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

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
Well, yeah, if you want to whitewash the North.
More like if you want to be honest with the history. I don't want to falsely present the worst accusations of its adversaries during the war as the true motives why United States of America had the War of the Rebellion. And no, it is not 'the North', but the United States.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
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.
Levin would be one by titling his book Black confederates the civil wars most persist myth, as something that exists isn't a myth, another one i dont like to refer to as he had brought legal action or threatened to this site, is quite opening criticized here if one reads threads.

Quite frankly I don't attend cabals, i find it interesting you said in a prior post you do use cabals as sources......"The cabal of historians who I referred to did something concrete."

Again having a PHD, a doctorate or BA doesn't make one any less susceptible to politics, I would think its quite the opposite actually, I would think the pressure from a liberal institution would to be conform to its liberal views.......because frankly if they were conservative it would be considered a conservative institution. But personally I haven't noticed a lack of educated fools.

Odd thing is whatever discipline one looks at history, science, ect.......alot of the prior "experts' are constantly being proven wrong......So see little reason today's crop shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt or why anyone would think they will be any more infallible then the prior generations.......
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
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
The Republican Party which controlled the Federal government and they had a plan to at least curb slavery in 1860 and they were committed to their anti-slavery causes. Slaves had every reason to support the GOP to start with, even if the party did not push for the immediate emancipation in 1860.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
The Republican Party which controlled the Federal government and they had a plan to at least curb slavery in 1860 and they were committed to their anti-slavery causes. Slaves had every reason to support the GOP, even if it might have not meant the immediate emancipation.
Curbing its expansion would mean little to those enslaved where it existed and was being protected.......other then maybe they wouldn't be moving as a unit, of course they could be sold and moved anytime still

Honestly I always find this rather bizarre every time its advanced, to me slavery is slavery, pretty sure it was to those being enslaved......

Yet some seem to wish to imply in 1861 we went to Good USA slavery and Bad CSA slavery....it was the same to the enslaved........the slave codes, treatment, work, ect remained the same in both.........BTW there US slaves who died between 1861 and ever seeing freedom, just as their was US slaves who lost their lives in escape attempts or punishments.

Which frankly is as bizarre as ignoring slavery existed for 4 yrs in the CSA and 90 some in the USA, including those same 4 years.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,486
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
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.
Same here. It was quite an eye opener. I had no idea that so many historians, & average history buffs, were so driven by modern political ideology.

To be honest, it's made me more cynical. Plenty of authors should list themselves as an activist, instead of a historian. I just want the truth, the WHOLE truth, & nothing but the truth. I immediately sour on someone when, they start telling you how to think, & how to interpret information. I'll make up my own mind, thanks.
 

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Levin would be one by titling his book Black confederates the civil wars most persist myth, as something that exists isn't a myth, another one i dont like to refer to as he had brought legal action or threatened to this site, is quite opening criticized here if one reads threads.

Quite frankly I don't attend cabals, i find it interesting you said in a prior post you do use cabals as sources......"The cabal of historians who I referred to did something concrete."

Again having a PHD, a doctorate or BA doesn't make one any less susceptible to politics, I would think its quite the opposite actually, I would think the pressure from a liberal institution would to be conform to its liberal views.......because frankly if they were conservative it would be considered a conservative institution. But personally I haven't noticed a lack of educated fools.

Odd thing is whatever discipline one looks at history, science, ect.......alot of the prior "experts' are constantly being proven wrong......So see little reason today's crop shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt or why anyone would think they will be any more infallible then the prior generations.......
Thanks, I appreciate it that you are sincere, but this is a pointless exercise.
Curbing its expansion would mean little to those enslaved where it existed and was being protected.......other then maybe they wouldn't be moving as a unit, of course they could be sold and moved anytime still
i agree, it did not mean much to the enslaved, but it was everything to the slaveholders. South Carolina was, in 1860, staring a slave population of 80 percent within the foreseeable future. Fear of demographic oblivion was a real obsession with whites in South Carolina. I am often amused that the UFOology black Confederates never refer to the things that really mattered to slaveholders. Today, I re-reread the documents that SC, VA, TX & GA published to explain why they had seceded. The made up narratives bear no relationship to why the states seceded.
I posted a something new, today. Slavery is our Divine Right! You will, I hope find it thought provoking.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
Curbing its expansion would mean little to those enslaved where it existed and was being protected.......other then maybe they wouldn't be moving as a unit, of course they could be sold and moved anytime still
Well, this fire-eater had a different opinion.

"We must expand or perish.

The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."

Robert Toombs's Speech to the Georgia Legislature
November 1860

It seems like both sides imagined that the end of expansion would eventually lead the institution of chattel slavery to its 'ultimate extinction'. I think Slaves in slave states were rightfully to be hopeful even in 1860.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
Well, this fire-eater had a different opinion.

"We must expand or perish.

The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."

Robert Toombs's Speech to the Georgia Legislature
November 1860

It seems like both sides imagined that the end of expansion would eventually lead the institution of chattel slavery to its 'ultimate extinction'. I think Slaves in slave states were rightfully to be hopeful even in 1860.
Honestly that would be appropriate to secession talk, but has little to do with how slaves felt about politicians such as Lincoln declaring I have no intention of interfering with slavery where it exists (states remaining in the Union). Not seeing a lot of cause for rejoicing in that statement for a US slave........Nor when the EP is announced the small print says well not you US slaves.........
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
Lincoln declaring I have no intention of interfering with slavery where it exists (states remaining in the Union).
At the same time, the Lincoln administration forced what would become of West Virginia to submit a constitution with the gradual abolition amendment and lobbied Union slave states for the compensated emancipation.

Lincoln was a savvy lawyer and a pragmatic politician. He knew he had no power to interfere with slavery in the slave states, but Lincoln as anti-slavery had every intention to destroy slavery whenever opportunities were presented to him as long as it did not interfere with his official duty of preserving the Union as POTUS during the War.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
At the same time, the Lincoln administration forced what would become of West Virginia to submit a constitution with the gradual abolition amendment and lobbied Union slave states for the compensated emancipation. Lincoln was a savvy lawyer and a pragmatic politician. He knew he had no power to interfere with slavery in the slave states, but Lincoln as anti-slavery had every intention to destroy slavery whenever opportunities were presented to him as long as it did not interfere with his official duty of preserving the Union as POTUS during the War.
Yes Lincoln has the honor of admitting the last slave state to the Union...so much for limiting its expansion. Savvy indeed with that one.

I agree Lincoln wasn't a ideologue and very savvy and pragmatic.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
Yes Lincoln has the honor of admitting the last slave state to the Union...so much for limiting its expansion. Savvy indeed with that one.

I agree Lincoln wasn't a ideologue and very savvy and pragmatic.
Admitting the counties where slavery was already legal as a state with an abolition amendment. It is an important distinction. Slavery would have been dead in West Virginia even without the 13th amendment, but the abolition of slavery in West Virginia did not hurt Lincoln's official duty of preserving the Union.

Savvy and pragmatic, indeed. Why wouldn't slaves support Lincoln and the Republican Party?
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
Admitting the counties where slavery was already legal as a state with an abolition amendment. It is an important distinction. Slavery would have been dead in West Virginia even without the 13th amendment, but the abolition of slavery in West Virginia did not hurt Lincoln's official duty of preserving the Union.

Savvy and pragmatic, indeed. Why wouldn't slaves support Lincoln and the Republican Party?
Well I would think the better question would be why would they during his period of savvy and pragmatic that offered nothing to US slaves but them remaining US slaves...? He was more then willing to put them on the sacrificial alter for political support with his pragmitism.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
16,254
Admitting the counties where slavery was already legal as a state with an abolition amendment. It is an important distinction. Slavery would have been dead in West Virginia even without the 13th amendment, but the abolition of slavery in West Virginia did not hurt Lincoln's official duty of preserving the Union.

Savvy and pragmatic, indeed. Why wouldn't slaves support Lincoln and the Republican Party?
Many escaped slaves probably assumed that once they joined the Union Army, they would not be returned to slavery. They are probably right in that assumption. Win or lose, the Union in the end probably, would not allow ex Union soldiers to be re-enslaved. If the Confederacy won the War, slaves serving with the Confederate Army most likely would remain slaves as would their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. I believe slaves in the Confederacy understood this. Others can say few if any slaves would fight so their children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren could be free.
 

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
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
My friends in the 13th USCT reenacting. Regiment would be bent over in laughter at this post. I am trying to be respectful, but it it glaringly obvious that you have never read a single solitary letter or journal written by a USCT. PLEASE inform yourself about the glorious history of those self-liberating heros. Those men who had all the rights & privileges of a lawnmower who went on to fix Hood's right at Nashville were magnificent. On Sunday I paused, as I have done many times over the years, at the grave of Sergeant William Holland 111th USCTI & meditated on what it took for him to be buried on his own farm. His life was exactly what that god awful war was all about. There is glory in that.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,004
Location
Laurinburg NC
I don't think it is appropriate to examine what Southern Newspapers accused the United States of committing all sorts of blasphemy and sacrilege to search for the motives behind the War of the Rebellion, but it is rather appropriate to examine what the first six slave states seceded from the Union said about their causes for unilateral secession which led to the war.

"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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization..."

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
January 9, 1861

"...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."

"He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
December 24, 1860

" In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. "

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
February, 1861

I haven't seen any plausible argument that why the war wasn't about the perpetuation of slavery through Southern independence. The Confederates weren't shy about their motives at the time. I don't see any reason why I should ignore them and trust organizations like the Abbeville Institution instead.
I suppose you could liken the Southern 1860-1861 Declaration of Causes to the one of 1776 that led to unilateral secession and the First War of Rebellion for its ommissions. What I like about North Carolina Governor John Ellis's reason for secession was that it was short, sweet, no mincing of words, or omission of reasons why.

"I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.
Governor John Ellis
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,129
Quite frankly I don't attend cabals, i find it interesting you said in a prior post you do use cabals as sources......"The cabal of historians who I referred to did something concrete."
Many definitions for cabal. 99% of them are bad.

Again having a PHD, a doctorate or BA doesn't make one any less susceptible to politics, I would think its quite the opposite actually, I would think the pressure from a liberal institution would to be conform to its liberal views...
...also helps to keep a job and get books published by the university press.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,990
Location
mo
My friends in the 13th USCT reenacting. Regiment would be bent over in laughter at this post. I am trying to be respectful, but it it glaringly obvious that you have never read a single solitary letter or journal written by a USCT. PLEASE inform yourself about the glorious history of those self-liberating heros. Those men who had all the rights & privileges of a lawnmower who went on to fix Hood's right at Nashville were magnificent. On Sunday I paused, as I have done many times over the years, at the grave of Sergeant William Holland 111th USCTI & meditated on what it took for him to be buried on his own farm. His life was exactly what that god awful war was all about. There is glory in that.
I'm doubled over in laughter at your presumptions of what others have read, as I have read letters of USCT, Missouri slave narratives, and multiple books of slavery in Missouri which also include USCT accounts. Your presumptions of people you don't even know simply leave me with little opinion of your credibility.

BTW to keep things in perspective USCT hardly represent views of all slaves or free blacks, The USCT obviously included numbers of free blacks but for arguments sake lets say all the USCT had been runaways, 185000 USCT would only represent 4.6% of the prewar slave population. Of the prewar slave and free black population USCT represented only 4.1%. So frankly I wouldnt put an over reliance on USCT accounts when they represented less then 5% of the black population. Surely you were aware of what a small sample size of the black population the USCT actually represent? Actually the number of USCT in the war is less then the number of free blacks living in the north at the start of the war, which was 225,000.........
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top