Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,449
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play that exploits multiple meanings of a term, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect.
If I have to explain it , it isn’t funny. My bad.
Hmmm..... I think you hit the Quinella. :bounce:

Not only does your following quote, NOT meet the definition of a pun, YOU provided, it wasn't funny either....

I have never heard one of you who want the confederacy today, ..........
Instead, we are left with just an erroneous statement. Nothing more.
 

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

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,740
I can see how plausible it would be to say: "such a large event as the Civil War, with such far reaching consequences" must have a complex of causes. Think of the debate and shelves of books about World War I and its causes. But the question: "What caused the Civil War?" is profoundly the wrong question to ask.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,740
I can see how plausible it would be to say: "such a large event as the Civil War, with such far reaching consequences" must have a complex of causes. Think of the debate and shelves of books about World War I and its causes. But the question: "What caused the Civil War?" is profoundly the wrong question to ask.
The question should be: "How did slavery cause the Civil War? And/or "why did slavery cause the Civil War?" Or more specifically "Why did slavery, given that it had existed in North America since the middle of the 17th century, spark a war in 1860."
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,268
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.

So, for Political Reasons, Lincoln sent Men in a suicide Mission, so he could start his War. He chose not to compromise, because he wanted to take Secession off the Table. Another reason for the War, OTS, other than Slavery
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,799
I can see how plausible it would be to say: "such a large event as the Civil War, with such far reaching consequences" must have a complex of causes. Think of the debate and shelves of books about World War I and its causes. But the question: "What caused the Civil War?" is profoundly the wrong question to ask.
I profoundly disagree, though I could also go with "What were the causes of the War for Southern Independence?"
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,799
The question should be: "How did slavery cause the Civil War? And/or "why did slavery cause the Civil War?" Or more specifically "Why did slavery, given that it had existed in North America since the middle of the 17th century, spark a war in 1860."
No problem with "How did Slavery cause the Civil War?" Short answer: It didn't. Next question.

Another fair question: "Can you assign a percentage to the existence of slavery as a cause of the Civil War? Answer: Maybe 10-20%. Maybe. Asking "How did slavery cause the Civil War" is tendentious in the extreme and begs the question as if it were a panhandler. But very clever for the naive who will bite your bait.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,740
The question should be: "How did slavery cause the Civil War? And/or "why did slavery cause the Civil War?" Or more specifically "Why did slavery, given that it had existed in North America since the middle of the 17th century, spark a war in 1860."
From this starting points come a series of questions that really get to the heart of the Civil War:
What did the secessionists hope to accomplish by seceding?
Why did white southerners rally to the Confederacy?
Why did Unionists consider the Union worth a military effort to preserve?
How did a society that fought the Revolution together and grew together, and had an seemingly endless expanse before it, divide into sections?

I've been around CWT for a long time. I don't think my views are a mystery to anyone. But I do think that we should get beyond the same old slinging match.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,268
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.
Who are the morons? Up for debate I think. How many Historians do you dismiss to get to your Single Cause Fallacy? There were Other Economic Reasons, Political Propaganda for 30 years, and the biggest compelling Reason is neither Section wanted to be dominated, politically or Economically by the other Section. How much do we have to dismiss to get to your Conclusion? Who made you the Thought Police? More that a few Historians conclude that if the Republicans had of lost the Election, Some Northern States might have seceded. Garrison and the Radicals on the other side were just as Radical as The Fire Eaters. All of these arguments, whether Slavery was involved or not, revolves on Sectional Dominance.
 
Last edited:

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,740
No problem with "How did Slavery cause the Civil War?" Short answer: It didn't. Next question.

Another fair question: "Can you assign a percentage to the existence of slavery as a cause of the Civil War? Answer: Maybe 10-20%. Maybe. Asking "How did slavery cause the Civil War" is tendentious in the extreme and begs the question as if it were a panhandler. But very clever for the naive who will bite your bait.
Jim, I know you have a one track mind on this issue, but I note with sadness your use of pejorative language. It doesn't help.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,449
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
From this starting points come a series of questions that really get to the heart of the Civil War:

What did the secessionists hope to accomplish by seceding?
Independence
Why did white southerners rally to the Confederacy?
Their homes were being invaded. It was their farms covered with the blood of their kin folk, & neighbors
Why did Unionists consider the Union worth a military effort to preserve?
$$$ Economics. Follow the money (like most large scale conflicts)
How did a society that fought the Revolution together and grew together, and had an seemingly endless expanse before it, divide into sections?
Politics. Lack of tolerance for diversity in thought. Look at us today. Have politics gotten better or worse with time..? Look how polarized the political climate is today.

2 cents.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,740
Independence

Their homes were being invaded. It was their farms covered with the blood of their kin folk, & neighbors

$$$ Economics. Follow the money (like most large scale conflicts)

Politics. Lack of tolerance for diversity in thought. Look at us today. Have politics gotten better or worse with time..? Look how polarized the political climate is today.

2 cents.
Thank you for answering.
I would remind everyone that secession happened before the war. So let's not mix results with causes.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,449
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Thank you for answering.
I would remind everyone that secession happened before the war. So let's not mix results with causes.
Thanks for the reminder. As a native Virginian, admittedly, I look at it through the eyes of Virginia first.

When Virginia seceded, war was imminent, & Lincoln had made it known, the Blue Bellies were coming.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,792
Location
los angeles ca
My guess is that 25,000 is a high estimate for Marylanders in CSA service. But, they were all in field formations or naval service.
I think 50,000 would be a high estimate for Union serving Marylanders in army line units or naval forces.
There might be 20,000 more in enrolled militia, all Union controlled.
Maryland's contribution to both navies is usually understated.
The basic problem is so far as I know no scholar has researched this question. Yes there is Dyer's Compendium but Dyer's Compendium doesn't always include Regimental numbers and it was common in both sides for regiments to take in any Tom Dick or Harry they could lay their hands in regardless of what state or country they were from.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,792
Location
los angeles ca
The question of "white supremacy" is not important. Almost all White Americans fell into that.
Maryland had voted solidly for Breckinridge in 1860, more than suggesting a the state generally had no interest in the Republican party.
So the feeling among some Marylanders was the Executive of the US government would be in the hands of "outside interests".
The polarizing effect of the Republican Party was such that every state which did not give a majority vote to the Lincoln in 1860 would be occupied by Federal or federalized troops to some extent during Lincoln's presidency.
My opinion is that MD, KY,VA NC,Mo,AK and TN all had substantial populations that came to believe there was no more "National" government. That put over half the soldiers opposing Lincoln in the field.
We do have scholarly estimate for troops from the above states other then Maryland. Per Freeling Kentucky was 25k Confederate vs 50k Union, Missouri Historical. 30k Union vs 130 K Union. Wv approximately 22k vs 22k. So different results from different border states even Tennessee per Current was 42k Union and Ark 10k Union vs more on the Confederate Army.
Maryland apparently is somewhat of a mystery.
Leftyhunter
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,799
From this starting points come a series of questions that really get to the heart of the Civil War:
What did the secessionists hope to accomplish by seceding?
Why did white southerners rally to the Confederacy?
Why did Unionists consider the Union worth a military effort to preserve?
How did a society that fought the Revolution together and grew together, and had an seemingly endless expanse before it, divide into sections?

I've been around CWT for a long time. I don't think my views are a mystery to anyone. But I do think that we should get beyond the same old slinging match.
The TRR as the primary factor is the "same old slinging match"? Where have I been?

And the "cause" of the CW is NOT what the OP calls for anyway.
 

lelliott19

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
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?
Speculation on my part, but perhaps some Marylanders "looked south" (as @USS ALASKA put it) because they saw the shift in US Government power resulting in removal of a "right" that many interpreted as guaranteed by the Constitution? And, whether they owned slaves or not, feared that similar shifts might result in the removal of other "rights" they viewed as guaranteed by the Constitution? Same as non-slave owners in the South who supported secession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


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