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.
Not you, Ole, maybe to the board in general, but mostly to the originator of the "Shut ..." phrase in question. Just used your 'named posters' phrase as my springboard.
I should have left out the word 'forever', otherwise it's fairly OK - I do say 'Please'.
It's like at the golf tournaments when players are about to tee off, or putt; the marshals announce "Quiet please". It's like "Calm down" or whatever.
Now I'll shut up.
__________________ -
"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
In reference to your post#46, may I offer some advice that General Lee gave Jeb Stuart? "The matter is closed. Let us speak no more about it."
I am sorry I have taken so long to answer you, but I have been very busy conducting training classes of my own here at the Post Office where I work. I have been instructing others how to be On-The-Job-Instructors, a course required by the Post Office for anyone who does any kind of training here.
I have apologized and you have explained, and that is good enough for me. I understand that stress in someone's life can be pretty tough to deal with and sometimes something or someone can set it off with a bang. And believe me, I have nothing but sympathy for you in your recent troubles with your football players.
I pray you will look beyond that incident and others like it and realize that you are of worth and the hard work you do with your students is appreciated, even if it doesn't always seem like it. Concentrate on those students left in your care and always draw strength from your family and you will be well.
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
How interesting that so many of the Monocausalists assert that "it is more accurate" to count all the members of a slave holders family in the percentage. More accurate or more convenient to support an argument? Let's count infants as automobile owners or cell phone owners because one of their parents has one.
It is also convenient, but not convincing, to agrue from silence, as Cash does, on the issue of what Confederate soldiers did not say about slavery. McPherson, as a professional historian, knows that one cannot argue from silence and McPherson does not do so. The professor presents the widespread acceptance of slavery as a theory and makes it clear that he is drawing an assumption without holding that the facts support his assumption. Historians present theories all the time--do not confuse them with conclusions. To argue from silence would make McPherson a laughingstock, along with those who accept such a process.
Tennessee Unionists continued to support the Union even after secession, in many cases. 40% of the white Union soldiers in the state came from West Tennessee and the major support for Reconstruction government was found in Middle Tennessee voters.
How interesting that so many of the Monocausalists assert that "it is more accurate" to count all the members of a slave holders family in the percentage. More accurate or more convenient to support an argument? Let's count infants as automobile owners or cell phone owners because one of their parents has one.
Can I assume then that you would also count slaves as part of non-slaveowners side of the ratio, dividing slaveowners into the total population, and not just the free population? We could then further reduce the percentage of slaveowners in Mississippi and South Carolina by half. Obviously, by including slaves who not part of the pool who are able to own slaves, we corrupt the statistic, as if we had included frogs and mules. The inclusion of women and children who are not able to be counted as slaveowners does the same thing, corrupting the statistic by using their numbers in the denominator against their husbands and fathers in the numerator.
The deception is to look at a state like Mississippi where the number of slaveowners is half what the number of families is, and to declare that only 10% of Mississipians had slaves.
I think that is a saying that there is a special circle of hell for those who first argue by analogy. However...
A better analogy than cellphones would be TVs. What percent of the population owned TV, or have cable service is usually counted by household, rather than individuals.
I think its most accurate to count slavery like that, by household or family, especially when you consider the restrictions around women owning property in the 19th century.
Actually to modern ears, comparing human beings to inanimate objects is a little creepy. I have a thought on this for later.
How interesting that so many of the Monocausalists assert that "it is more accurate" to count all the members of a slave holders family in the percentage.
That's because it is more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
More accurate or more convenient to support an argument? Let's count infants as automobile owners or cell phone owners because one of their parents has one.
Invalid comparison, since we don't count a member of a slaveholding family as a slave owner but rather as a person who benefited from the slave ownership of the family and had a vested interest in maintaining that ownership. When those infants get older, they will be users of those automobiles and cell phones that their parents own. Now that would be a valid comparison, as every member of the slaveowning family was to some extent, depending on their age and condition, a user of slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
It is also convenient, but not convincing, to agrue from silence, as Cash does, on the issue of what Confederate soldiers did not say about slavery. McPherson, as a professional historian, knows that one cannot argue from silence and McPherson does not do so. The professor presents the widespread acceptance of slavery as a theory and makes it clear that he is drawing an assumption without holding that the facts support his assumption. Historians present theories all the time--do not confuse them with conclusions. To argue from silence would make McPherson a laughingstock, along with those who accept such a process.
I'm not so sure I'm arguing from silence as using silence as additional support. And that's pretty valid, in my view. We do it all the time.
All those who don't want to continue discussing the Civil War on this forum are now invited to register their wishes. If we get silence from that invitation, then we have evidence that there is overwhelming support to continue discussing the Civil War on this forum. I think it's telling that not a single confederate soldier ever, not even once, expressed the view that he was not fighting for slavery.
McPherson's exact comment: "Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view. But even those who owned slaves and fought consciously to defend the institution preferred to discourse upon liberty, rights, and the horrors of subjugation." [James M. McPherson, For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 110]
That sure looks like a conclusion to me. But I may be wrong about that.
In response to your assertion (in your Post # 84), "How interesting that so many of the Monocausalists assert that "it is more accurate" to count all the members of a slave holders family in the percentage. More accurate or more convenient to support an argument? Let's count infants as automobile owners or cell phone owners because one of their parents has one."
I often like to come up with hypotheticals to test abstract propositions. That's what I tried to do in my Post # 74. Do you really think that Conclusion 1 or Conclusion 2 yields a discription that is not more misleading than Conclusion 3 or Conclusion 4? I can't imagine you do.
In the alternative, perhaps you think the hypothetical is somehow misleading because it is overly simplistic or for some other reason. But, if so, I think it's your burden to so state and explain why. Failing that, your complaint about the conclusion is, with all due respect, without substance.
In response to your assertion (in your Post # 84), "How interesting that so many of the Monocausalists assert that "it is more accurate" to count all the members of a slave holders family in the percentage. More accurate or more convenient to support an argument? Let's count infants as automobile owners or cell phone owners because one of their parents has one."
In the alternative, perhaps you think the hypothetical is somehow misleading because it is overly simplistic or for some other reason. But, if so, I think it's your burden to so state and explain why. Failing that, your complaint about the conclusion is, with all due respect, without substance.
Hardly so. The mistake you are making is a basic one among those who take an amateur approach to understanding the past. You are trying to apply the definitions of today to days gone by. If you want to understand the past you must use the definitions of that day.
What did "slaveowner" mean in the mid-Nineteenth Century? The laws of that day are quite clear. In almost all states the head of the family owned the real property. Women could own personal property but not real property. This was one reason for the beginninng of the Women's Rights movement, women wanted the right to own property.
You, and others, are trying to apply a modern definition of "owner" and propose that modern "joint property" or "family property" definitions should be applied to the past. You cannot legitimately do this.
You must use the Nineteenth Century definition to determine the rate of slaveholding as understood in that time. If you wish to argue that more people benefitted from slaveholding, then you can make a case for including family members. But, if you widen the definition to include those who benefitted I can make a case that northern factory owners benefitted because of the production of cheap cotton; that New England families benefitted since many had founded fortunes on the Triangular Trade; that consumers generally benefitted because large crops of cotton make possible affordable ready-to-wear clothes.
How many were slaveholders? You are using a legal term with a precise definition when you ask that question. You must accept the answer the definition provides. Then you can ask another question. Don't ask the first question and provide the answer to the second. That is not history.
I'm not so sure I'm arguing from silence as using silence as additional support. And that's pretty valid, in my view. We do it all the time.
McPherson's exact comment: "Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view. But even those who owned slaves and fought consciously to defend the institution preferred to discourse upon liberty, rights, and the horrors of subjugation." [James M. McPherson, For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 110]
That sure looks like a conclusion to me. But I may be wrong about that.
Regards,
Cash
It is a conclusion but clearly a personal one. McPherson makes quite clear that he is positing a theory, not demonstrating a fact. He presents no evidence for that "conclusion" other than his belief that it may be so.
McPherson says that his sample of 374 Southern letters is heavily weighted toward slaveholders. He also points out that only 20% of this number "explicitly voiced these proslavery convictions." P. 54, What They Fought For 1861-65
If "expressing proslavery convictions" means one is fighting for slavery then there were a number of Union soldiers who were fighting for slavery! They clearly supported slavery, they were slaveholders. These men included general officers. Now, do you really believe that these Union men were fighting for slavery? Your logic as expressed in your ideas about McPherson means you must say "yes."
Does not discussing slavery mean one supports slavery? McPherson points out that the majority of Union soldiers never mentioned the matter. Does that mean they were fighting to support slavery?
You, and others, may argue from silence "all the time" but no one who has studied logic will do so. The argument from silence is one of the basic logical fallicies.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
