No More

[brass napoleon]

No. You're educating me. Besides, we have lots of members who never comment or actually log on--they just read. So I always figure somebody is at least reading, if not actually jumping over the fence and commenting. Keep the faith!

I can attest to this. I read lots of threads I don't comment on. If the folks involved in the discussion know a lot about the topic and I know very little, I figure it's best for me to just shut up and learn. That goes for the Trans-Miss too. So keep 'em coming!

(But I might pass on Abner Doubleday's socks.)

 

[Rob9641]

(But I might pass on Abner Doubleday's socks.)

Argyle? I can attest to his hat - it's in the museum at the Gettysburg VC (dark blue felt, sloppy and full of holes) - but not the socks.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I can attest to this. I read lots of threads I don't comment on. If the folks involved in the discussion know a lot about the topic and I know very little, I figure it's best for me to just shut up and learn. That goes for the Trans-Miss too. So keep 'em coming!

(But I might pass on Abner Doubleday's socks.)

I agree. There's a lot of threads I read(actually I read all of them, for moderation, but mostly skim a lot for no-nos). Anyway, I read a bunch of threads about stuff I know nothing about, so I don't post. It takes me a long time to write a halfway decent post, so I know a lot of work goes into some of the writing here. In the future, I'll toss in comment to let the posters know they're being read. Check the "viewed" count. Lots of folks read your work without commenting.

 

[footie]

Since I found this site I spent countless hours reading the posted history and read all comments. Some were drudgery, but most informative and I only really cringed once when someone demeaned an officer as a "shade tree general." Redundant as some be, I am still open to new thought.

 

[ole]

When I first joined this board, I read all the archives and advised others to do the same. This is now quite impossible. There is twice the membership and about three times the volume of the archives.

I've long since ceased asking others to go back and read everything. An enormous interest in a subject might lead one to go back to post #1 of 1,200 posts, but each day has only 24 hours and some of y'all have more pressing matters to deal with.

But it is a great board, and it feeds the need to learn something and contribute.

 

[The Iron Duke]

McKeon please add the legality/illegality of secession to your list.

 

[matthew mckeon]

McKeon please add the legality/illegality of secession to your list.

IMO, the idea of the "legality" of secession is an attempt to shift attention from the unpleasant "cause" of secession. But unlike the "who owns Ft. Sumter" irrelevance, I can't say it didn't have some sort of influence on the historical actors at the time.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Once the shooting started what does it matter whether it was legal or not?

 

[matthew mckeon]

I believe the southerners of 1860, at least some of them, thought secession was legal and among the options, if the most drastic, that a state in the Union could take. Lee wrote in a famous contemporary letter that he was one of those "dull creatures" that couldn't see the good in secession. He didn't think secession was not an option, he just thought it was a bad idea. So the idea that secession is legitimate on some level was a motivator in 1860.

On the other hand, they(the Southerners) didn't act like secession was legal. They immediately started seizing federal installations and property and gearing up for the big war the more perceptive were pretty sure was coming. In the exulting over secession some one wrote that "the tea has been thrown overboard" So there is harking back to the Revolution, successful rebellion.

 

[ole]

Good. I'm making a list and checking it twice (Mr. Freeman actually caused this, due to his insistence on writing about officers in battle, summing up their accomplishments in civilian and military matters, and pointing out that we'll never know what they might have done....) as I chug through Lee's Lieutenants again. Took a couple of days for recreational reading, then I'll get back to my task.

You chug through Lee's Lieutenants and I'll chug through the remains of my case of beer. To each, his own.

 

[jojo]

No. You're educating me. Besides, we have lots of members who never comment or actually log on--they just read. So I always figure somebody is at least reading, if not actually jumping over the fence and commenting. Keep the faith!

Yes, I read more than I post, only because I don't have the expertise that so many of you have; except for maybe the campfire chat section or other assorted areas not pertaining to the CW. I have learned buckets-full here...regular posters: your posts are not in vain! Thank you!

 

[Jon G.]

Oh, Oh, Oh, to all you veteran posters, and everyone else, please don't get bored by going over the same material over and over. As some have been saying, there's always someone new reading and learning and maybe even making their first post.

As a huge chunk of history is near finite, repetition is normal. I've been on a couple forums on different topics where many new folks had questions and some of the veteran posters would always gruffly say "we've discussed that so many times, go look in the archives"!

I'm very happy to report I've not seen anything like that here, kudos to all you veterans and moderators! Occasionally a courteous reference to a thread thought to be in the archives is given and that's a good thing as long as civilly done!

The wonderful value in a forum like this isn't what's in the archives but all you veteran posters and what you have stored in your brains and your reference materials to keep mulling over and over for us less educated in the topic.

Thanks to all you great veteran posters and moderators, and also all the newbies that give them all the reason to be here going over the same material!

 

[dvrmte]

I have to say there are certain topics that I try to avoid. Secession and politics are two that come to mind. I usually don't get into those threads unless there is something I don't understand fully.

Many of the veteran posters have their areas of expertise or are just good at being argumentative. I like the argumentative types to test my theories on.

dvrmte

 

[brass napoleon]

Many of the veteran posters have their areas of expertise or are just good at being argumentative. I like to the argumentative types to test my theories on.

Yeah, it's a great place to test out theories. I do it quite a bit myself. If there's a whole in the theory, someone will stick their finger in it.

 

[O'Bruadair]

"I believe the southerners of 1860, at least some of them, thought secession was legal and among the options"

It definitely was NOT just "some southerners" (sic) (capital S if you please)

Characterizing northern sentiment as solidly against secession in principal is mendacious (whether intentional or no) A textbook in use at West Point (in the years R.E. Lee attended) reads thusly: "The secession of a state from the union depends on the will of the people of such state." He adds, "It depends on the State itself whether it will continue member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded; which is, the people have, in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

I dare say MOST Americans in the north would have said in 1861 as Horace Greely did say "let our wayward sisters depart in peace".

This is exactly why lincoln went to so much trouble to start a war. Provoking the confederacy into "firing the first shot" was the only way he was going to sway northern sentiment enough to support his war.

 

[brass napoleon]

I dare say MOST Americans in the north would have said in 1861 as Horace Greely did say "let our wayward sisters depart in peace".

This is exactly why lincoln went to so much trouble to start a war. Provoking the confederacy into "firing the first shot" was the only way he was going to sway northern sentiment enough to support his war.

Then Davis and crew were pretty dang stupid to fall into that "trap", weren't they? :shrug:

 

[ole]

"I believe the southerners of 1860, at least some of them, thought secession was legal and among the options"

It definitely was NOT just "some southerners" (sic) (capital S if you please)

Being that insistent must mean that you have some information on that claim. It be nice to share some of it. And, by the way, if you want southern and southerners capitalized, you might lead the way by capitalizing northern and northerners.

Characterizing northern sentiment as solidly against secession in principal is mendacious (whether intentional or no) A textbook in use at West Point (in the years R.E. Lee attended) reads thusly: "The secession of a state from the union depends on the will of the people of such state." He adds, "It depends on the State itself whether it will continue member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded; which is, the people have, in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

The Rawle book (a minor judicial mind, by the way) was used for no more than one year (and probably less), and there's no evidence that the entire book was covered in classes or text.

I dare say MOST Americans in the north would have said in 1861 as Horace Greely did say "let our wayward sisters depart in peace".

This is exactly why lincoln went to so much trouble to start a war. Provoking the confederacy into "firing the first shot" was the only way he was going to sway northern sentiment enough to support his war.

Possibly. And you might capitalize Lincoln's name as well.

 

[matthew mckeon]

As far as capitalization is concerned, my bad.

My point was that if you want to argue your point about secession, go ahead, I might not agree with you, and might argue back, but I don't think you're being "ahistorical" for bringing it up.

Arguing about "who owned Sumter?" is just lame. How does it matter? Who thought about it at the time? Nobody.

 

[matthew mckeon]

OK, I take back my "my bad" about capitalization: you didn't capitalize "northerner" or "Lincoln!" The shoe is on the Other Foot now!

 

[O'Bruadair]

"Arguing about "who owned Sumter?" is just lame. How does it matter? Who thought about it at the time? Nobody."

That we can agree on.

OK, I take back my "my bad" about capitalization: you didn't capitalize "northerner" or "Lincoln!" The shoe is on the Other Foot now!

yeah you got me on one of those. The lower case 'l' is intentioal disrespect for a demi-god of the political correct of both right and left. The simple fact is the man was just in no manner shape or form what he is held up to be.

The lower case 'n' though means no disrespect and is correct. north and south (lower case) are directions but the SOUTH is a place with certain cultural, demographic and political aspects in common. A northerner lives in the north, a southerner lives in the south. But a Southerner lives in Dixie and pocesses certain cultural characteristics and familial ties. You can speak of a New England-er a New Yorker or even a Mid-Westerner but a Northerner? Sorry, but there ain't no such animal. Unless maybe you are talking about "Nanook of the North".