Why did the AVERAGE soldier fight in the ACW

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

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,810
Irrelevant, because he's not one of the abolitionists, so he can't testify as to what they're fighting for.

Regards,
Cash
Nonsense.

A man can testify about anything he knows.

And his was a very keen observation.
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
Nonsense.

A man can testify about anything he knows.

And his was a very keen observation.
If a man can testify about anything he knows, one would have to object to any and all of your testimony about the abolitionists on the grounds of its ignorance.
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
I'm lost. I thought the letter stated it very clearly. It was an observation of a soldier on his travels in Pennsylvania. Evidently he was motivated to write about the lack of unity among the civilians of Pennsylvania.
He wasn't fighting the civilians. He was fighting the forces that opposed him.

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

M E Wolf

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
17,464
Location
Virginia
Locking thread

Dear List Members;

The thread has been through several 'stripping' of snipes to and fro between list members already.

Its been beaten over and over again and now its time to shut this thread down.

Personal opinions abound and like critters who aren't thirsty aren't going to swallow water down, no matter who says to do so.

Time to move on folks.

This thread is now closed due to the bickering and the topic going lower than curb service.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
With grovelling apologies to fellow moderator, M E Wolf, I'm unlocking this extremely valuable thread.

But.

If it doesn't come back into line real quick, it will again be locked, and this discussion will never again be available to new students.

We can differ. We can argue. We can even quarrel some, but it doesn't have to devolve into personal shots.

I've assembled a stack of warnings and infractions. Go ahead and try to make me wrong. I can deal them out quicker than a card shark.

Dial it back or don't play in this thread.

Mumble, mumble. Dear One's birthday is tomorrow. I haven't bought her a present. Like I have to listen to this ****?

Ole
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,818
Location
California
A question.

Do we have any letters, camp newspapers, or the like speaking of the tariff, states rights (as opposed to central government), or other such issues as motives?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
We are now officially WAY off topic. Perhaps a truce until we can get back to "Why did the AVERAGE soldier fight."

This is a good thread, and Elennsar's post is a valid question, but we are getting much too much emotionally involved in it.

So far, we've trashed just about everyone involved. Which means to me that we might have missed the original point, in which I can find no merit.

But tomorrow, I will make applesauce. And this conflict will mean very little. Lighten up.

Ole
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,810
I'm lost. I thought the letter stated it very clearly. It was an observation of a soldier on his travels in Pennsylvania. Evidently he was motivated to write about the lack of unity among the civilians of Pennsylvania.
He wasn't fighting the civilians. He was fighting the forces that opposed him.

Sincerely,
dvrmte
When the writer speaks of "abolitionists" he is really talking about the entire Republican Party -those opposed to the Democrats- (of course, not all Republicans were abolitionists) and he exposes their real motive.
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
The name Abolitionist states what he is fighting for.
Obviously, if the rebe is fighting against abolitionists, then the Abolitionist has to be fighting against the rebel; can't have a war unless two sides show up for it.
If the Union army is fighting for Reunion And Emancipation, How can the confederate army NOT be fighting for disunion and slavery?
If Disuion and Slavery are not the goals of the csa, what is the war about. Peace, thus the safety of hearth and home, can be had by staying in the Union and freeing the slaves.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
When the writer speaks of "abolitionists" he is really talking about the entire Republican Party -those opposed to the Democrats- (of course, not all Republicans were abolitionists) and he exposes their real motive.
The writer doesn't know their "real motive." He only knows his own real motive. When he talks about "abolitionists" he exposes his own real motive for fighting against the Federals--to avoid the abolition of slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
I'm lost. I thought the letter stated it very clearly. It was an observation of a soldier on his travels in Pennsylvania. Evidently he was motivated to write about the lack of unity among the civilians of Pennsylvania.
He wasn't fighting the civilians. He was fighting the forces that opposed him.

Sincerely,
dvrmte
"We" vs. "the abolitionists."

He is fighting against the side of the abolitionists.

Therefore, he is fighting to stop abolition.

It's crystal clear.

Regards,
Cash
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
4,810
The writer doesn't know their "real motive." He only knows his own real motive.

Regards,
Cash
A bank manager embezzles a million dollars.

He is caught by the police with the money in his car.
He explains his motive: "It fell out of the Brinks truck and I was taking it to the bank for safe keeping." :laugh1:

The police observe that the bank manager was driving away from the bank, had a packed suit case in his car and a one-way ticket to Rio in his shirt pocket.

Now do we go along with the bank manager's explanation of his motives?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
Oh Well! so the abolitionist is fighting for money, Thennnn, the avg. csa soldier is fighting against money?
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
The people in this Country are
very much split up about the
war. They don't unite like our
people do.

He is saying the people in the North are divided in their support of the war. He thinks the South is united for the war.



I don't think this
war can last much longer
if it does I believe the North
will have war with itself.


He thinks the division in the North could lead to hosilities there.



The Democrats say they will
not take sides with the
abolitionists.

He thinks the northern Democrats won't take sides with the abolitionists.


They say we are
fighting for our rights and
the abolitionist are fighting
for money,

He is saying the people he talked to in Pennsyvania think the South is fighting for their rights.
The people there think the abolitionist are fighting for money.


and I believe
the Democrats will raise against
them if the war last much longer.


He believes the northern Democrats will raise against the abolitionists if the war keeps going on.



In what portion of those statements did this soldier mention anything about fighting abolitionist? He wrote only that the South as he knew it was united for the war.

Sincerely,
dvrmte
 

Scribe

Cadet
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,602
Location
St. Louis, Mo
The people in this Country are
very much split up about the
war. They don't unite like our
people do.

He is saying the people in the North are divided in their support of the war. He thinks the South is united for the war.


He was wrong about that.



I don't think this
war can last much longer
if it does I believe the North
will have war with itself.


He thinks the division in the North could lead to hosilities there.


He was wrong about that.



The Democrats say they will
not take sides with the
abolitionists.

He thinks the northern Democrats won't take sides with the abolitionists.


He was wrong about that.


They say we are
fighting for our rights and
the abolitionist are fighting
for money,

He is saying the people he talked to in Pennsyvania think the South is fighting for their rights.
The people there think the abolitionist are fighting for money.


He was wrong about that.


and I believe
the Democrats will raise against
them if the war last much longer.


He believes the northern Democrats will raise against the abolitionists if the war keeps going on.



In what portion of those statements did this soldier mention anything about fighting abolitionist? He wrote only that the South as he knew it was united for the war.

Sincerely,
dvrmte
And he was wrong about that.

This guy doesn't seem to be a deep enough fount of wisdom to be useful in knowing which way the stick floats.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,394
Location
Near Kankakee
We're getting overly focused on one letter from one man. Earlier, we choked on the numbers Chandra Manning sourced in her book.

What say we just agree to disagree and let this thread pass into the archives? It has much value to the searcher and student. Let's not deprive them of that value by consigning it to limbo. Can we agree that most everything that can be said has been?

Let it die a peaceful death. If there is more to be said, please, start a new thread.

Ole
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
A bank manager embezzles a million dollars.

He is caught by the police with the money in his car.
He explains his motive: "It fell out of the Brinks truck and I was taking it to the bank for safe keeping." :laugh1:

The police observe that the bank manager was driving away from the bank, had a packed suit case in his car and a one-way ticket to Rio in his shirt pocket.

Now do we go along with the bank manager's explanation of his motives?
We have clear evidence to the contrary. Our letter writer has no such evidence.

Regards,
Cash
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
Scribe wrote:
This guy doesn't seem to be a deep enough fount of wisdom to be useful in knowing which way the stick floats.



He only wrote what he observed. He was a soldier and could only see what was in front of him. I don't think he had a reason to lie. Many soldiers with more wisdom than he just flat out lied.

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

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,491
Location
Right here.
The Democrats say they will
not take sides with the
abolitionists.

He thinks the northern Democrats won't take sides with the abolitionists.
Abolitionists being the people who want to end slavery and the people he is fighting against.


They say we are
fighting for our rights and
the abolitionist are fighting
for money,

He is saying the people he talked to in Pennsyvania think the South is fighting for their rights.
The people there think the abolitionist are fighting for money.
"We" vs. "the abolitionists."

He is on the side of "We," fighting against "the abolitionists." An abolitionist is one who wants to end slavery. He is fighting against those who want to end slavery. Therefore, he is fighting for the perpetuation of slavery.

QED.

Your own source shows an average confederate soldier saying he was fighting for slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
We're getting overly focused on one letter from one man. Earlier, we choked on the numbers Chandra Manning sourced in her book.

What say we just agree to disagree and let this thread pass into the archives? It has much value to the searcher and student. Let's not deprive them of that value by consigning it to limbo. Can we agree that most everything that can be said has been?

Let it die a peaceful death. If there is more to be said, please, start a new thread.

Ole

I agree. It's getting a bit nit-picky.

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