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 to say, I think the debate is what makes this board live and breath.
It seems most people are willing to agree to disagree peacable, those that aren't, well, over the last 9 years we have had a lot of those, and, well; you don't see them anymore.
Still, a lot of our hardcore members, are still here
unionblue, ole, I think you guys fall in that realm!
you have helped Make CWT what it is.
It seems there are some hurt feelings running around, and I apologize if I brushed you off. This pregnancy, a sick toddler, as sick much older whineier man, and dealing with the flu myself for the last 3 weeks has gotten the better of me.
So, I hope we can go on, agreeing to respectfully disagree in all sub-forums. I promise to try to be a better mod.
I had intended to introduce 2 new mods this week, however, due to personaly reasons, one of them has stepped down.
So, once we work out the details, there will be another set of eyes on the board, and hopefully in a few weeks maybe another set, to help Shane out.
BTW Shane, you ahve been doing a great job IMO, even though you have also had a rough patch lately, and I appreciate all you do.
That would be terrible! This forum has taught me so many things about discipline, scholarship, reasoned arguments, listening carefully (or is that reading between the lines), appreciating the vast amount of knowledge many of these forum members have acquired through the years, and learning to defer to that knowledge when it shows itself as irrefutable.
I've especially enjoyed the discussion/debate between elektratig, JohnTaylor (I wish he'd show up again), Trice, Cash, Union, ole, et. al. on some of the most interesting topics. I go back to these discussions again and again, just to read with pure joy, intelligent men discoursing with such acumen. It almost leaves one breathless to read, in today's environment, such dispassionate (for the most part), serious argumentation proceed in such a gentlemanly manner over the course of many posts.
The more volatile threads have taught me something to. The louder the post, the less the content. It took sometime to arrive at that point, also.
IMO, this forum is just to valuable a tool for serious history students of the Civil War to think about dropping it.
__________________ "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
OK. Caught me sleep-deprived and hungry and irritable. So I must weigh in while I'm still testy and looking at the world through bleary eyes.
I do not like to consider what we are doing as "debate." Debate implies that someone has to win. Everyone wins when we "discuss."
And, so, to bed.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
As much as it causes my blood pressure to rise, note that the Secession and Politics area is the most active on the board right now.
I have learned some fascinating things in this area and want to echo what others have said that it has taught me about locating information in the OR books, etc.
That being said, some of the discussions have occassionally degenerated into name calling and we all need to be on guard against that (even me).
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
"As much as it causes my blood pressure to rise, note that the Secession and Politics area is the most active on the board right now."
As it always has been.
But is being very "active" always a good thing?
You will also note, if you investigate some of the previous threads in this section of the forum, locked threads, where the blood pressure not only rised, but boiled over into out-and-out conflict, resulting in the moderators locking the thread so no further 'disscussion' could take place.
Another poster to this thread says 'debate' does not really take place here, as no one is scoring points or going to ever change their personal points of view. As I gather from this poster, he is more gratified at the sources and historical information that is presented here as it helps him to learn and understand other view points and perspectives.
But is such worth all the contention and personal slights that sometimes incur in order to view these sources? Is it worth the sometimes bitter feelings and name-calling that will erupt when someone's sacred cow is gored?
Some say the Civil War is still being fought, but instead with muskets and bayonets, we use web sites, forums and words to continue the struggle. There are some that say the Civil War can still be lost, but why bother with any of it anyway?
Isn't it true the vast majority of our citizens are completely unaware of our debates and posts here? And that includes those in the North and South, East and West. Isn't it true that if asked to name 10 important persons of the time of the Civil War, most people could not answer with any degree of accuracy?
So why bother? Why insist that history should be held to a strict accounting, that it should be factual and based on period documentation when the vast majority of our population wouldn't know real history if it punched them in the face or bit them on the butt?
Wouldn't it be better just to talk about the battles and weapons, etc., and avoid all this contention and heartache?
Just curious,
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
Wouldn't it be better just to talk about the battles and weapons, etc., and avoid all this contention and heartache?
Just curious,
Unionblue
Personally, I do not see how you can discuss the Civil War without discussing the political aspects. I think if you eliminate this area, the discussion will continue in the other threads. I was amazed at the acrimony in the discussion of Fort Pillow.
I think if people want to avoid the acrimony, then they can simply avoid this area. I would hate to eliminate the discussion simply because some cannot "play nice."
Just my $.02.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Thank you for your "$.02" worth, it is appreciated.
I myself go to other boards and debate the causes of the war with others. On other boards, I simply lurk and observe.
When I came to this board some years ago, at the invitation of a dear, southern friend, I had no idea that it would become a favorite pasttime of mine, nor that I would become so involved in the "Secession and Politics' portion of this forum.
I agree with you and others who have posted here, that without debate, discussion and exchanges, nothing would hold my interest for long. Not the weapons or battles or who was the best general of the war and on what side he served. To me it is all meaningless without the WHY of why those weapons were employed, or WHY those battles had to be fought or WHY those generals chose the side to be on.
I have also found it is not the history of the battles and who fought them that are in danger of being misconstrued or twisted as to their outcome. A battle can be shown to have been fought on THIS date, at THIS location, with THIS number of men by THESE certain units with THIS Order of Battle. And it seems none of us have any problems with the types and caliber of weapons used or the uniforms worn or the manuvers employed.
But WHY did these men come hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to kill one another on that day, at that location, with fellow large numbers of men, dressed in certain uniforms, organized into orders of battle with the weapons they employed? HERE is the main thrust of what should be our most dedicated and sincere discussions and debate, for it is with these discussions that we prove to ourselves and our guests that we have really learned the motto of this board.
"It is history that teaches us to hope."
If we cannot learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it and we condem our children and grandchildren to repeat our failures of the past. This is why history, historical fact and sources, must NEVER be compromised or twisted or ignored into something to suit a modern-day agenda or to permit one's understanding of the past to be 'more comfortable' or 'less unpleasent" or "heritage" to triumph over history.
As you can tell, this is something of a passion with me, but it was not always so. I first came here to simply learn about reenacting and the military battles and tactics of the day. As you will now observe, I NEVER post in that portion of the forum. It holds little or no interest to me, personally.
When I discovered one of my other Civil War boards had eliminated it's "Causes of the War" section, I was appalled. I cannot fathom a Civil War forum without such a section nor do I expect ANY learning to take place at such a board without it.
Ami said it, the section provides the most interest and discussion and as others have said, how boring a place it would be without such a section.
But also how dangerous it would be without such a section. I truly believe the Civil War and the history of it can be lost, its causes and lessons erased by those who would desperately seek to change it to suit their personal needs and a modern-day agenda that has continued to war against the history of that time from the war's end to the present day.
I have jokingly referred to WMD's as being presently employed to discount actual historical events of the time, Words of Ma s s Denial. I am increasingly convinced that this tactic is on the rise, and not the decline, even in the face of massive amounts of research and historical fact on the causes of the war.
The purpose of this thread by me was a very selfish one. To see if anyone else cared enough to continue to debate, discuss and, if necessary, defend the history of that time.
I must say, that I come away from this thread much relieved and much gratified.
Long may we discuss our favorite time in history and may there always be a "Secession and Politics" forum.
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
The purpose of this thread by me was a very selfish one. To see if anyone else cared enough to continue to debate, discuss and, if necessary, defend the history of that time.
For a while there, I thought you were serious. My bad.
Guess you got your unanimous answer. Whatever acrimony occurs now and then, we will continue to discuss every aspect of the "civil" war. I'm rather pleased that we police ourselves. To me, it is a mark of a mature, viable board. And it remains that mark and ami have a board has had a huge impact on my conception of the late unpleasantness.
My sincere thanks to everyone.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
