"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic

Did I say anyone was picking on me? God! I am not a liberal! 😂 I can take it. Just trying to find patterns to opposing views. Those have been, avowed Socialist, Academics, either current or past and employees past or present of the Government. Not to say they all feel that way, well except for the Socialist, but that has been the pattern. I'm still trying to figure out why one asked if I was a former or current pilot. 😂

Regardless of your political persuasion, there's a good bit of complaining in this thread from ya about folks continually bringing up slavery in America, and hopefully the info provided is helping to alleviate such. Instead of finding patterns in opposing views, it could be more valuable to continue processing the info provided, because it can produce a good bit of peace and comfort thru the understanding that can be gained, cheers!

Guys over and over I have said slavery was and is bad. We all agree slavery is/was bad. That is not the point. Nor have I said that slavery has nothing to do with southern succession. It had a large part to do with it. Was it the sole and only cause? No.

My issues are the constant attempt to take the slavery of the South and use it to beat the White race today and saddle them with that guilt. To use those concepts to indoctrinate the white youth of today with that burden of guilt and the Moniker of "White Privilege". To claim that only whites can be racist. Lastly to basically treat those who fought for the Confederacy, as no better than German SS troopers. That is agenda and not history.

You wonder why the sources of black racism come from sources you won't accept? It is because those are the only ones who have the guts to report it.
Do you not wonder why when there was is a mass killing like NY or Wisconsin, it takes days to to describe the race of the attacker? But when you have shootings like those of Kyle Rittenhouse, you know within hours his race and within hours he is labeled a white supremists by the media and politicians, including the current president? Of course it was not true and he did not shoot black men. But many blacks still believe he did. Most black on white crimes are not reported as racially motivated. Example the spring break kidnapping of a white coed, drugged, rapped, robbed and killed by two black men. If reversed, racism would be the first thing looked at. Black racism is not always aimed at whites. Look at the attacks in NY on Asians, almost everyone on tape, black. Agenda! Agenda! Agenda!.

Just a few more examples. Interestingly Safari will not open some. 🤔 Have to go to DuckDuckGo or some other search engine.

Subject: Pittsburgh man accused of stabbing boy, 12, at McDonald's used racial slurs, bit witness: Police | Fox News

link

Subject: Ahmad Alissa: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

heavy.com/news/ahmad-al-issa

Subject: Five teens arrested in attack on woman in Downtown Crossing – The Boston Globe


link

Subject: LeBron James accused of inciting violence with 'YOU'RE NEXT' tweet targeting Columbus police officer | Fox News


link

Subject: NYC pyscho fantasizes about shooting white people in Yale talk


link

Subject: Multi-state shooting spree was racially motived, suspect was targeting White men: report | Fox News


link

Subject: Delaware couple shot and killed at veteran's cemetery were visiting their son's grave


link

Subject: White Couple Killed By Black Gunman – Possible 'Retaliation' For Ahmaud Arbery! – MTO News


link

Actually not really. His posts on his website state his views clearly. By color, do you mean Asian? No one claimed he was an intelligent racist.

It looks like he shot people of every ethnic group without singling anyone out. I suppose that's a type of racist but we need to keep this in context to why YOU brought him up.

You have a theme in this thread of "every race has its supremacy issues why single out whites?"

Additionally, you were using this Frank James person as proof that we as a society are only focusing on white supremacists and are not paying attention to (presumably) black, racist killers.

For proof, you used the example of Frank James who is a very sick, marginal man and not really a common example that proves that there is as much black supremacy as white supremacy.

Further, you used a NY Post article that also does this and makes an accusation that "Democrats" (Apparently French for self hating whites) see white supremacy but ignore Black racist killers.

I dont see Frank James as part of a philosophy sweeping the country and he didn't kill anyone. Why does this matter? Well, context my dear 35thOVI. You asked why the NY Post is to be dismissed because the NY Times and everyone else makes things up. But when you check the headline of that article, it seems mostly false.

Additionally, it's odd that you challenged someone about whether every single soldier for the CSA was a white supremacist and as if if it's not 100% uniform then all bets are off but one lone wolf black man is proof of wide spread black racists?

To 35thOVI …

It seems your views are being repeated, and not addressing the information provided. Plus … who is "you"? I'm not convinced folks here are wondering as your accusation seems to claim. I encourage a rereading of the comments already given on this same thread. Let your ability to rationally process the ideas shared happen, and then there could be an experience of seeing the perspective being used to help with the items you've expressed.

Guys over and over I have said slavery was and is bad. We all agree slavery is/was bad. That is not the point. Nor have I said that slavery has nothing to do with southern succession. It had a large part to do with it. Was it the sole and only cause? No.

And yet, as important and obvious as they are, you haven't mentioned any of these other causes.

Lastly to basically treat those who fought for the Confederacy, as no better than German SS troopers. That is agenda and not history.

I agree with this completely. It's completely unfair to equate the SS with CSA soldiers. The SS troopers would've treated black people far better.

My issues are the constant attempt to take the slavery of the South and use it to beat the White race today and saddle them with that guilt.

Whaaaat!? I have zero guilt about slavery and no one responsible ever directs an anti-slavery argument at anyone who isnt either already dead or currently defending slavery.

To use those concepts to indoctrinate the white youth of today with that burden of guilt and the Moniker of "White Privilege".

Who is doing this?

Most black on white crimes are not reported as racially motivated.

It's true that the media is mostly interested in inflaming people about whites committing hate crimes but if they whipped people up about black on white hate crimes the lynchings of innocent black people would be off the charts.

Example the spring break kidnapping of a white coed, drugged, rapped, robbed and killed by two black men. If reversed, racism would be the first thing looked at.

This is a foul crime but what you say isnt true.

For instance, no one cares about this incident either:

link

No, I don't believe I missed anything. 🙂 The book is not a book on Lee, but a title by the author to continue an ongoing agenda of his own. Look at the rest of his books. How he taught at West Point is.., well questionable.

You attack James, but ignore Brooks. Did James post racists views on the web? Yes or no. Did he shoot any blacks? Images of his victims have not been posted. Why? In all videos I have scene, the people shot were Asian and White. I have heard the same on on news shows. I have now posted more. How many would you like. I could post 100 and they would still be ignored by those who believe that only whites can be racists.

My point with this part is that racism is not just one group. It exists everywhere and with every race.

The white guilt, white supremacy, reparations threads in TMP that keep trying to do that, are redundant. As someone else has expressed. If I get one person to second guess and check out alternate sources, I have achieved something.

That some disagree, bothers me not at all.

Pas

"The SS would have treated black people better" you are not serious?

Yes in this thread and others on similar subjects they have been used to beat the white race, with guilt and the need for reparations. But glad you like me, feel no guilt.

"Indoctrinate our youth" The author himself was a teacher at West Point. I've listened to teachers on YouTube espousing these views.

We agree, they Are Not reported. "The lynchings would be off the chart". 😂 With that line, you have fallen for the Propaganda. See how well they have indoctrinated you. Do you believe the world is full of KKK and White Supremists just waiting for the Opportunity to hang a few blacks? 🤣

I read your article. 1) nowhere in it did I see where she was killed by a white man. In fact they don't mention her killer. 2) someone cared enough to report it. 3) if her killer was black, well for some reason I do not understand, black on black killings seem to be ignored by the liberal media. I heard they were up 44%. Sad, but again, does not fulfill agenda.

Lastly as to other reasons, I will get to later. Have to go workout. But maybe someone else will list them in the meantime.

Au pas de charge,
Your unique talent for hyperventilated hyperbole would be far better invested on Twitter.

B

"The SS would have treated black people better" you are not serious?

I am serious. If I were a black man, I'd take my chances with the SS before I would with the CSA soldeirs.

We agree, they Are Not reported. "The lynchings would be off the chart". 😂 With that line, you have fallen for the Propaganda. See how well they have indoctrinated you.

There is ample precedent for massed white attacks on innocent blacks to avenge a crime that was unrelated. There are organizations with hundreds of thousands of members who would like to kill black people or meet violence on them.

Do you believe the world is full of KKK and White Supremists just waiting for the Opportunity to hang a few blacks?

There's plenty.I also believe they'd be happy to hang any whites that interfere.

I read your article. 1) nowhere in it did I see where she was killed by a white man. In fact they don't mention her killer. 2) someone cared enough to report it.

It does mention the man with her and that he is white. That he wasnt named a person of interest wasnt explained nor why the police conducted no investigation of the crime scene. And the other crime in Miami was reported.

Maybe you are subject to propaganda? They, the cops, dont consider the white man a suspect and conduct no investigation and that's good enough for you?

@DN Jackson

I've written one book and a couple of articles for magazines

Which books and articles?

@Blutarski

Au pas de charge,
Your unique talent for hyperventilated hyperbole would be far better invested on Twitter.

Such a stinging condemnation.

I suppose it is fortunate that your opinion doesnt mean much to me; else I'd be screwed. :)

Ok my answer as to causes.

I believe the division started before the Revolution, with those who initially populated New England, Massachusetts specifically and Virginia/South Carolina. It was the same division that existed in the English Civil War and never healed. Southern aristocracy (Cavaliers), the Massachusetts Puritans.

It then became a battle of economic differences as New England and then other sections of the North became more and more industrialized, relying on cheap, replaceable Immigrant labor and the South continued an Agrarian economy, dependent on slave labor.

More and more, the North passed laws that threatened the South's economic well being. With Abolitionist becoming more vocal and gaining more power, the leadership of the south feared their economic destruction. The election of Lincoln was the match that lite the powder keg that exploded.

Was slavery the Catalyst? There is no denying.

Some other reasons:

1. Fundamental disagreement in government. The north was very supportive of a strong federal government, the southern philosophy was much more pro-state government, with the federal government having limited power only in matters involving the country as a whole. There were many debates between the two regions in many areas, most of which were resolved favoring the northern industrial portion of the country over the southern mostly agricultural portion.

2. 4 scores of divergent culture growth. As the years passed from the revolution, the north and south both grew and expanded in very diverse ways. In the north, the major cities grew and the corresponding institutions aligned within them grew as well, Banking, Commerce, Trade all became key factors to life in the north. Industry grew and more and more labor was needed to support the manufacturing growth. The north encouraged immigration, exported goods, and taxed imports with tariffs to protect what they manufactured. Although the south had several major cities grow as well, the main economic staple of the south remained agriculture. Life was more simple, providing crops for the nation. The south did not support immigration, besides the slaves in place, their other labor force was local poor white farmers who did not want to lose their jobs to immigrants. With the invention of the cotton gin, the south found itself a cash crop to support itself, bring wealth to the states and also promote expansion. They began exporting cotton and had issues with the tariffs opposed by the north limiting their ability to import the goods that they now needed to grow and expand.

3. God will protect us. The US was a very religious country at the time and although religion was not really a root cause leading the to war, it was a catalyst that drove the people towards it. The northern citizens believed they were fighting to save the nation and that God would lead them to prevail. They were fighting for the salvation of the country. The southern citizens believed that God was on their side and they and their way of life were under his protection. How could they lose? The war was likely more supported in the south for this very reason, it became almost a Holy War to save their way of life. Two very devote Christian regions fighting under the same God but for different reasons surely caused the war to lengthen much longer that it would have without such faith.

Of the reasons they gave, I believe States Rights was their strong card. I believe they had the right to succeed. I don't agree with their reason of slavery for doing it.

Also, I don't believe the division has healed, the underlying Animosities that existed between different groups in this country, that have nothing to do with slavery, still exist.

"They had the right to succeed" sounds like you're a Confederate? If you wanted them to win, cool, that's your right, but it's also our right to judge the hell outta you.

Yeah!
I judge the state of Orgeon, this state should be disolved and the lands merged into Idaho. Racist state they are founded on, Anti-Slavery state that was code in the north for just anti Black. They fought to keep Slavery out of the west, but this was code for keeping the blacks from coming west.

Bellerophon is that all you got out of that? (Shaking head).

Hey tell you a secret, they were really all closet Socialist. Karl Marx said he owed all his best ideas, to great Confederate thinkers. He said Judah Benjamin smuggled the books to him after he escaped to Britain after the war. 😂🤣

Like it or not, the NYT is generally run on accepted journalistic principles of integrity and professionalism. It does make mistakes, and it does have an editorial page I do not always agree with. It has a lot of resources to get out there and research stories. The WSS is similar.

The idea that it does not cover certain stories to deliberately obscure the truth or push an agenda is questionable.

Rubert Murdoch owns both the NY Post and the WSS. I read them for balance as they cover some stories others omit. But the Post in particular has a hard time being objective in my opinion. They have lost reporters who had trouble accepting this. And those headlines can be especially cringe worthy. The WSS has a good news section.

In any case, the news is a product more than ever, and it is put together to sell. Murdoch has understood this better than anyone. But the information divide we currently suffer under also has played a major role in enhancing our differences.

My point being that the media outlet wants to make happy customers. But NYT picks its stories with more balance than some others. . My opinion.

Aus Pas your story about the black womans death. Why did you not say that you have to link to a sub story to read she was dating a white man?? The police do not list him as a subject of interest. Drugs and Alcohol were involved. Cause of death is unknown as of writing. If they find he did it purposely, then you might have something. Until then, that's weak.

Tort and all

I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole. My original point is the New York Post is as reliable as any other news sources any more. If we can agree on that point we can drop it. But to give just some examples.

Just off the top of my head, false stories of the NYT recently.

Claims of Trump and Russian collusion

Brian Sicknick had been murdered by rampaging Trump Supporters.

Russian bounties on US troops in Afghanistan. That Trump refused to take action.

Sarah Palin and supposed wrongdoings by her political action committee. For which she sued and they admitted they "may have moved to fast" she could never win, as she is a public figure.

Totally ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop before the election and for almost a year after. Writing it off as Russian
disinformation. Only recently admitting it as a fact, but ignoring anything that might tie the "Big Guy" in. 😉

Most of the above were used to Disparage Donald Trump and his supporters or to avoid Affecting Joe Biden, prior to the 2020 election.

Here are just a sample of NYT reporting Disparaged by both left and right, just using a quick search on the web. Also one with a list of false stories from the "non" right from 2020, reported as true by "non" right media.

From the right
Subject: 5 Biggest Screw-Ups by The New York Times So Far This Year

link

From the left
Subject: The 17 Worst New York Times Headlines of 2018 – Paste


link

Subject: 20 Stories The Media Got Horribly Wrong In 2020


link

All this attention for a link to a NY Post article that doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the original post. My recommendation is to not feed into this "agenda, agenda, agenda" stuff further for at least today? And now it's led to a debate about NY Post vs. NY Times. And despite the question originally being thrown at me, even I am guilty of commenting on the crud … lol. ; )

And if we go back further on the thread, the poster's own first post was at least a comment on the thread topic. But after that, from the poster's second post onwards, it has been an ongoing attempt to discuss the poster's own question, and I quote, "Are there Black Supremists?" The evidence that this is such is littered through out this thread, and I venture to say it is beginning to be seen for the avoidance, deflection, and inappropriateness that it is.

That's what happens when there's an ax to grind and use regarding those who are telling the truthful history about white supremacy, its impact on those who've grown up experiencing it, and the inability of some to actually accept that the "lost cause" really isn't only about all the other reasons that have been given for why leaders and soldiers went to war to fight on the side of the CSA.

You are right Games. The war seems like it never ended, as complex and emotional as ever.

@Tortorella

It also shows that the Lost Cause Myth has become an alternative history on its own.

Aus Pas your story about the black womans death. Why did you not say that you have to link to a sub story to read she was dating a white man?? The police do not list him as a subject of interest. Drugs and Alcohol were involved. Cause of death is unknown as of writing. If they find he did it purposely, then you might have something. Until then, that's weak.

Weak, eh?

The link I placed has those facts in the main article. I realize the police didnt name him as a suspect. I also realize that they didnt collect ANY evidence at the crime scene. They also didnt charge the white man but gave no reason. None of this sounds odd to you?

Drugs and alcohol also were involved with the death of the white girl. The two black men were arrested and have been charged with 1st degree murder based on possibly giving her drugs. Apparently, the police did investigate, did collect evidence and did arrest these two black men. How do you figure no one cares?

In the meantime, we do not know what happened to the black girl or what the white man's role was nor might we ever know and the police not only didnt investigate but dont feel the need to explain their somewhat odd and lax behavior. Hmm, wonder why?

You made a premise that we live in a world where when a white person dies potentially at the hands of black people no one cares but if it is the reverse, the media goes crazy.

I have rebutted your assertion that the "liberal" world seems to think black on white crime is a pass and that white on black crime is overreacted to.

I don't believe I have deviated from the basis of the book, other than the rabbit hole NYT/NYP, which the later many of you have disparaged.

The man's book is not really about Lee, but a shallow attempt to attack the South and than leverage that into todays world. It is just a continuation of similar threads in TMP all trying to do the exact same thing.

Now did southern slave owners believe they were superior to the black slave? Of course. Did most Union and Confederate soldiers believe the same, probably. Did the Roman owner of slaves believe he was superior to his slaves? Of course. Was it because they were black? No. I could point out that Indians were tried as slaves, but preferred to die rather then be slaves. I am sure the US, Spanish and whoever else tried Indians, believed they were superior to the Indian. I am sure Chinese believed they were superior. We know Japanese felt superior to anyone not Japanese, until after WW2. Did the English feel superior to the Irish? Yes. The point is superiority is not unique, it so happens to be by black race in US because they ended up being the best slaves and they were easily obtainable. Do some whites today still feel superior, yes. Is it general, no. Just like racism, it exists with all races. So obviously I do not buy into this author theories. I can leave it at that, if everyone else can. 🙂

Pas you have rebutted nothing, Although you may think you have. I have made my points. Ignore them, just as I will ignore yours. But have a nice day.

Pas you have rebutted nothing, Although you may think you have.

Believe that if it gives you comfort. Frankly, I am not entirely sure you understand the term.

I have made my points. Ignore them, just as I will ignore yours. But have a nice day.

I have not ignored your points, I havent had time to get to them. At first glance, they do seem to be the same post civil war apologies made for the South's behavior. I would like to point out that no serious historian makes these claims as the main reason that the South went to war and that most of them rest on the back of slavery.

Slavery was the main issue and it was the issue made by Secessionists at the time. Several of the retroactive arguments you make are also known as "The Lost Cause Myth", aka the merry old culture that the Yankees simply didnt understand and were unjustly trampling on. You set these myths down as factual war causes and then have the appalling nerve to tell other people that they're the victims of propaganda?

I should mention this post above by Marcus Brutus:

Of course, your comment begs the question. Did the South really secede in order to protect their use of slavery? There are many of us on TMP who would argue that slavery, per se, was only incidental to the main argument of secession. That is not to discount the role of slavery in Southern thinking or that it didn't contribute to the overall urgency to secede but there is a plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play that lead to Southern states leaving the Union.

I should mention that after 600+ posts about this Lost Cause on another forum thread, Marcus Brutus (Who then also maintained the South seceded for non slavery reasons), when asked, could only suggest one essay contained in a hard to find, old book that apparently claims the South seceded for reasons other than slavery.

Although, disturbingly, I agree with him that quite a few here believe the South seceded for reasons other than slavery, no one seems to be able to cite a relevant, relatively current, well researched source that admits this in public. Perhaps you can point to experts who support what you say and published their thoughts?

Or is this true understanding of the Confederacy's motives which are apparently not part of a "Lost Cause Myth" only something that gets passed around both privately and orally among right thinking people?

It's time to get some historians on record with a public reputation at stake that make these non slavery arguments as the real reasons the South seceded. I for one would love to read their arguments.

This will not be happening,I think, in any way that we would all agree on. Nor do I think it is possible to do without ignoring reality.

But there are many here who have helped shine a light on what people in the north and south actually believed in 1860. Doc often quotes Mary Chestnut, whose diaries contain characterizations about Yankees that help us understand the depth of our various misconceptions in those days. As well as the written words of common soldiers. What the average person believed is what spurs the debate here, perhaps.

The poster referred to in my last post has written that his concern is about the views of the common soldier, except he deviates from this as well, and seemingly as part of his way to show Black Supremacy exists.

However, prior to my previous post, and when we look at his posts, only one of them is fully about the book, and then it is mentioned in 3 other posts, while those same 3 other posts have comments on other topics as well. And then there are 3 posts that seem completely different, while 13 more posts never touch on the book, and in one way or another cover his views on Black Supremacy instead. Those 13 are at 65%, while if the other 3 that aren't on the book either are counted, that's 80%. Then the poster says, "I don't believe I have deviated from the basis of the book, other than the rabbit hole NYT/NYP, which the later many of you have disparaged." Suppose that's true to at least an extent … 20% on target, 80% are deviations from the book, including the bits over NYP vs. NYT.

And then what do we get? His interpretation of the book, and perhaps one of his primary concerns …

The man's book is not really about Lee, but a shallow attempt to attack the South and than leverage that into todays world. It is just a continuation of similar threads in TMP all trying to do the exact same thing.

Although then in the same post, there's this return to more deflection …

Now did southern slave owners believe they were superior to the black slave? Of course. Did most Union and Confederate soldiers believe the same, probably. Did the Roman owner of slaves believe he was superior to his slaves? Of course. Was it because they were black? No. I could point out that Indians were tried as slaves, but preferred to die rather then be slaves. I am sure the US, Spanish and whoever else tried Indians, believed they were superior to the Indian. I am sure Chinese believed they were superior. We know Japanese felt superior to anyone not Japanese, until after WW2. Did the English feel superior to the Irish? Yes. The point is superiority is not unique, it so happens to be by black race in US because they ended up being the best slaves and they were easily obtainable. Do some whites today still feel superior, yes. Is it general, no. Just like racism, it exists with all races. So obviously I do not buy into this author theories. I can leave it at that, if everyone else can

As the poster says, "Lets be honest" … yet he again avoids the truth of history previously shared regarding those who today, and across the time since the American Civil War, through their actions, beliefs, and views being expressed, go against the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. If this wasn't happening, then there'd be no need to keep repeating the history of how at it's core, slavery along with southern nationalism led to the American Civil War, and that there are folks who with their actions, beliefs, and views expressed, continue to bump up against the ideas in those Amendments. And the poster admits the causes, yet again returns to the idea "Are there Black Supremacists?", as if this excuses other forms of supremacy. Perhaps this is part of his reason for why he considers the book not worth reading. Which at the moment doesn't seem to make much sense.

1) check my posts again on April 20th. I have said slavery was bad. I also said I believe slavery was the catalyst for the war. NO WHERE did I ever deny that. True?
2) I have said that not every soldier in the South fought to preserve slavery. Not every Union soldier fought to free the slave. Although that may eventually have been the goal of those in charge on both sides, it was not the overriding reason the individual soldiers fought on both sides.
3) I have said that I believe the Confederacy was wrong to succeed. True?
4) I did give what I thought the other reasons for succession were. True? I found one I thought was somewhat valid. Again True? I was then accused of being pro Succession and pro Confederate. 😂
5) it may seem that I have gotten scatter gunned on multiple subjects in this thread, check the individual threads of those who have challenged me. It pretty much runs the gamut of things I have covered.
6) Gamepost are you from the US? Your profile is blank as relates. I have been honest in other threads that I worked in the private sector and am a pro military, conservative. Your beliefs?

Now before I answer anything else, please enlighten me and anyone else who is interested, what you believe this author is trying to say, what his purpose is in writing this book and those related to the same subject and what his ultimate purpose for writing them is.

Seeing more rhetorical questions, although this time with answers, yet this isn't showing an understanding of why your black supremacy question is not relevant. And in more than one post there are questions about me, which seems like more avoidance, deflection, and inappropriate.

Your work experience, and political persuasion is of no interest to me, nor should mine be to yourself. Especially since you've already demonstrated negative views of some sectors of society, and because some of them in those sectors "vehemently" oppose your actions, beliefs, and views expressed. I wouldn't want such aspersions cast on to the sectors I belong to just because you're unhappy with me.

Plus, if what I've given previously hasn't helped, anything else might only bring more confusion when what has already been provided seems to have not been comprehended. However, just in case I am mistaken here is a quote anyway … "Be always displeased with what you are if you wish to be what you are not" … by St. Augustine.

Read the Republican Party Platform for the election of 1860.

B

Gamespost, exactly the response I expected. 🤣😂 "They always accuse you of doing what they are already doing themselves, or what they plan on doing". See if you can figure it out.

"A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt

Gamespost, words You should take to heart.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version

Romans 12:2.a NIV … "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

"Liberals are very broad minded: They are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side"

Thomas Sowell

Yo ti bendigo …

YouTube link

Que dios te acompane

Com todos nós.

I should mention that after 600+ posts about this Lost Cause on another forum thread, Marcus Brutus (Who then also maintained the South seceded for non slavery reasons), when asked, could only suggest one essay contained in a hard to find, old book that apparently claims the South seceded for reasons other than slavery.

The point of Ken Stampp's book is that there were many contributing factors to the ACW. That is why it is titled Causes and not Cause of the Civil War. The assertion by some you on this forum that slavery was the sole or dominant reason for the Civil War is simply incorrect in my opinion. I don't think the full evidence supports that conclusion.

And, pas de Charge, you are playing fast and loose with the truth in trying to represent my argument in the way you did. I think we both deserve better than that.

@GamesPoet

Dont waste your breath trying to make sense out of the massive, methane propelled, rationalization machine. Apparently, there's more than one lost cause around here.

Read the Republican Party Platform for the election of 1860.

B

I'm a little disappointed, you usually have a book to suggest; nothing handy that gives a good account of the "true" reasons for the civil war?

@GamesPoet

Dont waste your breath trying to make sense out of the massive, methane propelled, rationalization machine. Apparently, there's more than one lost cause around here.

Understand where you're coming from. Many folks know what they say about habits … they die hard. It's why others have to repeat the truth, even to those who say, "Let's be honest."

It is funny. I see a different rationalization process at work. People like GamesPoet and Au pas de Charge spouting the flavour of the day. It is easy to simply coast on the prevailing currents but it doesn't lead to an accurate picture of history.

It is funny. I see a different rationalization process at work. People like GamesPoet and Au pas de Charge spouting the flavour of the day. It is easy to simply coast on the prevailing currents but it doesn't lead to an accurate picture of history.

When you say "funny" are you offering your statement up as comedy? Is there anyone here who has any proof that the Confederacy seceded because of these motivating factors? Or is it that the Lost Cause cant even identify itself anymore? Because the Lost Cause factors are exactly a form of evading the ugliness of slavery and recasting itself as victim (no matter how ridiculous it makes the utterer appear) which makes it both pathetic and dangerous.

What next; Union reparations to Southern slave owners? Oh wait, that's actually been brought up a number of times!

I mean, I think we understand that as a sort of populist, just folks mood, there are Confederate sympathizers who dont want the CSA to take the hit as bad actors. Although they are free to imagine what they like, that I-believe-I-can-fly approach to history doesnt seem to make it into serious writings on the war.

I have merely asked (repeatedly) for the books/authorities/professors/historians that state there were major war causes besides slavery, that slavery wasnt the primary motivator and can convincingly separate any "other" major war causes from slavery.

Am I asking for too much? Is this unreasonable?

It is funny. I see a different rationalization process at work. People like GamesPoet and Au pas de Charge spouting the flavour of the day. It is easy to simply coast on the prevailing currents but it doesn't lead to an accurate picture of history.

The idea you've stated that slavery is "incidental" to the war shows that at best you're unfamiliar with a lot of the history, and at worst still promoting the ideology of the "lost cause". And the idea that in the same post on this thread you've stated there is a "more plausible argument that there were more fundamental forces at play", without specifically showing where this ground is located, and then dropping the inaccurate and hyperbolic drive by comments quoted above, this continues to show your inability to counter, educate, nor provide any depth to your viewpoint. This leads to similar comments made by me previously, that there's not much really being contributed or provided firing your blanks.

LOL – This is getting positively hysterical. You two are in absolute denial. This forum probably has about 10,000 posts on this very topic. Rather than honestly grapple with it all, you simply hand-wave everything away and put forth the fiction that no one has presented anything of worth – which is nothing more than an lame exercise in bush-league sophistry -

> What can you tell us about the secession threat PREVIOUS to 1860 and its underlying causative factors?

> Have you read the Republican Party's 1860 presidential campaign platform yet? Likely not, because it would totally blow up your "slavery as the sole cause of the ACW" argument.

> Have you read much about William Tecumseh Sherman and his outlook on the institution of slavery?

> Do you know which region of the USA was the wealthiest on a per capita basis just prior to the outbreak of the war?

> Do you know which region of the USA provided the greatest share of revenue for the operating budget and funding of the US government?

> Do you know which region of the country was the greatest beneficiary of federal infrastructure investment prior to the war?

> Can you describe what particular issue drove the withdrawal of the Senate members of the Southern States?

> How do you explain Lincoln's attributed comment that he would happily maintain the institution of slavery if it mean keeping the nation together?

> Why do you suppose that Lincoln waited until 1863 to announce the Emancipation Proclamation.

I look forward to your reply.

B

We all know that the quantity of posts is no guarantee of the quality, as evidence from this thread itself. And nine questions, yet not much info. Seems to be towards the less than side of the quality scale, while claiming it's been said "that no one has presented anything of worth". That's not true, the claim I made regarding such is about one poster's drive bys into this thread firing blanks. Yet now maybe I'm beating a dead horse … lol. If there's a read of my posts on this thread, you'll also find that I included slavery and southern nationalism as causes, not just slavery. There was even mention of what some of the southern state governments mentioned in their declarations of secession. ; )

After looking into Seidule's background, I found a couple of things of interest. He is, in fact, a veteran,having commanded a tank platoon in Germany initially and then a unit in the 82 Airborne during the Gulf War. He is also an acknowledged and qualified scholar with an extensive academic background in teaching, researching, and writing on the topic. This book is about a personal journey. He is a southerner who grew up worshipping Lee and who came to understand the mythology around him as Seidule made his way in his military and academic career.
Finally, he has been reviewed in a negative light by a number of Lee supporters and lost cause folks, had his credentials and career questioned, and obviously stirred up strong feelings on the topic,provoking some defensive response. But there is no reason I can find to suggest this book is some kind of scam.

@Tortorella

I dont dislike the Confederacy, I dont get angry at Lee or the CSA soldiers. I dont judge any of these people morally… nor do I think it is right to praise them.This is more about the living trying to alter history along the lines of what makes them feel good.

Additionally, it isnt appropriate to realize that slavery is indefensible but then seek out every scrap of mismatched historical cut outs (like on an old fashioned ransom note) to claim the war was fought for primarily non slavery reasons in an effort to make the South seem like moral actors.

You'll find that the Lost Cause cult is rock solid and is a conclusion in search of supporting facts. It's recipe includes "eye of newt and toe of frog" to create an odoriferous cauldron of denial.

In any case, no serious author seems to want to put their name to Lost Cause myths except for "Nationalist" authors like this one: link

Even the illustration provokes thought. I daresay that Union whereas sympathisers might see a black man rifling through the pockets of a wounded confederate soldier, pro Confederates see a beautiful symbiosis between black slave and free thinking white officer fighting together agianst the evils of marxism. What a serene landscape. Oh where did it all go wrong?

Perhaps, for once, the answer lies not in ourselves but in our stars?: link

Even my dear friend Blutarski, a man of letters if ever there was one, falls inexplicably short of providing ACW historians who promote that the South did not secede primarily to preserve slavery. It is a dark day indeed when intellectual giants find themselves alone and exposed to the injustice of the anti CSA mob.

Tort, I know you to be fair minded. Please read the book
And post a review. Let us know if it is just another in the long line of woke revisionist histories written in the last 10 years. More to obtain a pat on the back from others on the left and to say: Here, I think like all of you, now accept me." Or does it indeed add some insight that has been previously missing about Lee and the Civil War.

GP, I thought we were finished, but you couldn't refrain from a couple of less than Subtle jabs? 😂 FYI "?" Means someone expects a question to be answered.

"seeing more rhetorical questions, although this time with answers".

Although I don't agree with everything these two say below, they make some alternate points about succession and the authors book. I.E. not reviewed by those who are of the like minded spectrum. The second is the second half of the review I posted previously.

Lastly Seidule's book is not only about Lee, but also the propagation of "white supremacy" in today's society. Which has become the new Bogeyman of the left, since Charlottesville and the Trump Presidency. When you cannot discuss logically, then call your opponent a racist and a white supremists. Of course we can't leave Nazi out either. So exposing that black supremacy exists, seems only Apropos and relevant in this discussion.

Subject: Robert E. Lee and (Woke General) Please Like Me – Abbeville Institute


link

Subject: Robert E. Lee and Me by Ty Seidule, Part Two, Conclusion, of the Review, by Gene Kizer, Jr. – "Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity."-Robert E. Lee – Southern History and American History Books and DVDs – The South – Black Southerners – Southern History – Slavery Not Cause of Civil War – Right of Secession – War Between the States – World History – World War I – World War II – The World Wars – Bonnie Blue Publishing – Gene Kizer, Jr. – Charleston Athenaeum Press


link

I will read this book, 35th. I do not like woke or asleep books with blatant agendas. If that is what I think this is I will certainly say so.

Reviewer Gene Kizer is something of a radical and reactionary as a historian, based on this article, which is not so much a review as a synopsis of Keizer's own book, "Slavery Was Not The Cause of the War Between The States."

And again, saying that Seidule is "newly academic", is simply wrong. Kizer apparently did not find out very much about Seidule. You cannot trash Seidule based on his resume as far as I can tell, which actually seems far more extensive than Kizer's . I am hoping the Seidule book is as the title says, about how his understanding of Lee changed as he left the childhood hero image behind.

I also worshipped the southern generals as a kid in the Centennial era. They were always portrayed as larger than life. Later I began to see how complex and human Lee was. He has long since ceased to be a hero to me, but he is a part of history and deserves a balanced biography, as Grant finally got. I am honestly not sure what Lee means to me today.

So this books interests me from the perspective of how viewpoints can change and why. It's at the heart of many discussions here. Is woke always a bad thing? What about change? How do we hang onto the good and inspirational parts of our heritage? All stuff I want to understand better.