Dissing History

[highplainsdrifter59]

"He who lives a long life & never changes his opinions may value himself on his consistency, but rarely can be complimented for his wisdom. Experience cures us of many of our theories."
Joseph Story, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court, 1811 - 1845

My opinions have changed on many topics in my life. Just because I find others reason for the Civil War than solely based on slavery is not having tunnel vision and not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[Jimklag]

My opinions have changed on many topics in my life. Just because I find others reason for the Civil War than solely based on slavery is not having tunnel vision and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Keep telling yourself that. You may even come to believe it. Do you honestly believe there would have been secession and war if there had been no slavery?

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

So your saying that with no slavery there still would have been secession and war. Do you really even believe that?

No, I never said that, I said that slavery wasn't the only reason.
But then again, we will never know that answer. We can assume it but there is no way or fact to say for 100%

 

[Copperhead-mi]

My opinions have changed on many topics in my life. Just because I find others reason for the Civil War than solely based on slavery is not having tunnel vision and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Yet from the sounds of your posts, you appear to have not read the Declarations of Causes, documents that are in the Southerner's own words, and you show no desire to do so.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Keep telling yourself that. You may even come to believe it. Do you honestly believe there would have been secession and war if there had been no slavery?

Oh, I believe it, no problem .

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Yet from the sounds of your posts, you appear to have not read the Declarations of Causes, documents that are in the Southerner's own words, and you show no desire to do so.

Too be honest I have not read every line....but I have enough to read other issues that were written in them. They really get boring reading them after awhile.

 

[Jimklag]

No, I never said that, I said that slavery wasn't the only reason.
But then again, we will never know that answer. We can assume it but there is no way or fact to say for 100%

I can say to a moral certainty that had there been no institution of slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War. If I am right then, ipso facto, slavery is the sole cause.

 

[unionblue]

Do you really have to attack a person character because they do not follow your way like blind sheep. You are notorious for doing this to people that you do not agree with. You have no idea what my education is.....if you did, I'm sure it would stack up well to any of yours...or more maybe.

highplainsdrifter59,

We do get very heated here at times and I for one apologize if you feel your character has been attacked.

From what I read of your posts, you are defending individuals, the common men who filled the ranks of the Confederate forces. You ascribe to them other reasons than slavery that induced them to join those ranks. Defense of home, family, of country. I am certain you are right, that there were many who enlisted with such reasons, with such feelings.

In my own view, even though I am certain there were such reasons for men to enlist, it doesn't matter, not one whit. The harsh, brutal truth is that these men knew what had brought this conflict about. I cannot consider them ignorant of THE issue of their day, the issue that consumed the entire country. That issue wasn't the tariff, it wasn't big government, nor was it unfair representation or states rights with that government.

I compare these men with my own reasons for enlisting in the Army in 1971. I always wanted to join because I had known and talked to WWII veterans and the sacrifices they had made in making the world safe for me and handing me a country at peace with all the freedoms I had come to know and enjoy. The Army was glad I enlisted and immediately put me to work, never once asking me if I wanted to fight in Vietnam, go to Laos to rescue a crew off a freighter, go to Grenada to rescue college students or to Iraq for Desert Storm or to the Balkans to stop genocide.

A soldier goes where he is told and fights strangers because his government tells him. The captain, the colonel, nor the general, ever asks his soldiers if its OK to fight this group of strangers for this reason. No vote is ever taken, no survey given. You follow orders, do your duty or desert or go to the stockade.

In my view, ALL Confederates soldiers fought for slavery, whether they wanted to or not and they knew it. How could they not? It was in all the papers, and had been the center of the entire nation's attention for decades before the war, center stage and up front. Yes, they enlisted, at first, for many individual reasons, no doubt in my mind. So what? They were tools used by their government to try and enforce, win, and implement that government's goal, the preservation of slavery.

They couldn't help it and we can't help acknowledging that fact.

IMO.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I can say to a moral certainty that had there been no institution of slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War. If I am right then, ipso facto, slavery is the sole cause.

I'm glad you put the word "if" in your statement.

 

[Jimklag]

I'm glad you put the word "if" in your statement.

Whatever. The "if" is rhetorical.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Unionblue, thanks for your post, I really don't pay that person to much mind any hoot....
I understand what you have written, I believe slavery was a very evil thing, I'm glad it ended, should never a human be in bondage, we cannot treat other humans lower than your yard dog.
I hold to the belief or opinion that they were other reason for the war. Yes, slavery being the main reason but they were others. I also THINK not everybody fought to keep slavery in the south. Too many diaries, too many letters, too many writing statements during and after the war tells us they were not in those trenches fighting to keep the elite plantation owner slaves in bondage.
You say that every confederate soldier indirectly fought for slavery, I can agree with that....indirectly they did, but not purposely from their own writings they tell us that.
I am all for agreeing to disagree here, it does not hurt my feeling one bit if I never convince anyone of my views on this certain topic. To be honest, it will not change history one bit, it is what it is kind of thing. I have not flippantly chose my thinking, some 45 years have I enjoyed studying this War and many things I thought I knew, I've found out I didn't know nothing at all about.
My view is rather simple, I think they were other reason for this war, they were written and recorded so we have to take into account for those reason and just not throw them aside as if they were never written. That's my view.
Thanks again for your post.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Whatever. The "if" is rhetorical.

The fact is.....they were other reason that were written and noted and recorded on paper as to the reason why they wished to succeed from the Union other than slavery.
If that is a true statement, you can decide that, then you have no other option but to say or believe then that slavery wasn't the only, sole cause for the states that did secede to do so.

 

[Jimklag]

The fact is.....they were other reason that were written and noted and recorded on paper as to the reason why they wished to succeed from the Union other than slavery.
If that is a true statement, you can decide that, then you have no other option but to say or believe then that slavery wasn't the only, sole cause for the states that did secede to do so.

Nope. Slavery was the sole cause. All other so-called issues were both secondary and linked directly to slavery. Had there been no slavery there would have been no war. Period. I'm old and I'm going to bed.

 

[Sid J.]

Too be honest I have not read every line....but I have enough to read other issues that were written in them. They really get boring reading them after awhile.

Texas speaks of "other issues" thusly:

"They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State."

They found it important to state "sole reason." When folks here say that slavery was the "sole reason" they are quoting words the actual secessionists specifically used to explain their position.

When you read these documents, they divide the nation into the slave holding states and the non- slaveholding states. Did you ever give much thought as to why?

The Republican Party are almost always referred to as Black Republicans or abolitionists. What is the reason for this do you think?

 

[LoriAnn]

In my own view, even though I am certain there were such reasons for men to enlist, it doesn't matter, not one whit.

I wonder how many of them were angry they got dragged into that meat grinder. And how did that number compare to those who fully supported the war and its cause.

I realize no one can give me a firm answer to this. It's just something I ponder.

 

[cash]

Do you really have to attack a person character because they do not follow your way like blind sheep. You are notorious for doing this to people that you do not agree with. You have no idea what my education is.....if you did, I'm sure it would stack up well to any of yours...or more maybe.

I didn't attack your character. You obviously haven't read what the secessionists wrote. Your post showed complete and utter unfamiliarity with what they said. Total ignorance of what their position was.

You can now educate yourself because I gave you links to some documents to see what they said.

 

[John Hartwell]

So....we do have other issues? I'm all for slavery being a huge issue, but I'm not sold on the part it was the only or sole issue for the war.

You will please note that I said "there were many causes of tension between the South and North," and I don't believe anybody here will disagree with that. But "tension" is neither "secession" nor "war." Of all those tensions, slavery is the only one that was grave enough to cause certain southern states to secede and to fire on Ft. Sumter. It is the only necessary cause of the war. If all the other tensions disappeared, perceived threats to the institution of slavery still would have led to war.

 

[skb8721]

I believe and my opinion is slavery was a major cause of the war but it was not the only cause

As a professional U.S. historian (though the Civil War is admittedly not my specialty) I don't have a problem with the above statement. But . . . I would say that slavery was the most vital cause of the Civil War and, also, that most if not all the other causes relate back to slavery either directly or indirectly. There's no avoiding it.

I would also add that rarely if ever in history (and I mean world history, not merely US history) do important events have single causes. But some causes are more important than others.

 

[cash]

As a professional U.S. historian (though the Civil War is admittedly not my specialty) I don't have a problem with the above statement. But . . . I would say that slavery was the most vital cause of the Civil War and, also, that most if not all the other causes relate back to slavery either directly or indirectly. There's no avoiding it.

I would also add that rarely if ever in history (and I mean world history, not merely US history) do important events have single causes. But some causes are more important than others.

To expand on your point:

We can take the timeline of events leading to the start of the war apart and find, along with all the issues surrounding slavery, the decision to resist secession, the decision to retain symbols of national authority, the decision to enforce the law, and the decision to accept the war as all contributory to the start of the war. Yet, without the vital ingredient of slavery and the issues surrounding it, such as the question of expanding the institution into the territories, such as the enforcement of the fugitive slave act, such as the concern over whether the new administration would use the patronage power to appoint antislavery officials, such as the fear of growing an antislavery party within the slave states, etc., there would have been no secession and no war. If not for the slavery issue, it's very difficult to imagine those states attempting secession from the United States, and thus it's very difficult to imagine there having been an American Civil War.

Were there other issues that contributed to sectional tensions? Sure. But if we take all those other issues away and leave slavery, we still get secession and a war. If we leave all those other issues intact and remove slavery from the slate, we get no secession and no war.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

But that does not excuse people who refused to think for themselves.

Welcome to the human race, where most people don't want to think, especially not for themselves. Thinking is hard. Thinking may contradict beliefs. Thinking may cause the person to recognize unhappiness. Better to avoid thought whenever possible.

Why do you need historians to tell you what to think?

Because that's what experts are for. They can distill a large amount of information on their specialty subject than most of us ever could, with a better understanding than most of us will ever have. It's their job, and in many cases a career and a passion. They aren't infallible and can still fall victim to bias, but they have knowledge most of us cannot match.

But why do you need a financial advisor, sports coach, or scientist? We can all figure those things out for ourselves, right?