Is the Abbeville Institute a Reliable Source for Information Related to the Civil War?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I don't ignore anything that sheds light on this subject. Until the confirmation of the 13th Amendment, slavery was legal in the U.S. During the Battle of Nashville in Dec 1864, the 13th USCI, self-liberated men from my county, made an attack on Hood's right flank that drew written words of praise from Confederate defenders. That same week, slaves were sold on the courthouse step in Nashville to settle debt. The two events bracket my understanding of the peculiar institution.
well you did post "Would slaves actually go to war to guarantee the right of white men to buy & sell their children, have unfeddered sexual access to their women folk & beat them bloody at a whim? Of course, the answer is no, h-ll no!"

When they did and had repeatedly through history. A slave who ran away my homestate and enlisted in the USCT was serving the very nation doing all those you describe.......the same was true for KY, MY or Delaware slaves
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
well you did post "Would slaves actually go to war to guarantee the right of white men to buy & sell their children, have unfeddered sexual access to their women folk & beat them bloody at a whim? Of course, the answer is no, h-ll no!"

When they did and had repeatedly through history. A slave who ran away my homestate and enlisted in the USCT was serving the very nation doing all those you describe.......

I think it was and is fairly clear that by the time these people were running away/joining the Union Army it was apparent that a Union victory would mean the end of slavery. Trying to portray service in the Union forces, especially after the EP (which allowed African Americans to serve), as being in defense of slavery on par with service in the CSA (whose “cornerstone” was the defense and propagation of slavery) ignores the reality of the war, it’s causes, and the stated motive of many soldiers who served in the USCT.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think it was and is fairly clear that by the time these people were running away/joining the Union Army it was apparent that a Union victory would mean the end of slavery. Trying to portray service in the Union forces, especially after the EP (which allowed African Americans to serve), as being in defense of slavery on par with service in the CSA (whose “cornerstone” was the defense and propagation of slavery) ignores the reality of the war, it’s causes, and the stated motive of many soldiers who served in the USCT.
At the time blacks first started enlisting in CT's in 1862, would think in would be disingenuous to say it was clear.......even in mid 63 as the EP proclamation is issued, it was very careful to distinguish it didn't affect US slaves, so it would again seem somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise, By 64 I would say it was indeed becoming clear.....but that wasn't the conditions they had enlisted under prior....thats simply reality

Nor does it explain they served the US in prior wars where the US remained a slave-holding nation, or that they also served other slave-holding nations such as GB in the revolutionary war and war of 1812. Again thats simply reality. For most blacks trying to escape slavery it was a very individual thing. Why in most cases they were even abandoning family. It wasn't to free slaves in other colonies/states/counties but to free themselves. I have yet see any US slave who enlisted to GB in war of 1812 cite freeing slaves in sugar plantations in British colonies such as Jamaica was a concern.......
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
You seem to ignore they enlisted to the US while the US clearly held slaves not only in the CW but anytime they served the US back to the US revolution.

True. The US was a slave nation (within slave states where slavery was legal), but with Lincoln and Republican Party, United States of America had already decided to abolish slavery either gradually by stopping the expansion of slavery or abruptly by taking more radical approaches like the 13th amendment. The US was the country that was controlled by the political party which committed itself to anti-slavery causes and the Confederacy was the organization that was controlled by a political class which committed itself to preservation and expansion of the peculiar institution.

It seems like supporting the Union was a logical choice for slaves.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
At the time blacks first started enlisting in CT's in 1862, would think in would be disingenuous to say it was clear.......even in mid 63 as the EP proclamation is issued, it was very careful to distinguish it didn't affect US slaves, so it would again seem somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise, By 64 I would say it was indeed becoming clear.....but that wasn't the conditions they had enlisted under prior....thats simply reality

Nor does it explain they served the US in prior wars where the US remained a slave-holding nation, or that they also served other slave-holding nations such as GB in the revolutionary war and war of 1812. Again thats simply reality. For most blacks trying to escape slavery it was a very individual thing. Why in most cases they were even abandoning family. It wasn't to free slaves in other colonies/states/counties but to free themselves. I have yet see any US slave who enlisted to GB in war of 1812 cite freeing slaves in sugar plantations in British colonies such as Jamaica was a concern.......
Just a note. The USCT was not created until after the Emancipation came into effect in January 1863. As a war measure, the proclamation only freed slaves in territory occupied by Confederate forces. Thus, most of Tennessee was not included. The construction gangs of self-liberated men who had built Rosecrans' fortress complex to protect Nashville & constructed the 70 mile Nashville & Western R.R. that was absolutely vital were recruited into the 13th & 100th USCTI. Until they were concentrated on Hood's right flank during Dec 1864, they kept the N&WRR open despite every effort of regular cavalry & "banditti" to interdict it.

During the same week that the 13th pinned down Hood's right flank during the Battle of Nashville, slaves were sold on the courthouse step in Nashville to settle debt. Nobody who has carefully studied this topic would say that it is simple or easy to understand.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Just a note. The USCT was not created until after the Emancipation came into effect in January 1863. As a war measure, the proclamation only freed slaves in territory occupied by Confederate forces. Thus, most of Tennessee was not included. The construction gangs of self-liberated men who had built Rosecrans' fortress complex to protect Nashville & constructed the 70 mile Nashville & Western R.R. that was absolutely vital were recruited into the 13th & 100th USCTI. Until they were concentrated on Hood's right flank during Dec 1864, they kept the N&WRR open despite every effort of regular cavalry & "banditti" to interdict it.

During the same week that the 13th pinned down Hood's right flank during the Battle of Nashville, slaves were sold on the courthouse step in Nashville to settle debt. Nobody who has carefully studied this topic would say that it is simple or easy to understand.
Yes but CT were enlisting in state forces before that, I recently made a post on the Battle of Island Mound which was the first account of CT in combat, they were a KS unit.....they did indeed xfer to USCT after the EP
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
True. The US was a slave nation (within slave states where slavery was legal), but with Lincoln and Republican Party, United States of America had already decided to abolish slavery either gradually by stopping the expansion of slavery or abruptly by taking more radical approaches like the 13th amendment. The US was the country that was controlled by the political party which committed itself to anti-slavery causes and the Confederacy was the organization that was controlled by a political class which committed itself to preservation and expansion of the peculiar institution.

It seems like supporting the Union was a logical choice for slaves.
It would be a logical choice for CSA slaves, not sure why it would have been to US slaves until late in the war as well into 1864......

At the beginning Lincoln was careful to emphasis he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed….which was clearly the US states
With the EP in mid 63 he is again careful to note it doesn't affect US slaves at all...…

Until the amendment's are introduced and pushed for in 64, theres not of reason for US slaves to have been that overly hopeful.......they had served in prior wars that when over, basicly everything went back to status quo of US slavery existing
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Yes but CT were enlisting in state forces before that, I recently made a post on the Battle of Island Mound which was the first account of CT in combat, they were a KS unit.....they did indeed xfer to USCT after the EP
There were militias in the Sea Islands, Louisiana & other places. It was not until the Proclamation that they were enlisted into the Union Army. An exception were the self-liberated nurses on the hospital ship Red Rover. They were the first women formally enlisted in the U.S. military. One of those ladies was from Murfreesboro TN, where I live. They received pensions as Boy, third rate, which was the designation for medical stewards.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The Abbeville Institute is an organization of ideologues, not historians. And unfortunately, as demonstrated on this thread, when ideology and history contradict each other, people find it easier to cling to ideology.

:bounce::bounce::bounce:

Good luck finding any group of historians who doesn't include ideologues.......as most historians aren't immune or refrain from politics, and it becomes hard for most to separate the two......... If you lean right or left, a historian being somewhat a ideologue your way may not be as noticeable as when they lean the other way............but in many cases its still there.

Though I suppose that those cling to something didn't exist, that we know existed in least limited numbers would be those who you say cling to ideology over actual history.
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
The Abbeville Institute is an organization of ideologues, not historians.

I'll tell you one thing I've learned for certain in my four and a half years of studying the Civil War: history is as political as any other topic. Very few if any historians on either side seem truly objective and free from bias, and many are clearly ideologues. Howard Zinn and Eric Foner come to mind as good examples.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Good luck finding any group of historians who doesn't include ideologues.......as most historians aren't immune or refrain from politics, and it becomes hard for most to separate the two......... If you lean right or left, a historian being somewhat a ideologue your way may not be as noticeable as when they lean the other way............but in many cases its still there.
But there is a huge difference between:
1. having your personal political standpoint influence your interpretation. That is very hard to avoid.
2. And actively using history to promote your modern political agenda, to an extent where you deliberately falsify quotes and data.

And there is a huge difference in:
1. Asking a question, then having you political standpoint influence your conclusion.
2. Having a conclusion based on ideology, and then designing the question, selecting the sources and if needed making up the sources to fit that ideology.

The 1st is how historians work.
The 2nd is how ideologues work.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
:bounce::bounce::bounce:

Good luck finding any group of historians who doesn't include ideologues.......as most historians aren't immune or refrain from politics, and it becomes hard for most to separate the two......... If you lean right or left, a historian being somewhat a ideologue your way may not be as noticeable as when they lean the other way............but in many cases its still there.

Though I suppose that those cling to something didn't exist, that we know existed in least limited numbers would be those who you say cling to ideology over actual history.
You must hang out with very different historians than I do. They are the most meticulous dedicated to the facts humans I have ever met.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
You must hang out with very different historians than I do. They are the most meticulous dedicated to the facts humans I have ever met.


All one has to do is read where people call what we know existed, myths or non existent to see politics influencing history, and some of these people supposedly have PHD's perhaps for pollical history disingenuous …...……

To seriously discuss how limited something was is valid, to pretend it didn't exist at all is simply nonsense or being blinded by an ideology, every bit as much as trying to inflate the numbers would be.

Both those wishing to dismiss or inflate, simply detract from any serious discussion, which perhaps is their purpose all along
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
All one has to do is read where people call what we know existed, myths or non existent to see politics influencing history, and some of these people supposedly have PHD's perhaps for pollical history disingenuous …...……

To seriously discuss how limited something was is valid, to pretend it didn't exist at all is simply nonsense or being blinded by an ideology, every bit as much as trying to inflate the numbers would be.

Both those wishing to dismiss or inflate, simply detract from any serious discussion, which perhaps is their purpose all along
Who are these historians you are referring to? Do they have names? How do you square this claim with peer review, which is the bedrock of academic integrity? So, your contention is that the reviewers, who don't know who wrote the paper being examined are somehow members of a secret cabal to promote a preordained narrative? If so, who are they & what universities do they represent. Please provide details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top