Restricted Debate Retrieved 2: Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument.

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#1
My Fellow Posters,

Relatively new to this very informative site, I have observed on numerous occasions that whenever anyone suggests an alternative to the primacy of slavery as a cause of the Civil War that such a debater is frowned upon with the stereotypical and vacuous sobriquet "Lost Causer." My own caption for those who resort to this kind of debate is "Lost Logicers." But I don't like the euphony of that response, even though I think the caption is correct. I find it intellectuallly feeble that the only argument against other causes is the simplistic, "Oh, so you are a 'Lost Causer,' are you?" which question is supposed to end all argument once and for all. It doesn't, of course, even though those who use it sail happily away, confident in their course of history.

That's not how I see it, and thus I characterize those who argue for the primacy of slavery as the cause as the true "Lost Causers." If anyone has a better neologism for responding to these advocates, I would like to find something better and more euphonic I prefer something in the 2-3 syllable range for some shorthand.

In this context let me add that those responsible for exalting slavery to a primary cause, i.e., those antebellum Seceshers who offered that sorry Saran-Wrap-thin and phony excuse for what they contemplated and then did, were actually joined in their hermeneutical gymnastics by Northerners AFTER the war. Those Northerners had to come up with something noble to explain to grieving mothers, fathers, sisters, and brother, and everybody else --like my spinster grade school teachers and other non-thinkers-- that their loved ones did not die in vain or for something as grubby as greed for western land and railroads. No, no, no! Good heavens, NO!! Gotta have a noble cause. Gotta extrapolate one! In fact, I think Northerners were probably even more responsible for the "Lost Cause of Slavery Primacy" argument, as it is so atypical for Northerners to take at face value the arguments of any Southerners, especially Southerners long since dead and their dead cause with them. Just a thought, not an argument --yet.

Will someone help me coin a useful and comprehensive neologism?

James
 

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

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#3
I suggest "Readers" since, as @demiurge points out, one has only to read the words of the people who actually knew, the secessionists themselves.
Thanks for your post. I assume you know many people had been reading secessionist provocateurs for the entire decade 1850-1860. Was it your intent to omit these debaters for independence?
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,712
#4
My Fellow Posters,

...My own caption for those who resort to this kind of debate is "Lost Logicers." But I don't like the euphony of that response, even though I think the caption is correct.
...If anyone has a better neologism for responding to these advocates, I would like to find something better and more euphonic.

Who can help?

James
What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#6
What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863
A wonderful post. Thank you.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,924
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#7
What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863
"There never was, and probably never will be, a more interesting subject of political study than the present condition of America. Every problem of the past, and every political difficulty of the present, is there working itself out visibly before our eyes...
And amidst all these difficulties, the American people alone in history have to work out, not in the course of ages but at once, the problem which is older than any form of government now in existence, the extinction of human slavery."

Source: An article from the London Spectator, December 28, 1861.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
533
Location
Pittsburgh
#8
What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863
I’m not sure what the Richmond Dispatch’s opinion of Northern motives in 1863 has to do with the question at hand unless you were hoping to show the earliest stages of Lost Cause ideology. Here’s what the Richmond Dispatch was saying about Virginia’s situation in April of ‘61:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3205701/virginia_slaves_richmond_va_1861/
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#9

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#10
Was the issue slavery or was it the right to transport what they considered property across state lines into the territories which the North knew and feared the expansion of slavery power in Congress esp,when these territories became states.Virginia was by 1860 as prepared as the sister states to depart the Union in order to maintain their rights as in regards to property as the slave was considered.The error was in the lack of preparation and there by the South by doing so became the Rebellious section ,followed by the attacks on Federal property solidified to the North that South must be finally subdued and to remove once and for all time the issue which had long caused hostility and bitterness ,slavery
I'd add that some proposals appear to give the right to take slaves into any State including the Free States for indefinite times and to suppress abolition or even any antislavery speech. IMHO the slave States wanted extraordinary protections for slavery that simply were not acceptable to the North. IMHO the taking of slaves into Free States implies a national slave code to protect that property.

There are a lot of worms in the can.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,351
Location
Pennsylvania
#11
Thanks for your post. I assume you know many people had been reading secessionist provocateurs for the entire decade 1850-1860. Was it your intent to omit these debaters for independence?
If you mean people had thought about secession before 1860, of course they had, and they were thinking about it because of slavery. While the debate intensified in the 1850s, it had been ongoing almost from the creation of the Union, and many people feared or predicted that slavery would be the irreconcilable issue that would tear the Union apart.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,948
#12
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
#13
In this context let me add that those responsible for exalting slavery to a primary cause, i.e., those antebellum Seceshers who offered that sorry Saran-Wrap-thin and phony excuse for what they contemplated and then did, were actually joined in their hermeneutical gymnastics by Northerners AFTER the war. Those Northerners had to come up with something noble to explain to grieving mothers, fathers, sisters, and brother, and everybody else --like my spinster grade school teachers and other non-thinkers-- that their loved ones did not die in vain or for something as grubby as greed for western land and railroads. No, no, no! Good heavens, NO!! Gotta have a noble cause. Gotta extrapolate one! In fact, I think Northerners were probably even more responsible for the "Lost Cause of Slavery Primacy" argument, as it is so atypical for Northerners to take at face value the arguments of any Southerners, especially Southerners long since dead and their dead cause with them. Just a thought, not an argument --yet.
Great. All you have to do is prove that the secessionists were lying when they told everyone that they were upset with the threat to slavery.

As they repeated over and over again, not only in their public statements, but in their private deliberations.

And your attempt to rebrand what the Lost Cause means is an overt case of propaganda. No, up is not down, war is not peace. The Southerners themselves branded their attempt to rehabilitate their behavior with that appellation.

Faith dies hard, but in reasonable people, reason prevails.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#14
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.
Thanks for your seconding of the motion.

I am still searching for a 2-3 syllable neologism to offset once and for all the childish response of "Lost Causer" that is repeatedly offered by those who are still under the stale and sterile Merlinish spell of SC's Seceshers and still can't fight their way out of that easily rippable wet paper bag. Help me!
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#15
Great. All you have to do is prove that the secessionists were lying when they told everyone that they were upset with the threat to slavery.

As they repeated over and over again, not only in their public statements, but in their private deliberations.

And your attempt to rebrand what the Lost Cause means is an overt case of propaganda. No, up is not down, war is not peace. The Southerners themselves branded their attempt to rehabilitate their behavior with that appellation.

Faith dies hard, but in reasonable people, reason prevails.
That the Seceshers were liars has already been demonstrably proven. See other threads.

Do you have a neologism to correctly capture the essence of those who hype "Lost Causer" every time someone advances an argument other than slavery?
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
#17
That the Seceshers were liars has already been demonstrably proven. See other threads.

Do you have a neologism to correctly capture the essence of those who hype "Lost Causer" every time someone advances an argument other than slavery?
No, because coming up with a new insult specifically to attack people who view the Lost Cause as mythology, which is the current consensus of historians, is explicitly against the forum rules.

If I were you, I'd reconsider, before it gets reported.

As to secessionists being liars, certainly. It is incredibly rare to see any politician that won't stretch the truth.

You have to prove that they were lying about their reasons for secession, to each other, behind close doors.

Good luck with that.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,656
Location
South Carolina
#18
Phil Leigh likes to use the term "Righteous Cause Mythology" as a counter to Lost Cause Mythology.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/righteous-cause-mythology/

Since the cause declarations of some of the seven Cotton States in the first secession wave cite the protection of slavery as a prime reason for leaving the Union, Righteous Cause historians conclude slavery was the only cause of the Civil War. The paragon example is Battle Cry of Freedom author James McPherson who said, “Probably…95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on…what the war was about . . . which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery….” McPherson and his acolytes dismiss all other issues even when such factors are evident by comparing the US and Confederate constitutions. For example, the Southern central government was prohibited from (1) imposing protective tariffs, (2) spending taxpayer money on public works, and (3) subsidizing private industries. Although Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy and doubled its White population only after the Federal government required they provide soldiers to invade the Cotton States, Righteous Cause historians insist that the four upper-south states also fought only for slavery.​
The Righteous Cause also dismisses the fact that two-thirds of Southern families did not own slaves. Acolytes spill oceans of ink arguing that non-slaveholding Southerners willingly left their homes and risked their lives chiefly – if not exclusively – to promote the “slavocracy.” Although tens-of-thousands of Union volunteers rose up spontaneously to defend their homes in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania when Rebel armies approached those states, Righteous Cause historians don’t credit Southerners with the same instinct, evidently because of endemic Yankee moral superiority. Of course it’s illogical and a lie. As the venerable William C. Davis writes:​
The widespread northern myth that the Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens-of-thousands, reveal again and again, that they fought and died because their Southern homeland was invaded and their natural instinct was to protect their home and hearth.​
Righteous Cause Mythology falsely equates the reasons for secession with the reasons Southerners chose to fight. But they are not the same. Southerners fought to defend their homes. The more pertinent question is to ask why Northerners fought. After all, the Northern states could have let the Southern states leave in peace, without any War at all. It was precisely what prominent abolitionists frequently advocated prior to the War. Examples include William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Beecher, Samuel Howe, John Greenleaf Whittier, James Clark, Gerrit Smith, Joshua Giddings, and even Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner who would become a leading war hawk. For years Garrison described the constitutional Union as “a covenant with death and agreement with hell.”​
The Righteous Cause Myth is a natural consequence of the false insistence that the South fought for nothing but slavery. Thus, if the South waged war only to preserve slavery, then it logically follows the Yankees waged war for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves. It is a morally comfortable viewpoint for historians who came of age during and after the twentieth century civil rights movement. But it’s as phony and useless as a football bat.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#19
I think the OPs added paragraph exposes the ruse. Southern Slavery is a much More Nobel Of a Cause than what the Republican Goal Of 1860 truly was. Ridding the West Of any Non-Whites and replacing them with Whites. Not too Nobel Of a Cause. During Grant’s term, Natives were chased off and Nordic Whites we’re recruited as their Replacements.

As far as the Lost Cause, by the end of Reconstruction, the North had adopted it along with Hammond’s Mud Sill Theory. So, whose Lost Cause was it anyway?

If we continuously talk about Southern Slavery, the focus stays away from Yankee Human Trafficking and Dope Dealing which continued even Post Civil War. If there is a Moral to this story, it is that Farming can’t compete with powerful Merchants who control Shipping, Finance, Human Trafficking and Dope Trading. The South was on the wrong side of Nation Building.

Thanks for leading us into this great discussion.
Thanks for your comments, please stay on topic and before 1870.
 



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