Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Excellent advice. It's exactly the approach I'd advise anyone to take, and which I've taken myself. Read widely. Read the primary sources. Dig a little. Don't let anyone tell you what to think, decide for yourself what the facts reveal.
Good advice.

I have found a good practice to be to limit perspectives on the coming of the war only to antebellum literature. I.e., to get inside the antebellum American minds, Northern, Southern, Western, Southwestern, etc. I do not ignore contemporary or past writers about the war, but I note especially their bibliographies to see what they have read. It was the growing awareness of the lack of any references or only few references to De Bow's Review that has caused me to question their qualifications to evaluate what anyone believed in the South from 1845-1861. And the almost total lack of awareness of the Pacific Railroad Surveys is a dead giveaway. When I see no reference whatsoever to them, I say to myself, "This fellow is not really equipped to deal with the coming of the war." Sadly, that includes McPherson and Freehling and Dew, et al. And I suspect but do not know that it might include UB and Lefty and a few others.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
You pretty much said it all: “The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking.” Now, I'll ask you what use was Moultrie along Sumter and other United States claim in Charleston and elsewhere in the Confederate States that the United States was willing to go war for? What use was so-call US property in the CS if the US government had any intention of letting the seceded states go in peace. At, least you are claiming it was about property and land claims and not as some have here have said that it was due to some elusive clause in the US constitution that prevented the Lincoln regime from letting the Confederate States exist in peace.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/causes-of-the-civil-war/
A+. This is why I asked where you were.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,351
Location
Pennsylvania
What use was so-call US property in the CS if the US government had any intention of letting the seceded states go in peace.
"if" being the key word. No one in the United States had any interest in maintaining US property in a foreign country. As you know perfectly well, the US government had no more intention of letting the seceded states go in peace than any other government in the same situation.

As you may also recall, I've suggested many times that peaceful separation may have been the best solution. I just don't see the need to say silly things about it.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,174
Location
Laurinburg NC
"if" being the key word. No one in the United States had any interest in maintaining US property in a foreign country. As you know perfectly well, the US government had no more intention of letting the seceded states go in peace than any other government in the same situation.

As you may also recall, I've suggested many times that peaceful separation may have been the best solution. I just don't see the need to say silly things about it.
So true.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,241
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Excellent advice. It's exactly the approach I'd advise anyone to take, and which I've taken myself. Read widely. Read the primary sources. Dig a little. Don't let anyone tell you what to think, decide for yourself what the facts reveal.
It's amazing what you find when, you look for yourself, vs. what plenty of folks preach. Like most events, there's usually more to the story than, the popular narrative.

For some reason unbeknownst to me, getting the whole story seems to trigger lots of folks. I usually classify it as, subjective interpretation based on political ideology.

I think "Single Causer" is a great moniker though, I've always been fond of, "Virtuous Yankee". Seems to touch on the holier than thou attitude that plenty preach. Gets into the morality police aspect of it too.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,030
Again you can not conflate war and secession. Secession did not start the war and it may still have been avoided after secession.
The governments of South Carolina and the Confederacy started the war. Slavery and all of the economics, politics, and social structure that go with it , caused secession.
The new confederacy started the war to save itself from voluntary reconstruction and bring in the upper south. The north , including Lincoln and Seward, wanted to possess federal property without war and a limited amount of appeasement to keep the upper south and Virginia in particular. Seward wanted to evacuate Sumter.

Fort Sumter stood on a man-made granite island four miles from down town Charleston at the entrance to the bay. W ith brick walls forty feet high and eight to twelve feet thick, designed to mount 146 big guns, this new fort when fully manned by 650 soldiers could stop anything trying to enter or leave the harbor. But at the beginning of December i860 Fort Sumter was untenanted except by workmen completing the construction of its interior. Most of the eighty-odd soldiers of the U. S. garrison at Charleston occupied Fort Moultrie, an obsolete work a mile across the bay from Sumter on an island easily accessible from the mainland and exposed to capture from the rear. The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking. Even before seceding, South Car olina officials began pressing the Buchanan administration on this mat ter. After declaring its independence, the republic of South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the forts and the arsenal. Their quest was backed by hundreds of militiamen in Charles ton who vowed to drive the Yankees out if they did not leave voluntarily.
For the rest of the story.....
http://ouleft.org/wp-content/uploads/Battle-Cry-of-Freedom_The-Civil-War-Era.pdf
This excerpt page 264. The book is some 900 pages and takes a minute to load.
What “limited amount of appeasement” was provided to “keep the upper south and Virginia in particular?”

Edit: By Lincoln
 
Last edited:

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Dethroning King Cotton: The Failed Diplomacy of the Confederacy
by Anjelica Matcho
Bridgewater Raritan High School
First Place High School
Gilder Lehrman Civil War Essay Contest
January 30, 2015

In response to President Lincoln’s Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports in 1861, the Confederacy influenced its people to withhold their cotton from the rest of the world in an attempt to coerce European powers England and France into breaking the Union’s blockade and taking up arms in support of the Confederacy. Considering only the success of the cotton industry in previous years, the South failed to see the cracks in King Cotton’s armor. Warehouses were filled to the rafters with cotton all over England and France due to overproduction in years preceding the war, endeavors beginning in 1862 in India and Egypt yielded steady cotton harvests, and England would not raise its arms in support of a belligerent whose primary goal was the continuation of slavery. Crippled from the start with little means to furnish supplies for a war against the industrious North, breaking the blockade was crucial in defeating the Union and achieving Confederate independence. Significantly lacking in population, natural resources, and industrial capacity compared to that of the North’s, it was crucial for the Confederacy to compensate with outside help, but blinded by irrational pride, the South implemented cotton diplomacy, a strategy that gained them no allies, wreaked havoc on their own economy for years to come, and greatly diminished their ability to prevail in their fight against the Union.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/27._anjelica_matcho.pdf
1080

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,174
Location
Laurinburg NC
What “limited amount of appeasement” was provided to “keep the upper south and Virginia in particular?”
What “limited amount of appeasement” was provided to “keep the upper south and Virginia in particular?”

Edit: By Lincoln
What I find most extraordinary is is the claim that the “new Confederacy started the war to save itself from voluntary reconstruction.” One is left to wonder how did the Lincoln regime hope to do that without provoking a war – sneak missionaries across the border?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,677
Location
South Carolina
I have found a good practice to be to limit perspectives on the coming of the war only to antebellum literature. I.e., to get inside the antebellum American minds, Northern, Southern, Western, Southwestern, etc. I do not ignore contemporary or past writers about the war, but I note especially their bibliographies to see what they have read.
I've only been exploring Civil War history for a little less than four years at this point, so there's a lot I have yet to read. This seems like particularly useful advice to me. You're the first person I've seen mention DeBow's, so I'll keep it in mind for future reading.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
University of New Orleans
ScholarWorks@UNO
University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses
Spring 5-13-2016

“The Grand Old Man of Cotton”: Colonel Henry G. Hester, Economic Innovation, and the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, 1871-1932
by Joshua E. Lincecum

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. The author is solely responsible for ensuring compliance with copyright. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uno.edu.

Abstract
After the American Civil War, and the collapse of the market in slave-produced cotton in the South, cotton merchants in New Orleans faced challenges in reestablishing the city as a central port for Southern cotton. As commodities exchanges emerged as centralized spaces for business in the 1870s, a new class of experts emerged, upon whose reports traders bought and sold newly developed securities derivatives. Henry G. Hester (1846- 1934), Secretary of the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, was an integral player in the development of the methods that governed sophisticated commodities trading around the world. His career at the New Orleans Cotton Exchange tells the story of the arrival of these methods and subsequent downfall of Euro-American centrality in the global cotton empire and contradicts previous histories that deemphasize Southern businesspersons’ contributions to modernization.

https://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3278&context=td
148

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
43
Shortly after Fort Sumter and Virginia's secession, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania infantry open fired on a mob in Baltimore, some members of which were throwing stones at them. The mayor and police chief responded by ordering all railroad bridges blown up to prevent any further trouble by keeping out Union troops. For this, they were imprisoned in Fort McHenry.

It seems like a large percentage of Baltimorians, including the mayor were secessionists. Why was this, since a small percentage of the population of Baltimore City was slaves?
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
You pretty much said it all: “The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking.” Now, I'll ask you what use was Moultrie along Sumter and other United States claim in Charleston and elsewhere in the Confederate States that the United States was willing to go war for? What use was so-call US property in the CS if the US government had any intention of letting the seceded states go in peace. At, least you are claiming it was about property and land claims and not as some have here have said that it was due to some elusive clause in the US constitution that prevented the Lincoln regime from letting the Confederate States exist in peace.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/causes-of-the-civil-war/
First, you well know that the stated legal opinion of the US was that the CSA was an illegal insurrection, not a independent state.

Second, even if it were, what right would the CSA have to land they ceded to the federal government, that the federal government literally created on a sandbar?

Third, the US has hundreds of bases in other nations, Great Britain has Gibraltar. Of what use could it be? Really?

Fourth, the US was maintaining its presence there because it was contesting secession and wanted saner heads to prevail. Hence the note to the SC governor when they indicated they were going to reprovision but not reinforce the fort. Even if SCOTUS judged or Congress negotiated legal secession, there would still be the matter of compensation for the millions of dollars of assets that the Confederacy had seized.

Finally, a blog by an IT guy is a ridiculous source. It's value is less than the power it cost to fire the electrons to my computer screen.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
Some people just like Simple Solutions. How often have we heard from the Single Causers, hey, I’ve never heard of that. So, it can’t be true. It’s a huge obstacle to learning. Also, part of the Single Cause Fallacy.
Ah, yes, it's the historians who have vetted all the primary source information, and devoted their lives to understanding it, they are just simple people. The ones with PhDs and a lifetime of research? Slow witted, those poor deranged fools. The ones who won the Pulitzer Prize, the Lincoln Prize, the Pritzker Literature Award for Military Writing, or are on the National Endowment for the Humanities board, or run the Battlefield Preservation Society, or the ones that are members of the American Historical Association, morons all.

Clearly we should be paying more attention to a couple of Confederate Civil War reenactors, and the talking heads, realtors, and IT professionals who are the cornerstone of the new Southern Confederacy.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,677
Location
South Carolina
Ah, yes, it's the historians who have vetted all the primary source information, and devoted their lives to understanding it, they are just simple people. The ones with PhDs and a lifetime of research? Slow witted, those poor deranged fools. The ones who won the Pulitzer Prize, the Lincoln Prize, the Pritzker Literature Award for Military Writing, or are on the National Endowment for the Humanities board, or run the Battlefield Preservation Society, or the ones that are members of the American Historical Association, morons all.
Should I channel cash for a moment and say "appeal to authority" fallacy?

I don't think these men and women are incompetent or have nothing of value to say. But they clearly have blinders on. Everything they study and analyze and process is put through the filter of "race", to the exclusion of all else. It causes them, in my opinion, to make connections that aren't there and to ignore other factors that can't be connected to the racial paradigm. They have limited themselves to a very narrow framework for analysis. All you have to do is look at past scholars to see how there are different perspectives that can be applied to history, which can be just as flawed in their own ways, but often arrived at by men and women who were just as well educated and who worked just as hard to analyze the sources as modern historians.

We're all products of the society we live in, historians included. Just because modern historians are well educated and well-read doesn't mean they're always right. They may or may not have compensated for blind spots of past historians, but they have blind spots of their own, and we would do well to recognize that.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,174
Location
Laurinburg NC
First, you well know that the stated legal opinion of the US was that the CSA was an illegal insurrection, not a independent state.

Second, even if it were, what right would the CSA have to land they ceded to the federal government, that the federal government literally created on a sandbar?

Third, the US has hundreds of bases in other nations, Great Britain has Gibraltar. Of what use could it be? Really?

Fourth, the US was maintaining its presence there because it was contesting secession and wanted saner heads to prevail. Hence the note to the SC governor when they indicated they were going to reprovision but not reinforce the fort. Even if SCOTUS judged or Congress negotiated legal secession, there would still be the matter of compensation for the millions of dollars of assets that the Confederacy had seized.

Finally, a blog by an IT guy is a ridiculous source. It's value is less than the power it cost to fire the electrons to my computer screen.
I understand your position full well. You, unlike an earlier poster I responded to appear to understand that the cause of the war was secession.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
You pretty much said it all: “The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking.”
First, I didn’t say it , McPherson did and I sourced it and you didn’t read any of it.
I knew you would go there with the chubby checker twist move.
So the confederacy commits acts of treason and war by seizing federal property all over the south under Buchanan. Lincoln comes in and they are already talking about taking sumpter and have fired and hit an unarmed supply ship and that’s fine and dandy but Anderson, who has orders to occupy sumpter if necessary , started the war by moving his garrison to a more secure federal facility, under his command.
This is why I can’t talk to some of you, and then use a bias source like the Abbeville Institute, Donald Livingston, and Philip Leigh and their Edited. Southern Heritage propaganda .

What “limited amount of appeasement” was provided to “keep the upper south and Virginia in particular?”
Lincoln would have let Sumpter go if it secured Virginia but couldn’t get a commitment. The original seven did not want to go through voluntary reconstruction and fired the first shots to start war , to end this threat, and bring Virginia into the confederacy.
Lincoln similarly could not do “nothing” and was under extreme pressure not to let Sumpter go.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
Should I channel cash for a moment and say "appeal to authority" fallacy?
Expertise is not a fallacy. Again, all they have to do is point to the hundreds of examples that the Southern leaders stated what their cause was.

Look up Dunning Kuger.

We are a society based on specialization, and the level of understanding between an enthusiastic layman and someone that holds a doctorate is so great that the layman rarely knows the right questions to ask, let alone the answers.

To wit.

I don't think these men and women are incompetent or have nothing of value to say. But they clearly have blinders on. Everything they study and analyze and process is put through the filter of "race", to the exclusion of all else. It causes them, in my opinion, to make connections that aren't there and to ignore other factors that can't be connected to the racial paradigm. They have limited themselves to a very narrow framework for analysis. All you have to do is look at past scholars to see how there are different perspectives that can be applied to history, which can be just as flawed in their own ways, but often arrived at by men and women who were just as well educated and who worked just as hard to analyze the sources as modern historians.

We're all products of the society we live in, historians included. Just because they're well educated and well-read doesn't mean they're always right.
Also you:
I've only been exploring Civil War history for a little less than four years at this point, so there's a lot I have yet to read.

But it's the award winning historians that are wrong. All of them over the last 25 years, as they virtually all concur.

Your ignorance is not just as good as their knowledge.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,174
Location
Laurinburg NC
Should I channel cash for a moment and say "appeal to authority" fallacy?

I don't think these men and women are incompetent or have nothing of value to say. But they clearly have blinders on. Everything they study and analyze and process is put through the filter of "race", to the exclusion of all else. It causes them, in my opinion, to make connections that aren't there and to ignore other factors that can't be connected to the racial paradigm. They have limited themselves to a very narrow framework for analysis. All you have to do is look at past scholars to see how there are different perspectives that can be applied to history, which can be just as flawed in their own ways, but often arrived at by men and women who were just as well educated and who worked just as hard to analyze the sources as modern historians.

We're all products of the society we live in, historians included. Just because modern historians are well educated and well-read doesn't mean they're always right. They may or may not have compensated for blind spots of past historians, but they have blind spots of their own, and we would do well to recognize that.
We should especially look askance at so-called "accurate history" by the likes of James McPherson, a source provided by an earlier poster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top