What would you do?

[ole]

NC Reb:
Welcome aboard. And with whom would you have replaced Bragg? We know now that there were some very promising division commanders. What did they know then? We know Cleburne proved to be a very capable division commander. What did they know then? A civilian volunteer (not West Point) and a foreign born, to boot. And that will lead into a discussion of Davis and the crony system.

In there is a fundamental difference between Davis and Lincoln. Davis kept his buddies in power. Lincoln had no buddies. He watched the telegrams and kept track of who won. Under Lincoln, Bragg would have had a short career. Lincoln might have noticed Cleburn, Cheatham, Stewart, Taylor, et alii, and rewarded their winning with greater responsibility.

Shooting Bragg would have resulted only in his replacement by another Davis buddy. Perhaps Polk? (Visible shudder.)

Keep on posting.
Ole

[jkeith21]

Originally Posted by samgrant

On the other hand, there are those who believe that this conflict was enevitable and could only be resolved by bloodshed, in order to finally scourge the nation of the institution of slavery.

Every time I see this, I cringe. Yes the War resulted in the eventual end of slavery, and the fact that slavery ended in this nation is a "good" thing. But the War was not fought to protect or end slavery. That is modern construct oft spouted from the contemporary/current moral high ground. Yes, it was a factor among many others as slavery was the base of much/most of the South's (and North's) wealth; but it was not THE issue.

Bruce Catton in the third book of his trilogy provided a wealth of specifics to document same and summed it up pretty darn well early in the book (Never Call Retreat[?]) saying, and I quote from memory, that "It is clear that the War was not fought to end slavery. Slavery was ended to win the War."

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by jkeith21

Every time I see this, I cringe. Yes the War resulted in the eventual end of slavery, and the fact that slavery ended in this nation is a "good" thing. But the War was not fought to protect or end slavery. That is modern construct oft spouted from the contemporary/current moral high ground. Yes, it was a factor among many others as slavery was the base of much/most of the South's (and North's) wealth; but it was not THE issue.

Bruce Catton in the third book of his trilogy provided a wealth of specifics to document same and summed it up pretty darn well early in the book (Never Call Retreat[?]) saying, and I quote from memory, that "It is clear that the War was not fought to end slavery. Slavery was ended to win the War."

The empasis on your quote of my post was not in my post.

[jkeith21]

Originally Posted by samgrant

The empasis on your quote of my post was not in my post.

You are correct. The bold/emphasis was mine to identify that to which I addressed my comment, not as an attempt to skew your statement. For those that wish to see samgrant's post without the added emphasis, please see post #56; this thread.

[matthew mckeon]

There was a short story about a history professor who time travelled(was it Octavia Butler? Can't remember) back to 1860 over and over again. Each time he tried something to prevent the war, trying to persuade Lee not to resign the US army, murdering Gen. Twiggs, etc. each time he returned to the "present" the situation turned out worse.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Jkeith,

About the purpose of the war, I would say the war started to preserve things:
preserve slavery and preserve the Union. These ends proved mutually exclusive.

[jkeith21]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Dear Jkeith,

About the purpose of the war, I would say the war started to preserve things:
preserve slavery and preserve the Union. These ends proved mutually exclusive.

OK, I can live with that. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm going to respect it.

In return, I'm going to ask that you consider, perhaps even acknowledge the following:

We are all products of the circumstances of our lives. We are all raised under different life circumstances; geography, demography, culture, family, friends, mentors, etc.. These infinite number of different factors shape our lives, our opinions, our loyalties, our motivations, our perceptions, and therefore our beliefs. Our beliefs are deep and personal. And, they heavily influence our interpretation of reality and "the facts".

Someone here has a signature line that says something like, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts" and I think that says a lot in one line. But is it realistic expectation?

You and I could have the same the same set of facts before us yet have diametrically opposing interpretations of those facts (i.e.: why the War was fought). There are many reasons why this could occur. For example, we might not have ALL all the facts, or we might have only the facts without benefit of the experience or the environment which surround those facts. But the core reason for the disagreement is probably going to be rooted in our intrepretation of those facts... what we BELIEVE them to mean.

So if you want to say slavery was the South's motivation and I want to say otherwise we're going to disagree. If we choose to bolster the argument or arbitrate the disagreement, who do we choose to do so? One who's beliefs are more closely aligned with mine, or yours? Futile exercise. If you or I believe something to be true, neither is likely to change the other's opinion and to infer that one or the other is wrong in their belief is only going to escalate the argument.

That being said, I'll close with this (apologizing for the run-on sentence in advance). Here in the South, we've always been and still are somewhat sensitive to insult. Any time I percieve that someone is inferring that my ancestor(s), sitting on the front porch of the plantation house listening to the darkies singing spirituals on demand, and occassionally going to the back lot to rape, whip or kill a few (just because he can), was an amoral/immoral evil that the pure and noble crusaders from the North had to come down and teach a lesson to and end the terrible scourge of slavery forever... and that was the reason that the War Between the States was fought... then I'm going to escalate the argument.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

About the purpose of the war, I would say the war started to preserve things: preserve slavery and preserve the Union. These ends proved mutually exclusive.

This is a pretty good quote. Surely it ain't your own. Who coined that phrase?

[ole]

Ozark:

Matthew is most admirably capable of forming his own opinions and his own quotes. Why would you assume that he read it somewhere?
Ole

[Ozark Iron John]

Oh I didn't mean no offense. I reckon I thought it was a pretty good quote. I might try to use it myself someday.