Searry wrote:I have been watching lectures by Professor Gary W. Gallagher.
I think it would be absurd to think the war would not have extensive and non-bias research done by now as he clearly demonstrates this. Maybe you have been reading something very old?
Gray Fox wrote:The war is over. The Confederate soldiers were pardoned by Presidential Proclamation and are no longer traitors. Widows and survivors built monuments and wrote their own histories because they once again lived in a country where freedom of speech honors all opinions. The only State Right that the South lost was the right to own a human being. On Grant's Tomb are engraved the words of his final wish, "Let us have Peace".
Durk wrote:I thorough agree with Gray Fox and Searry, my mentor, E. B. Long not only helped write Bruce Catton's volumes on the Army of the Potomac and his Civil War Trilogy, but also the volume, Why the South Won the Civil War is an exemplarily example of a neutral scholar on this war.
Searry wrote:Why does the south need to be defended? It ended slavery, I think that justifies a lot of what happened.
Gray Fox wrote:I don't believe that E = mc^2, this is supported by the Scientific Method independent of any belief otherwise. Every day the results are challenged by scientists all over the planet and vindicated. Historians can't use the Scientific Method, but scholars today use rules, facts and evidence in a way very close to this method to record historical events. Every historical record should also be challenged and vindicated or discarded as biased opinion. Truth should win out over pro-Union or pro-Confederate opinions about the CW.
Gray Fox wrote:When part of a sovereign State rebels, the remainder of that State can do something about it under international law. That's how the colonies declared independence, defeated England in a war and won self rule. Under the laws of this Republic's self rule , Lincoln was duly elected President. Democracy is founded on respecting majority rule that is fair to all. If five men and three women are stranded on an island, it is not democratic for the men to vote that they get all the sex they want.
Gray Fox wrote: The Declaration of Independence affirms that a people have the right to alter or abolish a government...when it is a tyranny.
Gray Fox wrote:The USA was not a tyranny simply because Republicans rightfully won an election. A State does not have a right to secede just because their party lost. This would be chaos. Lincoln had done nothing tyrannical when the southern States seceded.
Gray Fox wrote:After Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter, the Union abandoned diplomacy and chose to fight in response to an act of war. The Union then won that war militarily according to the laws of nationhood.
Gray Fox wrote:The Republic did not become a tyranny after the war ended, either. As I pointed out, the rebels were forgiven and granted amnesty by no less than a Presidential Proclamation. The people of the states that had been in rebellion were permitted to erect monuments of Confederates. A tyranny would not have allowed this. The southern authors of their viewpoint were not thrown into prison and their books were not burned. However, a viewpoint christened "Southern" is hard to vindicate when a third of the South's population at the time were freed slaves who most certainly did not share it.
Gray Fox wrote:Some of my ancestors suffered the anguish of lost sons, brothers and fathers in the CW. I don't chide widows, mothers and children for fabricating an explanation of their loss as a "Noble Cause". However, their opinion as historical fact is not supported by the truth of what actually transpired.
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Secession
“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson
Durk wrote:Oh dear Rebellion to Tyrants,
You totally misread what the three of us have said. Please be more careful in your history. If you do so, I will be more than ready to engage in your discourse. I have spent too much time in study of this war and its aftermath to engage in superficial discussions.
You are dealing with scholars of the American Civil War and not simply anti-Southern bigots or misinformed novices. You do know this? I hope.
Which means, your plausible arguments are weak, repetitive and not of much interest to serious scholars. I would be glad to recommend some books for serious study, starting with the OR.
And you must remember, hearing both sides means actually hearing both sides; not just hearing your own voice. I do hear both sides and as I suggested above, many Civil War scholars do also. Shelby Foote would be an excellent example of a Southern author who hears both side.
Durk
DrPostman wrote:Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Secession
“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson
Are you aware that the "tyrants" he referred to were the armed citizens of Shay's Rebellion?
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html
Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR ... well, just a little
Yes, often "the winner writes the history". In many cultures, this is driven by the governing authorities. In the USA, the federal government does undertake such steps -- although the popular culture does tend to propagate a biased view. In fact, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits this.
The hypothesis that "the winner writes the history" does not equate to all popular opinions being incorrect, nor that all opposing view must therefore be correct. Only an objective analysis of the evidence can determine this.
Captain_Orso wrote:The "Right", which the Confederate states wished to preserve, was the right to own humans as chattel-slaves. This has been demonstrated numerous times.
Captain_Orso wrote:From my understanding, most constitutional experts, prior to the Civil War, believed, that a state had the right to dissolve its connection to the Union, although the concept was never officially tested, nor was the path to dissolution ever determined.
Captain_Orso wrote:Tyranny is a subjective state of being. If the Southern states felt, the federal government was threatening to or being tyrannical against them, the slaves in those states most certainly felt the same toward the their subjugators.
Captain_Orso wrote:Following these principles, which the Confederate States decried as their right to rebel, equally this principle gave the federal government not only the right to quell such a rebellion, but the moral obligation to do so.
Captain_Orso wrote:In view of this, the Union could have found the justification to completely and utterly conquer the Confederacy, persecute its propagators and supporters, and disband the cultural underpinnings on which these tyrannical tendencies based themselves, without betraying its own principles; the same principles upon which the Confederate states based their rebellion in the first place; and yet the Union did not do this.
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]
Durk wrote:Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]
I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly research rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.
Don't push, discuss. And read the historigraphy of the war. Many scholars take your position. They are not all 'blind' but come for so many points of view, nationalist, socialist, deconstructionist, determinist and moralist, among others, including passionate Southernists - with scholarly research and strong inferences.
Durk wrote:Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]
I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly reference rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.
Don't push, discuss.
Durk wrote:Durk wrote:Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]
I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly research rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.
Don't push, discuss. And read the historigraphy of the war. Many scholars take your position. They are not all 'blind' but come for so many points of view, nationalist, socialist, deconstructionist, determinist and moralist, among others, including passionate Southernists - with scholarly research and strong inferences.
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR ... well, just a little
Yes, often "the winner writes the history". In many cultures, this is driven by the governing authorities. In the USA, the federal government does undertake such steps -- although the popular culture does tend to propagate a biased view. In fact, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits this.
The hypothesis that "the winner writes the history" does not equate to all popular opinions being incorrect, nor that all opposing view must therefore be correct. Only an objective analysis of the evidence can determine this.
Good point and I fully agree. However often many place there trust in the majority opinion alone without question of how the majority came to their conclusions. Further in the case of the civil war, the other side is kept from the majority so they cannot have an objective analysis of the evidence as me and you both want done. So I thought i would post a few books that can offer up some of that material.Captain_Orso wrote:The "Right", which the Confederate states wished to preserve, was the right to own humans as chattel-slaves. This has been demonstrated numerous times.
by whom? by the pc government card carrying winner writes the history historians. For every argument their is a counter. For every pro north their is a southern response and a southern argument it was to maintain the union of the founders among other issues. We are not given that perspective or those documents so we conclude the pc version is correct as you have done without knowing we were not even given a fair chance to make up our mind. I would be glad to get into this topic and I will if you wish [read those books if interested as well] to show that we have been given the pc version.Captain_Orso wrote:From my understanding, most constitutional experts, prior to the Civil War, believed, that a state had the right to dissolve its connection to the Union, although the concept was never officially tested, nor was the path to dissolution ever determined.
I would agree mostly. I would say it was actually almost used a few times. It also deepened if you were a high Federalist/nationalist or a compact theorist. Lincolns radical view [what we are taught today] was indeed radical and changed our nation.Captain_Orso wrote:Tyranny is a subjective state of being. If the Southern states felt, the federal government was threatening to or being tyrannical against them, the slaves in those states most certainly felt the same toward the their subjugators.
I would not disagree fully. Of course many slaves would/did, many did not. But we cant blame blacks for wanting freedom and condemn southerners. Further a big difference between them [morality aside] is southern whites had legal rights and sovereignty while slaves were property with no rights in africa, brought to america and given few rights and no political rights.Captain_Orso wrote:Following these principles, which the Confederate States decried as their right to rebel, equally this principle gave the federal government not only the right to quell such a rebellion, but the moral obligation to do so.
? what principles? the csa did not rebel, they dissolved their attachment to a union that had violated its Constitution and their rights and chose the principles of the declaration and seceded. The federal government had no right to coerce states back into the union and i would say it was the most morally incorrect thing to do in our history. further the north never went to war to end slavery, they maintained slavery in multiple states throughout the war. This shows how much history is distorted.
“The war now prosecuted on part of the federal government is a war for the union”
-Secretary of war Simon Cameron August 8 1861
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862
“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France
Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. The north maintained slavery in states such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri, during and after the civil war. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion. The 1860 the republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere. Lincoln said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address
Lincoln in his inaugural address said he supported the Corwin amendment. This amendment was first proposed in Dec 1860 and passed both the house and senate. It would have made slavery a constitutional right to states and permanently untouched by congress. Lincoln also said he supported the Fugitive slave act. During the war after the south left the union, the north controlled congress yet they did not end slavery. After the south succeeded the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”
“I think as much of a rebel as I do an abolitionist”
-Union General Phil Kerney
In the early parts of the war Union soldiers and generals returned any runaway slaves back to their southern masters. General McClellan ordered runaway slaves back to masters in Virginia. When union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in union occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relived Fremont of his command. When union general David Hunter ordered general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be “forever free” Lincoln revoked the proclamation and also ordered Hunter to disband the 1st South Carolina regiment made up of blacks hunter had enlisted. Late in 62 Lincoln supported in union held territory in VA and LA to continue slavery and allow the slave owners peacefully back into the union. Slavery led many especially in the old Whig party to “cling more tightly to the union.”
“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord a Whig party leader at onset of war
Had the war ended earlier, slavery would have not been touched.Captain_Orso wrote:In view of this, the Union could have found the justification to completely and utterly conquer the Confederacy, persecute its propagators and supporters, and disband the cultural underpinnings on which these tyrannical tendencies based themselves, without betraying its own principles; the same principles upon which the Confederate states based their rebellion in the first place; and yet the Union did not do this.
In fact they did this and much worse. This would be its own topic i think but the crimes done by republicans to the south after the war and during reconstruction show just how much america died in 1865.
Captain_Orso wrote:Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR ... well, just a little
Why do you not come out and directly state your hypothesis?
DrPostman wrote:I'm a Southerner - born and raised in Tennessee. I believe I would have been one
of the 42,000+ who fought for the Union. I proudly served in the USAF and even
got disabled during my service. I tend to look upon my fellow Southerners who
support the Lost Cause fantasy as near treasonous.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests