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

Enjoy reading. Hope you find it worth the read.

I was never a worshipper of Lee. Can't say there was a Major Civil War General I looked on as more than generals. I guess I like Thomas a bit, but obviously the Army of the Cumberland connection. I liked Mosby's exploits, but was influenced by watching the TV show as a kid. More into the individual everyday soldiers and what life was like for them. Thinking… I can't think of one General I actually have thought more of, then just being a General in history. Guess I never really thought about that, until you mentioned it.

… 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". …

I see that my comments have been returned to by yourself a second time, and your first was this retort here …

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.

While my previous reply was this …

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

… before we then proceeded with dueling biblical quotes and blessings.

And now to think there was a need on your part to go back a second time to explain what a question mark is … ok. Now that we've tangoed through the most previous string of posts between the two of us, it just leads back to the following …

It's unfortunate that your actions, beliefs, and viewpoints are as they have been, and if they weren't littered with avoidance, deflection, and inappropriate comments, then there wouldn't be a need to call it for what it is. It's sort of like how the Lost Cause inaccuracies are repeatedly being called out by various folks.

How's you're painting coming along these days? ; )

I could say the same about your views, deflections and non answers as well. But as the pendulum changes, so will your views. Be it even more left, or possibly back to the middle. Hopefully by then, Statues will still be standing, history books unburned, people still remembering the founding fathers (even though they were seeped in evil 👿 ) and the Constitution still in place.

Painting is done, no future in it anymore. Hopefully yours is better. ;)

"We all know that the quantity of posts is no guarantee of the quality, as evidence from this thread itself.

>>>>> To argue that "the quantity of posts is no guarantee of quality" is technically true but simultaneously completely meaningless. Such a response suggests that your real motive is simply to find an excuse to providing an answer top what I consider to be perfectly straightforward questions.

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.

>>>>> These are questions posed to you for your response. To complain that they do "not contain much info" implies that you are apparently expecting the answers to the question as well as these particular questions.

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.

>>>>> This response strikes me as merely another attempt at evasion, that you are either unwilling or unable to address the specific issues covered by the a/m nine questions. If it is merely a matter of inability, that can be remedied by some research; I'm patient and will happily wait. If it is, however, an unwillingness to respond, well then that is a different matter altogether.

There is an old saying that goes – "To every complicated question, there is a simple answer … and it is usually wrong." The path to the ACW was a long and complicated journey and it was not a one-lane road. You have read some of the Articles of Secession issued by the Southern states? Great. But it is just a start. As earlier suggested, you also need to closely read the 1860 campaign platform of the Republican Party and then carefully consider its political implications. You also need to read about the economics in play as well as the competing interests between the wealthy Southern states and the nascent, ambitious, but relatively under-financed northern industrial states that were desperately in need of financial capital. If you are not interested in getting down in those weeds, you have no business making grand claims about the causation of the ACW. On the plus side, in this wondrous age of the computer, it won't take you anywhere nearly as long to do this homework as it took me before the advent of the internet.

Postscript – Your closing ":)" was duly noted. Was this intended to deliver some levity to the discussion? Or was it an effort to mark yourself as ever so rhetorically clever? Just asking for the record.

B

Guys, take a listen to Donald Livingston's lecture on Southern Secession. I think you will find the answers to all of Blutarski's questions above (or most of them.) You don't have to agree with Livingston either. But I think an honest purveying of the evidence gets us to something more complicated than slavery as an explanation for the War. The South represented a different interpretation of the American experience and offered a different set of societal priorities. Reducing the explanation for this difference in culture to slavery is simply to engage in historical malfeasance.

YouTube link

To Blutarski …

Posting your questions is questionably helpful, and seems rhetorically driven, but maybe I am incorrect. If being committal in your view is your interest, then have the gumption to do so, yet perhaps that wasn't the purpose.

Plus coming into the thread claiming things that aren't true, as was done regarding what folks were writing, is showing you're not really recalling or understanding what folks are writing here, or perhaps being hyperbolic, yet neither is being truthful when making the accusation that you did, and that's not healthy for whatever your opinions may or may not be. And what struck you as an "evasion", because of your lack of recall or understanding, or hyperbole, was a standing statement of the truth brought to oppose your untruthfulness.

Feel free to go on questioning and being untruthful if you'd like, yet it calls into question what you're really accomplishing, if anything, particularly when your integrity begins to breakdown with the latter. My wink may have been rhetorical, and perhaps it was in error, although it was part of calling out your untruth.

Also, you've now posted at least twice in this thread with questions that might seem to point out that there was an opposition to the Southern States declarations of succession via what came previously in the Republican Party platform of 1860. The idea that this opposition was part of the reason for the declarations could to be true, yet even so, there is a long line of history to the entire issue of slavery. And yes, that history does show a complicated set of economic interests involved with the practice of slavery, and this dated back to well before ACW started, although with your interest in reading, suspect you're aware of this, and so I am probably stating the obvious.

I too remember a time before the internet, when I had to go to libraries to research and write a paper on this topic back in 70s. There's been additional reading since then, and I'm glad you've done similarly, cheers!

When someone starts challenging people to answer their questions and insinuating no one else has read the documents or knows the truth like they do, you can be sure they cannot make a strong argument.

Whatever other sort of jibber jabber is being proffered here, there would have been no war without the question of slavery.

Personally, I think "tariffs" are still related to slavery because the wealth of the South was based on slavery. However, even if it were a separate issue, without slavery, the two sides would've reached a work around without secession and without war. The South seceded because they feared slavery was going to be targeted for termination. Not in one go, or one speech but they knew it was going the way of the DoDo. Thus, they, in their arrogance, thought they would take their ball and go home.

Ironically, their secession and war actually precipitated the end of slavery. Perhaps we should be celebrating Southern slave holders as the real emancipators?

But yet the question still remains, should Gen. Sherman have burned Oregon?

When someone starts challenging people to answer their questions and insinuating no one else has read the documents or knows the truth like they do, you can be sure they cannot make a strong argument.

Your comment is ironic to me because that is exactly what I think you are doing pas de Charge.

It is the reductionism of complex forces into a single straw man argument that I reject.

I have found myself in agreement with Bruce Catton. Talk about state's rights, culture, tariffs, whatever, is fine, and makes for a nuanced conversation. But in the end slavery underlay all of it in some way or another.

Oregon is catching up, unfortunately.

Sherman's march.. Another difficult subject. Grant and Sherman were modern generals in the making. They were not interested in the chivalry of the matter. It had turned brutal long before Sherman in Georgia. They fought to win and end the war, save the nation.

John maybe his great, great grandson or granddaughter or grandunsure is working with Antifa and BLM in the burning of Portland. So maybe Sherman is there in spirit. 😉😂

Tort, as was talked about in another thread and one of the things to credit Lee for. You are correct, The war was turning brutal. Lee's surrender and subsequent attempts at healing, saved both sides from entering what would probably have become a brutal, bloody Guerrilla war. Worse than Kansas and Missouri. A war from which neither side would ever have recovered.

Yes, I do not think Lee was too much different from Grant or Sherman. In PA his army took many free blacks back into slavery. His defense of Petersburg was brilliant and also a shadow of things to come, costing many casualties. I have often fantasized that he surrenders after Gettysburg, with hindsight it was clearly over by then. He must have known how hard it would be to come back from that disaster. But he may have hoped Lincoln would lose the election and McClellan or someone would settle for peace.
I agree. The guerrilla war was really prevented by him.

Your comment is ironic to me because that is exactly what I think you are doing pas de Charge.

OK, well, considering you said this:

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 really must assume you are capable of believing all sorts of phantasmagorical wonders.

If you want to wander around believing this, please be my guest. All I wanted was to know what authorities are saying this in public and to my satisfaction, it's just about no one. I'll just have to accept that the "It wasnt slavery" movement is some sort of "just folks" history.

Just to be clear, were not having a discussion. Not because Im not perfectly happy to discuss something but because you are making assertions based on what you want to believe. At the same time you assert that I am doing the same. However, I am not. Rather I am following the overwhelming majority of intelligentsia who opine on the ACW. Now, if you dont like that, and you want to believe what you want to believe, terrific but please dont make this sound like is some sort of even up discussion.

In addition, I havent drawn any red lines and dared people to answer or disprove them. I havent declared that people havent read something, except perhaps to point out that 35thOVI got some NY Post article he was swinging around incorrectly. Sorry about that.

Apparently, you are blind to those of Blutarski and 35thOVI, Bravo.

I guess you missed this by Blutarski?

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 -

I'm in denial? That's rich. The vast majority of the ACW historians say secession was over slavery but that's not reality? Perhaps I'm just going with the herd, eh? Well, people better get those "true" causes of the ACW to the presses quickly because they're losing the message war.

I'm dishonest? Frankly, that's outrageous but you're OK with this?

Coming from him, I'll take that as a compliment.

No one has presented anything of worth? Well, that's not quite true because none of the anti-slavery-was-the-cause crew has really presented anything. I'm still hopeful though.

We're giving a Lame excuse at bush league sophistry?

And then he gives a pop quiz on the ACW causes without making an argument?

Now, THAT'S irony.

It is the reductionism of complex forces into a single straw man argument that I reject.

Oh boy. You said the magic word. Strawman is the most overused and yet misunderstood term on this board.

Marcus Brutus wrote –
"I think an honest purveying of the evidence gets us to something more complicated than slavery as an explanation for the War. The South represented a different interpretation of the American experience and offered a different set of societal priorities. Reducing the explanation for this difference in culture to slavery is simply to engage in historical malfeasance."

Thank you, sir, for offering some clear and honest thought on this issue.

B

Tales of Gettysburg, the great campaign of the war, so many stories. Now PA was not a slave state, this had changed years ago with owners given years and years to work of the investment, a nice business model by the north.
By the National Census of 1860, the percent of Blacks in PA had dropped as they were not welcome in the state.
An event of the Gettysburg campaign in 1863, the south paid free blacks as teamster for the wagons (The north would not hire them). A group of PA farmers, finding a black teamster alone on a road, having lost goods to the invading army, the farmers lynched the poor man.

I think there were about 5000 thousand free blacks living in the PA counties which were invaded, and at least several hundreds "contrabands" were seized by Confederate troops. This is how they are referred to in surviving orders between some pretty high up commanders, even Pickett and Longstreet, as I recall. These captives may have returned with the army to VA, although a lot of the army's camp slaves managed to run off during the retreat, leaving it even more short handed. But many stayed with the army so that they would not be separated from their families when they were returned to their owners.

The Army of Northern VA was served by 6-10,000 slaves who performed camp duties and many logistical functions like foraging and driving wagons during the campaign. Officers brought along slaves as personal servants, and slave owners rented their slaves out as a means of income. Regular soldiers sometimes chipped in to rent a slave to cook and tend camp for their units.

Ahhh Au Pas, none are so blind..

You keep bringing up that NY Post article as if it was not true. You keep bringing up Frank James as if that is all the article was about. Ignoring the at least 6 other articles I listed. Frank James victims, from everything that can be found on the web, were white, Asian and Hispanic… no blacks. He spouted nothing but hate of all things white on his website, it since has been Conveniently yanked from the web. The neighborhood was even chosen by him for its lack of black individuals in the community. Also in the NYP article was Darrell Brooks, another who singled out whites specifically to kill and spouted white hate. Both all but ignored by the mainstream media since their arrest. Why? Because it does not fulfill the agenda that only white supremacy exists. Do you want more examples of black racism? They come out almost every 3 days or so.

Here is another more recent.

Subject: 19-Year-Old White Woman Brutally Beaten by Pack of Black Teens Over "Black Hairstyle" (VIDEO)


link

Now do I bring these up because I believe all blacks are racist? No. Just like I believe very few whites are white supremists. White Supremacy is the great Bogeyman of the left. Hence the reason I fight it whenever some authors or individuals start writing or shouting about it effecting all we do, act and think in our everyday and individual lives.

Now as far as Lee, maybe we should follow the advice of another TMP poster when Napoleon was being attacked by a few individuals.

"Napoleon is dead, everyone who fought those wars are dead. It's just odd to worry about it, As if one has a personal stake in it." 8 Nov 2021

Sound familiar?

Tort,
So the PA farmers hung a slave?
Were they freeing him?

"Napoleon is dead, everyone who fought those wars are dead. It's just odd to worry about it, As if one has a personal stake in it." 8 Nov 2021

The amount of vitriol in an argument is inversely proportional to the seriousness of the subject.

John S. is referring to the only known vigilante murder of a black man in PA during the American Civil War. He was seen riding a fine horse and possibly left behind by Jenkins' or Stuart's southern cavalry, during the Gettysburg campaign, and murdered by one of six white guys shooting him three times who apparently took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury of whether or not he was a horse thief.

This has sometimes been referred to as a lynching, but he wasn't hung, not that this excuses the white guys' behavior. The legal result was that they were taken to court, the Judge found them not guilty for lack of evidence, and the case was dismissed. It has been said by some scholars that the killing may have been motivated by race, while at the same time given the amount of horse stealing that was going on by the Southern army during the Gettysburg campaign in PA, a horse thief regardless of race may have met the same fate, but certainly not that this is enough to justify what they were accused of doing.

However, I'm still wondering what this has to do with the article linked in this thread's original post. And although I suspect some here who've already written on this thread might see that it is unequivocally linked, and suppose that they wouldn't be wrong in that both are topics of the American Civil War, yet the seemingly continued need to bring up a sense of excuse for white supremacy by pointing to incidents of potential or real black supremacy is the only linking that seems to be happening.

Such things happen when posters like John S. throw up rhetorical questions, and readers are left to draw conclusions, which may or may not be accurate, instead of having John S's real thoughts on such issues as to how this is related to the original post.

Meanwhile we have OVI keep bringing up crimes committed by blacks as his answer to white supremacy being wrong. Most folks already have this sense of morality, but he keeps beating the proverbial dead horse, perhaps because he thinks it'll do someone good, yet the only one it is doing any good for are folks like himself who can not see this as only remotely at best related to the original post of this thread.

Murvihill, that was one of Au Pas de Charge's own quotes when Napoleon was being attacked on another thread, just in case you might not have known. I thought it Apropos for this tread and those other threads attacking historical figures by today's "liberal" standards for being products of their time.

Poet, if everyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of Robert E. Lee, I would be all for it. Good, Bad and Ugly, as relates to the period of time he lived in and the society he was a part of. But, "This ain't that kind of movie, Bruv".

Now have another glass of a fine wine and relax.

YouTube link

It may be a post about Napoleon from Au Pas, yet your attempt to link it to this topic is slim at best.

The issues being reviewed by the author of the book in the article linked in the original post for this thread is definitely mentioning a general, and a defeated one at that, so hey, yeah, they can be linked. Except the concerns of the author of the book aren't only about the past as much as it is about what's happening in the current, and using history as a way of showing where the story has or has not been told accurately. That there are those in this author's own life time, who haven't given up on some folks attempt to indoctrinate and perpetuate others into the idea of some in the South's nobility with their "lost cause".

And when questions like yours "Are there Black Supremists?", in a thread set up as it has been in the first post, and continued writing in other posts, as if this is ok, I'm definitely beating the proverbial dead horse, as evidence by the insanity of the other links being made. It's like there's diarrhea of the stream of consciousness from your thoughts, and onto this thread, without really seeing that they make limited sense at best to be here, doubtfully at all, and instead flushed down the proverbial toilet before they make it into a post for this thread.

Did you not burst into flame quoting the great Ronald Reagan? Is that not like sunlight to a vampire?

More rhetorical questions, and seems another example of making links that are off the top of your stream of consciousness without much if any consideration for how accurate they are.

GP always so generally vague. platitudes and generalizations, as if you've answered anything.

This gentleman sums up my views on this subject, the renaming threads and the general threads attacking western civilization and U.S. history in particular. A book you might find well worth the read.

Subject: Douglas Murray's book reveals Western civilization's greatest enemy — itself


link

The vast majority of the ACW historians say secession was over slavery but that's not reality?

You talk about phantasmagorical wonders pas de Charge but there is one right there. Wow! What serious historian would ever suggest that secession was over slavery as if to say it was only about slavery? I am sure there is someone, somewhere in the academy that would say that but I seriously doubt, even in today's woke, CRT culture, that this would be a common view among Civil War historians.

From Ovi …

GP always so generally vague. platitudes and generalizations, as if you've answered anything.

This gentleman sums up my views on this subject, the renaming threads and the general threads attacking western civilization and U.S. history in particular. A book you might find well worth the read.

Subject: Douglas Murray's book reveals Western civilization's greatest enemy — itself

link

Your rhetorical questions were answered, although not to your liking. Your accusations can be made, some perhaps correct, yet some not, while at the same time your own claim on these terms is similar. Your use of the word "always" shows a lack of understanding, being untruthful, perhaps both, and none of those are good. While at the same time it does nothing to show your inappropriate actions, that I've pointed out to you in detail, and in more than one post on this thread, are changing for the better. Oh, and your link goes to a 404 error here, which I unfortunately don't have a cure available. Bing, bing, bing, next patient please.

Verbal chess is being played here, with GP yet again conducting the well worn "sophist defense" ….. ignore the argument and denigrate the correspondent.

Well done, GP. Are you in politics?

Hint – Just Google "Douglas Murray" and you will find what you don't want to find.

B

Subject: Douglas Murray's book reveals Western civilization's greatest enemy — itself | Fox News


link

Thanks Blutarski for pointing out the obvious. Appreciated 🙂

With due repect towards all, IMO the idea here is not to be right or prove someone wrong, nor get into personal barb trading. We can disagree in a civil matter, it is not that hard, not a life or death thing to win or lose an argument on TMP.

I found John's story interesting because it was an outlier you do not hear much about. In the context of the Confederate soldiers kidnapping free blacks in much larger numbers during this time as a matter of policy, it is smaller in scale, but it does remind us of the brutality of the troubled times.

Verbal chess is being played here,

Verbal Hokey Pokey is also being played here. Also verbal Lost Cause.

You keep challenging people to go read what you know about the true reasons for the war. if you think everyone who doesnt hold your view is so simple why not spell it out? Or are the points too refined and subtle for mortal ears to comprehend?

Now as far as Lee, maybe we should follow the advice of another TMP poster when Napoleon was being attacked by a few individuals.

"Napoleon is dead, everyone who fought those wars are dead. It's just odd to worry about it, As if one has a personal stake in it." 8 Nov 2021

Sound familiar?

Murvihill, that was one of Au Pas de Charge's own quotes when Napoleon was being attacked on another thread, just in case you might not have known. I thought it Apropos for this tread and those other threads attacking historical figures by today's "liberal" standards for being products of their time.

Yeah, I'm proud of that quote but not sure why you used it, used it out of context and frankly why you used it at all?

In response to a thread which said this about the battle of Leipzig

another pyrric victory by Boney

This was my response:

You dont have to root for Napoleon but who would root for the other side? All of them were outdated, oppressive feudal monarchies.

It's astounding that after Russia, Napoleon was able to cobble together an army at all. And most of the battles conducted are impressive and worthy of study. Meanwhile, the allies just stumbled toward him or devised a plan to avoid him altogether?

And:

Why does one have to root for and against anyone? It's just continually odd to see people have such a personal opinion against Napoleon. As a military history enthusiast, I only really root for the best military operations.

In any case, the OP was making a clear and strong bias against Napoleon, which gives me the impression he believes the allies are the "good guys" and they aren't. I dont need to rail against them but what does a modern day (presumably) democratic person have in common with 19th century monarchs?

Thus, I think you are misunderstanding the comment and taking it out of context. It's also a matter of frequency. I mean he is free to do it but when repeated with such passion it makes me wonder what's going on.

Napoleon is dead, everyone who fought those wars are dead, it's just odd to worry about it as if one has a personal stake in it.

TMP link

Did you miss this by me earlier in this thread?

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.

I dont condemn Lee. Maybe Ive made a joke or two but I never took it personally. My quote you airlifted was about a group of anti Napoleon fans who have to chronically degrade Napoleon and ruin every single last discussion about him or the French. You'll not find me doing that.

Frankly this thread isn't about Gen. Lee but, as GP states, the living trying to rewrite the cause and blames for the ACW and debunking fantasies around him. Frankly, I have reason to believe Lee would be appalled by the Lost Cause mythos.

Ahhh Au Pas, none are so blind..

You keep bringing up that NY Post article as if it was not true. You keep bringing up Frank James as if that is all the article was about. Ignoring the at least 6 other articles I listed.

I looked at some of the other articles too and many of them were highly speculative. You have to stop confusing what youre trying to accomplish with them. These crimes need to be punished and it looks like most of these people are getting arrested and punished. Not sure what more you want.

White (also black?) supremacy seems to be something that you believe occurs solely as violence in the street. White supremacy involves a lot of other things like books proving the inferiority of minorities, hiring practices etc etc etc. I dont know that whites only attack blacks because of race or the reverse but neither random crimes are proof of a wider state of racial supremacy.

Now do I bring these up because I believe all blacks are racist? No. Just like I believe very few whites are white supremists. White Supremacy is the great Bogeyman of the left. Hence the reason I fight it whenever some authors or individuals start writing or shouting about it effecting all we do, act and think in our everyday and individual lives.

There is some overlap between racism and white supremacy but I think we're getting caught on the color line part of it. White supremacy has probably killed a lot more white people than non white (or, at a minimum, it has also killed tremendous numbers of white people), that's what makes it so insidious.

This tells me a great deal about you. Where exactly are people calling about fake white supremacy? How are you fighting back? Are you recruiting?

Wow! What serious historian would ever suggest that secession was over slavery as if to say it was only about slavery? I am sure there is someone, somewhere in the academy that would say that but I seriously doubt, even in today's woke, CRT culture, that this would be a common view among Civil War historians.

Which historians say that slavery was the cause of the war? Umm, just about all of them. Better to say that just about all of them say that without slavery there'd have been no secession.

In any case, you've been pulling away from that for months over several threads and here too; citing the presumably hundreds and thousands of ACW authorities who maintain that secession wasnt over slavery and yet when I get ready to listen to this symphony of authorities who claim slavery wasnt the primary cause for secession and the ACW…crickets.

For some reason theyre all afraid to set their opinions down; perhaps for fear of repercussions from the left wing media maintaining that theyre white supremacists? Maybe they write in disappearing ink? Whatever the reason for their elusiveness, at this point, Im going to have to cut my losses and conclude that youve got butkus.

A group of PA farmers, finding a black teamster alone on a road, having lost goods to the invading army, the farmers lynched the poor man.

Well it's a darn good thing then that Gen. Lee invaded PA to liberate the black man!

Is there no bottom to Lost Cause Revisionism?

Can't one of you write a book stating that by it's rash, selfish, poorly thought out actions, the Confederacy is to be thanked for ending slavery? Perhaps the Southern Cross should be used by African Americans as a symbol of freedom?

I was in Harper's Ferry recently and there's an absolutely disgusting monument put up by the Daughters of the confederacy to a slave who was killed during the raid, which lauds slaves who weren't "tempted" to rebel or be free as a credit to their race.

That is what we're up against. Revisionist bull that uses dead black people as a tool to cheer for the confederacy.

Which historians say that slavery was the cause of the war? Umm, just about all of them. Better to say that just about all of them say that without slavery there'd have been no secession.

I don't doubt that many historians argue that slavery was a cause for secession. I would personally see slavery as an effect of the South's search for independence rather than a cause but I can understand someone arguing for slavery as a cause for war. That it was "the cause" in the sense of the only serious grievance of the South that led to Secession is something I doubt greatly. And by historians we do want to consider the whole gamut of scholarship on the war from the late 19th century to the early 21st century because every age has its blind spots. When you look at the totality of scholarship I think you are woefully off the mark. Again, listen to Livingston's 50 minute lecture on Secession that I linked above and tell me where he is wrong. Honestly, if you can find a serious flaw in his argument I am willing to listen.

Incidentally, as a lifetime republican, I hardly think I'm woke/CRT but a person has to keep their ear open to everything. But, tell me, among the ACW historians that wargamers and military history enthusiasts love, which are the woke/CRT ones?

Heck, I'll read a book by a "Nationalist"; all Im saying where are these books?

I just bought Ty Seidule 's book on Lee. If anyone, anyone has any recommendations for slavery was not the primary reason for secession, let me know.

I'll check out the video by Livingston.

Livingston is quite a good public speaker and brings an interesting point of view to the question of Secession. I don't necessarily subscribe to everything he is saying. I think his point of view needs to be included in the conversation if we are to be responsible caretakers of history.

Incidentally, I have always gamed ACW as the Union and my natural sensibilities are Northern. My only objection to this conversation is that there is another narrative that is substantial and deserves a fair hearing. To dismiss this other narrative as the "Lost Cause" is simply an attempt to dismiss it without engaging it.

Marcus you second statement is a fair statement.

Au Pas you asked why I used your quote. I used your quote because you have in other threads and to a point in here, Attacked people like Washington and Jefferson, based not on what they did as men of their times, but based on the morals and beliefs of our current times. You ask that for Napoleon, do the same for others in history. I don't think that unreasonable.

You keep making Innuendos about my beliefs. Like "am I recruiting". Not sure what you think I am recruiting for, but if you would like to enlist in the fight against the destruction of Western history and specifically US history, by liberal woke academia and media, sure I will gladly welcome you. Start today.

I made no secret that I do not see this thread as a stand-alone thread, there are loads of similar threads attacking our US past and degrading our forefathers. Normally for 2 reasons. Slavery and the conquest of the North American Indians.

"There is a gigantic modern fallacy at work here. For of course people only think that they would have acted better in history because they know how history ended up. People in history didn't – and don't – have that luxury. They made good or bad choices in the times and places they were in, given the situations and shibboleths that they found themselves with."

I have to ask, since you said you are a life long Republican; How did your neighbors react to your Trump/Pence flag in the last election? In some sections of the country, especially in the inner-cities, that was not a healthy thing to have out. I saw people with one of their stickers on their car, have it scratched up when they left working out at the gym I work out at. Normally just the sticker scratched up, but sometimes worse.

Marcus Brutus wrote
"I don't doubt that many historians argue that slavery was a cause for secession. I would personally see slavery as an effect of the South's search for independence rather than a cause but I can understand someone arguing for slavery as a cause for war. That it was "the cause" in the sense of the only serious grievance of the South that led to Secession is something I doubt greatly. And by historians we do want to consider the whole gamut of scholarship on the war from the late 19th century to the early 21st century because every age has its blind spots."

Well said, Marcus – especially with respect to revisionist trends in the field of historical scholarship. In my period of study during that mid- 60s through mid-70s, the traditional arguments and conclusions of preceding generations of historians as to the causes of the ACW: the erosion of the rights of the states by an increasingly aggressive federal government, and the determination of the central government to preserve the unity of the existing American nation-state. This view was very suddenly supplanted by a new post-war generation of academics who portrayed the dominating cause of the war in social terms: slavery and the abolition movement. I am of the opinion that the sudden appearance of this revisionist stance stemmed from several factors – the rise and rapid growth of the civil rights movement in America, the growing popularity of the sociological studies and the coincidental timing of the 100th anniversary of the war in 1965.

I side with the interpretations of the earlier generations of historians, i.e. that the war was a result of a multi-decade constitutional, political, financial, economic and demographic struggle between north and south, with secession the inevitable result of an assessment by the leadership of the southern states that any chance to achieve political power at the national level had been irretrievably lost. I base this upon much tedious reading and research in ante-bellum American political and economic history "back in the day".

An interesting postcript, FWIW –
If you have a copy at hand, see "Memoirs of General William T. Sherman", Volume I, Chapter VI (page 144) for some unique observations on attitudes of some of the wealthy Louisiana plantation owners on the issues of slavery, economics and national politics. Sherman spent from 1859 to early 1861 in Louisiana and, in fact, did not leave there until early March 1861 – after Louisiana's formal secession!

Another interesting item that just came to mind while writing this –
The "Fremantle Diary" contains some intriguing observations about general civil life in the secessionist south. Sadly, I long ago loaned this book out and have since then neither received it back nor replaced it; else, I would have provided some relevant page references.

B

Just when ya thought it was safe … Blutarski 2 … YouTube link …

Verbal chess is being played here, with GP yet again conducting the well worn "sophist defense" ….. ignore the argument and denigrate the correspondent.
Well done, GP. Are you in politics?
Hint – Just Google "Douglas Murray" and you will find what you don't want to find.

Your demonstrating support for a less than reasonable path in essence of … what about there being black supremists. Oh and also in essence … but there's comments about napoleon. All coming from Ovi, and after his path has been shown to be such on multiple occasions in this thread.

Your providing this support through calling my newest comments a "sophist defense", although perhaps I misunderstand your line of impatience. The irony is … what you've come up with as your way of denigrating a "correspondent", through what could be perceived as your own convenient overlooking, ignoring, misunderstanding, a combination of those, perhaps even worse … none of those are good. Then it is asked if I'm in politics, followed by pointing me to google once again, which certainly doesn't add strength to your already questionable credibility.

What has been provided multiple times on this thread by me, following up the avoidance, deflection, and inappropriateness of Ovi, and your own choice to unwisely attack without taking into account the other evidence already provided on this thread, your own support of such wackiness ends up putting ya in the same category regardless of what the name calling of a "defense" is that appeals to ya in the moment. Ovi has continued to link things in his mind which seem to be unreasonably linked to the original post, and gets called for what it is. He repeatedly returns to the same kind of questionable comments, and even resorting to quoting Aus pas regarding Napoleon, as if it is importantly related, and it gets demonstrated that it isn't related worth a darn. And you support this through name calling, and suggesting I be the one responsible for searching for what he was linking to as well. That's a poor way of further emptying your own bladder of crud regardless of what you've called my form of argumentation to be.

Meanwhile I see that Ovi has appropriately provided the correct link, thank you Ovi. What remains is for Ovi to explain how this is connected in his mind to the linked article in the first post. And so in a way we seem to be back to where he and I started. Yet here too regardless, perhaps his link is an attempt to bring his own actions in line with a more reasonable way of expressing his views. In your impatience with me, you've not only chosen to stick up for his original crud, yet also been impatient with him, and this all further calls into question your own credibility again.

And as for me being told that all I had to do was google, this seems at least like one form of that verbal hokey pokey that Aus pas mentions. Your chess play is weak, although that has been demonstrated before when at least another attack/accusation/claim on this thread has been shown to be what it was … untruthful.

I side with the interpretations of the earlier generations of historians, i.e. that the war was a result of a multi-decade constitutional, political, financial, economic and demographic struggle between north and south, with secession the inevitable result of an assessment by the leadership of the southern states that any chance to achieve political power at the national level had been irretrievably lost. I base this upon much tedious reading and research in ante-bellum American political and economic history "back in the day".

I completely agree with the above comment. Well said. This is why I believe that slavery was only incidental to Secession. I think the South would have attempted Secession regardless of slavery once the political locum had shifted away.

From MB …

Guys, take a listen to Donald Livingston's lecture on Southern Secession. I think you will find the answers to all of Blutarski's questions above (or most of them.) You don't have to agree with Livingston either. But I think an honest purveying of the evidence gets us to something more complicated than slavery as an explanation for the War. The South represented a different interpretation of the American experience and offered a different set of societal priorities. Reducing the explanation for this difference in culture to slavery is simply to engage in historical malfeasance.

YouTube link

Viewed the video and took notes, while basing a unit of figures for gaming. The video seemed a shaky try at best to promote letting the States secede from the Union, and even now no less, in order to solve the problems associated with the federal government. There's more to my thoughts on the video, plus it is helpful and important for folks to be aware of some of the craziness that is out there, and glad that I viewed it, yet for the moment going to finish up basing those military miniatures, and then get some sleep.

However, to say this video substantiates in detail some of the other opinions that were shared here previously on this thread at the 30,000 foot level for the support of slavery being "incidental", such would be incorrect.

Calling the video a "shaky try" is a conclusion, not an argument. I hope you take up Livingston's argument which will provide a useful point of departure in this conversation.

Au Pas you asked why I used your quote. I used your quote because you have in other threads and to a point in here, Attacked people like Washington and Jefferson, based not on what they did as men of their times, but based on the morals and beliefs of our current times. You ask that for Napoleon, do the same for others in history. I don't think that unreasonable.

I havent attacked Washington or Jefferson. You are confusing me with someone else.

I dont ask anything about or for Napoleon, people are free to judge him by his or our time. It isnt about the occasional critique of Napoleon. Rather, that quote you used from me was about a group of pro British posters who derail every last bloody thread about Napoleon. I suspect they are ultra nationalists channeling their misplaced passion without recognizing that they are merely causing anarchy; more like crazed creatures than rational actors.

I find it both disruptive and pathetic. Additionally, I think they use their credo to attack those who dont share their belief. In any case, if you have some proof that I get on every thread about Jefferson or Washington or even Lee, it's time to to put up, or…

I examine the Founders and others from the USA's past using both the morals of their times and our own. Unlike the Romans or even Napoleon the Founders have asked us to live according to their morals and if the dead can judge us by their standards, then we can judge them by ours.

There is a gigantic modern fallacy at work here. For of course people only think that they would have acted better in history because they know how history ended up. People in history didn't – and don't – have that luxury.

I dont know which people you're talking about. I accept the events, look at the reasons that they did what they did and neither praise them nor condemn them.

They made good or bad choices in the times and places they were in, given the situations and shibboleths that they found themselves with."

I see that they made whatever choices they felt were in their best interests but what good choices did the South make during that time?