What They Fought For

[larry_cockerham]

Yeah, but. Please don't forget the Confederate soldiers who didn't give a tinker's **** about slavery. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. Slavery was not part nor parcel of many southern communities and still isn't. Too many young men were drawn into this war for reasons having nothing to do with politics. Merely survival. Generalizations are always chancey at best.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

If you do not do that, no one can possibly make any sense of what you say.

Tim

I believe what I posted is extremely clear.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion,

I find those who claim that 'economic dominance' and that the North 'cared nothing about slaves' are the ones viewing the causes of the war from a 21st century view.

The historical evidence and examination of those men from the 19th century, in their letters, diaries, speeches and papers, are not going to tolerate such a view.

Try as you might, you are always going to have to come back to this 19th century view. View it as you will, twist it, shape it and tie it up in a bright, pink bow, when you open the package, slavery is going to be staring right back at you.

It is not speculation or a 21st century worldview.

It's history.

Unionblue

I think you must have missed the date on that article- 1861...(Eighteen - Sixty - One)...

[unionblue]

Battalion,

No, I did not miss the date on the article.

It is just that you refuse to base your debate from proven, historical reasons from that time.

You want to attach your 21st century, personal reasons for the conflict over the real reasons the men and women of the 19th century actually went to war over.

You read such articles through the 21st century eyes and filter out the history thereby learning nothing of what those people could teach us.

Distortion, for whatever personal cause or point-of-view, is just that, distortion.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Larry,

I am finding out more and more, that the typical, average, Southern soldier, gave more than a tinker's dam about slavery.

I do not find the phrase, 'maybe they did, maybe they didn't' one that would be very flattering to their own ability to know what the issues and causes of the war were. I don't consider them ignorant nor puppets with strings being pulled by the higher-ups.

They all knew what caused the war and what they were fighting for and it's way past time for us to accept what they already knew, said and wrote.

I also disagree that slavery was not part and parcel in most, if not all of Southerner's lives. While many did not own slaves, they supported the institution for many reasons and said so in no uncertain terms.

You state that too many young men into the war with no idea of politics. I agree. They joined because their way of life was threatened, their social order was threatened and in order to keep things as they were. But they joined because they knew this, not because they were tricked into it. With an 80% literacy rate, these people were not ignorant or stupid. They read, they talked and they debated over the key issues of their day.

And the issue of the day, was slavery.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

And what kind of historical fact can one derive from a newpaper editorial?

Ole

[unionblue]

Ole,

One fact and one fact only.

The editorial proves, beyond a doubt, what the single person who wrote the editorial believed.

As for the rest of the millions of the citizens of the North concerning the editorial, we can only speculate, as is being done here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by ole

And what kind of historical fact can one derive from a newpaper editorial?

Ole

Seems as if there are two sets of rules here...

Side B gets to use quotes, letters, etc of the period...

...Side A cannot use these items...unless said items agree with Side B's views.



Sorry,

I don't go by those rules.

[unionblue]

Battalion,

"Seems as if there are two sets of rules here..."

(Sorry, sour grapes and they don't sell here. Never in season, as it were.)

If your upset because no one puts any stock in newspaper editorials, then use quotes, letters, diaries, speeches, etc., but more importantly, justify them, put them in context, don't nip and tuck and just keep the parts you like and throw away the parts you don't.

Editorials from both sides of the question, North and South are just that, editorials representing that one writer's opinion. For every editorial you bring up, anyone can bring up a different viewpoint of another editorial. It's not hard at all to do so and what does it prove in the end?

What did the people say? What did the soldiers say? Bring them here to this board and what they had to say and we'll listen. There are numerous letters and such that give those opinions. Why don't you use them?

But let them speak by not trying to tie your own opinions to what you think they say. They can speak for themselves.

"Sorry, I don't go by those rules."

What rules do you go by?

Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Larry,

I am finding out more and more, that the typical, average, Southern soldier, gave more than a tinker's dam about slavery.

I do not find the phrase, 'maybe they did, maybe they didn't' one that would be very flattering to their own ability to know what the issues and causes of the war were. I don't consider them ignorant nor puppets with strings being pulled by the higher-ups.

They all knew what caused the war and what they were fighting for and it's way past time for us to accept what they already knew, said and wrote.

I also disagree that slavery was not part and parcel in most, if not all of Southerner's lives. While many did not own slaves, they supported the institution for many reasons and said so in no uncertain terms.

You state that too many young men into the war with no idea of politics. I agree. They joined because their way of life was threatened, their social order was threatened and in order to keep things as they were. But they joined because they knew this, not because they were tricked into it. With an 80% literacy rate, these people were not ignorant or stupid. They read, they talked and they debated over the key issues of their day.

And the issue of the day, was slavery.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Your use of the term for storing water in the field is an innovative approach toward our little mechanical sensor. Sometimes I like the emphasis afforded by the asterisks?

The key word in your paragraph and argument, I believe, is average. That's a tricky word. As we all know more folks live in cities than in the country. City folks have access to more papers (not that I would believe all of 'em). The country boys in the civil war were just that. Communication was not all it could have been. Samplings from rural areas that were not plantation (large landholder based) would have perhaps brought far different results than those you champion. My folks didn't live all that far from the Hatfields and McCoys.

Puppets? Certainly not. They did however have their own perspective of the problems at hand and slavery wasn't always on the top of the list if at all. There was some conscription, but the simple onslaught of the war was a bigger factor. These young men encountered the hostility face to face. I'm betting there weren't many slaves in the line of soldiers coming down the road or selecting beef and hogs from the pasture.


Yes, many in no uncertain terms supported slavery and expressed that notion. MANY didn't.

An 80 per cent literacy rate? Standards for literacy must have been a mite low? Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest is credited with less than three months 'school larnin'. True, he could afford a staff to correct his rhetoric, but many a private didn't have that assistance. You've read the letters oft published that were written by these soldiers. Very few of the ones I've read, if any, said anything about slaves. Trying to keep from getting killed, staying warm, worrying about loved ones at home, and figuring the odds of surviving were far higher up the list than slavery.

I applaud and will continue to do so, your bent on championing slavery as a part of the war. That aspect of the situation is something that our young folks need to learn and remember. It just wasn't the only part, and in many soldier's minds, perhaps not nearly as important as other matters.