Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Union vs. Confederacy

Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 10:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 10:26:31 PM, kbub wrote:
This is where we talk about what really happened, based off of a recent poll.

Ok, do we get to see the poll we're to be discussing?
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 11:45:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no dichotomy between states rights and slavery in the mind of the confederacy. The reason they thought the union was trampling on states rights was that the abolitionist constantly carried on about making a federal law against slavery. They saw Lincoln as proof that such threats were realistic.

They most certainly seceded to protect slavery, this is admitted in the Cornerstone speech and quite clearly in the reasons for secession (documents specifically written to explain why they left).
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:31:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Kbub can't you see how impossibly one-sided most of this reference material here is? If you wanted to develop a truly bias sense of the events leading up to and including the Civil War, wouldn't it be best to simply read history books and decide for yourself? These sources are clearly designed to belittle any view opposing what they assert to be true. If you are simply looking for material to confirm what you are already think is right, then how are you challenging your own views?

Let's take for example your comment about slavery and the confederate constitution. You and your sources are clearly trying to show the "hypocracy" of the CSA for federally protecting this right rather than allowing for states individual rights on the matter. But let's try to look at this objectively. Every single state in the CSA universally agreed to federally protect this right within there own constitution. They also universally agreed to the mechanisms required to amend this protection if needed. No one has to own slaves, they simply protected an individuals right to decide for themselves. Being fair, it could easily be argued that had this provision been added to our own constitution, the Civil War would have never been fought. But regardless, a bunch of states all agreeing unanimously to federally protect a right within their own constitution is hardly any indictment on the idea of states rights.

Your sources don't even begin to acknowledge this, because to do so, would make their attempt to brainwash their readers considerably more difficult. The only way you will ever get a clear enough picture to decide for yourself is by reading anywhere from 3-5 thousand pages of civil war history. At that point, I guarantee your view will have shifted in some form or another. I'm not saying your mind will change, but I guarantee you will have a vastly expanded view and the knowledge needed to support your opinions.
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:15:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay guys, let me give y'all a history lesson:

Union: We don't want slaves anymore!
Confederacy: Well we still do, son!

Bang Bang Kapow Kapow AAHHH HELP Boom

Union: Yay no more slaves we win.
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess
Grandbudda
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 1:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Union vs. Confederacy and the causes of the American Civil War are varied. I think they revolve around a large handful of causes. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Southern politicians sought to defend slavery by retaining control of the federal government. While they benefited from most presidents being from the South, they were particularly concerned about retaining a balance of power within in the Senate. As new states were added to the Union, a series of compromises were arrived at to maintain an equal number of "free" and "slave" states.

Separate Paths

The widening of the gap between slave and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants. This boost in population doomed Southern efforts to maintain balance in the government as it meant the future addition of more free states and the election of a Northern, potentially anti-slavery, president.

Slavery in the Territories

The political issue that finally moved the nation towards conflict was that of slavery in the western territories won during the Mexican-American War.
In 1850, an attempt was made to resolve the issue. A part of Compromise of 1850 called for slavery in the unorganized lands. Many thought that this decision had solved the issue until it was raised again in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Bleeding Kansas

Proposed by Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, the Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially repealed the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise. Douglas felt that all the territories should be subject to popular sovereignty. Seen as a concession to the South, the act led to an influx of pro- and anti-slavery forces into Kansas. Operating from rival territorial capitals, the "Free Staters" and "Border Ruffians" engaged in open violence for three years.
In 1859, the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution was accepted by Congress. The fighting in Kansas further heightened tensions between North and South.

States' Rights

Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of slaveholders take their "property" into a new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with slavery in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification, or perhaps secession would protect their way of life.

Abolitionism

The issue of slavery was further heightened by the rise of the Abolitionist movement in the 1820s and 1830s. Beginning in the North, adherents believed that slavery was morally wrong rather than simply a social evil. Abolitionists ranged in their beliefs from those who thought that all slaves should be freed immediately to those calling for gradual emancipation, to those who simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery and its influence.

Collapse of the Two-Party System

The tensions between North and South were mirrored in a growing schism in the nation's political parties. Following the compromise of 1850 and the crisis in Kansas, the nation's two major parties, the Whigs and Democrats, began to fracture along regional lines. In the North, the Whigs largely blended into a new party: the Republicans. Formed in 1854, as an anti-slavery party, the Republicans offered a progressive vision for the future that included an emphasis on industrialization, education, and homesteading. In the South, the Republican Party was viewed as a divisive element and one that could lead to conflict.

Election of 1860

With the division of the Democrats, there was much apprehension as the election 1860 approached. The lack of a candidate with national appeal signaled that change was coming. Representing the Republicans was Abraham Lincoln, while Stephen Douglas stood for the Northern Democrats. Their counterparts in the South nominated John C. Breckinridge. Looking to find a compromise, former Whigs in the border states created the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John C. Bell. Balloting unfolded along precise sectional lines as Lincoln won the North, Breckinridge won the South, and Bell won the border states. Douglas claimed Missouri and part of New Jersey. The North, with its growing population and increased electoral power had accomplished what the South had always feared: complete control of the government by the free states.

Secession

In response to Lincoln's victory, South Carolina opened a convention to discuss seceding from the Union. On December 24, 1860, it adopted a declaration of secession and left the Union. Through the "Secession Winter" of 1861, it was followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. As states departed, local forces took control of federal forts and installations without any resistance from the Buchanan Administration. The most egregious act took place in Texas, where Gen. David E. Twiggs surrendered one-quarter of the entire standing US Army without a shot fired. When Lincoln finally entered office on March 4, 1861, he inherited a collapsing nation.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Before I get into this I will tell my background on this subject. I have a Masters in history with an emphasis in Civil War history. I worked for a decade both part-time and full-time in the National Park Service as a historical interpreter. During that time I have worked at both Gettysburg National Military Park and Antietam National Battlefield. I have worked alongside some great Civil War historians" Scott Hartwig and Greg Coco (who passed away a few years ago) just to name a few. I am not trying to impress you, just letting you know I am no fool when it comes to this stuff.

First, let me explain that I agree with your basic premise, that the institution of slavery, so intrinsically tied into Southern society and culture, played a central role the succession crisis of 1860. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens (in his Corner Stone speech you posted a link to) made speeches in 1860-61 that argued slavery as the central issue of secession. The Mississippi State (and other States) Succession Convention also is an example of this position. It was not until after the War that former Confederate Generals and Politicians began arguing that preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights were the root cause of succession. This was a central goal of writers of The Myth of the Lost Cause like Gen. Early and others. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote post-war memoirs (knowing that most of western society did not share their pre-war views on slavery), argued along these same revisionist "Lost Cause" ideals of Preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights. But these works clearly are in stark contrast to the positions they publicly argued in speeches in 1860 and also groups like the Mississippi State Succession Convention. This "Lost Cause" view can still be seen today in the writings of some historians, most notably Shelby Foote. But it has largely been rejected by most scholars today.

Now, I take issue with the sources you list here. You are not going win any debate or argument armed with these. Not all are bad" but I would suggest going back to drawing board here and shore this list up. Lets take a look at these.

1. Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War - David Barton. Barton is a "self-taught" pseudo-historian that holds no formal training or education in history. His conclusions are hyped up, over-exaggerated and politically motivated. His methodology is sloppy at best. It's fine if you wish to read his stuff, but don"t expect anyone who knows what their talking about to give it the time of day.

2. The Ghost of Bobby Lee - TA-NEHISI COATES. An article written by Coates, who is a journalist and blogger, but not before dropping out of college. He has authored exactly one book... about himself. Need I say more.

3. The New Mind of the South - Tracy Thompson. You posted a very short excerpt of Thompson"s (who is a journalist and writer) book on Salon's website. I, in fact, have read this book. There is little in way of any sort of methodology, its written more in the style of a traveler than anything else. I give her credit for tackling this complex topic, but to me she fell short of doing it justice.

3. Wikipedia - Ummmm no!

4. Alexander Stephens "Corner Stone" Speech - A primary source!! Now we are talking!

5. The Myth of Secession and States Rights in the Civil War - Allan Lichtman. Nice piece, Lichtman represents the majority of scholarly opinion currently. However, I will refer you my signature below for the pitfall of scholarly opinion used in this fashion.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 9:32:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:45:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Before I get into this I will tell my background on this subject. I have a Masters in history with an emphasis in Civil War history. I worked for a decade both part-time and full-time in the National Park Service as a historical interpreter. During that time I have worked at both Gettysburg National Military Park and Antietam National Battlefield. I have worked alongside some great Civil War historians" Scott Hartwig and Greg Coco (who passed away a few years ago) just to name a few. I am not trying to impress you, just letting you know I am no fool when it comes to this stuff.

First, let me explain that I agree with your basic premise, that the institution of slavery, so intrinsically tied into Southern society and culture, played a central role the succession crisis of 1860. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens (in his Corner Stone speech you posted a link to) made speeches in 1860-61 that argued slavery as the central issue of secession. The Mississippi State (and other States) Succession Convention also is an example of this position. It was not until after the War that former Confederate Generals and Politicians began arguing that preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights were the root cause of succession. This was a central goal of writers of The Myth of the Lost Cause like Gen. Early and others. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote post-war memoirs (knowing that most of western society did not share their pre-war views on slavery), argued along these same revisionist "Lost Cause" ideals of Preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights. But these works clearly are in stark contrast to the positions they publicly argued in speeches in 1860 and also groups like the Mississippi State Succession Convention. This "Lost Cause" view can still be seen today in the writings of some historians, most notably Shelby Foote. But it has largely been rejected by most scholars today.

Now, I take issue with the sources you list here. You are not going win any debate or argument armed with these. Not all are bad" but I would suggest going back to drawing board here and shore this list up. Lets take a look at these.

1. Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War - David Barton. Barton is a "self-taught" pseudo-historian that holds no formal training or education in history. His conclusions are hyped up, over-exaggerated and politically motivated. His methodology is sloppy at best. It's fine if you wish to read his stuff, but don"t expect anyone who knows what their talking about to give it the time of day.

2. The Ghost of Bobby Lee - TA-NEHISI COATES. An article written by Coates, who is a journalist and blogger, but not before dropping out of college. He has authored exactly one book... about himself. Need I say more.

3. The New Mind of the South - Tracy Thompson. You posted a very short excerpt of Thompson"s (who is a journalist and writer) book on Salon's website. I, in fact, have read this book. There is little in way of any sort of methodology, its written more in the style of a traveler than anything else. I give her credit for tackling this complex topic, but to me she fell short of doing it justice.

3. Wikipedia - Ummmm no!

4. Alexander Stephens "Corner Stone" Speech - A primary source!! Now we are talking!

5. The Myth of Secession and States Rights in the Civil War - Allan Lichtman. Nice piece, Lichtman represents the majority of scholarly opinion currently. However, I will refer you my signature below for the pitfall of scholarly opinion used in this fashion.

Nice reply! Wow! Thank you! Finally someone who reads the sources! I used the Ghost of Bobby Lee article to link to a bunch of primary sources, since I didn't have space to on my debate. The others you were absolutely right about; I just put them there so that people can read them quickly.

Anyway, thanks for the criticism! I was thinking of using the documents of the states' reasons for succession, the CSA constitution, and the cornerstone speech in the future. Do you have any further/more reliable scholarly articles I should choose to make my points? Thanks!
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:51:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now from a Southern POV.......

At 1/23/2014 1:24:58 PM, Grandbudda wrote:
Union vs. Confederacy and the causes of the American Civil War are varied. I think they revolve around a large handful of causes. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Southern politicians sought to defend slavery by retaining control of the federal government. While they benefited from most presidents being from the South, they were particularly concerned about retaining a balance of power within in the Senate. As new states were added to the Union, a series of compromises were arrived at to maintain an equal number of "free" and "slave" states.

**Northern politicians, loosing a financial and political power struggle with agrarian society sought to seize upon world-wide anti-slavery sentiment as a way to destroy their competition, allow for sectional and industrial superiority in the US and establish a more centralized form of government to protect the profits of those industries. While the North benefited in numerical superiority, the constitutional limits to that sort of power were of particular concern to them.

Separate Paths

The widening of the gap between slave and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants. This boost in population doomed Southern efforts to maintain balance in the government as it meant the future addition of more free states and the election of a Northern, potentially anti-slavery, president.

**The expansion of the country into new states was no more a threat to the South than it was to the North. The South's devotion to an agrarian society can be traced back to one overwhelming truth, their climate and soil are considerably more conducive to such a lifestyle. As our country expanded west, had the issue of transporting slaves been left alone (ie people were freely allowed to move them into territories as had been the clear practice since the dawn of our country) then climate alone would have settled the matter of slave and free states.

Slavery in the Territories

The political issue that finally moved the nation towards conflict was that of slavery in the western territories won during the Mexican-American War.
In 1850, an attempt was made to resolve the issue. A part of Compromise of 1850 called for slavery in the unorganized lands. Many thought that this decision had solved the issue until it was raised again in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

**Each of these issues were forced by Northern politicians (unconstitutionally) attempting to limit the expansion of slavery into climates that it would have otherwise naturally traveled to. Let us not forget the Dred Scott decision which clearly (in a ruling that still stands today) nullified any federal authority over personal property being moved into territories.

Bleeding Kansas

Proposed by Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, the Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially repealed the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise. Douglas felt that all the territories should be subject to popular sovereignty. Seen as a concession to the South, the act led to an influx of pro- and anti-slavery forces into Kansas. Operating from rival territorial capitals, the "Free Staters" and "Border Ruffians" engaged in open violence for three years.
In 1859, the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution was accepted by Congress. The fighting in Kansas further heightened tensions between North and South.

**Kansas was another obviously fertile ground for the expansion of slavery. There were quite literally violent bands of Northerners organized under the banner of abolition that immigrated South with no other intention but killing people that were exercising their own constitutional rights. The same man that helped organize northern incursions into Kansas was summarily executed by the US government for inciting an armed rebellion in the South a few years later and quite possibly triggering the entire war (John Brown).

Ask yourself, why was it bleeding Kansas and not bleeding Montana? How come Southerners didn't orchestrate bands of blood thirsty maniacs to invade Montana when it was settling and force the slavery issue there? It"s because Southerners knew Montana had no material interest to their institutions so they weren't trying to kill people over it just to gain extra political power!!!

States' Rights

Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of slaveholders take their "property" into a new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with slavery in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification, or perhaps secession would protect their way of life.

**The claim regarding property in the territories was (and still is) affirmed by SCOTUS in the Dred Scott Case. Obviously the federal government had no right to stop slavery where it legally existed, since slavery was federally sanctioned. I wasn't aware that this was an argument so much as it was established fact. A constitutional amendment was required, even after the war was basically over, to officially end slavery. The South felt that an (established) encroachment on the constitution and on their people in Kansas & Virginia were such terrifying attempts at sectional superiority that the only way they could legally protect themselves is by resuming the sovereign and independent powers that were clearly entitled to them under the constitution.

Abolitionism

The issue of slavery was further heightened by the rise of the Abolitionist movement in the 1820s and 1830s. Beginning in the North, adherents believed that slavery was morally wrong rather than simply a social evil. Abolitionists ranged in their beliefs from those who thought that all slaves should be freed immediately to those calling for gradual emancipation, to those who simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery and its influence.

**A movement that was seized upon by Northern Politicians as a way to promote sectional differences and northern interests.

Collapse of the Two-Party System

The tensions between North and South were mirrored in a growing schism in the nation's political parties. Following the compromise of 1850 and the crisis in Kansas, the nation's two major parties, the Whigs and Democrats, began to fracture along regional lines. In the North, the Whigs largely blended into a new party: the Republicans. Formed in 1854, as an anti-slavery party, the Republicans offered a progressive vision for the future that included an emphasis on industrialization, education, and homesteading. In the South, the Republican Party was viewed as a divisive element and one that could lead to conflict.

**That progressive version of the future also included a considerably more centralized form of Government. A government our framers sought specifically to avoid. Evidence of this can be seen in the 3 subsequent "progressive" amendments to the constitution. Heretofore our amendments almost unanimously expressed the terms "shall not" in reference to federal authority. Each of the new amendments all specifically (and very generally) state that congress "shall have the power" to enforce said acts.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:56:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Election of 1860

With the division of the Democrats, there was much apprehension as the election 1860 approached. The lack of a candidate with national appeal signaled that change was coming. Representing the Republicans was Abraham Lincoln, while Stephen Douglas stood for the Northern Democrats. Their counterparts in the South nominated John C. Breckinridge. Looking to find a compromise, former Whigs in the border states created the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John C. Bell. Balloting unfolded along precise sectional lines as Lincoln won the North, Breckinridge won the South, and Bell won the border states. Douglas claimed Missouri and part of New Jersey. The North, with its growing population and increased electoral power had accomplished what the South had always feared: complete control of the government by the free states.

**The North won a presidential election without the support of a single southern state. That being said the republicans still had nowhere NEAR the power needed to amend the constitution, only the superiority to continue to press the (now clearly) illegal practice of limiting slavery in the territories and to create new protective tariffs clearly designed for the benefit of industry over agriculture

Secession

In response to Lincoln's victory, South Carolina opened a convention to discuss seceding from the Union. On December 24, 1860, it adopted a declaration of secession and left the Union. Through the "Secession Winter" of 1861, it was followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. As states departed, local forces took control of federal forts and installations without any resistance from the Buchanan Administration. The most egregious act took place in Texas, where Gen. David E. Twiggs surrendered one-quarter of the entire standing US Army without a shot fired. When Lincoln finally entered office on March 4, 1861, he inherited a collapsing nation.

**And helped it"s further collapse by illegally using federal force to coerce a state into a compact that would have never existed unless it was unanimously consented to by all joining parties. An action that forced the secession of four more states and the established neutrality of three others (which was basically ignored by both parties, but mainly the North). A policy that ultimately lead the bloodiest war in American History and a dangerous tilt towards central power that we have almost certainly not felt the full affects of, even today.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 11:00:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before I get into this I will tell my background on this subject. I have a Masters in history with an emphasis in Civil War history. I worked for a decade both part-time and full-time in the National Park Service as a historical interpreter. During that time I have worked at both Gettysburg National Military Park and Antietam National Battlefield. I have worked alongside some great Civil War historians" Scott Hartwig and Greg Coco (who passed away a few years ago) just to name a few. I am not trying to impress you, just letting you know I am no fool when it comes to this stuff.

First, let me explain that I agree with your basic premise, that the institution of slavery, so intrinsically tied into Southern society and culture, played a central role the succession crisis of 1860. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens (in his Corner Stone speech you posted a link to) made speeches in 1860-61 that argued slavery as the central issue of secession. The Mississippi State (and other States) Succession Convention also is an example of this position. It was not until after the War that former Confederate Generals and Politicians began arguing that preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights were the root cause of succession. This was a central goal of writers of The Myth of the Lost Cause like Gen. Early and others. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote post-war memoirs (knowing that most of western society did not share their pre-war views on slavery), argued along these same revisionist "Lost Cause" ideals of Preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights. But these works clearly are in stark contrast to the positions they publicly argued in speeches in 1860 and also groups like the Mississippi State Succession Convention. This "Lost Cause" view can still be seen today in the writings of some historians, most notably Shelby Foote. But it has largely been rejected by most scholars today.

Now, I take issue with the sources you list here. You are not going win any debate or argument armed with these. Not all are bad" but I would suggest going back to drawing board here and shore this list up. Lets take a look at these.

1. Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War - David Barton. Barton is a "self-taught" pseudo-historian that holds no formal training or education in history. His conclusions are hyped up, over-exaggerated and politically motivated. His methodology is sloppy at best. It's fine if you wish to read his stuff, but don"t expect anyone who knows what their talking about to give it the time of day.

2. The Ghost of Bobby Lee - TA-NEHISI COATES. An article written by Coates, who is a journalist and blogger, but not before dropping out of college. He has authored exactly one book... about himself. Need I say more.

3. The New Mind of the South - Tracy Thompson. You posted a very short excerpt of Thompson"s (who is a journalist and writer) book on Salon's website. I, in fact, have read this book. There is little in way of any sort of methodology, its written more in the style of a traveler than anything else. I give her credit for tackling this complex topic, but to me she fell short of doing it justice.

3. Wikipedia - Ummmm no!

4. Alexander Stephens "Corner Stone" Speech - A primary source!! Now we are talking!

5. The Myth of Secession and States Rights in the Civil War - Allan Lichtman. Nice piece, Lichtman represents the majority of scholarly opinion currently. However, I will refer you my signature below for the pitfall of scholarly opinion used in this fashion.

I have never been formally educated but I have read over 25 thousand pages of Civil War History, visited nearly every maintained battlefield & museum in the Eastern theatre (multiple times) and even guided tours in my home city of Richmond from time to time. My forebears (all far too poor to ever own slaves) fought and died for the Confederacy.
Since I feel the educational system regarding this subject is woefully inadequate and hopelessly one-sided, I view my unconventional education as a real advantage. Rather than being penalized for opinions that run contrary to my instructors beliefs, I was free to develop my own conclusions regarding the wide range of material I"ve had the pleasure of experiencing.

Having had family that died in this war, and being rather proud of that fact, I find the use of term"s like "revisionist" to be the very insulting. I find it hard to believe my ancestors died supporting an institution they never partook in. I think it"s more likely they died defending their home from what they considered to be an illegal invasion on the part of the US government. I realize Confederate sympathies are not the prevailing sentiment (to the victor go the spoils) but I find it hard to accept the final word of the victor as positive fact, without a review of all applicable factors. It seems to me that words like "revisionist" could just as easily be designed by the victor to discredit a cause that could easily be vindicated by historical fact. Historical fact, that is so mired in controversy and misinformation as to be almost suspiciously concealed in most of our state learning institutions.

I feel like most of what you covered is addressed in my reply above (to someone else) and I would love the hear your thoughts should you have the time to respond. I will add one comment regarding the oft-cited secession (not "succession", that really bothers me, Sorry!) speeches that most people quote as proof positive of a nation "only concerned with slaves".

Each of those speeches thoroughly identifies the issue as being connected to slavery in the eyes of the South. Of that there is no doubt. However, those speeches also articulate the importance of slavery to southern society and how clearly intertwined it was with their political and economic power. They did not fear the end of slavery, the feared the illegally forced end of slavery being used as a tool to destroy their way of life, and the protections that allow it. No one in the North was fighting to end slavery and by today"s standards nearly every American of that time was 100% racist. To attempt to boil down to the South as "fighting to keep slaves" rather than for their own constitutional rights (as they understood them) seems to me to be a gross oversimplification and an obvious attempt to discredit something without fully accounting for its credentials.

P.S. On your point regarding Shelby Foote being largely rejected by most scholars today"."Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 11:02:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't mind Jnedwards11, he's from the South, where they are trained to believe the Confederacy was something "noble", and not a bunch of racist hill-billies bent on enslaving people with dark skin.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 11:13:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 11:02:25 AM, HPWKA wrote:
Don't mind Jnedwards11, he's from the South, where they are trained to believe the Confederacy was something "noble", and not a bunch of racist hill-billies bent on enslaving people with dark skin.

Yes please don't mind me, I am clearly the intolerant one here...LOL
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 11:35:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 11:13:43 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 11:02:25 AM, HPWKA wrote:
Don't mind Jnedwards11, he's from the South, where they are trained to believe the Confederacy was something "noble", and not a bunch of racist hill-billies bent on enslaving people with dark skin.

Yes please don't mind me, I am clearly the intolerant one here...LOL

Nobody here accused you of being intolerant, simply the people you defend as being intolerant (not just relative to our time, but to their own time as well).
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 11:47:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 11:35:07 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 1/24/2014 11:13:43 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/24/2014 11:02:25 AM, HPWKA wrote:
Don't mind Jnedwards11, he's from the South, where they are trained to believe the Confederacy was something "noble", and not a bunch of racist hill-billies bent on enslaving people with dark skin.

Yes please don't mind me, I am clearly the intolerant one here...LOL

Nobody here accused you of being intolerant, simply the people you defend as being intolerant (not just relative to our time, but to their own time as well).

You have accused me of being everything under the sun dude. Who are you trying to fool? These discussions are between me and you, how many times do I have to point out how little everyone else cares!!!!! If you want to talk to me you will go back to our first interaction and politelty defend or concede every stupid a$$ comment you made. Until then I will continue to treat you like the rude, uninformed little child that you act like!
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 9:10:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 9:32:23 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:45:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Before I get into this I will tell my background on this subject. I have a Masters in history with an emphasis in Civil War history. I worked for a decade both part-time and full-time in the National Park Service as a historical interpreter. During that time I have worked at both Gettysburg National Military Park and Antietam National Battlefield. I have worked alongside some great Civil War historians" Scott Hartwig and Greg Coco (who passed away a few years ago) just to name a few. I am not trying to impress you, just letting you know I am no fool when it comes to this stuff.

First, let me explain that I agree with your basic premise, that the institution of slavery, so intrinsically tied into Southern society and culture, played a central role the succession crisis of 1860. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens (in his Corner Stone speech you posted a link to) made speeches in 1860-61 that argued slavery as the central issue of secession. The Mississippi State (and other States) Succession Convention also is an example of this position. It was not until after the War that former Confederate Generals and Politicians began arguing that preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights were the root cause of succession. This was a central goal of writers of The Myth of the Lost Cause like Gen. Early and others. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote post-war memoirs (knowing that most of western society did not share their pre-war views on slavery), argued along these same revisionist "Lost Cause" ideals of Preservation of Constitutional Issues and States Rights. But these works clearly are in stark contrast to the positions they publicly argued in speeches in 1860 and also groups like the Mississippi State Succession Convention. This "Lost Cause" view can still be seen today in the writings of some historians, most notably Shelby Foote. But it has largely been rejected by most scholars today.

Now, I take issue with the sources you list here. You are not going win any debate or argument armed with these. Not all are bad" but I would suggest going back to drawing board here and shore this list up. Lets take a look at these.

1. Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War - David Barton. Barton is a "self-taught" pseudo-historian that holds no formal training or education in history. His conclusions are hyped up, over-exaggerated and politically motivated. His methodology is sloppy at best. It's fine if you wish to read his stuff, but don"t expect anyone who knows what their talking about to give it the time of day.

2. The Ghost of Bobby Lee - TA-NEHISI COATES. An article written by Coates, who is a journalist and blogger, but not before dropping out of college. He has authored exactly one book... about himself. Need I say more.

3. The New Mind of the South - Tracy Thompson. You posted a very short excerpt of Thompson"s (who is a journalist and writer) book on Salon's website. I, in fact, have read this book. There is little in way of any sort of methodology, its written more in the style of a traveler than anything else. I give her credit for tackling this complex topic, but to me she fell short of doing it justice.

3. Wikipedia - Ummmm no!

4. Alexander Stephens "Corner Stone" Speech - A primary source!! Now we are talking!

5. The Myth of Secession and States Rights in the Civil War - Allan Lichtman. Nice piece, Lichtman represents the majority of scholarly opinion currently. However, I will refer you my signature below for the pitfall of scholarly opinion used in this fashion.


Nice reply! Wow! Thank you! Finally someone who reads the sources! I used the Ghost of Bobby Lee article to link to a bunch of primary sources, since I didn't have space to on my debate. The others you were absolutely right about; I just put them there so that people can read them quickly.

Anyway, thanks for the criticism! I was thinking of using the documents of the states' reasons for succession, the CSA constitution, and the cornerstone speech in the future. Do you have any further/more reliable scholarly articles I should choose to make my points? Thanks!

No problem. You are certainly on the right track here... and I completely understand why you chose the sources you did in a forum such as this. And I agree with your reason for using Coastes article as it does link a number of good resources.

I actually did a paper in grad school on the Myth of the Lost Cause, which very much alines with this topic... allow me to review my notes and I will get back to you with more sources.

However, I can throw a few at you off the top of my head. First, I would start reading Gary Gallagher... though I do not agree with him 100% he is a exceptional historian who has written extensively in support of this position.

http://www.essaysinhistory.com... - a little dry but a great article.

Kenneth M. Stampp!! Stampp is a great historian. And has written 3 books that are a must read on this subject.

1. The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War (http://books.google.com...) - A free preview is available, and you can buy the ebook.

2. The peculiar institution: slavery in the ante-bellum South (http://books.google.com...) - Unfortunately not a ebook... but you should really read it.

3. The Causes of the Civil War (http://books.google.com...) - Again, not an ebook, but check it out.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:40:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thank you for your response! As you bring up so many different issues I will respond to each paragraph separately (and even then I can't promise I'll hit all of them).

P1

I am glad you have dedicated the time and effort into studying history you have. I encourage all persons to connect with their own history, and pursue the joy of learning about our collective and family pasts. We are lucky to have so many resources at our disposal" from the internet, libraries and bookstores packed with reading material, and many national historic treasures and museums dedicated to their preservation. Even if you and I find issues we don"t agree on, it would never cross my mind to not respect your personal pursuit of knowledge nor the opinions that you have, and have every right to communicate.

"Rather than being penalized for opinions that run contrary to my instructors beliefs, I was free to develop my own conclusions regarding the wide range of material I've had the pleasure of experiencing"

However, I am absolutely confounded by this statement. Perhaps you are only referring to your personal experience in primary education. I hope you are not insinuating that historical scholarship is somehow confined or "ruled" by and educated elite?? The "social sciences have a long tradition of claims, counterclaims and debates" (Thomas Kuhn). Thats what makes history fun, the constant evolution of our pursuit of the past. You have to realize that your "own conclusions regarding the wide range of material I've had the pleasure of experiencing" are fair game for counterclaim and debate, without it meaning that anyone is attacking you personally.

P2

You have a lot packed into this part! So please allow me to deconstruct this a bit. First off "revisionist" history is not a negative thing, it refers to the evolution of historical scholarship. Now, the term can have a negative inference if "revisionist history" is used to describe what we know in the field officially as "negationist history" or "distortionist history"". and indeed some people have done that. However, historical revisionism is a natural and normal part of the scholarly process. Every generation is going to have historians that look back at our past" and they may bring with them new and evolving insights into historical events, and new evidence may even be available. Again, this is part of what makes history fun and relevant!

You bring up the issue of why the common man went to war. I view this as a separate issue from the political tensions of the era. Individual men north and south went to war for a variety of differing personal reasons, and these personal reasons did not all necessarily play out on the national scale. Politics, defending their homes and family, camaraderie, societal pressure, manhood, adventure, money, the draft" etc. Each individual found his motivation" and some did not. Is my "revisionist" history going to change the fact that my ancestor was drafted? No. Or that he was an idealistic young man looking for adventure and honor? No. In my opinion you are connecting two separate issues. Why?? Because you have a bias, an emotional connection to the issue" and that is perfectly fine and normal.

"I realize Confederate sympathies are not the prevailing sentiment (to the victor go the spoils) but I find it hard to accept the final word of the victor as positive fact, without a review of all applicable factors. It seems to me that words like "revisionist" could just as easily be designed by the victor to discredit a cause that could easily be vindicated by historical fact. Historical fact, that is so mired in controversy and misinformation as to be almost suspiciously concealed in most of our state learning institutions."

Not only do you realize this" but also Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens realized this in their memoirs. Stephens is just one example of leading Southerns that argued slavery was the "cornerstone to the Confederacy" before the war, and then argued that war was not about slavery but about "states rights" after the war. Stephens was a leading propionate of the "Lost Cause".

I hate to call you out, and please don't take it personally, but you are completely backwards on this! The "Lost Cause" writers after the war wrote long and hard in order to present the "correct" interpretation of the war. Stephens, Gen. Early and others engaged in an intellectual battle to mold interpretations of the Confederacy.

"The architects of the Lost Cause acted from various motives. They collectively sought to justify their own actions and allow themselves and other former Confederates to find something positive in all-encompassing failure. They also wanted to provide their children and future generations of white Southerners with a 'correct' narrative of the war." - Gary Gallagher (2000)

This "correct" narrative of the war was through the tenets of "Lost Cause Mythology". Chief among these tenets was the movement away from slavery and toward "state sovereignty" as an overall cause of the war. This ideology remained dominate in historical interpretation (and especially in southern culture) for almost a century. It was not until the subsequent generations began dismissing this mythology and returning to evidence based "revisionist history" that the scholarly tide began to change. However, this was not an "overnight" process. Many historians, like Foote, continued to espouse to the "lost cause". Today, the "lost cause" has been mainly dismissed by historians" however many Southerns still hold by its ideology. The former Confederacy really did dominate the intellectual historiography after the Civil War" so I really don"t agree with this "the victor writes the history" opinion of yours. You also have this "conspiracy theory" vibe going on here that is rather unsubstantiated.

P3

I did not read your previous post, however I will certainly do so. And I do apologize for the secession typo, my auto-correct is changing the spelling and I did not realize it.

P4

Again I point that you are interweaving the "secession crisis of 1860" and the common mans personal reasons for going off to war. You also have a lot of "all inclusive" statements in there that I would encourage you not to do as they are literally impossible to support" (i.e. that no southerner feared the end of slavery... that no one in the north was fighting to end slavery). However, I do agree with your point about slavery and racism. Abolitionism and racism were in fact separate issues in the 1860"s. Gen. William T. Sherman is a prime example of this. It is 2 different arguments to say that Slavery is an institution that should be abolished, and that blacks should be given equal treatment and opportunity under the law.

Your PS

Unfortunately, you misunderstand this quote. What this quote means is that scholarly opinion cannot be used as primary evidence for a position, that would be a fallacious argument (appeal to authority). In other words, you can"t argue that Gen. Longstreet's countermarch on July 2nd 1863 was unnecessary and wasted valuable time and thus led to the failure of the Confederate attack to reach its stated objective because Shelby Foote said so in his book. That would be using scholarly opinion as primary evidence. However, our discussion here is centered around scholarly opinion, and is a debate on how scholarly opinion has changed over time. Therefore, to use examples of scholarly opinion is not only appropriate, its is in fact expected. Even the most basic historical work would begin with an examination of what previous historians have written on the topic. This is called historiography, the study of the methodology of history... in other words... the history of scholarly interpretation.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Opps! The above response was to this post... I deleted the original post due to length.

At 1/24/2014 11:00:02 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:

I have never been formally educated but I have read over 25 thousand pages of Civil War History, visited nearly every maintained battlefield & museum in the Eastern theatre (multiple times) and even guided tours in my home city of Richmond from time to time. My forebears (all far too poor to ever own slaves) fought and died for the Confederacy.
Since I feel the educational system regarding this subject is woefully inadequate and hopelessly one-sided, I view my unconventional education as a real advantage. Rather than being penalized for opinions that run contrary to my instructors beliefs, I was free to develop my own conclusions regarding the wide range of material I"ve had the pleasure of experiencing.

Having had family that died in this war, and being rather proud of that fact, I find the use of term"s like "revisionist" to be the very insulting. I find it hard to believe my ancestors died supporting an institution they never partook in. I think it"s more likely they died defending their home from what they considered to be an illegal invasion on the part of the US government. I realize Confederate sympathies are not the prevailing sentiment (to the victor go the spoils) but I find it hard to accept the final word of the victor as positive fact, without a review of all applicable factors. It seems to me that words like "revisionist" could just as easily be designed by the victor to discredit a cause that could easily be vindicated by historical fact. Historical fact, that is so mired in controversy and misinformation as to be almost suspiciously concealed in most of our state learning institutions.

I feel like most of what you covered is addressed in my reply above (to someone else) and I would love the hear your thoughts should you have the time to respond. I will add one comment regarding the oft-cited secession (not "succession", that really bothers me, Sorry!) speeches that most people quote as proof positive of a nation "only concerned with slaves".

Each of those speeches thoroughly identifies the issue as being connected to slavery in the eyes of the South. Of that there is no doubt. However, those speeches also articulate the importance of slavery to southern society and how clearly intertwined it was with their political and economic power. They did not fear the end of slavery, the feared the illegally forced end of slavery being used as a tool to destroy their way of life, and the protections that allow it. No one in the North was fighting to end slavery and by today"s standards nearly every American of that time was 100% racist. To attempt to boil down to the South as "fighting to keep slaves" rather than for their own constitutional rights (as they understood them) seems to me to be a gross oversimplification and an obvious attempt to discredit something without fully accounting for its credentials.

P.S. On your point regarding Shelby Foote being largely rejected by most scholars today"."Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 9:03:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:31:22 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Kbub can't you see how impossibly one-sided most of this reference material here is? If you wanted to develop a truly bias sense of the events leading up to and including the Civil War, wouldn't it be best to simply read history books and decide for yourself? These sources are clearly designed to belittle any view opposing what they assert to be true. If you are simply looking for material to confirm what you are already think is right, then how are you challenging your own views?

Let's take for example your comment about slavery and the confederate constitution. You and your sources are clearly trying to show the "hypocracy" of the CSA for federally protecting this right rather than allowing for states individual rights on the matter. But let's try to look at this objectively. Every single state in the CSA universally agreed to federally protect this right within there own constitution. They also universally agreed to the mechanisms required to amend this protection if needed. No one has to own slaves, they simply protected an individuals right to decide for themselves. Being fair, it could easily be argued that had this provision been added to our own constitution, the Civil War would have never been fought. But regardless, a bunch of states all agreeing unanimously to federally protect a right within their own constitution is hardly any indictment on the idea of states rights.

Your sources don't even begin to acknowledge this, because to do so, would make their attempt to brainwash their readers considerably more difficult. The only way you will ever get a clear enough picture to decide for yourself is by reading anywhere from 3-5 thousand pages of civil war history. At that point, I guarantee your view will have shifted in some form or another. I'm not saying your mind will change, but I guarantee you will have a vastly expanded view and the knowledge needed to support your opinions.

Sorry, I think eNo stole my thunder! I can't think of much to add!
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:41:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:03:43 AM, kbub wrote:
At 1/17/2014 8:31:22 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:00:07 PM, kbub wrote:
This gives primary sources that suggest that the Confederacy suceded for solely slavery. It's constitution forbid making laws that would prohibit slaves. There was no evidence for states' rights.

http://www.Wallbuilders.Com...
Http://www.Theatlantic.Com...
Http://www.Salon.Com...
Http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Http://teachingamericanhistory.Org...
Http://www.Britannica.Com...

Kbub can't you see how impossibly one-sided most of this reference material here is? If you wanted to develop a truly bias sense of the events leading up to and including the Civil War, wouldn't it be best to simply read history books and decide for yourself? These sources are clearly designed to belittle any view opposing what they assert to be true. If you are simply looking for material to confirm what you are already think is right, then how are you challenging your own views?

Let's take for example your comment about slavery and the confederate constitution. You and your sources are clearly trying to show the "hypocracy" of the CSA for federally protecting this right rather than allowing for states individual rights on the matter. But let's try to look at this objectively. Every single state in the CSA universally agreed to federally protect this right within there own constitution. They also universally agreed to the mechanisms required to amend this protection if needed. No one has to own slaves, they simply protected an individuals right to decide for themselves. Being fair, it could easily be argued that had this provision been added to our own constitution, the Civil War would have never been fought. But regardless, a bunch of states all agreeing unanimously to federally protect a right within their own constitution is hardly any indictment on the idea of states rights.

Your sources don't even begin to acknowledge this, because to do so, would make their attempt to brainwash their readers considerably more difficult. The only way you will ever get a clear enough picture to decide for yourself is by reading anywhere from 3-5 thousand pages of civil war history. At that point, I guarantee your view will have shifted in some form or another. I'm not saying your mind will change, but I guarantee you will have a vastly expanded view and the knowledge needed to support your opinions.

Sorry, I think eNo stole my thunder! I can't think of much to add!

HA! Sorry...
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:57:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What if I told you that Lincoln was a racist?
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:01:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh yeah! Did you guys know slavery is technically still legal? It can only be used as retribution though.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:06:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I feel like most of what you covered is addressed in my reply above (to someone else) and I would love the hear your thoughts should you have the time to respond."

I have read your debate positions as you requested. However, before I can fully critique them I will require the sources in which you have drawn the conclusions you have. All of the positions you have argued have been done without crediting any sources. As I stated in my previous post: "Even the most basic historical work would begin with an examination of what previous historians have written on the topic." You have also provided little primary source for any positions you have taken.

If you notice from the positions in this thread that we have been relieving our sources. Kbub began by linking the sources for his positions. I, in turn, evaluated his sources and we reached an agreement as to the validity of them. I sited sources in my response and then, as Kbub requested more, I produced further sources for our position. In my response to your post I provided both scholarly and primary sources for my positions. I also drew heavily from the sources I had already posted in response to Kbub"s request. Our sources for our positions are out in the open and you are free to critique them at your leisure.

However, you have revealed no sources for your claims in this debate. I insist that you live up to the same standard that Kbub and I hold ourselves too.

At 1/24/2014 10:51:50 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
Now from a Southern POV.......

I don't see how your geographic location is relevant, you are not the only Southern here, and not all Southerners share your view. Basically, you are just announcing that you have a huge bias that will effect everything that follows...

**Northern politicians, loosing a financial and political power struggle with agrarian society sought to seize upon world-wide anti-slavery sentiment as a way to destroy their competition, allow for sectional and industrial superiority in the US and establish a more centralized form of government to protect the profits of those industries. While the North benefited in numerical superiority, the constitutional limits to that sort of power were of particular concern to them.

I would love to see your sources on this position. I am not being facetious... I truly would love to see these sources. Here is mine;

"Among the political and economic leaders of the North, Yankee Protestantism was very strong, and this strain of Protestantism help fuel economic expansion and pointed the way toward an emerging capitalist, industrial and commercial giant. The North also embraced reform movements, again these were supported in a major way by this strain of Yankee Protestantism and Yankee Protestant ethic. Temperance was a major reform movement, Public education, and most important" abolitionism. What historians call the "free labor" ideology had taken strong hold in the North, an ideology that holds there is no inherent antagonism between labor and capitol, and that argued an individual could begin owning nothing but his own labor and use that labor to acquire a small amount of capitol and eventually become a member of the middle class or even more. Abraham Lincoln was a prime example of this. The Republican Party believed fervently in the idea of a free labor society. Many in the North looked South and saw a section that was holding the nation back. They saw a land of lazy, cruel and violent people who did not subscribe to the ideas that would make the United States great." (Gary Gallagher- 2000)


**The expansion of the country into new states was no more a threat to the South than it was to the North. The South's devotion to an agrarian society can be traced back to one overwhelming truth, their climate and soil are considerably more conducive to such a lifestyle. As our country expanded west, had the issue of transporting slaves been left alone (ie people were freely allowed to move them into territories as had been the clear practice since the dawn of our country) then climate alone would have settled the matter of slave and free states.

I see in this position a primary tenet of the "Lost Cause Mythology"... That the South was the "ideal" location. And slavery was a natural, and in fact justified, extension of this ideal.

**Each of these issues were forced by Northern politicians (unconstitutionally) attempting to limit the expansion of slavery into climates that it would have otherwise naturally traveled to. Let us not forget the Dred Scott decision which clearly (in a ruling that still stands today) nullified any federal authority over personal property being moved into territories.

"I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the case of Dred Scott was more thoroughly abominable than anything of the kind in the history of courts. Judicial baseness reached its lowest point on that occasion. You have not forgotten that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Constitution of the United States and every principle of Liberty was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also." (Charles Sumner)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1 (aka "The Citizenship Clause")


The 14th Amendment nullified the Dred Scott decision. The ruling does not still stand today as you claim.

**Kansas was another obviously fertile ground for the expansion of slavery. There were quite literally violent bands of Northerners organized under the banner of abolition that immigrated South with no other intention but killing people that were exercising their own constitutional rights. The same man that helped organize northern incursions into Kansas was summarily executed by the US government for inciting an armed rebellion in the South a few years later and quite possibly triggering the entire war (John Brown).

Ask yourself, why was it bleeding Kansas and not bleeding Montana? How come Southerners didn't orchestrate bands of blood thirsty maniacs to invade Montana when it was settling and force the slavery issue there? It"s because Southerners knew Montana had no material interest to their institutions so they weren't trying to kill people over it just to gain extra political power!!!

I really don't know what you are trying to claim here. Your seem to be blaming one side in order to serve your own position. There is not a "clean hand" in regards to Bleeding Kansas. Both northerns and southerns flooded into Kansas for a variety of different reasons... some political, some economic, some religious, some moral, some not any of those.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
**The claim regarding property in the territories was (and still is) affirmed by SCOTUS in the Dred Scott Case. Obviously the federal government had no right to stop slavery where it legally existed, since slavery was federally sanctioned. I wasn't aware that this was an argument so much as it was established fact. A constitutional amendment was required, even after the war was basically over, to officially end slavery. The South felt that an (established) encroachment on the constitution and on their people in Kansas & Virginia were such terrifying attempts at sectional superiority that the only way they could legally protect themselves is by resuming the sovereign and independent powers that were clearly entitled to them under the constitution.

Again... the Dred Scott decision does not still stand.

You seem to be arguing here that one side was "Constitutional" and the other was "Unconstitutional". Well, obviously, thats the whole point... but you seem to be missing the bigger picture of all of this. I enjoy the analogy of the "Coiled Snake". Slavery was a coiled snake upon the back of our Constitution. And at some point in time our country would have to deal with it. The political, constitutional, cultural, social, economic and moral divides of our country were boiling over. The Slavery based economy of the south and the Free-market economy of the north would struggle for political power" and one of them would emerge victorious. The South eventually gambled everything with secession. The coiled snake of slavery was then forcibly torn from our Constitution with slaughter of a generation of Americans. I feel your position belittles this reality.

**A movement that was seized upon by Northern Politicians as a way to promote sectional differences and northern interests.

**That progressive version of the future also included a considerably more centralized form of Government. A government our framers sought specifically to avoid. Evidence of this can be seen in the 3 subsequent "progressive" amendments to the constitution. Heretofore our amendments almost unanimously expressed the terms "shall not" in reference to federal authority. Each of the new amendments all specifically (and very generally) state that congress "shall have the power" to enforce said acts.


**The North won a presidential election without the support of a single southern state. That being said the republicans still had nowhere NEAR the power needed to amend the constitution, only the superiority to continue to press the (now clearly) illegal practice of limiting slavery in the territories and to create new protective tariffs clearly designed for the benefit of industry over agriculture


**And helped it"s further collapse by illegally using federal force to coerce a state into a compact that would have never existed unless it was unanimously consented to by all joining parties. An action that forced the secession of four more states and the established neutrality of three others (which was basically ignored by both parties, but mainly the North). A policy that ultimately lead the bloodiest war in American History and a dangerous tilt towards central power that we have almost certainly not felt the full affects of, even today.


These positions you have written confirm to me that you cling to the "Lost Cause Mythology". And will try any argument that points away from Slavery as a root cause of conflict" shifting the focus to Constitutional issues struggling against northern imperialism on States sovereignty and political greed. To me this is warmed-over, mid-century, ideology that has long since passed from the legitimate scholarly debate.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 5:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:57:28 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
What if I told you that Lincoln was a racist?

What if you posted this position in a separate thread to allow discussion and debate of the topic... instead of hijacking someone else's debate??? I look forward to the opportunity.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
Grandbudda
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To jnedwards11 and eNo!
You gentlemen both articulate very well your opposing positions. I learned a lot from both sides and feel that three people can come to three opinions from the same set of facts. That's what makes history so much fun I think.
But to Jnerdawrds11 I have gained in insight to the southern point of view that I believe has some real value.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:08:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 8:41:29 PM, Grandbudda wrote:
To jnedwards11 and eNo!
You gentlemen both articulate very well your opposing positions. I learned a lot from both sides and feel that three people can come to three opinions from the same set of facts. That's what makes history so much fun I think.
But to Jnerdawrds11 I have gained in insight to the southern point of view that I believe has some real value.

Thank you sir! I have enjoyed this topic immensely! And you are correct, we here have merely scratched the surface of the debate. And there are views and interpretations that have not even been represented here.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 7:45:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 5:29:57 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:57:28 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
What if I told you that Lincoln was a racist?

What if you posted this position in a separate thread to allow discussion and debate of the topic... instead of hijacking someone else's debate??? I look forward to the opportunity.

Okay bro, first of all it's not even debatable, and second of all, it's gotta do with the topic. It's about the Union's leadership.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9