friend. Make sure she remains adequately hydrated by offering plenty of fluids & TLC!
I am kind of with Ole on this one. The man has been given much in the way of recognition as a historian, and I must admit I have no clue as to his 'world view' as you put it.
I take it you have seen my comments of Thomas DiLorenzo as a credible historian and how I veiw him as such. I have no idea what the man's 'world view' is or how he votes in elections or what party he belongs to. He just sucks as a historian because he cannot research himself out of a wet paper bag during a Catagory V hurricane. In my own opinion, formed by reading and checking his 'work.'
I look in Forner's book at his footnotes and his sources. I see the Congressional Globe used quite often and other historical documents that I can find on line to check out what he says matches his views and writtings in his book. To judge the man without having read him is a bit premature in my own opinion.
May I ask, if you have not read the man, how can you make any kind of informed opinion on his work? Even Karl Marx has been used on this board as a historical source on the causes of the Civil War. I prefer to see how an author holds up by checking his sources, his references, credentials, awards, etc.
And, I'm pretty sure by now the man's 'world view' has changed a bit, with the fall of the wall and the former Soviet Union. If he is still alive, that is.
MobileBoy, I try and try to tell you, go ahead, read the sources, even the ones you don't agree with, even the ones I don't agree with, but I will let you in on a secret of mine. I don't check how the author/historian votes or what party he belongs to. If you derive any enjoyment out of this trait of mine, please do, and charge it to my account. It will take a bit more than this for me to discredit someone in his field, especially someone with this man's historical credentials.
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
Neil,
Of course you credit the guy and support him because he's blatantly anti-Southern.As such he could be a serial killer or a pscizophrenic(I tried real hard to spell that right)which also wouldn't question his ability to be a good historian.
Are you seriously telling me that an author's world views have no bearing on his credibility.Honestly they matter a great deal to me.If an author was in the Heavens Day Cult I wouldn't take him seriously.That may not be 100%accurate, but I do judge poeple by their actions to determine whether I value their opinion. What do you mean by historical credentials?I would agree that he could denote sources etch...I would also agree that Dilorenzo suffers in documenting sources on occasion ,but he does make some good points.I don't say everything this author says will be wrong.I'm with you that you can learn something from any book.But please tell me he never put his opinion into the book, or that he never drew conclusions.He certainly does interject his thoughts.So I would think if one of these authors believed he was impregnated by an alien you might question his judgement.Of course if it's written in a Northern bias God forbid to question his findings? His imaginary sex life with an alien would be irrelevant to his drawing accurate conclusions as long as was neo-Northern.
Regards,
Ashley
There is a way to discern whether a person lays his personal beliefs on the line of his writing. When it comes to the subject at hand, did that person adhere strictly to the understood rules and research? If he did, and has at hand proof, evidence, resources, and a fair amount of logic, then he has provided the credentials to comment with some degree of believability. That he cheats on his wife or dismisses the holocaust is of no concern. He has shown that in this one particular area, he is displaying his view of the truth and he has provided the reasoning backing his version.
One can accept or reject that view based on his presented evidence, not whether he likes little boys overmuch. I've met and conversed with a number of "experts." I have no idea where they stand on abortion or whether they are dog or cat persons. They have simply shown that they have one overriding interest -- the bottom line.
Hennessey was a tall, shy kind of guy. Bearrs could overwhelm Teddy Roosevelt. Nolan was reticent and thoughtful. Davis is the guy you'd want for your brother-in-law. What they did behind their curtains never came up. Each and every one of them held one vision. And it was that vision that all of us are looking for.
You know, its funny, but I have to tell you a little story. I believed EXACTLY as you do now, about the South, its reasons for going to war, that slavery had almost nothing to do with the reason for secession. I believed that it was about States rights and that the average Confederate soldier did not fight for the institution of slavery, that the North had economic interests involved with going to war, to include tariffs.
Why did I believe all of that? Back in 1993? Because:
A. My high school classes in history concerning the Civil War consisted of about two paragraphs giving the standard line about slavery and Lincoln getting shot.
B. I had just joined a Confederate Civil War reenacting unit that had the greatest bunch of guys in the world, whom I trusted and listened to when they told me their views on why the South left the Union. These guys would never lie to me and I would swear on a stack of bibles today that they never did. KNOWINGLY.
Now think about this one, Ashley. By viewing my posts on the board here, you can pretty much guess just how stubborn I am when I think I am right on a view or topic. Now apply that same stubborness in defense of the South and its reasons for rebellion. Twelve years later and after countless bull sessions, debates, books, articles, research and arguments, I have come to the conclusions I now hold about the Great Rebellion.
I do not reject authors out of hand because they represent an oppossing viewpoint. I do not favor just 'Northern' books or publications. I am amazed at how people can look at a title of a book and judge it slanted in favor of the North. I particularly like the book Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Far ber, not because of its title, which some claim because of it, it's in Lincoln's favor. The author simply used this title to illustrate that this was the Constitution that Lincoln was supposed to opperate under, not that it was 'his' constitution. But yet the book is dismissed because, heaven forbid! It looks like it is in favor of Lincoln and his actions concerning the constitution during the war. Never mind that the author actually faults Lincoln over some of his actions concerning the constitution, we don't dare read it because of its title.
Yes, Ashley, I am aggravated. By the idea that one's view, research and sources can be dismissed by a label. The author is 'liberal' or 'socialist' or 'communist' in his 'world view.' And of course, Ashley, if the author was a convicted axe murder, I would take that into consideration, but in my 'world view' you are stating an extreme that is out of context with the real issue here. Does the author do his job as a historian. Does he present historical documentation, doe he list credible sources, has he been recognized by his peers at being good at his jobs.
It is a huge cop-out to slap a label on someone and discredit his work without the effort to see if he has anything to say, it's even cowardly in my own opinion. I did not have a view of DiLorenzo until I read him. It would not have been fair to do so. I do not know his political background or his criminal record or even if he has one. I don't even know if the man is a Southerner or a Northerner by birth and don't care.
Have you read the book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, A History of the Civil War, by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel? You should. He is a Professor of History and Economics at Golden Gate University, San Francisco. He served in the US Army as a tank platoon leader. The man infuriates me. He takes the view that many of our Southern supporters on the board take with Lincoln, that he pretty much destroyed the constitution. He is well spoken, has researched his book well and uses excellent sources to back up his views on this subject. And I don't know who he voted for, if he is a libertarian or a conservative AND I DON'T CARE. It's the evidence he uses to present his views that I am concerned about and if he followed good procedure, technique, what ever you want to call it, in presenting them.
I have arrived at my views after a very long time and a very twisted and convoluted path. I stand by them and challenge them to be overturned by anyone who can prove me wrong. Or why debate at all? If you prefer your history to be like religion, based on just your belief, then let's stop debating. I will never argue a man's faith. It's too much like trying to punch out a cloud. No substance, no foundation and no reason for it.
But for God's sake, if you are just going to quote that the North is 'bad' and the South was 'good' because that is what you believe, then a person should just say so. Don't harp that an author is a commie or a liberal or etc., if you just don't want to chance your beliefs being challenged or you don't feel like digging for the truth or historical facts. Hell, I did that for four years after joining my reenacting group, I just took those fellows views on faith. I believed! Imagine my surprise when the books I began reading so I could answer questions by spectators with some intelligence and background kept giving me different answers. And continues to do so to this day.
Now, do authors have bias? Do historians have bias? Look back through the long list of Civil War authors and you will find this to be true. Based on the political climate of the time, the evidence and documents available for research, how detailed some of them were, etc., yep, it does happen. Does it happen today? More than likely. Which is why I read more than one book or view more than one web site or debate on more than this board. This is also why I like to look at the original source documents from the time just before and during the war, to see what those men and women of those times actually said. That kind of source documentation is the real eye-opener.
Now, like Ole, I have ranted and raved, and I apologize if I have come across too strongly. But a label on an author is not research, anymore than calling someone a 'redneck' because he is from the South or a 'liberal' because he is from the East Coast. Question: How the hell can you know anyone from slapping a label on him?
Answer: You can't.
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'm with Neal on this. Foner was describing how Republicans responded to the Dred Scot decision. Lincoln and others did talk and write about a slave power conspiracy and apparently really believed it to be true. Foner is accurate and other historians of the period are in agreement with this. It doesn't mean that we in the 21st century have to accept that there was a "slave conspiracy," But slandering someone the poster has admitted he has never read is pretty low. "I'm not responding to what the man is writing, and I can't think of any arguments myself, so I'll call him a name." We all can do better.
I wish to assure you that I do not think MobileBoy was slandering anyone, just stating his view on it. But I agree that simply to label someone and use it as an excuse not to read him is wrong in my opinion.
Ole, I hate it when I lose my temper, it shows a real lack of control and a serious sign of weakness. A rant, when I do it, is pretty close to that weakness, which is why I apologize and try not to do it.
But, what the hell, I know its me when I do it, I just don't want to steamroller anyone just because I rant.
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
"Many Republicans believed that slavery would be established in the North, not by a direct Supreme Court decision but by a ruling on the right of slaveholders to bring slaves into and out of free states without forfeiting their propery rights. In the Lemmon case, which was pending before the Supreme Court at the outbreak of the Civil War, eight slaves brought from Virginia to New York for shipment to Texas sued for their freedom. The highest court in the state affirmed that on being brought to free soil a slave automatically became free, but Republicans were apprehensive that the Supreme Court would overturn this decision and establish the right of transit of slaves through the free states. One New York politician expected the Lemmon case to furnish "the material for agitation through the whole of the next Presidential campaign, from 1860 to 1864." Others insisted that once the right of transit has been won, southerners would set up slave markets in the North. "We shall see men buying slaves for the New-York market," predicted Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. "there will be no legal power to prevent it."
(On the Lemmon case, see Chester L. Barrows, William M. Evarts (Chapel Hill, 1941), 83-87; New York Tribune, September 25, October 1-6, December 6, 1857, April 21, 1860; Ohio State Journal, May 17, 22, 1858; New York Times, November 15, 1852.)
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
Neil,
First of all I will label a book if I choose to do so.I specifically said the book could contain some good information and the guy could quote sources correctly.You have no right to tell someone how to think.If you're a reflection of how Northerners treated my ancestors no wonder they wanted to form their own nation.I have family who live in Colombus not to mention I know there are plenty of good Americans now in the North as well as back then. This is America in case you forgot and I'm not required to salute you Neil,bow to your image, or accept your opinion as the Word of God.I didn't realize that we had entered the past and I was a German soldier and you were Hitler.I didn't realize I had to think like you and take your opinions as my own.Excuse for me for thinking that I lived in America.If I think a witch or Communist author causes me to question the validity of his opinion I can and will do so.I don't rule out or didn't that the author may contribute something positive.I'm also not wrong because I don't buy all of the bull you spew on these boards.I'm not wrong because I don't think like exactly as you do.Excuse me for thinking that I had the right to to use my brain and question what you say.Sig Heil Neil.Or perhaps you prefer Emporer UnionBlue.
Let's talk about all of this research you did on this holy grail search for truth you went on.Honestly it appears to me to be a case of willful self-deceiving but lets discuss it none the less.First your truth led you to conclude that the slave power ruled the government with an iron fist.I brought up the fact that the slave power voted against the tarrif of abominations where you discounted that well known historical fact with your typical excuses.It seems to be an all too familiar precedent on your quest for truth.That being reality is seen as less valid than Northern excuses as to why something happened.You also somehow managed to ignore some other facts on the slave power in your mythical quest for truth.The slave power wanted to purchase Cuba.America didn't yet somehow this is ignored by you.The Western Territories gained from the Mexican War were wanted by the slave power for expanding slavery.Again this ruling power was shown by facts to not rule the government.Not one territory from the Mexican War ever admitted slavery.Yet in your mind you fooled yourself into maintaining without doubt the slavepower ruled the government.You even responded indignantly that the slave power wanted to make Kansas a slave state.Yes they did and it wasn't admitted as a slave state.However you continue to hold this position that the slave power ruled the government.Was there a numerical superiority in Congress that were quote slave power.Again the answer would be No.This is just another example of your ranking of bias high above facts.I brought up Northern newspapers being closed in violation of free speech.You said you've seen no evidence of such.You worked hard to form your opinions no doubt but I doubt your sincerity in finding the truth.Over and over again you disregard whatever facts don't fit your bias.Thea listed example after example of evidence of war crimes you totally ignored.
Lets talk about the war.Through your research you've concluded that the war was all about slavery.Again if you're searching for truth I would pay more attention to what happened than opinions.There was no intent by Lincoln to abolish slavery yet the war was all about slavery to you.Funny the US President nor the United States government are at odds with your views developed over years of hard research.Yet how you choose to overlook what Lincoln said in did in 1861 regarding slavery is inconceivable to me.Lets look at the fact that 70 percent of Southerners by all everyone's estimation owned no slaves.This fact you threw in the trashcan on your search for truth because of what reason?I wish you would tell me.There are letters out there where Confederate soldiers mentioned fighting for states rights.Yet on your search for truth you decided you would reach a more accurate position by making the conclusion that you or some other Northern author have a better idea of what the Confederate soldier was fighting for than he did.I've seen arrogance before but this borders on the ridiculous.I believe you also agree with the lazy assumption that those who didn't own slaves must have wanted to own them.What evidence is there to support this?You have also concluded that the tarrif wasn't an issue at all only slavery mattered.So why did Southern newspapers decry the tarrif issue?Were they just looking to provide evidence to future lost causers with no knowlege of the future lost cause?Why did the Southerners always complain about federal money being used for internal improvements,such as railroads,canals,roads, etch...was it just to get attention?Since they prevented such activities in the Confederate constitution I find it impossible to believe it is logical to think slavery was all that were on their minds.What did this Republican party do with the tarrif Neil?They hiked it up just like Southerners said that they would.So much so that the tarrif went from 15 to 47 %,and the increase lasted for decades after the war was over.Yet God forbid that someone suggest that economics had anything to do with the North invading the South.No Northern newspapers had headlines talking about the economic disaster if the South was allowed to secede.These weren't Southerners these were Northerners saying this things.Yet apparently it made sense on your search for truth to disregard all opinions be they Northern or Southern which don't suit your bias.Why did all of those Northern newspapers say those things Neil?What is more irrational to you believing that perhaps some poeple felt that way in the North, or that No it was all about slavery.Why bother to write about economics at all by Northeners if slavery was all anyone was thinking about.Again what poeple wrote in said is dicounted in your search for truth in favor of your opinion.Can you not see the audacity required to be arrogant enough to really believe you know the way poeple thought 140 years ago in spite of what they themselves said.That is taking on the role of you yourself as God. Where was all the newspaper articles from the North talking about a war to free the slaves?War because of secession period and the consequences feared would result from it.The North didn't invade the South to free the slaves in 1861 and never said that they did.Again to you somehow it was about nothing but slavery.Lincoln offered to guarantee slavery to Confederates for an oath of loyalty in 1863. In case anyone confused the issue later he left little doubt.The war wasn't about only slavery.
Now let's talk about your characterization of my beliefs as guided by the principle of the South is good and the North is bad.I 've said over and over again that I believe secession was illegal under the Constitution.Looks like you missed on that one.I acknowledge slavery was evil and don't defend chattel slavery.How does that make the South look good?My search for truth isn't a hypoctitical one.I condemn bloody Bill Anderson ,Quantrill, and any Southerner who waged war on civilians.I make no excuses for them or any effort to defend them.How does this make the South look good I ask you?Do I say some things that make look the North bad?Absolutely but the things I condemn our factual invents.Am I wrong to mention any wrongs committed by the North.I condemn Sherman for what he did.I'm sorry if my integrity thinks waging war on women and children,looting,rape, etch... were wrong.My mind does not determine what to believe based on the geographic location of where events occurred.It's not being anti-Northern it is being a moral American.I apologize I was brought up in a home where acts such as those I mentioned were wrong.Unless you honor Bin Laden and pardon 911 which I personally do not how is it consistent to defend certain acts of terrorism but criticize others.I consider all terrorism cowardly whether it happened in the North or South is irrelevant.One of my favorite commanders in the war is George Thomas.I admire most of all for his integrity but I think he was a good commander also.I don't can't condemn him as bad because he fought for the North.Rounding out my top five would be Hancock.Again I don't say bad things about Hancock and critisize him because he fought for the North.I don't slander all Union troops most of whom I admire and respect by supposing they bled and died for the reasons some Northern politicians had for pursuing the war.I absolutely vehemently dislike Braxton Bragg.How does criticizing A Southern commander make the South look good.I don't agree with evrything Jefferson Davis did or several other southern politicians.How do those positions elevate the South.Your thoughts are governed by your personal agenda to shield the North from any blame in this horrible conflict.My thoughts aren't and never will be governed by that bias.I'm American and don't view Northerners as any less American than me.Though I'll say my ideas about an American are not the same as yours.Yes I was against Lincoln imprisoning lawfully elected members of Marylands legislature.That is not being anti-Northern it being pro-American.You defend the act as justified.Plenty of Northerners then protested and spoke against this act as well as Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus.Were they being anti-Northern or essentually anti-themselves Neil.To assume they were anti-themselves is irrational.They were being pro-American.Your assessment of my thinking is terribly weak.
Now lets look at why I believe you can be irrational at times.First you believe in the right to revolution only if the majority of poeple in a said country support revolution.That needs no further comment and that comment can stand on its own.
You are against secession of the Confederate states, but you support the secession of West Virginia.That is a nice example of consistent thinking.You hold up the Constitution in an argument against secession.No problem there but you have no problem with Lincoln disregarding the Constitution as he did over and over again.How is that consistent thinking because to me the reasons for your position appears completely at odds with itself.You'll find no double-standard Neil in any of my reasoning.The same cannot be said for you can it my friend?
Why do I have to think the North is all bad becuase I don't fall for your bias hook,line, and sinker.If you would take your blinders off you would seem that I'm pro-American
regardless of whether a Southerner or Northerner was wrong.I aslo apologize yet again for bringing facts up in a debate where you conclude opinion is more relevant.And I apologize once again for having the gall to have my own opinion and not simply take yours as my own.I don't wish to join your cult nor a Neo-Confederate cult.If all I was interested in was to make to echo the South is good the North is bad there are plenty of Neo-Confederate chat rooms out there.I'm interested in learning.I don't think I know it all, but since both of my degrees were paid for by academic scholarship I don't see myself as a mindless idiot incapable of drawing my own conclusions.My image of myself nor does the image of any teacher,professor,or boss that I've had lead me to believe that conclusion.
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
