Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Lost Cause

Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 4:24:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...

I think political entities go to war for economic reasons. But most individuals do not want to die for money. So the politics have to encourage or grow a moral reason for war, so that individuals will do the fighting.

The interpretation of History is written by the victors. But in the Civil war the losing side was absorbed by the winning side. So you have a thread of confederate mentality still in existence. If the south was wiped out and completely reprogrammed with a northern attitude, Say US country building in Japan or Germany, you would have very few people (Howard Zinn[1]) advocating for the South.

I think the Lost Cause explanation is to be expected. A confederate mentality of how right and good their side was, is in contrast to a tactical defeat. How does someone rationalize this?

Well you divorce the tactical defeat from the originating moral cause that was fanned by the confederate politics. That sounds to me what the Lost Cause is trying to do.

It goes further to subtract the economic reasons from the confederate desire for war. If The Lost Cause were to leave the slave issue and other economic causes intact, it would have to reconcile the sacrifices for preserving an economic system.

Which hind site shows slavery was not a viable economic system to maintain. Now there is a moral reasoning behind this, but I think the emergence of the world bank and non-precious metal backed currency was the real reason why the US got support to end slavery.

Anyways justifying the sacrifice for a failing economic system would not be prudent. So the end result is "The Lost Cause" A moral only war for what is right, against forces of evil. Now the lost and sacrifice is some how justified.

[1] Just an interesting read. http://www.historyisaweapon.com...
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 10:24:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:24:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...

I think political entities go to war for economic reasons. But most individuals do not want to die for money. So the politics have to encourage or grow a moral reason for war, so that individuals will do the fighting.

The interpretation of History is written by the victors. But in the Civil war the losing side was absorbed by the winning side. So you have a thread of confederate mentality still in existence. If the south was wiped out and completely reprogrammed with a northern attitude, Say US country building in Japan or Germany, you would have very few people (Howard Zinn[1]) advocating for the South.

I think the Lost Cause explanation is to be expected. A confederate mentality of how right and good their side was, is in contrast to a tactical defeat. How does someone rationalize this?

Well you divorce the tactical defeat from the originating moral cause that was fanned by the confederate politics. That sounds to me what the Lost Cause is trying to do.

It goes further to subtract the economic reasons from the confederate desire for war. If The Lost Cause were to leave the slave issue and other economic causes intact, it would have to reconcile the sacrifices for preserving an economic system.

Which hind site shows slavery was not a viable economic system to maintain. Now there is a moral reasoning behind this, but I think the emergence of the world bank and non-precious metal backed currency was the real reason why the US got support to end slavery.

Anyways justifying the sacrifice for a failing economic system would not be prudent. So the end result is "The Lost Cause" A moral only war for what is right, against forces of evil. Now the lost and sacrifice is some how justified.

[1] Just an interesting read. http://www.historyisaweapon.com...

I see your point, and I agree completely. However, it still leaves me perplexed that the Lost Cause is the dominate view of the Civil War both North and South. It makes sense that generations of Southerners were raised and educated under its shadow, but that it has turned up so strongly in the North also. And we still see its domination of viewpoint to this very day.

Contrast this short explanation of the Lost Cause by Prof. Gallagher, with these 3 videos.... they play right into it!
https://www.youtube.com...

1. https://www.youtube.com... (Ron Paul)

2. https://www.youtube.com... (DIY History)

3. https://www.kickstarter.com... (Video is at the bottom of the page, Lost Cause Documentary)
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 2:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 10:24:53 AM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:24:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...

I think political entities go to war for economic reasons. But most individuals do not want to die for money. So the politics have to encourage or grow a moral reason for war, so that individuals will do the fighting.

The interpretation of History is written by the victors. But in the Civil war the losing side was absorbed by the winning side. So you have a thread of confederate mentality still in existence. If the south was wiped out and completely reprogrammed with a northern attitude, Say US country building in Japan or Germany, you would have very few people (Howard Zinn[1]) advocating for the South.

I think the Lost Cause explanation is to be expected. A confederate mentality of how right and good their side was, is in contrast to a tactical defeat. How does someone rationalize this?

Well you divorce the tactical defeat from the originating moral cause that was fanned by the confederate politics. That sounds to me what the Lost Cause is trying to do.

It goes further to subtract the economic reasons from the confederate desire for war. If The Lost Cause were to leave the slave issue and other economic causes intact, it would have to reconcile the sacrifices for preserving an economic system.

Which hind site shows slavery was not a viable economic system to maintain. Now there is a moral reasoning behind this, but I think the emergence of the world bank and non-precious metal backed currency was the real reason why the US got support to end slavery.

Anyways justifying the sacrifice for a failing economic system would not be prudent. So the end result is "The Lost Cause" A moral only war for what is right, against forces of evil. Now the lost and sacrifice is some how justified.

[1] Just an interesting read. http://www.historyisaweapon.com...

I see your point, and I agree completely. However, it still leaves me perplexed that the Lost Cause is the dominate view of the Civil War both North and South. It makes sense that generations of Southerners were raised and educated under its shadow, but that it has turned up so strongly in the North also. And we still see its domination of viewpoint to this very day.

So you argue it is an interpretation that has spread to be the interpretation of Northern thought as well. So I will look for Northern advocating Lost Cuase in your references.


Contrast this short explanation of the Lost Cause by Prof. Gallagher, with these 3 videos.... they play right into it!
https://www.youtube.com...


I could tell right away this guy was a historian. He talks like one. I think it should be pointed out that I can see how Prof. Gallagher's words can be quoted out of context. But I think it is clear in it's entirety that Gallagher was teaching what the "Lost Cause" interpretation of history is.

I do not think he advocates that interpretation. As evident that he wrote a book called "The Myth of the Lost Cause" http://www.amazon.com...

1. https://www.youtube.com... (Ron Paul)


Oh jumpin' into the rattlesnake den now. Ron Paul is a politician. that really should be enough said. But I actually think he composed himself quite well. And he made some good intellectual points. Like 11 other countries in the same hemisphere abolished slavery without war, few others. I think this vid was meant to be inflammatory to imply Ron Paul as a racist. But a guy standing in front of a confederate flag need not make a racist.

2nd. Ron Paul is from Texas a confederate state.

2. https://www.youtube.com... (DIY History)


Haha first few seconds and there is Prof.Gallagher being quoted: "The principle cause of confederate failure was the fact that the South's armies did not win enough victories in the field - especially enough victories in a row in the field- ...."

Really to win a war you have to win battles, and especially win battles in a row? who knew this?

The vid was as interesting narrative, I just can not say if the person advocating it's claims was Northern or Southern.

3. https://www.kickstarter.com... (Video is at the bottom of the page, Lost Cause Documentary)

This was a pretty cool vid and you definitely can see the Lost Cause interpretation being adopted by these civil war enactment actors. Judging by the accents, I would say they were Georgia, Alabama southern. So again the interpretation is being espoused by Southerners.

I don't think the Lost Cause interpretation is taking so much hold. I think there are so facts to it. Like any good story it should have facts. You can even see where people are in retrospect dividing the Economic, Political reasons for the war from the moral right based reasons. I'm 100% sure evidence can be found to support that 1 reason of war was to protect state rights. But it was not the main issue. Neither was slavery the main issue (it may have been the #1 moral issue fanned for like I said earlier encouraging people to kill each other) But we can not reject any of the issues.

The lost Cause has probably found good root in southern people who want to hold on to a sense of family pride. I just don't see evidence for it's acceptance among a considerable Yankee population.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...

I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:23:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 2:26:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 10:24:53 AM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:24:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
So you argue it is an interpretation that has spread to be the interpretation of Northern thought as well. So I will look for Northern advocating Lost Cuase in your references.:

No I don;t really have an argument, I'm just beginning to wrap my head around this. I am very interested in our collective and regional remembrances of the war as time has moved on. Kinda started with reading "Confederates in the Attic"

Contrast this short explanation of the Lost Cause by Prof. Gallagher, with these 3 videos.... they play right into it!
https://www.youtube.com...


I could tell right away this guy was a historian. He talks like one. I think it should be pointed out that I can see how Prof. Gallagher's words can be quoted out of context. But I think it is clear in it's entirety that Gallagher was teaching what the "Lost Cause" interpretation of history is.

I do not think he advocates that interpretation. As evident that he wrote a book called "The Myth of the Lost Cause" http://www.amazon.com...:

Oh on, I didn't mean to imply that he advocates it... in fact I believe he is one of the foremost modern researchers and opponents of the Lost Cause.

1. https://www.youtube.com... (Ron Paul)


Oh jumpin' into the rattlesnake den now. Ron Paul is a politician. that really should be enough said. But I actually think he composed himself quite well. And he made some good intellectual points. Like 11 other countries in the same hemisphere abolished slavery without war, few others. I think this vid was meant to be inflammatory to imply Ron Paul as a racist. But a guy standing in front of a confederate flag need not make a racist.

2nd. Ron Paul is from Texas a confederate state.:

I myself am torn of this video too... on one hand it shows and intellectual application of the Lost Cause, but on the other it pretty compelling also. I mean it would be a false statement to say that the Lost Cause is not rooted in truth and fact... correct?

HOWEVER.... I'm a bit cautious to jump on board with his point about the 11 other countries in the same hemisphere abolishing slavery with a war. I'd need to see some real research on this. Did these 11 countries have sectional differences like the US? Were these 11 countries involved in territorial disputes with free and slave sections of their countries?? Were these slave sections of these 11 countries (if any) actively involved in the expansion of slavery in the years leading up to its abolition as in the US??

2. https://www.youtube.com... (DIY History)


Haha first few seconds and there is Prof.Gallagher being quoted: "The principle cause of confederate failure was the fact that the South's armies did not win enough victories in the field - especially enough victories in a row in the field- ....":

Yeah but isn;t that mixing the actual causes for fall of the Confederacy with the later post war interpretations of the Civil War??

Really to win a war you have to win battles, and especially win battles in a row? who knew this?

The vid was as interesting narrative, I just can not say if the person advocating it's claims was Northern or Southern.

3. https://www.kickstarter.com... (Video is at the bottom of the page, Lost Cause Documentary)

This was a pretty cool vid and you definitely can see the Lost Cause interpretation being adopted by these civil war enactment actors. Judging by the accents, I would say they were Georgia, Alabama southern. So again the interpretation is being espoused by Southerners.

I don't think the Lost Cause interpretation is taking so much hold. I think there are so facts to it. Like any good story it should have facts. You can even see where people are in retrospect dividing the Economic, Political reasons for the war from the moral right based reasons. I'm 100% sure evidence can be found to support that 1 reason of war was to protect state rights. But it was not the main issue. Neither was slavery the main issue (it may have been the #1 moral issue fanned for like I said earlier encouraging people to kill each other) But we can not reject any of the issues.

The lost Cause has probably found good root in southern people who want to hold on to a sense of family pride. I just don't see evidence for it's acceptance among a considerable Yankee population.:

But isn't the hole Slavery vs States Rights debate as to the cause of the war kind of a red herring?? I mean, slavery was a principle state right... it also colored just about every other State Right. Westward territory expansion, tariff disputes over products produced in a slave culture, cultural and sectional economic and political differences all stemming from a slave based society??
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

Well I would think that a simplified and approachable view of the war would be far more likely to to expand and become a well excepted interpretation. I agree with Mhykiel though that I to don't believe that the Lost Cause has the same hold as it once did, even if just in the South (I hope I'm not misleading his view there). Though its still out there. Whether one personally views it is BS or not it does not change things. There is a difference, I think, about what the actual causes and of the civil war were, and how generations of historians and civilian chose to view the war... whether Lost Cause or not. Most of our best history of the Civil War has been post-civil rights era, and we today benefit from that. But that doesn't mean that generations of Southerns did't buy into the view... in fact I think that point is historically valid. It may be BS, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:09:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:23:46 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 2:26:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 10:24:53 AM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:24:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
So you argue it is an interpretation that has spread to be the interpretation of Northern thought as well. So I will look for Northern advocating Lost Cuase in your references.:

No I don;t really have an argument, I'm just beginning to wrap my head around this. I am very interested in our collective and regional remembrances of the war as time has moved on. Kinda started with reading "Confederates in the Attic"


Gotcha.

Contrast this short explanation of the Lost Cause by Prof. Gallagher, with these 3 videos.... they play right into it!
https://www.youtube.com...


I could tell right away this guy was a historian. He talks like one. I think it should be pointed out that I can see how Prof. Gallagher's words can be quoted out of context. But I think it is clear in it's entirety that Gallagher was teaching what the "Lost Cause" interpretation of history is.

I do not think he advocates that interpretation. As evident that he wrote a book called "The Myth of the Lost Cause" http://www.amazon.com...:

Oh on, I didn't mean to imply that he advocates it... in fact I believe he is one of the foremost modern researchers and opponents of the Lost Cause.


Gotcha.


1. https://www.youtube.com... (Ron Paul)


Oh jumpin' into the rattlesnake den now. Ron Paul is a politician. that really should be enough said. But I actually think he composed himself quite well. And he made some good intellectual points. Like 11 other countries in the same hemisphere abolished slavery without war, few others. I think this vid was meant to be inflammatory to imply Ron Paul as a racist. But a guy standing in front of a confederate flag need not make a racist.

2nd. Ron Paul is from Texas a confederate state.:

I myself am torn of this video too... on one hand it shows and intellectual application of the Lost Cause, but on the other it pretty compelling also. I mean it would be a false statement to say that the Lost Cause is not rooted in truth and fact... correct?


Yeah I reiterate the same thought, that some of the Lost Cause is rooted in facts.

HOWEVER.... I'm a bit cautious to jump on board with his point about the 11 other countries in the same hemisphere abolishing slavery with a war. I'd need to see some real research on this. Did these 11 countries have sectional differences like the US? Were these 11 countries involved in territorial disputes with free and slave sections of their countries?? Were these slave sections of these 11 countries (if any) actively involved in the expansion of slavery in the years leading up to its abolition as in the US??


All very good points. I agree, war is economically politically driven, So his statement really only bares weight if these 11 possible countries had the same economic political pressures, and in turn found a peaceful resolution. It was a speech and not a debate to prove points, merely talk to garner support. I thought it was a "fair" application of the lost cause.


2. https://www.youtube.com... (DIY History)


Haha first few seconds and there is Prof.Gallagher being quoted: "The principle cause of confederate failure was the fact that the South's armies did not win enough victories in the field - especially enough victories in a row in the field- ....":

Yeah but isn't that mixing the actual causes for fall of the Confederacy with the later post war interpretations of the Civil War??

I think Gallagner was taken out of context, as an appeal to authority in the vid. I think his statement is no more than saying "The South lost the war, cause they lost a bunch of battles in a row" which I thought kind of goes with out saying.


Really to win a war you have to win battles, and especially win battles in a row? who knew this?

The vid was as interesting narrative, I just can not say if the person advocating it's claims was Northern or Southern.

3. https://www.kickstarter.com... (Video is at the bottom of the page, Lost Cause Documentary)

This was a pretty cool vid and you definitely can see the Lost Cause interpretation being adopted by these civil war enactment actors. Judging by the accents, I would say they were Georgia, Alabama southern. So again the interpretation is being espoused by Southerners.

I don't think the Lost Cause interpretation is taking so much hold. I think there are so facts to it. Like any good story it should have facts. You can even see where people are in retrospect dividing the Economic, Political reasons for the war from the moral right based reasons. I'm 100% sure evidence can be found to support that 1 reason of war was to protect state rights. But it was not the main issue. Neither was slavery the main issue (it may have been the #1 moral issue fanned for like I said earlier encouraging people to kill each other) But we can not reject any of the issues.

The lost Cause has probably found good root in southern people who want to hold on to a sense of family pride. I just don't see evidence for it's acceptance among a considerable Yankee population.:

But isn't the hole Slavery vs States Rights debate as to the cause of the war kind of a red herring?? I mean, slavery was a principle state right... it also colored just about every other State Right. Westward territory expansion, tariff disputes over products produced in a slave culture, cultural and sectional economic and political differences all stemming from a slave based society??

There is definitely a fallacy in there. I don't know if I would say Red Herring or Irrelevant Conclusion. Maybe Fallacy of Division. but needless to say I think it is trying to gloss over slavery being a reason to go to war. Also I think points in the interpretation are selective of certain evidence. To the point where it ignores contrary points.

I certainly see slavery as a war reason. It was probably the most talked about reason. 1. it has economic impact. 2. a moral impact. Making it the best reason to establish a need for war.

I can see how the lost cause can be abused. It maintains a dichotomy of North and South.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

I find the Lost Cause to be illogical.

It takes a hindsight 20/20 view of the past and instills modern conceptions upon the war.

P1: Southerners went to war to defend their state right.
P2: Southerns saw it as a right to property, a state and individual right.
P3: Southerns consider slaves property

The abolishment of slavery by constitutional amendment came during the civil war. So when was the Southern state's rights being infringed upon? Historically this was because Northern states would not extradite run away slaves.

This would be an issue of property being transported over state lines. Making it a federal issue. Of course slavery is unique in that if you define a slave as property, it is like saying your car keys grew legs and walked away. If your car keys walked to Main should Maine return them?

The Federal government actually used state rights as a justification to let Northern states make their own decision. Because this did not boad well with Southerners they went to war.

I linked to Howard Zinn because I think his book is an interesting read. Illustrating that history is a writing of interpretation by those in power. The Lost Cause is not history in that it is not written by the majority in power. And it commits the fallacy of applying modern intentions or reasons to past peoples behaviors.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

Well I would think that a simplified and approachable view of the war would be far more likely to to expand and become a well excepted interpretation. I agree with Mhykiel though that I to don't believe that the Lost Cause has the same hold as it once did, even if just in the South (I hope I'm not misleading his view there). Though its still out there. Whether one personally views it is BS or not it does not change things. There is a difference, I think, about what the actual causes and of the civil war were, and how generations of historians and civilian chose to view the war... whether Lost Cause or not. Most of our best history of the Civil War has been post-civil rights era, and we today benefit from that. But that doesn't mean that generations of Southerns did't buy into the view... in fact I think that point is historically valid. It may be BS, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I think attempting to simplify and generalize an issue that is anything but simple will logically lead to misinterpretations about what actually happened. If anyone chooses to base their opinions on this war on generalizations from a couple of videos or magazine articles then so be it, it's a free country. I choose, however, to base my opinions on a holistic understanding of the entire time period and all of the important events that lead up to it.

The difference in interpretation you spoke of exists for the very same reasons the war was fought in the first place. There are always two sides to a civil war and historians had nothing to do with that. If you can honestly tell me you have taken the time and effort necessary to understand the union & confederate POV then I commend whatever opinion you may have come to,whether I agree or not..

For me, however, It took thousands of pages of reading, countless visits to museums/battlefields and a detailed review of our constitution before I was confident in my conclusions, and my ability to defend those conclusions with historical accuracy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 9:47:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 8:30:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

I find the Lost Cause to be illogical.

It takes a hindsight 20/20 view of the past and instills modern conceptions upon the war.

P1: Southerners went to war to defend their state right.
P2: Southerns saw it as a right to property, a state and individual right.
P3: Southerns consider slaves property

The abolishment of slavery by constitutional amendment came during the civil war. So when was the Southern state's rights being infringed upon? Historically this was because Northern states would not extradite run away slaves.

This would be an issue of property being transported over state lines. Making it a federal issue. Of course slavery is unique in that if you define a slave as property, it is like saying your car keys grew legs and walked away. If your car keys walked to Main should Maine return them?

The Federal government actually used state rights as a justification to let Northern states make their own decision. Because this did not boad well with Southerners they went to war.

I linked to Howard Zinn because I think his book is an interesting read. Illustrating that history is a writing of interpretation by those in power. The Lost Cause is not history in that it is not written by the majority in power. And it commits the fallacy of applying modern intentions or reasons to past peoples behaviors.

Wo I think my writing has been a bit ambiguous. I swear I type only every other sentence I think.

Anyways. The Lost cause has it's roots in General Lee. He was taking strong public criticism. To the south figure they should have won. So blame was being thrown around. General Lee's inquiries about man power and northern tactics were in a way him trying to find out what went wrong.

If you ask an artilleryman what won the war it was the North had better cannons. Ask an infantryman and it's that North departed from napoleon era battle tactics. Ask a medic it was Northern doctors could saw bone faster.

The tactics were old age smooth bore tactics. It was even considered unsportsmanlike or murderous to intentionally aim to kill someone. Snipers were not respected in this era. A great book on this is "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" [1] When we look at battles fought with these tactics, 2 general indicators of the winner are Artillery and Infantry. Artillery is the "Queen of battle" and Infantry the "King". The North had better cannoneers and aim with their cannons, and had twice as many infantry soldiers. This is fact to Why the South lost.

The Lost Cause attempts to rewrite the past so the South is not vilified as an immoral culture. It had it's benefits as being a cushion for Southerners. Change is always stressful even when it is needed. Hence there was a lot of stress by the Southern veterans and people. By moving the motivations away from the economic; by moving the intentions away from slave ownership, then the Southerners could hold on to an identity. An identity instilled in them from birth.

The can reshape their cultural identity to conform to the reality. The reality of the Northern reconstruction. Their new identity would be one of gentry and higher honorable conduct.

Which is really what just survived from the Antebellum Age before the war. See before the war the South was establishing traditions in opposition to the North. They supported fox hunting, gambling, drinking, peaceful tea times, etc.. all things the predominately Puritan North disliked. Also the North was a port for free middle class immigrants and modern water ran machinery. But the South needed slaves for a more agricultural system. A division of Cultural Identity was widening before the war even began.

But now that dichotomy is more harmful than good. And the reinterpretation of historical facts to sustain the selective ignorance of chattel slavery rights, slavery not being benign, Session's constitutional right, would be prone to error.

[1]http://www.amazon.com...
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 10:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 8:30:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

I find the Lost Cause to be illogical.

Great, I find parts of it to be completely illogical as well. But I also find parts of it that are incredibly sound.

It takes a hindsight 20/20 view of the past and instills modern conceptions upon the war.

Fantastic....how? Can you give me an example of how states rights were not a consistent concern of southern states before, during and after the civil war?

P1: Southerners went to war to defend their state right.

Southerners went to war because they were invaded by a foreign government. Four confederate states refused to even secede until Lincoln attempted to use violence to force a compact that NEVER would have existed without the unanimous consent of all parties involved.

P2: Southerns saw it as a right to property, a state and individual right.

The law very clearly defines private property rights. This was not a Southern specific sentiment

P3: Southerns consider slaves property

The FEDERAL government considered slaves property in accordance with our written constitution. And FYI, there were states in the Union (north) that held slaves too.

The abolishment of slavery by constitutional amendment came during the civil war. So when was the Southern state's rights being infringed upon? Historically this was because Northern states would not extradite run away slaves.

The 13th amendment was signed in 1865. This issue had been building since the dawn of the cotton gin. Run away slaves were exactly ONE piece of a very complex puzzle. You neglected to mention how upset southerners were that the North was repeatedly and unconstitutionally attempting to limit slavery in the territories. Or how outraged they were that northern agents were attempting slave insurrections in southern states (to kill innocent southerners). What about northerns flocking to Kansas with the specific intention of violently preventing slaves owners from moving there and starting a legitimate enterprise?

This would be an issue of property being transported over state lines. Making it a federal issue. Of course slavery is unique in that if you define a slave as property, it is like saying your car keys grew legs and walked away. If your car keys walked to Main should Maine return them?

Again, way more than just this one issue going on.....regardless though, How about a realistic comparison here? If you let someone drive your car, and then they take it to another state and refuse to give it back, do you have legal recourse to claim your property? I say the answer is an emphatic YES!

The Federal government actually used state rights as a justification to let Northern states make their own decision. Because this did not boad well with Southerners they went to war.

Sorry, I don't follow here....if you are insinuating hypocrisy on behalf of the South, could elaborate on your point with specifics please?

I linked to Howard Zinn because I think his book is an interesting read. Illustrating that history is a writing of interpretation by those in power. The Lost Cause is not history in that it is not written by the majority in power. And it commits the fallacy of applying modern intentions or reasons to past peoples behaviors.

Lol. This is what I eluded to earlier. You see Zin is essentially telling you what the other positions arguments are and THEN telling you why they are wrong. Where you are getting tripped up is that I do not simply accept that 1) These arguments are majority southern opinion because he says so in his book. 2) That these arguments (in their entirety) even remotely attempt to cover the wide range of logical grievances that confederates actually held.

The fallacy Zin/Gallagher commits is attempting to control the oppositions narrative so he can more easily discredit it. Is doesn't take a genius to form someone else's arguments and then break them down without any possibility of objection!
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:34:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 9:47:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 8:30:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then


Wo I think my writing has been a bit ambiguous. I swear I type only every other sentence I think.

Anyways. The Lost cause has it's roots in General Lee. He was taking strong public criticism. To the south figure they should have won. So blame was being thrown around. General Lee's inquiries about man power and northern tactics were in a way him trying to find out what went wrong.

Thanks for your opinion here. I don't technically agree but I also don't necessarily care. The "origin" of the lost cause narrative does not concern me so much as what parts of this narrative are or are not accurate.

If you ask an artilleryman what won the war it was the North had better cannons. Ask an infantryman and it's that North departed from napoleon era battle tactics. Ask a medic it was Northern doctors could saw bone faster.

Ok I guess......but how is this relevant. Someone could tell me the South won the war if I asked that question. If I am not speaking to someone who has taken the time understand this issue in its entirety then their opinion is welcome, but not enlightening. Moreover, I know that the North won and why, so this point isn't even really in contention.

The tactics were old age smooth bore tactics. It was even considered unsportsmanlike or murderous to intentionally aim to kill someone. Snipers were not respected in this era. A great book on this is "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" [1] When we look at battles fought with these tactics, 2 general indicators of the winner are Artillery and Infantry. Artillery is the "Queen of battle" and Infantry the "King". The North had better cannoneers and aim with their cannons, and had twice as many infantry soldiers. This is fact to Why the South lost.

Resources were an undeniable Northern advantage. Though that doesn't guarantee victory, it certainly makes it easier to achieve! The north also had a sea born navy (funded by mostly southern dollars ironically) to strangle southern coasts and rob them of valuable supplies. Without these significant advantages the North may have never even won a single battle due to its ineffective leadership.

The Lost Cause attempts to rewrite the past so the South is not vilified as an immoral culture. It had it's benefits as being a cushion for Southerners. Change is always stressful even when it is needed. Hence there was a lot of stress by the Southern veterans and people. By moving the motivations away from the economic; by moving the intentions away from slave ownership, then the Southerners could hold on to an identity. An identity instilled in them from birth.

There are many absurd reasons that southerners used to justify slavery, however, states in the North used those same absurd justifications to maintain slaves as well. However, slavery was not the reason used to justify secession OR war and thus the arguments used to defend slavery cannot, ipso facto, be assumed to be the same arguments used to defend southern secession and the resulting defense of their homeland.

The can reshape their cultural identity to conform to the reality. The reality of the Northern reconstruction. Their new identity would be one of gentry and higher honorable conduct.

You are implying a lack of honorable conduct prior to this point that I do not agree exists (as honorable conduct was then defined). You are also implying a new identity exists in the same Southern states that have had the most consistently anti-federal politics in our nations history. Pre and post war. I have to disagree with your conclusions in full here.

Which is really what just survived from the Antebellum Age before the war. See before the war the South was establishing traditions in opposition to the North. They supported fox hunting, gambling, drinking, peaceful tea times, etc.. all things the predominately Puritan North disliked. Also the North was a port for free middle class immigrants and modern water ran machinery. But the South needed slaves for a more agricultural system. A division of Cultural Identity was widening before the war even began.

The South no more opposed the north than they were opposed by them. This is a one sided and unsubstantiated opinion. The north turned to industry because you cannot compete with an agricultural market that grows things three more months a year than you can. It's the same reason most agriculture in the world has always been in predominantly warmer climates with more fertile growing conditions!

But now that dichotomy is more harmful than good. And the reinterpretation of historical facts to sustain the selective ignorance of chattel slavery rights, slavery not being benign, Session's constitutional right, would be prone to error.

[1]http://www.amazon.com...

I have not reinterpreted ANY historical fact to come to my pro confederate conclusions and would challenge you to show how ANY of my opinions lack historical accuracy. Slavery was a right, a right that both sides of this war exercised. If owning slaves automatically negates your cause, then the selective ignorance of the North is just as assailable as that of the South, less the fact that southerners were successful in thier application of slavery and northerners were (mostly) removed from a market they couldn't compete in. I believe they call that capitalism.

Finally, the right of secession has NOTHING to do with slavery. It just as easily could be gun rights, or abortion that cause a state to secede. Your opinion on the legitimacy of the issue has nothing to do with secessions legality or effectiveness. If you are trying to tell me you are sure the CSA would have failed, even in victory, then that's all you. I won't attempt to speak to "what ifs" particularly so in absolutists terms.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

Well I would think that a simplified and approachable view of the war would be far more likely to to expand and become a well excepted interpretation. I agree with Mhykiel though that I to don't believe that the Lost Cause has the same hold as it once did, even if just in the South (I hope I'm not misleading his view there). Though its still out there. Whether one personally views it is BS or not it does not change things. There is a difference, I think, about what the actual causes and of the civil war were, and how generations of historians and civilian chose to view the war... whether Lost Cause or not. Most of our best history of the Civil War has been post-civil rights era, and we today benefit from that. But that doesn't mean that generations of Southerns did't buy into the view... in fact I think that point is historically valid. It may be BS, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I think attempting to simplify and generalize an issue that is anything but simple will logically lead to misinterpretations about what actually happened. If anyone chooses to base their opinions on this war on generalizations from a couple of videos or magazine articles then so be it, it's a free country. I choose, however, to base my opinions on a holistic understanding of the entire time period and all of the important events that lead up to it.

The difference in interpretation you spoke of exists for the very same reasons the war was fought in the first place. There are always two sides to a civil war and historians had nothing to do with that. If you can honestly tell me you have taken the time and effort necessary to understand the union & confederate POV then I commend whatever opinion you may have come to,whether I agree or not..

For me, however, It took thousands of pages of reading, countless visits to museums/battlefields and a detailed review of our constitution before I was confident in my conclusions, and my ability to defend those conclusions with historical accuracy.

Well thats a strawman., and at best disingenuous. You are the one that called it a generalization, I simply followed that I would think a simplified generalization of a complex event like the Civil War would be more approachable and easier to accept by a general populous, not that it is in any way "correct". There is no need to lump anyone in with your false dichotomy of the Lost Cause vs. you. However, I find this common when I speak to people about our legacy of remembrances of the Civil War, one mentions the Lost Cause, and people automatically try to debunk it. But I think that falls short of the actual point, that how we have chosen to remember the War and how those remembrances have differed and even changed. Of course we today have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and prodigious amounts of resources at our fingertips about the Civil War. The pursuit of understanding the legacy of the Civil War and how people have chosen to write about and remember the War is not pursuit of consistency. Certainly dichotomies can be drawn and examined ie. sectional, racial, political, economic etc. Fore instance a Black Northerner would have remembered the War and its importance and legacys different than a Black Southerner, or a White Southerner. Republicans running for offices in the years after the Civil War hammered on these remembrances for political reasons, the "every bullet shot at union soldiers was fired by a Democrat" mentality that many post war republicans ran on and I think this resonated in the North and especially with veterans. The Veteran organizations after the war and the Southern LMA's had their effect on the remembrances. Southern memorial day observances were mainly organized by LMA's, and tended to be more mournful and heroic in nature, so much so that many southern occupied cities had band LMA processions and events during reconstruction by Union soldiers. Raleigh NC is a good example. These LMA events and observances were highly peppered with Lost Cause sentiments. In the North, however, the GAR dominated the organized remembrance of the war and events, monuments and Memorial Day observances. The effect these organizations had on the collective memory of the war North and South well into the 20th century can not be understated.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

Well I would think that a simplified and approachable view of the war would be far more likely to to expand and become a well excepted interpretation. I agree with Mhykiel though that I to don't believe that the Lost Cause has the same hold as it once did, even if just in the South (I hope I'm not misleading his view there). Though its still out there. Whether one personally views it is BS or not it does not change things. There is a difference, I think, about what the actual causes and of the civil war were, and how generations of historians and civilian chose to view the war... whether Lost Cause or not. Most of our best history of the Civil War has been post-civil rights era, and we today benefit from that. But that doesn't mean that generations of Southerns did't buy into the view... in fact I think that point is historically valid. It may be BS, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I think attempting to simplify and generalize an issue that is anything but simple will logically lead to misinterpretations about what actually happened. If anyone chooses to base their opinions on this war on generalizations from a couple of videos or magazine articles then so be it, it's a free country. I choose, however, to base my opinions on a holistic understanding of the entire time period and all of the important events that lead up to it.

The difference in interpretation you spoke of exists for the very same reasons the war was fought in the first place. There are always two sides to a civil war and historians had nothing to do with that. If you can honestly tell me you have taken the time and effort necessary to understand the union & confederate POV then I commend whatever opinion you may have come to,whether I agree or not..

For me, however, It took thousands of pages of reading, countless visits to museums/battlefields and a detailed review of our constitution before I was confident in my conclusions, and my ability to defend those conclusions with historical accuracy.

Well thats a strawman., and at best disingenuous. You are the one that called it a generalization, I simply followed that I would think a simplified generalization of a complex event like the Civil War would be more approachable and easier to accept by a general populous, not that it is in any way "correct".

You just outlined my problem with broad generalizations. If one forms an opinion on generalized civil war propaganda rather than specific historical facts and objective research, then that opinion is based in nothing more than "sincere ignorance or contentious stupidity." If you are ok with dumbing down a subject to make one side or another's POV easier to accept, then good for you. But me not being ok with that does not (in any conceivable way) straw man my opinion.

To me this falls along the same lines as making minimum standards of education simply so everyone is capable of passing. I think that reasoning is absurd and I will never go along with it. Knowledge is power!! Knowing is half the battle! Wisdom is king! (I can't think of any other cliches right now)

There is no need to lump anyone in with your false dichotomy of the Lost Cause vs. you.

Not sure I follow here???? You do realize that I am pro confederate right? I have stated in this thread that I find portions of the lost cause beliefs to be extremely well founded while I find others to be laughably ridiculous. This is because i objectively researched the issue BEFORE I grounded my opinion. If I have defined any dichotomy it would certainly be more appropriately illustrated as ignorance vs. me.

However, I find this common when I speak to people about our legacy of remembrances of the Civil War, one mentions the Lost Cause, and people automatically try to debunk it.

What have I tried to debunk other than the fallacy of simplifying an issue so as to push on sides narrative over the other?

But I think that falls short of the actual point, that how we have chosen to remember the War and how those remembrances have differed and even changed. Of course we today have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and prodigious amounts of resources at our fingertips about the Civil War. The pursuit of understanding the legacy of the Civil War and how people have chosen to write about and remember the War is not pursuit of consistency. Certainly dichotomies can be drawn and examined ie. sectional, racial, political, economic etc. Fore instance a Black Northerner would have remembered the War and its importance and legacys different than a Black Southerner, or a White Southerner. Republicans running for offices in the years after the Civil War hammered on these remembrances for political reasons, the "every bullet shot at union soldiers was fired by a Democrat" mentality that many post war republicans ran on and I think this resonated in the North and especially with veterans. The Veteran organizations after the war and the Southern LMA's had their effect on the remembrances. Southern memorial day observances were mainly organized by LMA's, and tended to be more mournful and heroic in nature, so much so that many southern occupied cities had band LMA processions and events during reconstruction by Union soldiers. Raleigh NC is a good example. These LMA events and observances were highly peppered with Lost Cause sentiments. In the North, however, the GAR dominated the organized remembrance of the war and events, monuments and Memorial Day observances. The effect these organizations had on the collective memory of the war North and South well into the 20th century can not be understated.

Sigh......I don't really care about any of this. My whole point is that accepting an outlined and oversimplified argument from either side without first attempting your own objective studies does a huge disservice to yourself and the people that fought and died in this war.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:

Well thats a strawman., and at best disingenuous. You are the one that called it a generalization, I simply followed that I would think a simplified generalization of a complex event like the Civil War would be more approachable and easier to accept by a general populous, not that it is in any way "correct".

You just outlined my problem with broad generalizations. If one forms an opinion on generalized civil war propaganda rather than specific historical facts and objective research, then that opinion is based in nothing more than "sincere ignorance or contentious stupidity." If you are ok with dumbing down a subject to make one side or another's POV easier to accept, then good for you. But me not being ok with that does not (in any conceivable way) straw man my opinion.

To me this falls along the same lines as making minimum standards of education simply so everyone is capable of passing. I think that reasoning is absurd and I will never go along with it. Knowledge is power!! Knowing is half the battle! Wisdom is king! (I can't think of any other cliches right now)


There is no need to lump anyone in with your false dichotomy of the Lost Cause vs. you.

Not sure I follow here???? You do realize that I am pro confederate right? I have stated in this thread that I find portions of the lost cause beliefs to be extremely well founded while I find others to be laughably ridiculous. This is because i objectively researched the issue BEFORE I grounded my opinion. If I have defined any dichotomy it would certainly be more appropriately illustrated as ignorance vs. me.

However, I find this common when I speak to people about our legacy of remembrances of the Civil War, one mentions the Lost Cause, and people automatically try to debunk it.

What have I tried to debunk other than the fallacy of simplifying an issue so as to push on sides narrative over the other?

But I think that falls short of the actual point, that how we have chosen to remember the War and how those remembrances have differed and even changed. Of course we today have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and prodigious amounts of resources at our fingertips about the Civil War. The pursuit of understanding the legacy of the Civil War and how people have chosen to write about and remember the War is not pursuit of consistency. Certainly dichotomies can be drawn and examined ie. sectional, racial, political, economic etc. Fore instance a Black Northerner would have remembered the War and its importance and legacys different than a Black Southerner, or a White Southerner. Republicans running for offices in the years after the Civil War hammered on these remembrances for political reasons, the "every bullet shot at union soldiers was fired by a Democrat" mentality that many post war republicans ran on and I think this resonated in the North and especially with veterans. The Veteran organizations after the war and the Southern LMA's had their effect on the remembrances. Southern memorial day observances were mainly organized by LMA's, and tended to be more mournful and heroic in nature, so much so that many southern occupied cities had band LMA processions and events during reconstruction by Union soldiers. Raleigh NC is a good example. These LMA events and observances were highly peppered with Lost Cause sentiments. In the North, however, the GAR dominated the organized remembrance of the war and events, monuments and Memorial Day observances. The effect these organizations had on the collective memory of the war North and South well into the 20th century can not be understated.

Sigh......I don't really care about any of this. My whole point is that accepting an outlined and oversimplified argument from either side without first attempting your own objective studies does a huge disservice to yourself and the people that fought and died in this war.

*Slaps hand to forehead*

Its pretty obvious here that you don't have much of a clue about the Lost Cause... It seems you are not capable of looking objectively at ideological narratives of our past. You just seem to take offense, and express disdain, fine thats great, but its not the point. Its not the point whether the Lost Cause is "wrong" or "right". That people that lived through an event or grew up in the wake of an event might have an ideological view of the event, and that that ideological view may have passed to generations or even worked its way into their cultural identity . But no... i guess they were all suppose to do "objective studies" before hand? What a stupid position to take!

It is absolutely 100% historically accurate that the Lost Cause ideology existed (and still exists to an extent). That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:

Well thats a strawman., and at best disingenuous. You are the one that called it a generalization, I simply followed that I would think a simplified generalization of a complex event like the Civil War would be more approachable and easier to accept by a general populous, not that it is in any way "correct".

You just outlined my problem with broad generalizations. If one forms an opinion on generalized civil war propaganda rather than specific historical facts and objective research, then that opinion is based in nothing more than "sincere ignorance or contentious stupidity." If you are ok with dumbing down a subject to make one side or another's POV easier to accept, then good for you. But me not being ok with that does not (in any conceivable way) straw man my opinion.

To me this falls along the same lines as making minimum standards of education simply so everyone is capable of passing. I think that reasoning is absurd and I will never go along with it. Knowledge is power!! Knowing is half the battle! Wisdom is king! (I can't think of any other cliches right now)


There is no need to lump anyone in with your false dichotomy of the Lost Cause vs. you.

Not sure I follow here???? You do realize that I am pro confederate right? I have stated in this thread that I find portions of the lost cause beliefs to be extremely well founded while I find others to be laughably ridiculous. This is because i objectively researched the issue BEFORE I grounded my opinion. If I have defined any dichotomy it would certainly be more appropriately illustrated as ignorance vs. me.

However, I find this common when I speak to people about our legacy of remembrances of the Civil War, one mentions the Lost Cause, and people automatically try to debunk it.

What have I tried to debunk other than the fallacy of simplifying an issue so as to push on sides narrative over the other?

But I think that falls short of the actual point, that how we have chosen to remember the War and how those remembrances have differed and even changed. Of course we today have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and prodigious amounts of resources at our fingertips about the Civil War. The pursuit of understanding the legacy of the Civil War and how people have chosen to write about and remember the War is not pursuit of consistency. Certainly dichotomies can be drawn and examined ie. sectional, racial, political, economic etc. Fore instance a Black Northerner would have remembered the War and its importance and legacys different than a Black Southerner, or a White Southerner. Republicans running for offices in the years after the Civil War hammered on these remembrances for political reasons, the "every bullet shot at union soldiers was fired by a Democrat" mentality that many post war republicans ran on and I think this resonated in the North and especially with veterans. The Veteran organizations after the war and the Southern LMA's had their effect on the remembrances. Southern memorial day observances were mainly organized by LMA's, and tended to be more mournful and heroic in nature, so much so that many southern occupied cities had band LMA processions and events during reconstruction by Union soldiers. Raleigh NC is a good example. These LMA events and observances were highly peppered with Lost Cause sentiments. In the North, however, the GAR dominated the organized remembrance of the war and events, monuments and Memorial Day observances. The effect these organizations had on the collective memory of the war North and South well into the 20th century can not be understated.

Sigh......I don't really care about any of this. My whole point is that accepting an outlined and oversimplified argument from either side without first attempting your own objective studies does a huge disservice to yourself and the people that fought and died in this war.

*Slaps hand to forehead*

I hope you didn't hurt yourself

Its pretty obvious here that you don't have much of a clue about the Lost Cause

Lol, great! If it is so obvious then please provide me a specific example of my ignorance!

... It seems you are not capable of looking objectively at ideological narratives of our past.

In a way, you are almost totally right. Though, it isn't an incapability as you so rudely stated, it's an UNWILLINGNESS. I can think on my own and don't need people to create narratives to guide my opinions. I look at all facts objectively and then decide, I do NOT let others lead my train of thought and line of reasoning. If you're ok with that, good for you. But I am not and I really don't see why that's such a big damn problem for you.

You just seem to take offense, and express disdain, fine thats great, but its not the point. Its not the point whether the Lost Cause is "wrong" or "right".

You didn't put restrictions on this forum. You asked what my thoughts were on the lost cause and I gave them. I never said it was definitively right or wrong, I said it was oversimplified propaganda. That does offend me! Sorry if my opinions are not welcome on your forum bc they run contrary to your own! Perhaps you should reconsider opening forums if you do not wish to hear other peoples views.

That people that lived through an event or grew up in the wake of an event might have an ideological view of the event, and that that ideological view may have passed to generations or even worked its way into their cultural identity . But no... i guess they were all suppose to do "objective studies" before hand? What a stupid position to take!

Did you just say my beliefs are stupid? And I am the one taking offense? You are being incredibly rude simply because I don't agree with you. Stop being so thick headed and READ! I agree that ideological views have been passed down, I agree that the lost cause ideology exists. I NEVER said otherwise. I DO NOT agree that it is ok to base your beliefs and opinions solely on ideologies that fail to consider an overwhelming amount of evidence (both for & against). That goes for now AND back then. I believe ignorance is everyone's worst enemy. I'm really sorry you don't agree, but that, in of its self, is hardly evidence of my stupidity!


It is absolutely 100% historically accurate that the Lost Cause ideology existed (and still exists to an extent).

I absolutely 100% never said it didn't.

That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:32:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:

*Slaps hand to forehead*

I hope you didn't hurt yourself: :

Dont worry, my forehead is used to this... I've dealt with intellectually dishonest persons before.

Its pretty obvious here that you don't have much of a clue about the Lost Cause

Lol, great! If it is so obvious then please provide me a specific example of my ignorance!

Oh, with pleasure.

You - "I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S. "

Who ever said the Lost Cause was an "all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war"?? Where did you get that from?? Is this your own opinion?? I would guess so... because its wrong! Even a terse run through Wikipedia will prove this wrong, but lets dig a little deeper.

You are creating a Strawman argument here... the Lost Cause is not a generalization of anything. You are defining it as a generalization (which it is not) and then arguing against the Lost Cause and me (for some reason) as if it is, even though I never agreed with your definition, and your definition is wrong.

I responded - "Well I would think that a simplified and approachable view of the war would be far more likely to to expand and become a well excepted interpretation."

I am not agreeing with you here, I am simply continuing your logic, and you went with it...

You Followed " I think attempting to simplify and generalize an issue that is anything but simple will logically lead to misinterpretations about what actually happened. "

Well that nice and all... but exactly what has the Lost Cause simplified that has led to a misinterpretation?? Perhaps that States Rights were a primary cause, and slavery was just one of many States Rights? Maybe that Secession was constitutionally justifiable? Maybe its that Southern Generals (like Lee and Jackson) were of higher quality than Northern Generals (like Grant and Sherman)? Maybe its that a Southern loss was inevitable due to overwhelming industrial might and manpower of the North?

These are not "misinterpretations" of the War, and they are not "Generalizations", in fact many of the aspects of the Lost Cause Ideology are indeed true and factual, others are still heavily debated by historians and many are common held beliefs of the general public. You sell the Lost Cause far short with your false Strawman definition.

The Lost Cause is not a "generalization about the reasons for the civil war". It was a very deliberate intellectual and literary movement that moved to cast these facts of the Civil War within an Ideological framework wherein the South and the Confederate cause would be glorified as right and noble. The positive aspects of the Confederacy and conduct of the war where brought to the forefront of the Ideology and the negative aspects were pushed back as secondary or even ignored or justified, and its dead would be honored as heros who fought bravely and nobly despite overwhelming Northern mite.

The Lost Cause was mainly a Legal Argument. "This legal side of the southern defense helped balance the aristocratic tilt of Old South imagery and the viciousness of racial caste systems. It also made the celebration of the South more accessible to Americans at large, by emphasizing liberty and by tapping constitutional arguments that many nineteenth-century Americans accepted as legitimate".

You Then Stated - "If one forms an opinion on generalized civil war propaganda rather than specific historical facts and objective research, then that opinion is based in nothing more than "sincere ignorance or contentious stupidity." If you are ok with dumbing down a subject to make one side or another's POV easier to accept, then good for you."

The Lost Cause is by no means "dumbing down a subject", in fact it was a legalistic and intellectual defense of the Southern cause using many facts, Jubal Early's writings in the Southern Historical Society Papers during the final decades of the 19th century are proof enough of that. Again you are arguing against your own Strawman... not the Lost Cause. But now you have developed a multi-facited strawman with the addition of "generalized civil war propaganda"! Really?? Where? Perhaps the veneration of Gen. Lee? Maybe the noble honor of the Confederate dead is the propaganda you speak of?? Its clear by here, you don't have to good grasp on what the Lost Cause is... but lets keep moving!

You said - "What have I tried to debunk other than the fallacy of simplifying an issue so as to push on sides narrative over the other?"

What you have done is tried debunked your own strawman... perhaps someday you will speak on the Lost Cause. Don't believe me?? Well...

You Said - "My whole point is that accepting an outlined and oversimplified argument from either side without first attempting your own objective studies does a huge disservice to yourself and the people that fought and died in this war."

Where do I even begin here!!! Ok, First, your "whole point" is arguing against your own strawman definition that the Lost Cause is an outlined and oversimplified argument. But we've covered that already! But next, you think everyone should attempt their "own objective studies" on the subject. You realize the Lost Cause is not just concerning people today, right??? You realize that many Historians over time have spent their lives and careers studying the Civil War and still believe the Lost Cause and write histories accordingly, right?? You realize that the Lost Cause was born out of War time remembrance, right?? You realize that the Lost Cause is a defense of the Southern Cause, and by its very nature is an intellectual study of the Civil War.... right?? Your entire perception that the Lost Cause is some generalized, simplified propaganda of the Civil War is false, in all ways possible.

... It seems you are not capable of looking objectively at ideological narratives of our past.

In a way, you are almost totally right. Though, it isn't an incapability as you so rudely stated, it's an UNWILLINGNESS. I can think on my own and don't need people to create narratives to guide my opinions. I look at all facts objectively and then decide, I do NOT let others lead my train of thought and line of reasoning. If you're ok with that, good for you. But I am not and I really don't see why that's such a big damn problem for you.:

The only unwillingness you have... is to learn.

It is absolutely 100% historically accurate that the Lost Cause ideology existed (and still exists to an extent).

I absolutely 100% never said it didn't.:

Its not about you... I know thats hard .
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:

That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:44:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:


That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I gave a simplified general explanation of the Lost Cause. I hope my sentiment came through. I think it is rather to be expected as a result from social identities and forcing a culture to adjust to change and in turn find a self-esteem affirming niche in which to fill.

I think it had it's benefits and factual basis, I think it can be taken to far as a 20/20 hind sight interpretation by radicals.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:55:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

I think that is wrong.

We can dress it up as economics, but the Civil War was about one thing: slavery.

Slavery was the issue that separated and divided all aspects of the South verses North. The Southern society was based around the slave trade, while the North's was based around modern manufacturing and capitalism.

When the two 'nations' went to war, it rapidly became a war of attrition. And when your economy cannot generate weapons and Soldiers as fast as your adversary, much less build and sustain rail roads to keep ever larger armies supplied ... it goes directly to the economic weakness of the South which was based on ... slavery.

The only way around it would be to get another empire to supply it, and in that sense, slavey also mad sit impossible. By the time the Civil War was fought, no major Empire could, for reasons moral and political, support the South.

It lost when generals like Sherman realized that the war was one of attrition, and, ala Clausewitz, correctly ascertained that the goal was to break your enemy's will to fight. And that is exactly what he did.

The real breaking of the Confederacy happens when you start to get Soldiers returning for furloughs who have seen the destruction that Sherman visited upon South. It was attrition, and once it became so, the economies disadvantages could only put up a fight for so long. Even with the best generals, even when tactics favored the defense and caused massive casualties on the North, the South could not sustain itself to victory.

And the reason it could not? Slavery.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:44:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:


That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I gave a simplified general explanation of the Lost Cause. I hope my sentiment came through. I think it is rather to be expected as a result from social identities and forcing a culture to adjust to change and in turn find a self-esteem affirming niche in which to fill.

I think it had it's benefits and factual basis, I think it can be taken to far as a 20/20 hind sight interpretation by radicals.

Well as we've seen, some attempt to dismiss it as inconsequential and meaningless, but to avoid the Lost Cause is to ignore what Southern men and women were saying and writing about the War and trauma they had just gone through.
I have no problem with a person summarizing the Lost Cause in general terms. But to dismiss it as something it isn't?? Its a shame really. And I agree with your reasoning that it is flawed because it benefits from 20/20 hindsight. Thats the whole reason its an ideology and not a true interpretation. That is the whole point to the Lost Cause. These former Confederates were well aware that the "victor writes the history". The Lost Cause was their attempt to provide their story. And furthermore, these men knew what aspects of the Confederate south were out of step, they knew what issues were no longer possible or popular, and they were able to form their arguments accordingly.

Case in point. Alexander H. Stephens. In 1868 he wrote "A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States", a 2 volume legalistic defense of the Confederate cause. Why did he write this? He gave his "Cornerstone" speech in 1861, his defense of the Southern Cause was already on record. He wrote this to provide his own legalistic defense of the Cause. Knowing later people would look to writings like his to form their opinions of the Confederacy. And I would hardly categorize his book as a "generalization" of the matter, in fact it is an in-depth analysis. Further, when approached with discrepancies between his book, and his "cornerstone" speech of 1861, Stephens claims his speech was misquoted by the press.

Lets take a look at General Lee. Lee had been collecting records, letters and troop statistics after the war. In letters between he and Jubal Early he expressed his desire to write his own history of the conflict. "My only object is to transmit, if possible, the truth to posterity, and do justice to our brave Soldiers...(but)... At present the public mind is not prepared to receive the truth ". Well, what did Lee mean by "the truth"? He meant his version of the truth! Unfortunately his never wrote his truth.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 10:02:06 AM, Martley wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:44:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:


That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I gave a simplified general explanation of the Lost Cause. I hope my sentiment came through. I think it is rather to be expected as a result from social identities and forcing a culture to adjust to change and in turn find a self-esteem affirming niche in which to fill.

I think it had it's benefits and factual basis, I think it can be taken to far as a 20/20 hind sight interpretation by radicals.

Well as we've seen, some attempt to dismiss it as inconsequential and meaningless, but to avoid the Lost Cause is to ignore what Southern men and women were saying and writing about the War and trauma they had just gone through.
I have no problem with a person summarizing the Lost Cause in general terms. But to dismiss it as something it isn't?? Its a shame really. And I agree with your reasoning that it is flawed because it benefits from 20/20 hindsight. Thats the whole reason its an ideology and not a true interpretation. That is the whole point to the Lost Cause. These former Confederates were well aware that the "victor writes the history". The Lost Cause was their attempt to provide their story. And furthermore, these men knew what aspects of the Confederate south were out of step, they knew what issues were no longer possible or popular, and they were able to form their arguments accordingly.

Case in point. Alexander H. Stephens. In 1868 he wrote "A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States", a 2 volume legalistic defense of the Confederate cause. Why did he write this? He gave his "Cornerstone" speech in 1861, his defense of the Southern Cause was already on record. He wrote this to provide his own legalistic defense of the Cause. Knowing later people would look to writings like his to form their opinions of the Confederacy. And I would hardly categorize his book as a "generalization" of the matter, in fact it is an in-depth analysis. Further, when approached with discrepancies between his book, and his "cornerstone" speech of 1861, Stephens claims his speech was misquoted by the press.

Lets take a look at General Lee. Lee had been collecting records, letters and troop statistics after the war. In letters between he and Jubal Early he expressed his desire to write his own history of the conflict. "My only object is to transmit, if possible, the truth to posterity, and do justice to our brave Soldiers...(but)... At present the public mind is not prepared to receive the truth ". Well, what did Lee mean by "the truth"? He meant his version of the truth! Unfortunately his never wrote his truth.

My sentiment too. Being recent the facts and documentation are still relatively abundant. Makes for such an interesting topic to research from so many different perspectives. Tactical, Psychological, Cultural, Historical, etc..
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 7:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Who ever said the Lost Cause was an "all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war"?? Where did you get that from?? Is this your own opinion?? I would guess so... because its wrong! Even a terse run through Wikipedia will prove this wrong, but lets dig a little deeper.

I said that, when you ASKED FOR MY OPINION. The Lost Cause follows southern themes and ideology. Rather than a neutral birds eye view, you get a skewed one sided dictation. I'm sorry you don't agree, but you certainly have fallen WAY short of proving my way of thinking to be somehow ignorant!

Well that nice and all... but exactly what has the Lost Cause simplified that has led to a misinterpretation?? Perhaps that States Rights were a primary cause, and slavery was just one of many States Rights?

YES!!! I think it is extremely important for someone to understand what states rights are, how our constitution was written, the circumstances under which each state agreed or even initially abstained, the circumstances that eventually lead to that agreement, the delegation of certain powers. The legal arguments each side used to justify their own "right" to act as they have. All of those things are independent objective studies that are crucially important to ones own understanding of "states rights". Accepting a theme of states rights that venerate the South is a one sided generalization. Without a full and unbiased review of our nations history and each sides full arguments, you are merely following a narrative designed to sway your opinion (aka, propaganda)

Maybe that Secession was constitutionally justifiable?

Maybe it wasn't? The lost cause narrative only spends time telling you why it was obviously legal for the south to secede. I don't recall ever hearing (in full) the eloquent rhetoric of Lincoln or Webster in ANY lost cause argument. That's because it's a simplified southern skewed view of the war that lacks a truly objective overview.

Maybe its that Southern Generals (like Lee and Jackson) were of higher quality than Northern Generals (like Grant and Sherman)? Maybe its that a Southern loss was inevitable due to overwhelming industrial might and manpower of the North?

How could one possibly accurately form this opinion without a basic understanding of military tactics then in use? How could you know how much better Lee worked with his resources if you do not study how well Grant worked with his. Does the lost cause narrative touch on the brilliance of Grants siege on Vicksburg? Or does it focus on his repeated failures trying to make it there?

These are not "misinterpretations" of the War,

Misquote much? I didn't call any of those things misinterpretations, EVER. I said generalizations lead to misinterpretations which I think I just very clearly covered for you above. It should tell you something that you need to put words in my mouth to further your arguments.

and they are not "Generalizations",

IMHO they are indeed generalizations, in that they are one sided narratives that do not include all pertinent facts to be reviewed objectively. (As I've said over and over). You disagree, great! But here again, you didn't prove anything to me other than your clear contempt of my beliefs!

in fact many of the aspects of the Lost Cause Ideology are indeed true and factual, others are still heavily debated by historians and many are common held beliefs of the general public.

How many times have I said that in this discussion? Look at my first post. We agree, good for us!

You sell the Lost Cause far short with your false Strawman definition.

Well I would say The Lost Cause sells itself short by using a skewed view to help vindicate itself in the eyes of easily manipulated public opinion. But I would be lying, truth is, while I personally despise almost any political narrative, I realize how pivotal it is to preserving southern sentiment in people who do not take the responsibility of education seriously. That being said, I appreciate your opinion, but I obviously could care less how short I sell this narrative and I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the existence of any strawman. To me, it looks as though you disagree with me so passionately that you are desperate to prove me wrong, rather than simply understanding that our line of reasoning clearly follows different paths.

The Lost Cause is not a "generalization about the reasons for the civil war". It was a very deliberate intellectual and literary movement that moved to cast these facts of the Civil War within an Ideological framework wherein the South and the Confederate cause would be glorified as right and noble.

Keyword "ideological framework". The Lost Cause cannot possibly avoid simplification. Does The Lost Cause movement do anything to illustrate the devastating affect of slavery on the human body and spirit? Does it account for punishment methods used on runaway slaves? Does it cover how torturing another human being was basically legal? If you allow a one sided narrative to lead your line of reasoning, object facts (that could easily sway someone's beliefs) can easily be missed, which can then easily lead to a misinterpretation, which when repeated a bunch of times, can easily become public sentiment.

The Lost Cause was mainly a Legal Argument. "This legal side of the southern defense helped balance the aristocratic tilt of Old South imagery and the viciousness of racial caste systems. It also made the celebration of the South more accessible to Americans at large, by emphasizing liberty and by tapping constitutional arguments that many nineteenth-century Americans accepted as legitimate".

Is this Gallagher garbage? Doesn't matter. Quoting his trash (or others like it) will get you no where with me. Suffice it to say I put as much stock in the narrative of the lost cause "myth" as I do The Lost Cause itself. It's one sided trite meant to sway your opinion rather than educate you to the facts and let you decide for yourself.

The Lost Cause is by no means "dumbing down a subject", in fact it was a legalistic and intellectual defense of the Southern cause using many facts, Jubal Early's writings in the Southern Historical Society Papers during the final decades of the 19th century are proof enough of that. Again you are arguing against your own Strawman... not the Lost Cause. But now you have developed a multi-facited strawman with the addition of "generalized civil war propaganda"! Really?? Where? Perhaps the veneration of Gen. Lee? Maybe the noble honor of the Confederate dead is the propaganda you speak of?? Its clear by here, you don't have to good grasp on what the Lost Cause is... but lets keep moving!

I have already covered why following a one sided narrative is dumbing down the subject. I have demonstrated with specifics how these themes can be simplified, exclusive of pertinent info, and can subsequently lead to a misinterpreted view. You yourself admit The Lost Cause is caste in an "ideological framework". What else could it be but civil war propaganda? Your strawman^2 talk is almost getting funny. You really seem hell bent on proving me wrong because I don't agree with you about an opinion based discussion.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 7:58:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
**Cont'd**

What you have done is tried debunked your own strawman... perhaps someday you will speak on the Lost Cause. Don't believe me?? Well...

Lol, no......I don't believe you!

Where do I even begin here!!! Ok, First, your "whole point" is arguing against your own strawman definition that the Lost Cause is an outlined and oversimplified argument. But we've covered that already!

Talk about a strawman!! Why can't you realize that this logic is only (halfway) compatible with your own misguided notion of my opinion?

But next, you think everyone should attempt their "own objective studies" on the subject. You realize the Lost Cause is not just concerning people today, right???

Yes

You realize that many Historians over time have spent their lives and careers studying the Civil War and still believe the Lost Cause and write histories accordingly, right??

No phrased exactly to my liking, but mostly, Yes

You realize that the Lost Cause was born out of War time remembrance, right??

Born out of general southern sentiment, pre and post war....but again, yes.

You realize that the Lost Cause is a defense of the Southern Cause, and by its very nature is an intellectual study of the Civil War.... right??

Add "from a completely southern POV" to the end of that last.....and my answer again is Yes.

Your entire perception that the Lost Cause is some generalized, simplified propaganda of the Civil War is false, in all ways possible.

I believe that a one sided review of this war is necessarily simplified propaganda which intern leads to generalization and misconceptions on behalf of the mass (and generally ill-informed) public. You have have completely failed in all attempts to show me how my opinion is untenable in anyway. Infact, I'm pretty sure you have failed to even understand the distinction in my actual opinion from your own. I would normally try to point that out with more tact, but you seem to have no problem being rude, so why take the trouble right?

The only unwillingness you have... is to learn.

My, what substance! If you had any idea the time and effort that I have put into understanding the civil war, I have no doubt you would feel stupid for saying that.

Its not about you... I know thats hard .

You were talking to me right? Sorry that I felt the need to clarify but you were so intense in stating this fact that I felt like you thought I somehow disagreed. Next time, If you are making a simple statement of fact, you don't need to preface it with "absolutely 100%." Cool?
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:01:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I think it's pretty clear why we disagree. You think that because The Lost Cause constitutes a through study of the Southern POV that it qualifies as a comprehensive review, period. I think that because Lost Cause ideology necessarily omits important POV's and information, it fails to properly and completely inform its audience of critical aspects of the overall issue. I also think it's better to attempt to learn this topic objectively, then by narrative. It's fine to explore and understand The Lost Cause with an objective mind, but I do not believe that is what political narratives are designed for. That is why I consider it one sided and representative of a small piece to a very large puzzle.

Your overbearing insistence that my opinions are "polished turds" will never get you anywhere, You have to realize this. Was the point of your forum to have healthy discussions or to try to marginalize those you disagree with?

If I come off as disdainful of "The Lost Cause" and that offends you, then please allow me to apologize. As I have stated, I view this narrative as political propaganda and as a fairly ardent libertarian, I have a healthy contempt for government and politics in general. My political beliefs no doubt affect how I arrange and resolve the facts of this war to my general opinion. I would really like for you to simply accept that we do not see eye to eye on the "wholeness" of "The Lost Cause" and indeed, ideological narratives in general. These studies, no doubt, have their importance in society, but it is my opinion that people are far better off to disregard any idea of "theme" or "narrative" and instead partake in an objective and complete review of hard figures, relevant studies, joint histories, parallel subjects....etc.

If this seems like an unrealistic standard to you, well then truth be told, I'd probably agree (where the general public is concerned). But that is how I feel due to the importance of this topic to our nation. You did ask for my opinion. You didn't ask how likely I thought it was that people would actually see it fit to study history with the same set of "principals" (I mean that loosely) that I do. That all being said, I will happily further this discussion with you if you like, but I would ask, that going forward, we try to be a little bit more understanding and respectful of our differing views.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 8:55:01 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:
I ran across these videos on the The Lost Cause interpretations of the Civil War. Very interesting. Your thoughts on the Lost Cause???

http://vimeo.com...

http://oyc.yale.edu...

http://www.c-span.org...


I think any all encompassing generalizations about the reason for the civil war, particularly those that have buy-in from considerable portions of the public, are more than likely total B.S.

Portions of the "Lost Cause" arguments can be absurdly off point while a number of others are extremely logical and well founded. Even more ridiculous, are authors like Gallagher (I read his absurd book) trying to frame these points as the only legitimate defense of the Confederacy and then attempting to deconstruct those arguments on his terms without mentioning or accounting for ANY logical objections (of which there are an abundance)

Essentially, I agree with most (but definitely not all) of what another commenter has generally expressed; that the war's narrative was framed (on both sides) by politicians who knew that the economic concerns they sought to remedy would not be enough to get young men to fight and die over. Having said that, however, I think it is important to note that; once someone sifts through all the B.S, I find the Confederate Cause to be considerably more legally justifiable and considerably less misleading in terms of its goals for secession and then war.

I think that is wrong.

We can dress it up as economics, but the Civil War was about one thing: slavery.


Interesting POV. Can I ask this.......If slavery was as lucrative to northern states as it as it was to the southern states, rather than being in direct competition with its industry, do you think the each section would have had anything to fight about?

Slavery was the issue that separated and divided all aspects of the South verses North. The Southern society was based around the slave trade, while the North's was based around modern manufacturing and capitalism.

When the two 'nations' went to war, it rapidly became a war of attrition. And when your economy cannot generate weapons and Soldiers as fast as your adversary, much less build and sustain rail roads to keep ever larger armies supplied ... it goes directly to the economic weakness of the South which was based on ... slavery.

The only way around it would be to get another empire to supply it, and in that sense, slavey also mad sit impossible. By the time the Civil War was fought, no major Empire could, for reasons moral and political, support the South.

It lost when generals like Sherman realized that the war was one of attrition, and, ala Clausewitz, correctly ascertained that the goal was to break your enemy's will to fight. And that is exactly what he did.

The real breaking of the Confederacy happens when you start to get Soldiers returning for furloughs who have seen the destruction that Sherman visited upon South. It was attrition, and once it became so, the economies disadvantages could only put up a fight for so long. Even with the best generals, even when tactics favored the defense and caused massive casualties on the North, the South could not sustain itself to victory.

And the reason it could not? Slavery.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:44:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:


That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I gave a simplified general explanation of the Lost Cause. I hope my sentiment came through. I think it is rather to be expected as a result from social identities and forcing a culture to adjust to change and in turn find a self-esteem affirming niche in which to fill.

I think it had it's benefits and factual basis, I think it can be taken to far as a 20/20 hind sight interpretation by radicals.

I think your sentiment was perfectly clear. And like I mentioned before, I (mostly) agree with you. Skewed views are never the best way to study important historical events!
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 10:02:06 AM, Martley wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:44:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:33:30 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 6:27:27 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 5:04:44 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/29/2014 2:08:02 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/29/2014 1:01:11 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 9:36:00 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:47:49 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/28/2014 5:50:53 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 11:09:12 PM, Martley wrote:


That it grew out of Southern remembrances of the War generation. That its ideology effected histories being written and later historians. That there have been specific counter movements among historians (Bruce Catton was involved for example) to combat the Lost Cause ideology. And there are historians today (like Gallagher) who study and research this ideology and its effects on our collective remembrance of the War.

All <mostly> true and never in contention. You just refuse to understand that I acknowledge the existence of this narrative, I simply do not accept it as the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy. Nor do I find it acceptable for someone to peruse an oversimplified narrative and take a hard line stance on such a complex issue (on either side). If you are comfortable with that, then you are entitled to your own opinions. I, however, feel an obligation to give both sides a thorough examination (beyond some one sided narrative) before I'm willing to condemn one or the other:

Continuing to push that polished turd of an argument uphill! No one ever said that the Lost Cause is " the final and only set of arguments that one could have in favor of the confederacy"... I don't even know where you even got that from. However, the Lost Cause is the topic of the thread, so its focus would indeed be appropriate. Well, now that everyone knows what your view of oversimplified generalizations (whatever those are) of the Civil War are, I thank you.

I gave a simplified general explanation of the Lost Cause. I hope my sentiment came through. I think it is rather to be expected as a result from social identities and forcing a culture to adjust to change and in turn find a self-esteem affirming niche in which to fill.

I think it had it's benefits and factual basis, I think it can be taken to far as a 20/20 hind sight interpretation by radicals.

Well as we've seen, some attempt to dismiss it as inconsequential and meaningless, but to avoid the Lost Cause is to ignore what Southern men and women were saying and writing about the War and trauma they had just gone through.

Since this is an obvious and petty strike at me (outside of our conversation....some would call that cowardly) I will go ahead and call out that you have, yet again, misrepresented my views. I have repeatedly (from my very FIRST post) noted my belief that certain themes of "the Lost Cause" are extremely credible arguments. Please get over yourself! Taking an objective view of this war rather than following a politically motivated narrative cannot possibly lead to ignoring "what Southern men and women were saying and writing...." What are you TALKING about?

I have no problem with a person summarizing the Lost Cause in general terms. But to dismiss it as something it isn't?? Its a shame really. And I agree with your reasoning that it is flawed because it benefits from 20/20 hindsight. Thats the whole reason its an ideology and not a true interpretation. That is the whole point to the Lost Cause. These former Confederates were well aware that the "victor writes the history". The Lost Cause was their attempt to provide their story. And furthermore, these men knew what aspects of the Confederate south were out of step, they knew what issues were no longer possible or popular, and they were able to form their arguments accordingly.

Case in point. Alexander H. Stephens. In 1868 he wrote "A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States", a 2 volume legalistic defense of the Confederate cause. Why did he write this? He gave his "Cornerstone" speech in 1861, his defense of the Southern Cause was already on record. He wrote this to provide his own legalistic defense of the Cause. Knowing later people would look to writings like his to form their opinions of the Confederacy. And I would hardly categorize his book as a "generalization" of the matter, in fact it is an in-depth analysis. Further, when approached with discrepancies between his book, and his "cornerstone" speech of 1861, Stephens claims his speech was misquoted by the press.

Lets take a look at General Lee. Lee had been collecting records, letters and troop statistics after the war. In letters between he and Jubal Early he expressed his desire to write his own history of the conflict. "My only object is to transmit, if possible, the truth to posterity, and do justice to our brave Soldiers...(but)... At present the public mind is not prepared to receive the truth ". Well, what did Lee mean by "the truth"? He meant his version of the truth! Unfortunately his never wrote his truth.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 3:39:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 8:08:01 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 5/31/2014 8:55:01 AM, neutral wrote:



Interesting POV. Can I ask this.......If slavery was as lucrative to northern states as it as it was to the southern states, rather than being in direct competition with its industry, do you think the each section would have had anything to fight about?


There is a wider view of history here. Take a look at the Great Empire prior to America. Rome, had at its base slavery. Feudalism basically enslaved the majority of an Empire's people. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, Janissary Soldiers made from captured Christian slaves - A Navy filled with slave oarsman, and an Emperor whose breed with harem slaves for succession. Slavery was part and parcel to the way the world worked.

In fact, in the areas of the world where slavery is still practiced, you will find areas that remain untouched by the industrial revolution.

Then the Industrial Revolution happened, and the basis of economic power went with it. Machines, rather than people, became the source of output. Machines could stamp out, for example, all the pieces of a gun far faster and of such high quality that the pieces were interchangeable. That produced a massive increase in the number or armed combatants on a battlefield, for example.

Had there been no industrial revolution, there would have been no rift between the North and South. But there was, and with it came incredible advantages in both economy and military matters. With strength relying on machines rather than people, people began to look very hard at the institution of slavery and the troubling moral questions it raised.

Its one thing to condemn slavery when it means the collapse of an Empire and the loss of YOUR protection. Its quite another to sustain slavery when there is no need of it. To retain it for reasons of culture, essentially retarding half the productive out put of America and acting as a boat anchor for both political and economic development made no sense.

Slavery was an institution that had to go, or it would have kept America as a third rate back water. And that half the Nation, at least, had no need for it, and with Indian cheap labor threatening the basis of the Southern Economy ... with compromise solutions that incorporated territory to maintain a political balance into areas that had no desire for slavery while economic power of the two halves diverged into ever increasing inequality? It was a matter of time.

Could you imagine America today if half the country still accepted slavery and what that would do to our standing in the world? It was indeed a lost cause. As it should be.