Oops, big lump of your posts....

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW:REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
8,002
Location
South Carolina
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.
And I spotted the biases of many modern historians just that quickly. They're as blatant as the biases of the Dunning school. I'm not going to accept their conclusions as gospel. I'll learn on my own.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,463
Sir, I'm not sure this was a slavery thing as opposed to a perceived cultural connection thing. Baltimore has been called the most Northern southern city and the most Southern northern city. She was in strenuous commercial compatition with NYC and Philly, (and to a lesser extend - Boston), for western trade while having close ties to the coastal states of what would become the Confederacy, (and what would become West Virginia). Like the other border states, she straddled both worlds and because of that, some looked south, while others were more northern in orientation.
9

Not sure that helps,
USS ALASKA
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,787
Location
Laurinburg NC
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 BS Southern Heritage propaganda.


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.
And it's your opinion that McPherson new age agenda isn't propaganda driven?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
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.
That's the problem.

You suspect but do not know.

I believe it is the same with your approach to the issue of slavery being the cause of Southern secession and the Civil War.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
Many people throughout history have attempted to claimed independece and to sever the old ties to become a new nation,. The exact point when they became a new nation, or if they were in truth a new nation could be debated.

I am not sure listing a couple dozen areas that decared they were a new nation would be of much help. So when do they become a new nation? Having other nations accept them as a new nation could be used as one of the factors.

Every area that decared themselves a new nation believes they are in fact a new nation, but if no one else in the world considers them a nation, are they a new nation?

In the end it is kind of a silly point. Declare you are a new nation and win in a rebellion, you are a new nation. Lose and you are not a new nation, or maybe only a new nation unit you are defeated.
Every nation on earth strives to achieve diplomatic relations with as many nations as it can unless there are severe ideological differences. Ever secessionist movement in history tries it's best to achieve diplomatic relations with as many nations as possible.
President Davis understood this and did make an effort to establish diplomatic relations with as many nations as possible but was uniformly unsuccessful.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
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?
Just because someone doesn't own slaves doesn't mean they don't support the institution of slavery or white supremacy in general.
Maryland as in the case of other border states was deeply divided although we don't have good numbers in terms of percentages.
I have never been able to find a good source in how many Marylanders joined the Union Army vs the Confederate Army. Not saying the source isn't out there.
Leftyhunter
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
537
And I spotted the biases of many modern historians just that quickly. They're as blatant as the biases of the Dunning school. I'm not going to accept their conclusions as gospel. I'll learn on my own.
And how did you spot those biases, might I ask?

What criteria did you use to determine that all of the smart guys that do this for a living are wrong, but you and your buddies that enjoy it as a hobby are right?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,787
Location
Laurinburg NC
I have no idea what you mean. McPherson is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian not a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I have no idea what you mean. McPherson is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian not a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Goodness knows which organizations McPherson is affiliated with. Sounds like another dose of more Yankees right Southerners wrong maundering.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
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?
Per Wiki 25k Marylanders joined the Confederate Army vs 60k joined the Union Army but major caveat the article is not sourced.
Leftyhunter
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,764
The shooting was done by a Massachusetts militia regiment, the 6th Massachusetts, raised in the area now known as the "Merrimack Valley" in northern Massachusetts. I'm not sure if all the Pennsylvanian militiamen were armed.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,109
Sir, I'm not sure this was a slavery thing as opposed to a perceived cultural connection thing. Baltimore has been called the most Northern southern city and the most Southern northern city. She was in strenuous commercial compatition with NYC and Philly, (and to a lesser extend - Boston), for western trade while having close ties to the coastal states of what would become the Confederacy, (and what would become West Virginia). Like the other border states, she straddled both worlds and because of that, some looked south, while others were more northern in orientation.
9

Not sure that helps,
USS ALASKA
Also Baltimore was a big dependent on food from the Shenandoah Valley which is in Virginia along with tobacco, grain for shipping.
 

Gene Green

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
935
Location
Dixie
You, unlike an earlier poster I responded to appear to understand that the cause of the war was secession.
If you mean me , you again misrepresent me.
Secession was the cause of the war but the secessionist started the fighting.
Goodness knows which organizations McPherson is affiliated with.
You are the one who claimed he has a “new age agenda” , whatever that is and it would seem that you do not know either. Did you get that from Livingston, a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, which admits they are agenda driven as is the Abbeville Institute ?
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,510
Location
Wisconsin
I think people who read history with an honest desire to learn, and who value an unvarnished, undistorted, look at the past, should be called "Realists."

People who want to distort history, for whatever reasons they may have, whether it's an emotional attachment to heritage, or a desire to show up all the other historians with a contrary pet theory, or whatever it is that drives their desire for distortion, should be called "Fantasists."
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,109
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 BS Southern Heritage propaganda .


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.
Lincoln was forming his War Flotilla as he talked to the Virginia reps. He did something all right.
Extreme pressure. Where you get this from? And who was doing this? McPherson?
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,816
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.
How about "Stone Bones" for slavery first devotees?

And why are those academics always being revised?

Yes, wisdom will die with the Princeton professionals.

Not mourning in North Carolina,

James
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,787
Location
Laurinburg NC
If you mean me , you again misrepresent me.
Secession was the cause of the war but the secessionist started the fighting.

You are the one who claimed he has a “new age agenda” , whatever that is and it would seem that you do not know either. Did you get that from Livingston, a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, which admits they are agenda driven as is the Abbeville Institute ?
I take it you think the current lot post-1960 revisionists aren't agenda driven.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,054
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.
” Kenneth M. Stampp thinks that Lincoln remained determined to enforce the laws, refused to accept peaceable secession, or to compromise on fundamental issues like the expansion of slavery. While he hoped to avoid conflict, he fully appreciated the gravity of the crisis he confronted and the possibility of conflict. As Stampp puts it, "Never did the President-elect, directly or indirectly, hint that the government could abstain from exercising such vital functions as collecting its revenues and holding its property. It was not that he regarded force as desirable in itself, or that he wished to provoke a war. Rather it was that he was profoundly impressed with the idea that there were points at which the government could not tolerate defiance without destroying itself, and that as President he would have an inescapable obligation to 'enforce the laws.'"

According to Stampp, Lincoln intended to avoid coercing the South and to abstain from exercising his authority in certain cases. But he would defend and maintain the integrity of the Union to the extent he could, and place the burden of responsibility on the South for undertaking initiatives against remaining federal authority. According to Stampp, therefore, Lincoln's revision of his Inaugural Address may have made its tone less aggressive, but it did not change his true position. The President, for example, never relinquished federal claims to the seized forts or repudiated the idea of retaking them. Orville H. Browning's recommendation to delete the reference to retaking the forts did not mean that the government abandoned that objective. Instead, as Browning himself thought, the government could ultimately accomplish that end better without broad casting its purpose. Stampp, in effect, sees little underlying difference between Lincoln's Inaugural Address and his previous statements regarding the retaking of federal property.
As for the Rives incident, Richard N. Current, who generally agrees with Stampp's position, insists that Lincoln was never serious about exchanging Fort Sumter for Virginia's pledge to remain in the Union. According to Current, Lincoln did not believe that the Rives delegation could deliver a guarantee of Virginia's unionism. He considered the idea of an exchange of a state for a fort "something of a joke."

https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/LincolnInaug/Soln2Comm.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top