What if Ft. Sumter had not been fired upon?

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

In reference to your two above posts, please understand that I had the opinion that 'eventually we get things right in America' LONG before I ever came to this board, long before I studied Civil War history and WAY long before we crossed debating swords here on this thread. And your term that 'yours is the winner mentality that still abounds about this war' is one that I reject as totally untrue and has absolutely NO meaning to me or anyone else residing here in the 21st century. How can ANYONE of this time and age 'claim' any feeling of being the 'winner' or for that matter a 'loser' in a war that took place 144 years ago?

I did not march or lose a loved one in battle nor did I go hungry or lose my home due to battle. I was not wounded or suffer the loss of a limb nor was I sickened by disease or held in a filthy prison camp. I have lost no friends or family or relations of late in a battlefield of that time nor is it possible for me to imagine ANY of the above because I WAS NOT THERE.

For me to have the gall and the audacity to claim that my 'side' won anything takes a tremendous leap of imagination or just out-and-out fantasy. I have studied and researched history and have come to a certain conclusion about the Civil War of 1861-1865. And that's all.

My own conclusions about America are based on my own experiences with the citizens of this nation and with other countries around the world. They are mine and are based on MY past, not the past of 144 years.

As for this board lowering its standards because of the use of certain terms, what's the old saying? 'Sticks and stones?' And frankly, in my own opinion, there are worse things than being called a 'treasonous bastard.' Like, 'yes-man' or 'non-confrontational' or 'sycophant.'

As for my comments about the majority of the people in the colonies considering themselves Englishmen, I was basing that comment on a passage I had read from the book The Winter Soldiers, by Richard M. Ketchum. A passage from that books states:

"Americans on the whole were not thinking seriously of independence; there were also loyal to their king, whom they considered a benevolent man who would do right by America if it were not for his advisors."

The book goes on to state that:

"... fully one third of the colonists remained loyal to the crown while fully another one third staid neutral during the Revolution, helping neither side but waiting to see who would come out on top."

That leaves about one third of the population considering themselves either Americans or revolutionaries with a lot of others considering themselves loyal Englishmen. No diety required to figure that one out, Thea. It just goes to show that even with that small of a number of dedicated rebels, if not taken seriously, can cause a LOT of problems.

What I am afraid of Thea is that you are alive in the here and now and cannot bring yourself to look at what most recognized historians have presented with a more 'notable' scholars point-of-view. Its just that you don't agree with that view. I feel a hundred and fifty years from now, you would be even more dejected and disappointed, but that's just me.

I'm glad you are so impressed with Davis's last speech before heading off South. I've read it and can't say its had the same effect on me.

What I find more troubling is your above paragraph in which you comment on the 'young gentleman' who said such stunning things on the subject of slavery. My own view is the following on such. 'Silence gives consent.'

While I agree that the young gentleman should not have been ripped apart and fed to the lions, I also feel it was extremely important to challenge his views and get him to reexamine them as he sure was not going to be exposed to opposing views in his safe, southern-leaning, slavery was no big deal, home camp, if you will.

And silence can be rather deafening and can leave you to draw conclusions based on that silence. Again, before I would toss him upon the heap of another, low-brow site in where he will never have to confront his fast forming views on slavery, I would have liked to have seen more participation in helping him form his own views instead of them being stamped in his brain by other who will only reinforce ONE view.

And it looks like you are going to have to go over the Ft. Sumter thread again. The supplies were NOT needed? (Just one point of many I intend to make, along with all that tariff nonsense again.)

See you soon,
Unionblue

[ole]

Here we go again. And, Hooray. I've been reading this, that, and the other links and posts for 2 months now. My conclusions swing one way and then the other, depending on who's talking, but the debate sharpens the ability to tell the difference between a Baby Ruth and a t***. (Save the censors some trouble.)

Thank you all for the education.
Ole

[rbenne]

Unionblue

To take your comment about the colonists thinking themselves Englishmen to the next level.

Remember that the revolution started not as a war of independence, but as a war to guarantee the colonists their rights as free Englishmen.

[unionblue]

Ray,

No argument from me on that one.

Unionblue