Dissing History

[Sid J.]

In my opinion. The reason for the debate on black Confederates is because if they existed.. It destroys the argument that the war was over slavery. So naturally the Northern supporters argue that it's impossible and the Southern supporters argue it as historical fact. Even when you show evidence for it or against it they will continue to argue their case. I never understood why people feel they need to support one side or the other.

I agree that some folks seem to think that way, but history is (and should be) derived from the preponderance of evidence. Whether Black confederates existed or not (and they certainly did, in small numbers, within a very narrow window) it does not change at all that the Confederate states gave explicit reason for their secession:

Georgia:
"Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property ... "

Mississippi:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

South Carolina:
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Texas:
"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

 

[RobertP]

I agree that some folks seem to think that way, but history is (and should be) derived from the preponderance of evidence. Whether Black confederates existed or not (and they certainly did, in small numbers, within a very narrow window) it does not change at all that the Confederate states gave explicit reason for their secession:

Georgia:
"Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property ... "

Mississippi:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

South Carolina:
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Texas:
"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

Serious question. Were the causes of secession locked up in State archives until 15-20 years ago or were they readily available to the public prior to that time?

 

[jgoodguy]

Serious question. Were the causes of secession locked up in State archives until 15-20 years ago or were they readily available to the public prior to that time?

More like 50-60 years ago when scholars seemed to have rediscovered them. The documents were available in library reference sections at that time. Available but not readily available.

 

[RobertP]

More like 50-60 years ago when scholars seemed to have rediscovered them. The documents were available in library reference sections at that time. Available but not readily available.

I'm likely as old as you if not older and for the life of me can't remember any discussion of causes prior to about 20 years ago. Could be memory loss.

Did professional historians know how to access documents in library reference sections?

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

 

[jgoodguy]

I'm likely as old as you if not older and for the life of me can't remember any discussion of causes prior to about 20 years ago. Could be memory loss.

Did professional historians know how to access documents in library reference sections?

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

The fact you missed it is not evidence of anything other than you missed it.

 

[RobertP]

True, but apparently everyone else did too, or they really didn't care that much to make it an issue. It's a curious thing to me. We've got folks here that will blame it all on Jubal Early, an improbable scenario at best, IMO to shift blame away from their own historical and/or moral failures. But for the real historians, what was their excuse? They supposedly make a living poring through archives and just plain dropped the ball you'd have to agree. It's just real odd that they missed the holy grail for so long, maybe there's more to it than we know.

 

[Andersonh1]

True, but apparently everyone else did too, or they really didn't care that much to make it an issue. It's a curious thing to me. We've got folks here that will blame it all on Jubal Early, an improbable scenario at best, IMO to shift blame away from their own historical and/or moral failures. But for the real historians, what was their excuse? They supposedly make a living poring through archives and just plain dropped the ball you'd have to agree. It's just real odd that they missed the holy grail for so long, maybe there's more to it than we know.

Older historians certainly cast their net a lot wider than four declarations of causes and a few paragraphs from the Cornerstone Speech.

 

[Sid J.]

Serious question. Were the causes of secession locked up in State archives until 15-20 years ago or were they readily available to the public prior to that time?

If you are asking if there was a deliberate attempt to hide these documents, I believe the answer is yes. What you get instead in my state capital is this:

and this:

 

[Sid J.]

Older historians certainly cast their net a lot wider than four declarations of causes and a few paragraphs from the Cornerstone Speech.

If you need to pretend that slavery in unmentioned elsewhere, that is not a shortcoming in the scholarship of others.

 

[19thGeorgia]

The South fought because they were invaded. And many who were opposed to secession or fence-sitters became ardent supporters of Southern independence.

 

[Andersonh1]

If you need to pretend that slavery in unmentioned elsewhere, that is not a shortcoming in the scholarship of others.

Did I say it wasn't mentioned elsewhere? But I do know that I often see the declarations and cornerstone speech are put forward as if there's no need to look at anything else and as if they settle the issue.

 

[Sid J.]

True, but apparently everyone else did too, or they really didn't care that much to make it an issue. It's a curious thing to me. We've got folks here that will blame it all on Jubal Early, an improbable scenario at best, IMO to shift blame away from their own historical and/or moral failures. But for the real historians, what was their excuse? They supposedly make a living poring through archives and just plain dropped the ball you'd have to agree. It's just real odd that they missed the holy grail for so long, maybe there's more to it than we know.

Are you saying that Mildred Rutherford historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and author of Truths of History: A Historical Perspective of the Civil War From the Southern Viewpoint and A Measuring Rod to Test Text Book and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges And Libraries was deficient in he scholarship?

 

[Sid J.]

Did I say it wasn't mentioned elsewhere?

I took it that way. If you intended otherwise, you should probably upgrade your rhetoric.

 

[RobertP]

Are you saying that Mildred Rutherford historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and author of historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and author of Truths of History: A Historical Perspective of the Civil War From the Southern Viewpoint and A Measuring Rod to Test Text Book and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges And Libraries was deficient in he shcolarship?

You're from New York State IIRC. Did your schools use Rutherfords textbooks and references. Did all the esteemed historians in the Empire State rely on the UDC for references.? That doesn't fly.

 

[Sid J.]

The South fought because they were invaded. And many who were opposed to secession or fence-sitters became ardent supporters of Southern independence.

The "South" seceded to protect to slavery. That their propaganda about states rights and invasion was so effective that folks still quote it over 150 years later, will never change that.

 

[RobertP]

If you are asking if there was a deliberate attempt to hide these documents, I believe the answer is yes. What you get instead in my state capital is this:View attachment 153688

and this:
View attachment 153689

But you're not originally from Texas are you? Aren't you the least bit curious as to why historians in other parts of the country dropped the ball?

 

[RobertP]

The "South" seceded to protect to slavery. That their propaganda about states rights and invasion was so effective that folks still quote it over 150 years later, will never change that.

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

 

[Sid J.]

You're from New York State IIRC. Did your schools use Rutherfords textbooks and references. Did all the esteemed historians in the Empire State rely on the UDC for references.? That doesn't fly.

I've lived in New York, went to high school there. Also went to school in Pennsylvania, Alabama and Texas. I wouldn't really count on my recollection of what I learnt and where I learnt it. I read hundreds of history books as a teenager, and rarely paid attention in class. But getting back to your question "Were the causes of secession locked up in State archives until 15-20 years ago or were they readily available to the public prior to that time?" doesn't the fact that these documents were seemingly kept from you until 15-20 years ago tell you something about the education system you came through?

 

[Sid J.]

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

You can insult New Yorkers all you need to.

 

[Sid J.]

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

You seem to be confused why a New Yorker would be aware of this:

Mississippi:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

but one from Mississippi not aware.

But Really? Are you confused by that? Really?