Non Involuntary Servitude Debate

[cash]

Folks,

I feel the need to explain something. For almost 30 years I have been taught the best writing is that which conveys the most in the least number of words. If you want people to read what you write, then you should get to the point quickly, support your position with factual evidence, and then stop. I have been taught it is the ultimate courtesy to your reader to not waste their time and effort by forcing them to wade through extraneous words to finally reach what you want them to take from your message. It's eminently practical from my military training as well, since there's not a lot of time to be reading long messages in the middle of battle. The bottomline is, that's the way I write and I'm not going to change.

Also, I am direct. You will have no doubts about where I stand or how I feel. I think most people prefer an honest and direct approach. I won't call a person friend to their face and denigrate them when they turn their back. I've had to tell people I would not support their promotion to the next rank, and I did it by looking them in the eye and telling them their performance didn't merit promotion. I've had more than one tell me they appreciated the honesty.

Finally, I respect facts. If you have facts your position will be difficult to assail and is more persuasive. If all you have is your opinion, well, I'm sure we've all heard the famous saying that opinions are like a certain part of the body. Everyone has one and they all stink. An opinion based on fact, however, is far more respectable than an opinion based on nothing. Show the facts on which you base your opinion and your opinion becomes far stronger.

Because I respect facts, when someone gets the facts wrong I will probably correct them. I don't care who they are. Some may take offense at that. I think the truth means more than their feelings, and if they had their facts right to start with there would be no need to correct them. If I'm wrong about a fact, show me where I'm wrong and give me the source so I can confirm it for myself. I have no hesitation about admitting I'm wrong once I am convinced of that, but you will have to convince me first. I won't do so just because you have a different opinion.

Sorry for the digression, now back to the Civil War. I believe this thread is dedicated to discussing what may have caused the war besides what really caused it.

Thus far I haven't seen too many things brought up that don't have anything to do with you know what.

Regards,
Cash

[JohnW in E.TN]

Such humility. I am in awe.



John W.

[Alabaman]

Dear Cash,
I applaud your reply. Well done, my fellow member!

Real quickly & I'm done: I'm guilty of calling you friend. I considered you my friend up until yesterday when I had doubts? CWT 'friends" is no wrong if meant well, is it? Sorry for calling you friend after our disagreement.

You sure could have explained all this by stating it quickly, assuredly lomg ago, but I'm glad you did. I love to learn from you & really was trying to help matters?

I don't think others would stand up & admit what they've said about you but I have. Eye to Eye! Who's deceitful; me or them?

You wronged me yesterday re: interpreting Ashley's post. When I was posting his reply came in. I never read ashley's post until you accused me of "That aroma again." Do you apologize for this? I was not guilty of this. What do you say, Eye to Eye, Man to Man?

ADDITION: Cash, you said my CS ancestor was a TRAITOR (and you gave THE definition), would have bought slaves and that I would have slaves presently, had the CSA won the war. My ancestors were NONSALEVEHOLDERS! Is this considered "good manners" stated with 100% FACTUAL evidence?? What do you have to say?

This matter is closed on my part, after you kindly reply. Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Rob

[cash]

Originally Posted by Alabaman

You wronged me yesterday re: interpreting Ashley's post. When I was posting his reply came in. I never read ashley's post until you accused me of "That aroma again."

I wasn't referring to that post. Check out your post #856 on the Slavery; THE Cause? thread and compare it with the post of yours to which I responded yesterday. You disparage a characterization of Calhoun and not only welcome but applaud a characterization of Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Do you apologize for this? I was not guilty of this. What do you say, Eye to Eye, Man to Man?

Eye-to-eye, man-to-man, I say you are guilty.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

ADDITION: Cash, you said my CS ancestor was a TRAITOR (and you gave THE definition),

Secession was an unconstitutional act, therefore all the seceded states actually remained in the Union and their citizens legally owed their allegiance to the United States. Those who, owing allegiance to the United States, levy war on the United States meet the definition of treason. As I said yesterday it doesn't matter if they didn't believe they owed allegiance to the United States just as it doesn't matter if a bank robber believes he is entitled to have all the money in the bank.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

would have bought slaves and that I would have slaves presently, had the CSA won the war.

I believe I said they would probably have acquired slaves. The logical extension of this is that you would probably have slaves today.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

My ancestors were NONSALEVEHOLDERS!

At that point. Even the first slaveholders were nonslaveholders until they acquired their first slaves. Slavery was an immensely profitable venture and the best way to rise up the social and economic ladder was to acquire slaves.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Is this considered "good manners" stated with 100% FACTUAL evidence?? What do you have to say?

I say it's based on the 100% fact that slavery was profitable [I've previously written on the profitability of slavery and my evidence is available in this forum], the 100% fact that the confederacy was formed for the purpose of perpetuating slavery [see the Cornerstone Speech for one piece of evidence], the 100% fact that people tend to work to improve their economic and social position [it's one of the bases for the field of economics], the probability that your ancestors were no different from anyone else, and the 100% fact that the best way in the south to improve your economic and social position was to acquire slaves [see any biography of Bedford Forrest or Joe Brown for support].

Now, I hope that answers all your questions and we can get back to the purpose of the thread.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
You have my respect for being a military man so you can't be all bad.I admire you for your post.I must say however that you frequently state your opinion as fact and you presume to alone have the power to decide which source is good or what is correct.Being direct is fine, talking to grown men like their children is rude and insulting.I was direct when I insulted you but it was still rude.Comments like let me know when you read a history book are clearly intended as insults.You have a problem respecting someone else's opinion.I think you are a real smart guy as I've always said.But you don't have psychic powers so that you know all Southerners aspired to own slaves or that you know slavery would be around today.Those aren't facts and are real iffy opinions in my book.Show respect and you'll be treated with respect.

[Alabaman]

Cash,

So you won't own up, Man to Man, Eye to Eye that you were wrong?
This shows what 'kind' of man you really are. And 'where' you really come from. (remember, "where I come from a man apologizes when he's wrong.") Yeah, right.....

Your obsession with slavery is proposterous and your attitude is status quo; cranky!

Why don't you place 100% evidence of your fact regarding what my family would have done re: slaves? Put your money where your mouth is. You'd lose & you don't wish to EVER be wrong. But, YOU ARE WRONG!

You never inform us about your ancestors and say you don't care what they did because they don't dictate what you do today. Are you aware of gentics, Cash? Sure your not the reincarnation of some famous person? And why are you so interested in getting ALL the facts re: history wrappd up into one tidy Cash said-so ball of wax? Agenda, perhaps?

Jesus was technically a slave to us all. He died for our sins. Therefore, you are a slaveholder!

Later,
Rob

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I must say however that you frequently state your opinion as fact and you presume to alone have the power to decide which source is good or what is correct.

[sigh] Okay, one last post on this and then hopefully all concerns are answered.

I've been studying the Civil War seriously since 1977. By "seriously" I don't mean reading a couple of books here and there. I mean in-depth, adult research. I personally possess over 1,200 books on the Civil War and the issues surrounding it. I personally possess a large collection of historical magazines dealing with the Civil War, including almost every issue of "Civil War Times" that was published, and every issue of "North and South" that was published except for one issue. I spend most Saturdays that I'm not working in a university library doing research on the Civil War. At 5¢ per page, I've spent several hundred dollars photocopying articles from scholarly journals. I came to my conclusions after many hours of research, study, thought, discussion, reflection, and revision. So am I confident that my conclusions are right? You better believe it. I've seen some of the things brought up here brought up before and thoroughly refuted before so many times I've lost count. So when I see them still brought up it is with a sense of amazement that anyone could still believe that and frustration that anyone could still believe that.

By the way, I'm intimately familiar with most of the "lost cause" arguments because I originally held that position and changed my mind after learning what the real history actually said.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Comments like let me know when you read a history book are clearly intended as insults.

An insult to your stated position but not to you personally, since it clearly acknowledges you have the ability and intelligence to read and comprehend what a real history book will tell you and it clearly implies you are not stupid but instead have just been exposed to inaccurate information.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You have a problem respecting someone else's opinion.

I have a problem respecting opinion based on myth. Show me the facts on which the opinions are based.

I hope that answers everyone's concerns.

Regards,
Cash

[CChartreux]

“It's eminently practical from my military training as well,…” [Cash #161]

and

“Cash,
You have my respect for being a military man so you can't be all bad.I admire you for your post.” [Mobile Boy #165]

and

“This shows what 'kind' of man you really are.” [Alabaman #166]

Hmmm…let’s see here…Cash serves/served his country through his service in the military...which means Cash volunteered to put his life on the line (if it came to that) to further whatever interests the United States Government (a combination of elected and appointed officials in a variety of capacities that serve the people) deems appropriate at any given time.

Hmmm…let’s see…that means that Cash would theoretically give up his life (if it came to that)…whether he agrees with the opinions of the citizens he serves or not…whether he ‘likes’ them or not…or for that matter, whether he even knows them or not.

Hmmm,...let’s see…I wonder what “kind” of man that makes Cash. Seems like it would more than 'respect' to me...but what do I know about things like that?

Well, once again, I’m humbled into a state of silence and I’m at a loss for words.


Thank you for your service, Cash. (And, of course, the rest of the veterans and current military members as well.)


(Oh…hmmm…let’s see…I think Cash enjoys an interest in the Civil War in his spare time…)

[sockknitter]

Originally Posted by cash

I've seen some of the things brought up here brought up before and thoroughly refuted before so many times I've lost count. So when I see them still brought up it is with a sense of amazement that anyone could still believe that and frustration that anyone could still believe that.

After hesitating to post a message here that isn't strictly on topic, I must finally say that we should remember that not everybody has a photographic memory, not everybody has been on this site since it began, and not everybody has devoted such diligence to study as you have, Mr. (Ms.?) Cash. I am not being argumentative but I would prefer that this be a friendly discussion site and we must tolerate not only differences of opinion and sides in debate, but digressions and what might seem to us astounding ignorance.

This preference is based on fact. I don't have a great memory for what I've read. I can't always learn things on the first take. Redundant threads are fine with me.

I can't read books or threads for multiple hours on end without a break. I do however value myself as a human being and think there is hope for learning. I have encountered other people who seem dismissive and although I appreciate their knowledge and skills, I will confess I as a human don't quite accept their remarks as easily as those from people I judge to be fair and patient.

Personally, I don't really care what insults are hurled here. I don't want any threads closed down. The insults are a waste of bandwidth but if that's the best anybody can post, I can skim over them and move on.

Cash, your input is usually pertinent and I regret all these personal remarks, but we can recognize feelings are a part of being human.

Frivolously but curiously: are you at all related to Johnny Cash? I ask because I somewhat reluctantly saw the recent movie "Walk the Line" last weekend.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Alabaman

So you won't own up, Man to Man, Eye to Eye that you were wrong?

Well, I was wrong. My last post wasn't the last post on this. And I guess you didn't really mean it when you said, "This matter is closed on my part, after you kindly reply." I assumed you were being truthful then.

Let me repeat. I wasn't wrong. I wasn't talking about Ashley's post. I was comparing what you posted in the "Slavery; THE Cause?" thread, post #856 with what you posted in this thread, post #123. In the first thread you denigrated the characterization of Calhoun. In this one you approve the characterization of Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Why don't you place 100% evidence of your fact regarding what my family would have done re: slaves? Put your money where your mouth is. You'd lose & you don't wish to EVER be wrong. But, YOU ARE WRONG!

I listed the facts on which I based my opinion. Show me where those facts are wrong.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

You never inform us about your ancestors and say you don't care what they did because they don't dictate what you do today. Are you aware of gentics, Cash?

I'm aware of genetics, but I've never heard of gentics. Is that something new?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, your environment, your education, and your experiences shape you far more than who your ancestor in the Civil War was, especially since there are a few generations between the Civil War period and today. Besides, my life is full enough and I can point to enough accomplishments of my own that I don't need to point to what some ancestor did to feel good about myself.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Sure your not the reincarnation of some famous person?

I don't believe in reincarnation.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

And why are you so interested in getting ALL the facts re: history wrappd up into one tidy Cash said-so ball of wax? Agenda, perhaps?

My agenda is the same as Ulysses S. Grant's: "I would like to see true history written."

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Jesus was technically a slave to us all. He died for our sins. Therefore, you are a slaveholder!

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen written down in the last six months. You should take a few breaths and calm down.

Now are we done with this diversion?

Regards,
Cash