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.
I have no associations with this group...but it is apparent you and Cash are trying to falsely associate me with "holocaust denial" and anti-semitism.
Not surprised though as smear tactics are very typical of you.
Apparently the organization does not deny the holocaust (from their site)-
"The IHR is sometimes mischaracterized as a 'Holocaust denial' organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II."
~
If the book "Hitler Speaks"/"Conversations with Hitler" (by an ex-Nazi trying to curry favor with his new allegiance) is true...then prove it.
The book is considered -at best- dubious by others-
"I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's 'Hitler Speaks,' a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether."
-Ian Kershaw Hitler, vol. 1 (Hubris), London, 1998, p. xiv
I have a question as to the signature you use, sir.
Sherman is referring to, what, exactly? How did the people of the South try to rule (him) through the negroe?
And wasn't his "casting down" more like a genocide of all people in the South, indiscriminantly, Unionists as well as
anyone else within strike of his armies?
And doesn't the single interest which governs (him) call itself a politically-motivated administration in Washington City?
And the unanimous part... didn't there have to be a good deal of Northern arrests (38,000) before any attempt at unanimity could even be claimed?
Just curious. I do side with you, in your defenses, BTW. I, too, am pro-Jewish, and do personally detest the Northern anti-Semitisms of the period. Which means I could never have anything for Adolph Hitler...
Greg Loren Durand - AMERICA'S CAESAR compilation of period writings.
Frank Conner - THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000
Thomas J. Dilorenzo - The Real Lincoln
Hudson Strode - The Jefferson Davis Trilogy (1959)
Ishbel Ross - The First lady of the Confederacy (1958)
Southern Partisan Magazine
Civil War Reenactors (both sides) from Shiloh to Ontario Canada, Western Theatre and Eastern Theatre campaign
reenactors. Most of the Northern and Southern battlefields.
Living Historians from films such as GODS AND GENERALS,
The History Channel, and SCV and SUV units across the country... I've been in the SUV for quite a while now and frankly none of what you posted has anything to do w/ the Sons. Does the History channel actually broadcast history now; I thought it was all UFO stuff?
To date, after six years of immersion into this realm, and era, I have yet to hear anything like Cash has produced. I am sorry sir, then you can not have been looking. Your views would be branded as Lost Cause rhetoric on any of the score boards I frequent.
The settled beliefs circulating are that Trade Tariff Taxes were predominantly paid by the South, that Lincoln sought to challenge trade at Sumter, and defend Northern economy. Slavery was an abolitionist problem, and one that became a grand excuse later in the war, when emancipation by Lincoln, carried out as a military agenda,
was employed (and which is generally thought to have failed). In particular the tarriff argument is only upheld by those who appear to follow up w/ other Lost Cause rhetoric. THe men of the day didn't scream about the tarriff so why are we today, IIRC only one state mentioned them at all in their Secession documents. So asserting that the tarriffs are in any way a prevailing attitude anywhere today seems disengenuos. I think either you are not as well read as you think or you have willfully ignored quite a lot of work.
There is great back and forth on these issues, but that is the generally-accepted rhetoric one hears at these events.
Some take Slavery as the main reasoning, and some
take Taxation and Invasion as the primary catalysts.
What Cash suggests boggles the mind, when one takes it as truth. Lincoln, then, had absolutely no reason for being at Sumter, nor refusing to follow the advice of his cabinet,
nor Major Anderson, nor the majority of the United States opinion, at that time (save for his Northern capitalists, who stood to lose a bundle). I am at a loss for words, at the moment.
And, as Cash declines any sources save his own, it is rather difficult to have a conversation. He posits that most of my sources are "liars", out of hand.
I am thinking on having Cash list his books for me, so I
can start my own investigation into them. Actually, if you take a hard look at many of his postsespecially older ones, you will find he has listed sources. I rather suspect he has grown weary of the same posts over and over again. If the titles you list are all that have painted your view of the CW you have a lot of study ahead of you.
His books certainly are not the settled order of discussion at reenactments and living histories! Again they are. It is important to understand a re-enactment has no vetting system; quite a few re-enactors have little real knowledge of the war at all. Others have concentrated so soley upon one aspect of the war that they have no idea about others. Re-enacting like any other hobby has a spectrum of membership from those who truly are immersed in the period understanding many aspects to the theme campers who use a re-enactment as an excuse to burn powder and drink beer (unfortunately they are the majority).
To claim that they are not is quite enlightening to me as I've been in the hobby the better part of twenty years having participated in more than a few events too include being involed w/ the planning and running of several.
Ironically, in the last decade or so of ACW re-enacting there has been a strong and noticeable seperation between those less passionate or interested in Authenticity than others. In the last several years I know many who will ask if an individual is a member of the AC in an effort to determine their seriousness in the hobby. Of coarse such practices bring up all kinds of snobbery coments but it is a useful way of vetting individual re-enactors. I know of no legitimate historian, no credible Living Historian who give DiLorenzo's work any thought as it's been shown too often to be at the very least "Unauthentic" and outright inaccurate. I'm not aware of his works being sold at any NPS book store for the same reason.
I am wondering why they are not! I suspect it is a lack of experiance that would lead one to say such.
Beowulf
I've been in the hobby quite a few years now and my personal library is rather large but also very specific to what I do at an event or Living History. Most others I know have a similar problem. I can tell you all there is to know about the P53, M1861 or Lorenz as well as how the men wore their gear and lived their daily lives. I can even speak quite intelligently on what flew the average soldier to the war, I do so from the Union perspective and I do so knowing I've spent a LOT of time researching the subject. As I have worked, volunteer fashion, for the NPS on two seperate fields I know I have been vetted to a degree.
I've been to a couple of rather large events over the years and discovered one irrefutable fact; some re-enactors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and wouldn't know the difference between an M1841 Colt Conversion and a Blakely. This really isn't so much an indictment upon them as many men of the day didn't either but when it comes from "experts" on the field... one has to wonder.
I have also met some of the most knowledgeable men in the field of the Civil War and been able to both listen to them and learn something from them. DiLorenzo is not what I would call learned on the subject; he writes from a modern agenda.
If I might make a suggestion for a few authors to read on the subject; all respectable well known and vetted authors (scholarly review by their peers) and I won't add McPherson because I wager he is viewed w/ suspicion by you.
Stephen Ambrose, Thomas Desjardin, Joseph Glatthaar, Paddy Griffith, Wiley Sword & Bell Irvin Wiley. All IMO real historians... none of which I think would give DiLorenzo the time of day. These are the authors, among many others who I have read, that shaped my views on the subject. And frankly any work by any of those mentioned above are a far better value than anything DiLorenzo has ever done w/ their credibility being outstanding whereas Mr DiLorenzo...
I guarantee that if you were to go over to the AC and ask for a list of must reads on the political aspect of the war neither DiLorenzo or Conner would be mentioned.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Beowulf, Your 'settled beliefs circulating' may be making their rounds among 'Lost Cause' entusiasts, but they are not settled in the real world, in fact, rather the opposite, I think.
Please post Cash's comments that boggled your mind? You do not have to accept them as true; Just prove them wrong. After all if it is only his opinion, it should be easy enough to refute them categorically. (But you have to do your own research)
The fact that Cash's refs are not common knowlege among Reenactors, say 'Nothing' about their accuracy.
P.S. Beowulf's references, places him rather firmly in the shallow end of the pool.
The greatest one I see is that the South was not paying 87% of all federal expenses... at a rate of 15%, which the Republican Liberals wanted taken to 47%. He, and perhaps some others (if I remember correctly), cites that ample funds came in through New York and other places.
This is a justification that could justify Lincoln (to some degree) at Sumter. But if the Col. Baldwin incident is to be studied seriously, Lincoln is what? Just trying to start trouble at Sumter, and causing Virginia to be "out of the Union in 48 Hours"?
This is most boggling to me, aside from his repeatedly
calling my sources LIARS and UNTRUTHFUL!
They certainly get more coverage and airplay than his does! (In my circles of travel, that is...)
I have no associations with this group...but it is apparent you and Cash are trying to falsely associate me with "holocaust denial" and anti-semitism.
Not surprised though as smear tactics are very typical of you. You posted the link, not I. I posted the host link. Whether or not you support the site I neither care about or really want to know.
Apparently the organization does not deny the holocaust (from their site)- I believe the klan also claims it isn't a racist organization... your point?
You made a charge of fraud, not the first time, which upon investigation proved to have a bassis that came from a source of questionable credibility.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I've been in the hobby quite a few years now and my personal library is rather large but also very specific to what I do at an event or Living History. Most others I know have a similar problem. I can tell you all there is to know about the P53, M1861 or Lorenz as well as how the men wore their gear and lived their daily lives. I can even speak quite intelligently on what flew the average soldier to the war, I do so from the Union perspective and I do so knowing I've spent a LOT of time researching the subject. As I have worked, volunteer fashion, for the NPS on two seperate fields I know I have been vetted to a degree.
I've been to a couple of rather large events over the years and discovered one irrefutable fact; some re-enactors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and wouldn't know the difference between an M1841 Colt Conversion and a Blakely. This really isn't so much an indictment upon them as many men of the day didn't either but when it comes from "experts" on the field... one has to wonder.
I have also met some of the most knowledgeable men in the field of the Civil War and been able to both listen to them and learn something from them. DiLorenzo is not what I would call learned on the subject; he writes from a modern agenda.
If I might make a suggestion for a few authors to read on the subject; all respectable well known and vetted authors (scholarly review by their peers) and I won't add McPherson because I wager he is viewed w/ suspicion by you.
Stephen Ambrose, Thomas Desjardin, Joseph Glatthaar, Paddy Griffith, Wiley Sword & Bell Irvin Wiley. All IMO real historians... none of which I think would give DiLorenzo the time of day. These are the authors, among many others who I have read, that shaped my views on the subject. And frankly any work by any of those mentioned above are a far better value than anything DiLorenzo has ever done w/ their credibility being outstanding whereas Mr DiLorenzo...
I guarantee that if you were to go over to the AC and ask for a list of must reads on the political aspect of the war neither DiLorenzo or Conner would be mentioned.
Thank you for the list. Have you published any of the amount of information you have collected on these guns?
Reenacting is a hobby, but one of the hobbies in the field is comparing information (or disinformation) and discussing it at length in a campfire setting.
I am a novice who has heard what he has heard, and is not afraid of incurring yours (and others) agitation with regards to my lack of knowledge. If I end up redeeming the South, it gets redeemed. If I end up writing an apologia for my people, it will be an apologia. If that makes me a Lost Causer, then that is what you may call me. I tend to think of me more like an explorer into the realm, than not.
Either way, the result is the same. The South lost, but it made the grandest statement ever made for any cause.
I shall not be changing 'sides', at any rate.
But I shall not be denegrating anything I hear or read until it is driven out of all possibility.
When I know as much as you do, and if I believe as you do, I shall say so...
"I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's 'Hitler Speaks,' a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether."
-Ian Kershaw Hitler, vol. 1 (Hubris), London, 1998, p. xiv
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
You seem to have selectively ignored this source- No I did not. I've read about all I care to on Hitler. The site you posted from is a distinct anti-semetic site. You, not I, chose to link to that site. And a quick google showed that site as not even upon the first page of a quick search. If you had posted the link to Kershaw's book from a reputable site I doubt I would have taken offense.
[/url]
Have a nice day.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Greg Loren Durand - AMERICA'S CAESAR compilation of period writings.
Frank Conner - THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000
Thomas J. Dilorenzo - The Real Lincoln
Hudson Strode - The Jefferson Davis Trilogy (1959)
Ishbel Ross - The First lady of the Confederacy (1958)
Southern Partisan Magazine
Civil War Reenactors (both sides) from Shiloh to Ontario Canada, Western Theatre and Eastern Theatre campaign
reenactors. Most of the Northern and Southern battlefields.
Living Historians from films such as GODS AND GENERALS,
The History Channel, and SCV and SUV units across the country...
Not a credible historian in the lot. No wonder you don't have a clue about what happened in the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
To date, after six years of immersion into this realm, and era, I have yet to hear anything like Cash has produced.
Not surprising, since you've never come within sight of anything that had any credibility whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
The settled beliefs circulating are that Trade Tariff Taxes were predominantly paid by the South,
A lie that anyone who knew the first thing about history would know to be a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
that Lincoln sought to challenge trade at Sumter,
A lie that anyone who knew the first thing about history would know to be a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
and defend Northern economy.
A lie that anyone who knew the first thing about history would know to be a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Slavery was an abolitionist problem, and one that became a grand excuse later in the war,
A lie that anyone who knew the first thing about history would know to be a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
What Cash suggests boggles the mind, when one takes it as truth.
Only if one doesn't know the truth to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Lincoln, then, had absolutely no reason for being at Sumter,
Lincoln wasn't at Sumter. A garrison of US soldiers were at Fort Sumter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
nor refusing to follow the advice of his cabinet,
nor Major Anderson, nor the majority of the United States opinion, at that time (save for his Northern capitalists, who stood to lose a bundle). I am at a loss for words, at the moment.
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
And, as Cash declines any sources save his own, it is rather difficult to have a conversation. He posits that most of my sources are "liars", out of hand.
Because they are, and have been proven to be liars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
I am thinking on having Cash list his books for me, so I
can start my own investigation into them.
It would be your first foray into the truth of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
His books certainly are not the settled order of discussion at reenactments and living histories!
I have no associations with this group...but it is apparent you and Cash are trying to falsely associate me with "holocaust denial" and anti-semitism.
You're the one using neo-Nazis as a source. Birds of a feather ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Apparently the organization does not deny the holocaust (from their site)-
"The IHR is sometimes mischaracterized as a 'Holocaust denial' organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Forgive my ignorance, here... 
Linear Mode
