Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[BorderRuffian]

The people who complain are usually the same suspects.  People w/ an agenda.  Does it get heated there on occasion, yes.  The heat gets extinguished when it goes over the line.  The Lost Cause is called what it is by many of the membership over there...

In other words they allow one side to be antagonized with name-calling.(?)

==========


later...

To all:

I looked at several threads in the 'politics and secession' section of CWT.com and it appears that certain posters (of course northern in sentiment) are allowed to hurl as much invective as possible against other posters (of course those being southern in sentiment). 


CWT=CivilWarToxic.com

[Catherine Hopley]

"To all:

I looked at several threads in the 'politics and secession' section of CWT.com and it appears that certain posters (of course northern in sentiment) are allowed to hurl as much invective as possible against other posters (of course those being southern in sentiment). 


CWT=CivilWarToxic.com"

Hello Border Ruffian,

I believe that part of the problem is the existence of terms like "Neo-Confederate" and "Lost Causer". These derogatory words seem to give a minority - and thank goodness it really is a minority - of Union sympathisers licence to be thoroughly abusive.

Have you noticed that there is no universally recognised equivalent to "Neo-Confederate" which can be applied to Unionists?

A second problem is that - as we have seen here - some of them cannot wait to play the race card. It's a tired old ploy, but still popular. I always regard it as an admission that the poster has run out of ideas and arguments of his own.

The third problem, which is particularly pressing on this thread, is that some participants simply aren't equipped to follow or construct a coherent line of argument. We start with the proposition that the war was caused by slavery. That is followed by a counter-proposition that it was fought to further the interests of the Republican Party and Northern imperialism. And that is followed by the hugely irrational claim that putting forward a counter-proposition "hijacks" the thread.

Consider the contention that the Confederacy's legitimacy - by 19th century standards - was not undermined by the fact that Negroes weren't allowed to vote for or against secession. This has triggered an hysterical outburst accusing us of holding the view that southern negroes were of no account in any respect. Such an accusation, made by a well-balanced person, would be extremely wounding. As it is, of course, it's laughable.

The problem is that the individual in question cannot grasp the distinction between recognition of an unpleasant reality, and active approval thereof. For example, recognising the reality of discrimination against the Jews in medieval Europe does not make one an anti-Semite. I can grasp this. You can grasp this. An averagely bright child can grasp this. But it's quite beyond the intellectual horizons of the person in question.

[Johan Steele]

Thought it was bad form to go after another site... merely more of what I have come to expect.

If you have been to CWT you will note several things; the banned list is very short... I'm rather certain you aren't on it.  And southerners give every bit as good as they get and include some very fine scholars among their ranks.  If you would like names; Larry Cockerman & Steven Cone are just two... men interested in actual history and actually honoring the men who did increadible things.

Those who throw "invectives" also have a very real tendancy of providing links and sources to their arguments.  Frankly, I don't blame a couple of them for some irritation as they see the same poorly researched lies and innuendo tossed out w/ no real research behind it over and over again by Dilorenzo worshippers.

At least two of those you hate so ferverently over there are not "Northerners" at all but Southerners.  In both cases men who have done serious research upon the subject to include several published works.

Lady Hopley... I'm looking for the hysterics; can't seem to find it.  As I said you did a superb job of hijacking or burying a thread and burying a premise.  The particular premise was that Slavery was the root cause of Secession and thus war. Instead of an approach where you might have suggested other reasons for Secession than slavery we were treated to the usual "The North started it" tripe.  You have presented nothing yet that would make me think otherwise.  In fact come to think of it I don't believe you have posted on any other thread on this forum; it's been suggested this is because you were coming after me personally.  Frankly, I doubt that as that would require a degree of malice.

Madame, your aisles derogatory use of the term Unionist, Yankee, Lincolnite, Northern Imperialism ad nauseum are pitched w/ every bit as much bile and intent as anything I've seen tossed at the Confederacy and it's apologists.  I myself try not to use the term Neo Confederate as I think it applies to only a VERY small group of absolute nutters who frequent places like LewRockwell or the League of the South sites.  The term Lost Causer is also reserved for a very small group of people who are interested only in a distortion of history intended to damage the US.

As for the charge that I should be ashamed of myself.  Sorry, too proud of my country and the people that made her great to do that.  She's a far cry from perfect, but when compared to your ideal...  I'll take mine, at least she's real and not a failed fantasy.  As my education, command of the language and manners have been insulted; have the integrity to drop the claim that you are somehow more polite or reasoned.

Now that the barbs have been exchanged; why do YOU believe slavery was not the root cause of Secession?  Are the words of the men who were there not good enough?

As it is I bid you and yours a good day.

[unionblue]

To Catherine Hopley and Borderruffian,

As a member of CivilWarToxic aka CivilWarTalk, I must assume I am one of those folks who lie in wait for those with Southern sentiments to be abusive to, etc.

I admit, I am one of those on the board who grow very tired of the oft-repeated charges of bully, Yankee, neo-Unionist (yes, that one should make you both feel a bit better) Found Causer, a rather new and unique label, and so on and so on...

What really perplexes me, from what I have read here, is that the sensitivity of those who champion a Southern view of the war.  It is as though you merely wish to state your opinions, have them agreed with, and then move on to other business.

Now, I am here to tell you, you can have such if you wish.  There is a forum designed with those in mind who wish to never debate or discuss, seriously, the causes of the late war.  You simply have to go and register on the Southern Heritage Alliance Forum at the following website.

http://southernheritage.povertyhill.us/forum/

Here you will be amongst other posters of like views and outlooks.  Those who will NEVER challenge your views that the war wasn't about slavery, that Lincoln was anything but a dictator and tyrant, that the war was over tariffs and the South being cheated, etc., etc.

If this is what you want.  Continual agreement and nary a discouraging word will be heard.  And I can assure you, anyone with "Yankee" leanings or points-of-view will immediately be banned, expelled, kicked-off, el goneo!

I only have one observation to make.

If you have an opinion that is so fragile, so easily dented or damaged, do NOT put them on a forum that allows free speech and discussion of such opinions.  Having such opinions does not imply that they are never to be questioned, debated, disagreed with, even to be found laughable.  There are enough human beings in this country, let alone the planet, that WILL disagree with you and your cherished beliefs.

The trick is not to offend the messenger or attack him in a personal manner when he offers an opinion that does not agree with your own, personal opinion.  But this is a hard thing to do, as we consider our personal opinions, well, PERSONAL, and are likely to take offense no matter how polite the challenge to them.

That being said, I feel no obligation to be polite to a totally stupid opinion, one grounded in ignorance and falsehood.  I feel my remaining time on the planet justifies my responses to such posters (of course I am speaking of those I level my replys to at CivilWarToxic, er Talk.com) as I wish to waste as little time and effort as possible in my few remaining years on this mortal coil.

So there you have it.

Either go somewhere your opinions will be cherished, protected and even admired with no possibility of unpleasent disagreement or,

Grow a thicker hide and deal with it.  Respect is a two-way street and if neoConfederate, Lost Cause advocates can't take an observation from Lincoln imperialists and Northern Invaders, then a cause is truly lost and should keep to those who truly appreciate it.

Good luck with your choice.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
aka "Toxic" but willing to discuss it.
PS Slavery was TOO the cause of the Civil War.

[BorderRuffian]

Hello Border Ruffian,

I believe that part of the problem is the existence of terms like "Neo-Confederate" and "Lost Causer". These derogatory words seem to give a minority - and thank goodness it really is a minority - of Union sympathisers licence to be thoroughly abusive.

[and don't forget "racist"--"pro-slavery"--"nazi"--"kkk" and the like]

Have you noticed that there is no universally recognised equivalent to "Neo-Confederate" which can be applied to Unionists?

A second problem is that - as we have seen here - some of them cannot wait to play the race card. It's a tired old ploy, but still popular. I always regard it as an admission that the poster has run out of ideas and arguments of his own.

The third problem, which is particularly pressing on this thread, is that some participants simply aren't equipped to follow or construct a coherent line of argument. We start with the proposition that the war was caused by slavery. That is followed by a counter-proposition that it was fought to further the interests of the Republican Party and Northern imperialism. And that is followed by the hugely irrational claim that putting forward a counter-proposition "hijacks" the thread.

Agree totally.

I notice that those that have posted in defense of CWT are also two of the more extreme defenders of Northern views on that site.

No Southern defenders of CWT have arrived.

And after consulting others who have posted at that board (Southerners) I learn that many left because of insults and smears.  Not due to any fine reasoning and debate as the two defenders would have us believe.

[ole]

Here is a kitchen. Over there is the stove. It's hot because supper is in there. You don't like the heat? Go into another room. Supper will be served. The heat is part of the equation.

Last time I looked, we were all grown-up types. We discussed things. We can agree or we can disagree. There is no sensible reason that a disagreement can't be recognized for what it is.

Ann has created a very nice board. And it seems that a viable board admits some controversy. It also seems that it has drawn some apologists that can't survive in the face of opposition.

I can only wish that I'd have said it better than Unionblue. The Lost Cause lives. BFD.

ole

[BorderRuffian]

Here is a kitchen. Over there is the stove. It's hot because supper is in there. You don't like the heat? Go into another room. Supper will be served.

ole

[Johan Steele]

BorderRuffian; if you are incapable of posting a credible source... apparently you are out of your league over on CWT.   As I don't believe either you or Ms. Catherine are on the banned list over there I suspect you made the decision yourselves.  I'm truly sorry that no one wined and dined you, sang your praises or begged your forgiveness for the existance of the US after the CW over that way.  If you can't cut it over there why is this place any better, you're going to be asked for sources and your assertions challenged here as well.  If all you want is a cheering section; I believe the Lew Rockwell or any one of a half dozen League of the South sites would be more to your liking than CWT.  Last time I checked Ann allows and encourages both sides of the aisle at her site as does CWT and any who claim otherwise are lying to you.

Btw BorderRuffian, would you like a list of the card carrying members of the Klan who have been members over CWT way or would you prefer a listing of those who have linked to Neo Nazi, Klan or Holocaust Denial sites?  Btw; they were not banned for doing so and one is still active over there.  CWT has been around for more than a decade; I rather suspect it will still be there a decade from now.

Once again I bid you a good day.

[unionblue]

Borderruffian,

I am an extreme defender of Northern views on that site?

Well, I'v e been called a lost worse in my Army days and on other boards, to include, that site.

Thank you for that, at least.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Turner Ashby]

  First, I should say, that slavery did play it's part in the eventual split of the sections, it was not the only part though.     Was it the most significant part?  From all that I have gathered in my searches, not necessarily.    I suppose it's from one's point of view, really.     I also believe, it all depends on who you wish to put your faith in.      When one has bias's, what does that tell you?    It tells me that, that individual has a slant to his beliefs, that run toward either one side or the other, and not what I would call, a nescessarily objective view.     So, could that individual be wrong?      Now, that depends, doesn't it!    It depends on just who you wish to believe.     

There were numerous points of view during that great conflict, The War Between the States, and there were no shortages of views on it, or it's reasons, but one thing is for sure, each thought he was right, and was that wrong?        I grew up in Mosby's Confederacy, and when he went to War, he fought for his State!, he fought for the Confederacy.    Did he fight for slavery?,......................No, he did not!     Was he outspoken after the War, you bet he was, and his affileation(?) with Gen Grant and the Republican party was proof of that.         Was slavery the root of the War?       To some, maybe, but to others,  No.             From hindsight, and from our point of view, to catagorically state that slavery was the cause of the War, is rediculious.       Mosby gave his opinoin, just as he thought McClellen was the best Gen the North had, and you only have to read his bio to get the answer, and although he was a very intelligent man, and admired Gen Lee very much, he still had his own ideas about certain things.       But, was he right about the slavery issue?     Well, he didn't own any, which one can say, that he didn't think too highly of slavery, as one can see from his biography:

 "Colonel Mosby never had a word to say favorable to slavery - a fact which may be attributed to the influence of Miss Abby Southwick, afterwards Mrs. Stevenson, of Manchester, Massachusetts, who was employed to teach his sisters. She was a strong and outspoken abolitionist and a friend of Garrison and Wendell Phillips. All the Mosby family were, and remained, devoted to Miss Southwick. She and young Mosby had numerous talks on the subject of slavery and other political topics. At the close of the war she immediately sent money and supplies to the family and told how anxiously she had read the papers, fearing to find the news that he had been killed".

 Now, Mosby was one of the Confederacy's most ardent fighters, and still he didn't care for slavery, but he still cast his lot with the Confederacy.     He also said this:

  "I have given as faithful an account as Æneas did to Dido of events - all of which I saw and part of which I was. No one clung longer to the Confederacy than I did, and I can say with the champion of another lost cause that if Troy could have been saved by this right hand even by the same it would have been saved."

  Anyway, does that in any way, make him an authority on what the root cause of the War was?      I don't really know, but he did give us his opinion, and you may glean from that as you will.          There were also others in the South that gave their opinions as well, as to the root cause of the War, so....................would you call them biased?       And, why would that make them wrong?      Because they were from the South?          No sir, I believe, you too, just as to those you refer, are just as biased, only for the other side (North), so, does that make you right?
 And does the same biased view from a Southern perspective make it wrong?
  There again, does it come down to who you believe, and why?      Does this fall under that old refrain..................North good, South bad?      I see that you take the Northern side, and proclaim it right and good, and you look at the Southern side, and proclaim it wrong, or the root cause being slavery, well, there are always two sides to every story, and in this case, there surely is.     I disagree with you, you disagree with me.       Each side had it's champions, each side had it share of good points, and each side had it's share of bad points,      And, I am, and will always be, to use a phrase I stole,......................I am an extreme defender of Southern view, on almost any site.      In the end, you think you are right, and I believe I am right, and so it goes.       Who wins?