"TMP and the Myth of the Lost Cause" Topic

You are going to see varying opinions on TMP because, in the American tradition of free speech, we try to allow people to speak their minds, regardless of whether we agree with them.

When you see such opinions, you might think "TMP is a terrible place for allowing people to say such things!" What you should be thinking is, "TMP is a great place because they do their best not to censor people."

Also keep in mind the old rule: Three people on a forum are a crowd. A few opinionated individuals participating in a forum discussion can seem like "lots of people" when they're really just three people with perhaps an extreme opinion.

If you see someone voicing an opinion which you disagree or disapprove of, the best course is simply to post your own opinion. Engage them in discussion. Show them they are wrong, if you can. Have faith that most people can be reasoned with. Let go of pride if it makes you feel that your opinion is the only one which can be right. Listen sometimes.

When you see such opinions, you might think "TMP is a terrible place for allowing people to say such things!" What you should be thinking is, "TMP is a great place because they do their best not to censor people."

Bill, I'm the forum admin on rpg.net, an active gaming forum with a lot more traffic than you get here. I've been admin there for about 15 years. I know a little about running a gaming forum.

Commitment to "free speech" is great, but it can allow entrenched users to drive away new people who want to talk about games without being subjected to their political rants.

I'm not telling you how to run your site, but at the same time, there are other approaches that work, and commitment to "free speech" in some areas can often lead to negative outcomes.

I'm not going to shed one tear when they finally take down the monument to Captain Wirz in Andersonville, Georgia. A damned war criminal,

I can understand that and agree. The Civil War Memorial we have downtown has names of those from Ohio units that died at Andersonville.

Even though my people didn't come from Europe until the very late 1890s. I'm pretty sure I would have served with the Union. Regardless of where I lived …

My ancestors landed in NYC. Then moved to Ohio in the early 1900s. To build/work in the steel mills, etc. Those same mills produced cannon balls, etc. for the Union, during the ACW.

…there are other approaches that work, and commitment to "free speech" in some areas can often lead to negative outcomes.

True, but education of the readership is essential as well. On our forum, for instance, they need to understand their option to use the Stifle tool, and to understand that the forum moderators cannot shield them from all opinions they might find offensive.

Sure. There are different forum cultures, situations, expectations, etc., at work here.

It's always a balancing act.

Editor in Chief Bill: Regarding your Nov. 17, 9:22 PM, PST comment, +1 !!! Thanks, John Miller

Anybody else remember George "the eraser" Parada?

I often disagree with specifics with Bill, but always support his idea of being as free as possible.

I agree that free speech is the end goal, but unfortunately, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, what we end up seeing is people thinking they're entitled to their own facts.

while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, what we end up seeing is people thinking they're entitled to their own facts.

Common problem in the "real world" too!

Well, different people have different opinions about what is a fact.

And yes, that is a fact ! We have seen that here often and elsewhere on the net, in the media, etc., etc., …

I sometimes put a disclaimer on my posts here : e.g. "I was not there … so … "

The lost cause was a myth, the end.

I'm pretty sure the cause was lost.

Have to agree with Don.

Well, different people have different opinions about what is a fact.

*NJH: Facts are supposed to be objective and verifiable. Opinions that oppose verifiable facts are just plain wrong, and should be rejected as falsehoods. I'm an engineer/scientist and I don't indulge stupid. I refuse to engage stupid and give it any of my valuable time. I will attempt to illuminate ignorance, but I have no time for stupid.

This thread is beginning to resemble a "Lost Cause" …

Of course to quote my favorite 20th Century philosopher :

"Stupid is as Stupid does, Mrs. Blue", F. Gump …

Just back from holiday and cannot believe that this thread still lingers on.

Please call in an air strike.

B

The only one that can do that here is Bill or Gwen …

Well, different people have different opinions about what is a fact.

I just read/skimmed over the 'discussion' to find this over-arching comment. Folks may have different opinions.

That explains why not every one agrees that Lincoln was the 16th President of the U.S. or that he was assassinated. Some opinions have him retiring to Florida with Florence Nightingale.

And of course, it it's just an opinion that the Union dressed the majority of their troops in blue coats/jackets.

I mean, I wasn't there.

Everyone has different opinions/facts regarding those things, Right?

Then again, how can you have 'fake news' if everyone has different facts and opinions about them?

It is an absolutely absurd statement regarding fact, which is the antithesis of opinion.

Everyone has the right to their own opinions. They don't have the right to their own facts.

Part of the problem is that people have really strongly held opinions that over time they come to regard them as fact.

Take the thread raging on the Napoleonic board right now. Some regard the Brits ordering Napoleons assassination as a fact, even though they cant quite find the evidence that convinced them in the first place.

I find that happens a lot in history. Many People dont want to find out what really happened, they want to prove that what they want to believe happened.

Owen

Owen:

Sure, folks can have strongly held positions and some want to force the facts to support their position.

However, the statement was "different people have different opinions about what is a fact."

From all I have seen, most all people have the same idea of what constitutes a 'fact.' A fact is something that everyone can agree is true or constitutes an objective piece of evidence.

The questions arise around which particular piece of evidence or information is indeed a 'fact' and how many represent conclusive facts to justify a conclusion.

Those questions have nothing to do with the definition of a fact.

‘Statues' & ‘Myths'? Every time I see these threads my "Bollockology detector" explodes. I'll pass.

There is an interesting book titled "The Causes of the Civil War. The book is made up of a multitude of entries from both 19th and 20th centuries. One can't read it without coming to appreciate that the ACW arose from a complex set of causes, one of which was slavery. In a way slavery was a symptom as much as a cause of the sectional divide that led to war. But deeper than that it really was a dispute about the nature of what the United States of America was. As Shelby Foote said, before the war the United States was a plural noun, after the war it was a singular.

From a tree full of Graybacks. I am proud they served to protect their homes and farms. Not so much slavery which is a pernicious evil I say in my twentieth century voice. There was a saying: a rich man's war, a poor man's fight. But it was a stupid wasteful war like most. My beef is with Lincoln's calling for troops on the border of a state that had not yet seceded. So when the blue columns of soldiers come down Columbia Pike, Warrenton Pike, and Little River turnpike, what are you supposed to do?

That's the lamest excuse for treason I ever heard. Lincoln called for troops to deal with the slave drivers, traitors, and assorted riff-raff who fired on the U.S. Flag at Ft Sumter. That call, and the troops it produced, was no threat to any state that hadn't rebelled.

No surprise here … that there are very polarized views about the ACW. Still … between North & South.

My people didn't come here to the USA until @ 1900 or so. So I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. But if I was around back then, I'd think I would have been with the Union. And since I live in OH, I'd probably be with an Ohio Rgt.

The big thing IMO about all this … we don't forget our history, what really happened. Not to white wash, revise, etc. the truth. By ignoring/removing, etc., "artifacts" from the past can't change what happened. Maybe some statues, etc. don't have to be in the town square etc. If it really upset some that much. And to be fair, I can understand why, to a point. But things like that need to be moved to a "better" venue. Not destroyed … that only tries to "erase" the past.

I am so bored with this topic. Enough.

In the tradition of my post on this same basic subject yesterday, by chance has anyone been keeping track of exactly how many horses have been beat to death on this issue so far?????????Just a thought:)

@wpilon
No, I don't think Lincoln "called for troops to deal with slave drivers … " please see link

Lincoln is a 'curious' character. In 1848 he seemed to support the right on a state to separate when he said "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better" (see link ). Lincoln in his inaugural address specifically says it would be unlawful to interfere with slavery and denounces "the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes". The emancipation proclamation was used as a measure to punish CSA states by failing to free any slaves in the USA; several USA states maintained slavery until long into the war. The 13th amendment was not passed until January 1965 and not ratified until after the war.
Also, as Trajanus said earlier in this thread about Union soldiers, "Crusading abolitionists they weren't!". So, sorry, no real moral high ground on the slavery issue.

Fortunately, where I am (in Australia), we had the benefit of hindsight when our constitution was written (came into effect on 01/01/1901) as it clearly states that the states "agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth …". The American Civil War was well within living memory at that time and they wanted to minimise the chances of repeating that experience here. From time to time we had had talk here about one of our states seceding and, although they would have no lawful right to do so, I would be strongly opposed to troops being sent to kill them to force them to stay.

Will anyone be taking statues of Lincoln down along with Washington, Jefferson, etc., soon too ? May be if there are any statues of them in Oz, then they should take them … I mean with the moral high ground and all !

Gamer 1, I have been keeping track. At this point I make it 101 horses of varying breed and color. That's a lot of Alpo!

Good accounting DJ !

LOL

In the Confed. Constitution NO STATE could leave the Confederacy. Also NO State could change Slavery. SO much for State Rights.

steve1865 – You state that the Constitution of the Confederate States prohibited secession from the Confederacy as well as the ability of any state to change (I assume you mean abolish) slavery.

I've been looking at this document ( link ) and haven't found either of these prohibitions in the text. No doubt I missed them in my reading. Would you be good enough to cite the relevant points in this document (eg. Article V, section 1)?

Thanks.

Begemot-

From the same link:

"Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

"Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states."

The Confederate Constitution does not implicitly nor explicitly deny or allow secession by the states. Its been argued that since the CS Constitution was closely modeled on the US Constitution, to state either way would undermine the CSA argument that secession was implicit in the US Constitution.

steve1865 -

Thanks for taking the time to find the referenced citations. I agree that these two points, Article I section 9(4) and Article IV Section 3(3), provide very strong support for the preservation of slavery within the Confederacy and do appear to foreclose a member state from abolishing slavery on its own.

It looks like it would require an amendment to this constitution to end slavery, which, if the Confederacy had gained its independence, it would have faced down the road.

Regarding secession I think, while it is not explicitly denied it is tacitly acknowledged as a right of the states in this constitution. Firstly, in the preamble where it states that "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character" agree to form a permanent federal government (as opposed to the existing provisional government) is an explicit recognition that the states entering the confederacy are "sovereign and independent" states (a term that is usually a descriptor of what we commonly regard as a country, not a subdivision thereof).

"Article VI 5. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the several States."

"Article 6. The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof."

These provisions would seem to me to support the reserved right of the states to secede. But I'm a simple guy and not a lawyer.

Of course, if the Confederacy had been confronted with its own secession crisis, would it produce its own Lincoln, who would deny the right? Probably.I have yet to encounter any example anywhere where politics and the desire for power didn't corrupt any ideal, political or otherwise. I have no doubt, that if the Confederacy had retained its independence it would have evolved into as much of a bloated centralized state as the USA.

Thanks again for taking the time and trouble to answer my question.