Mr. henryjackson,
In reply to your post #78 where you state:
Quote:
|
"True, but it seems to me that for most of the time since the war, most history books were written with a pro-North twist."
|
And yet a little research will show that immediately AFTER the Civil War, the South and its defenders mounted a continuing, ongoing effort to ensure its peculiar version of history was taught in the South and Lord help the person who tried to do otherwise.
What we are presently seeing, after decades of one form of historical school of thought vice another, is a history that is being based primarily on historical documentation and sources instead of constructed opinion and fanciful memory. It is a difficult process and one that does damage to some cherished myths. In my opinion.
Quote:
|
"I consider most of what has been published over the years about the war to be revisionist, pro-North propaganda."
|
What personal criteria do you base this opinion on? Personal research? Comparitive sources? Or long-held, cherished beliefs?
Quote:
|
"I am choosing my words poorly. Yes in the past 20 years or so much pro-South literature has been published. I believe this is a reaction to what I mention above."
|
And as I stated above, this practice of pro-
Confederate literature has been going on for quite some time, even as the first of such books were published in 1866! Meaning no personal offense, but this is what I meant when I quoted
"and the losers write the myths." Being on the wrong side of history is a powerful motivator to rewrite your views and opinions on why a side went to war. My problem is I have a vast paper trail written before and during the war, and then a rather sharp departure from that viewpoint when viewing material
after the war. This is why you see me constantly demand source documentation.
Quote:
|
"You miss quoted me. I think I said or meant to say Southerners did things WRONG after secession."
|
No sir, I did not misquote you. I merely added my own information that Southerners did illegal acts BEFORE their states seceded, or as I meant to imply, some Southerners did things WRONG before secession. I was referring to the Southern States who had yet to officially secede and yet seized forts, arsenals, etc., and took federal soldiers prisoner before their states had even left the Union by declaring their ordinances of secession. Perhaps it was I who was not clear.
Quote:
|
"When things were at a standstill before the first shots were fired."
|
You might want to check out a book entitled
The Civil War Day-By-Day, and see if there was any period as the one you mention.
Quote:
|
"That is the Northern interpretation. The Southern view is that South Carolina had left the Union, that they had a right to leave, and there was no reason why the Fed. should not have sold it's interests back to a State that was no longer a part of the Union."
|
The United States Constitution says differently in what action a President can and cannot take, that and his oath of office. The historical view is that South Carolina proclaimed it had this right to leave, that somewhere in the Constitution there was a vague sentiment that perhaps it could leave the Union unilaterally, a sort of 'get out of the union free card.' It was wrong. Hence that little event we call the Civil War.
Quote:
|
"The peaceful solution would have been for the Fed. to sell it back. I think Lincoln did not evacuate Ft. Sumter because he wanted to provoke a confrontation."
|
And an even more peaceful solution would have been for South Carolina to take its case before the Supreme Court of the United States. Or before the US Senate. Or to the entire US Congress in the form of legislation or even to the entire United States as a national referendum on its secession. No cannon fire, no Ft. Sumter, no war. The question is, WHY didn't they?
As for Lincoln wanting to provoke a confrontation, both he and Davis wanted the other side to fire first in order to be proclaimed the victim. Davis lacked patience and saw a chance to advance his sides agenda by firing first. No one was
tricked into anything when it came to Fort Sumter.
Quote:
|
"What is not peaceful about trying to gain recognition?"
|
When you have to steal everything that is the
nation's property before you make such an attempt.
Quote:
|
"If Lincoln would have recognized the CSA, there would have been no war."
|
Really? What if Lincoln had done such a thing and then impeached by Congress for treason or unpresidential acts because of such recognition? The truth of the matter is, you and I have no idea what would have happened if such took place. What we have is history and what did happen as a result of the South's actions.
And again, why didn't the South pursue more peaceful means themselves in order to peacefully leave the Union? The Senate of the United States was still in their control. The Supreme Court was made up of mainly slave states men or slave holders. Even in the House of Representatives, Republicans held only a 4 or 5 seat margin and even that was not secure. Only the White House was denied them in government. For over seventy years, right before Lincoln's election, the South had controlled the Federal Government. All of it. To include judgeships, appointments, patronage, legislation, you name it, the South had control of it.
Yet when this new political party out of left field gains the White House, everything goes to h e l l in a handbasket? Sorry, doesn't fly with me.
Quote:
|
"Yes I do. The South did commit acts of aggression by taking over Fed. installations. The North tried to re-supply Sumter with soldiers and ammunition. This was also an aggressive act."
|
A government comes to the aid of its soldiers, in one of its own forts, under hostile seige with food, reinforcements and the means to defend themselves, and this is seen as an aggressive act?
Quote:
|
"The CSA believed it had no choice but to defend itself."
|
The
CSA had only itself to blame when it convinced itself this was its only course of action. No one tricked them or forced them to fire on a fort with soldiers of the nation doing their sworn duty.
Quote:
|
"This is what Lincoln was hoping for."
|
And Davis and his cabinet gave it to him on a sliver platter. Willingly. And in spite of knowing the full consequences of such an act.
Quote:
|
"Of course they decided to fire. I don't understand why you said that. Just because someone was tricked into doing something, doesn't mean they didn't choose to do it. Again maybe I am not explaining myself very well. My explanation is above."
|
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars. But in ourselves..."
Sorry, where was I?
Quote:
|
"Northern apologists have faith that their interpretation of historical events are true, just as Southern apologists."
|
Sorry, I got the impression I wasn't apologizing for anything nor did I get the impression you were. My stance is history is history and it has little to apologize for, North or South.
Quote:
|
"Belief is not always truth. If you believe in something that is true, than your belief is true."
|
What is Truth?
Or more precisely, what is true? What you have heard or read that reinforces your own cherished belief? Or do you subject that long-held belief to the fire of new facts, new readings, new sources or simply refuse to do so in order not to corrupt your dearly held belief?
No, sometimes it is simply what you believe. It doesn't need fact, historical or otherwise to be believed in. It doesn't even have to be true, like Hitler exterminating Jews because he believed they were the source of Germany's, and the world's, woes.
Quote:
|
"Belief in what is true is based on one's interpretation of the evidence."
|
No, this is where the Catholic Church screwed up with Galileo, when it stated, based on it's interpretation of the evidence presented, said the earth was the center of the universe, not the sun. Evidence is evidence, it speaks plainly for itself if it is permitted to do so. And if I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church late in the 20th century, finally admitted it's interpretation of the evidence was wrong and Galileo was right.
Truth is truth, no twists, no warping, no angles. Its beliefs that can be molded and shaped to what is comfortable to each of us.
Quote:
|
"His [Lincoln's] war like act was refusing to evacuate Sumter and trying to reinforce it."
|
Now for the other side, please. List all of the war-like acts of the South, PRIOR to Lincoln refusing to evacuate Sumter and trying to reinforce it. Please.
Quote:
|
"Why do you believe that man is free to accept or reject interaction with God?"
|
The concept of Free Will.
Quote:
|
"Even if one rejects God, that person has interacted with Him in refecting Him."
|
If I do not turn the key in the ignition, I do not start the car. It does not move, it remains stationary, neither going forward or backwards.
Men choose to interact with God or not. God does not force men to choose, acknowledge or interact with him. They choose. Free Will or we must acknowledge God lied. And that's not possible in my own view.
Unionblue
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
