April is Confederate History Month

[Appaholic]

An interesting article from the NY Times on how slavery ended and that slavery was not why the North went to war...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magaz ... War-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't read the article, but I've never doubted that slavery wasn't the reason the North went to war....just as I've never doubted that slavery, under the guise of "state's rights", was definitely the reason the South chose to start a war...

[citdog]

An interesting article from the NY Times on how slavery ended and that slavery was not why the North went to war...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magaz ... War-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't read the article, but I've never doubted that slavery wasn't the reason the North went to war....just as I've never doubted that slavery, under the guise of "state's rights", was definitely the reason the South chose to start a war...

that's because you are VERY simple and therefore only understand simple things.

[citdog]

Cold Harbor. Grant lost 13,000 men in 15 minutes.


http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundat ... harbor.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Appaholic]

I didn't read the article, but I've never doubted that slavery wasn't the reason the North went to war....just as I've never doubted that slavery, under the guise of "state's rights", was definitely the reason the South chose to start a war...

that's because you are VERY simple and therefore only understand simple things.

...says the boy who went to college to learn how to make his bed & walk single-file....

[citdog]

CSS Shenandoah circumnavigates the world and is last to surrender in Liverpool.


http://americancivilwar.com/tcwn/civil_ ... ndoah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Appaholic]

CSS Shenandoah circumnavigates the world and is last to surrender in Liverpool.


http://americancivilwar.com/tcwn/civil_ ... ndoah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sooooo......they ran and hid in Europe? How brave.... ...it's amazing what feats can be accomplished when merely running for your life....

[GannonFan]

An interesting article from the NY Times on how slavery ended and that slavery was not why the North went to war...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magaz ... War-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind of an odd synopsis to the article - slavery didn't end because of what the article talks about and the article really doesn't touch much on the reason the North went to war, and certainly doesn't dig deep into that topic. Did you read the article?

[citdog]

CSS Alabama


http://css-alabama.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

An interesting article from the NY Times on how slavery ended and that slavery was not why the North went to war...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magaz ... War-t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind of an odd synopsis to the article - slavery didn't end because of what the article talks about and the article really doesn't touch much on the reason the North went to war, and certainly doesn't dig deep into that topic. Did you read the article?

Certainly I read the article. You are correct that it is a different twist, which is why I termed it interesting. While it doesn't touch much on why the North went to war, it does touch on why the North did not go to war for emancipation, and that this came as a later cynical political twist.

[GannonFan]

Kind of an odd synopsis to the article - slavery didn't end because of what the article talks about and the article really doesn't touch much on the reason the North went to war, and certainly doesn't dig deep into that topic. Did you read the article?

Certainly I read the article. You are correct that it is a different twist, which is why I termed it interesting. While it doesn't touch much on why the North went to war, it does touch on why the North did not go to war for emancipation, and that this came as a later cynical political twist.

Well, hard to see the cynical part, unless you want it to be there as you apparently do. Heck, the article even details how the attitude of many in North changed over the course of the war and specifically after they interacted with the former slaves, especially considering how many had never met a Black person before then. So their attitudes changed from one as seeing the people as property and/or a nuisance to be discarded (i.e. shipped elsewhere after the war) to one where they actually saw them as human beings. Odd to see cynicism in that evolution.

[LeadBolt]

Certainly I read the article. You are correct that it is a different twist, which is why I termed it interesting. While it doesn't touch much on why the North went to war, it does touch on why the North did not go to war for emancipation, and that this came as a later cynical political twist.

Well, hard to see the cynical part, unless you want it to be there as you apparently do. Heck, the article even details how the attitude of many in North changed over the course of the war and specifically after they interacted with the former slaves, especially considering how many had never met a Black person before then. So their attitudes changed from one as seeing the people as property and/or a nuisance to be discarded (i.e. shipped elsewhere after the war) to one where they actually saw them as human beings. Odd to see cynicism in that evolution.

Sorry, I took off my rose colored glasses before I read the article, apparently you did not.

Some excepts (there's more) from article seem cynical to me:

In August, Lincoln’s War Department tried to bring some clarity to the chaos by asking Union commanders to collect detailed information on each fugitive: not just name and physical description but “the name and the character, as loyal or disloyal, of the master” — since whether the master supported the Union or the Confederacy was, of course, essential to determining whether the particular man or woman counted as legitimate contraband. Such a system would let the federal government assure slaveholders that their “rights” were protected, and possibly return the slaves to their proper owners once the rebel states had rejoined the Union.
But how were officers supposed to tell whether a master they had never laid eyes on was loyal or disloyal — even assuming that the slave was telling the truth in identifying him? Besides, didn’t the military have more pressing business at the moment, like fighting the war? The new contraband doctrine was utterly unenforceable almost from the moment it was devised, but it became hugely influential precisely because it was so unenforceable: it did not open the floodgates in theory, but it did so in practice.
And it did so with very little political risk to the Lincoln administration. Indeed, preposterous as the contraband doctrine was as a piece of law, it was also — albeit inadvertently — a masterstroke of politics; indeed, it satisfied nearly every potential theoretical and political objection while being completely unworkable in the long run. “There is often great virtue in such technical phrases in shaping public opinion,” Pierce observed. “The venerable gentleman, who wears gold spectacles and reads a conservative daily, prefers confiscation to emancipation. He is reluctant to have slaves declared freemen but has no objection to their being declared contrabands.”
The system was eminently practical in other terms. Regiments needed labor: extra hands to cook meals, wash clothes and dig latrines. When black men and women were willing to do these things, whites were happy not to ask inconvenient questions — not the first or the last time that the allure of cheap labor would trump political principles in America.

When Lincoln finally unveiled the Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862, he framed it in Butleresque terms, not as a humanitarian gesture but as a stratagem of war.

[GannonFan]

Well, hard to see the cynical part, unless you want it to be there as you apparently do. Heck, the article even details how the attitude of many in North changed over the course of the war and specifically after they interacted with the former slaves, especially considering how many had never met a Black person before then. So their attitudes changed from one as seeing the people as property and/or a nuisance to be discarded (i.e. shipped elsewhere after the war) to one where they actually saw them as human beings. Odd to see cynicism in that evolution.

Sorry, I took off my rose colored glasses before I read the article, apparently you did not.

Some excepts (there's more) from article seem cynical to me:

In August, Lincoln’s War Department tried to bring some clarity to the chaos by asking Union commanders to collect detailed information on each fugitive: not just name and physical description but “the name and the character, as loyal or disloyal, of the master” — since whether the master supported the Union or the Confederacy was, of course, essential to determining whether the particular man or woman counted as legitimate contraband. Such a system would let the federal government assure slaveholders that their “rights” were protected, and possibly return the slaves to their proper owners once the rebel states had rejoined the Union.
But how were officers supposed to tell whether a master they had never laid eyes on was loyal or disloyal — even assuming that the slave was telling the truth in identifying him? Besides, didn’t the military have more pressing business at the moment, like fighting the war? The new contraband doctrine was utterly unenforceable almost from the moment it was devised, but it became hugely influential precisely because it was so unenforceable: it did not open the floodgates in theory, but it did so in practice.
And it did so with very little political risk to the Lincoln administration. Indeed, preposterous as the contraband doctrine was as a piece of law, it was also — albeit inadvertently — a masterstroke of politics; indeed, it satisfied nearly every potential theoretical and political objection while being completely unworkable in the long run. “There is often great virtue in such technical phrases in shaping public opinion,” Pierce observed. “The venerable gentleman, who wears gold spectacles and reads a conservative daily, prefers confiscation to emancipation. He is reluctant to have slaves declared freemen but has no objection to their being declared contrabands.”
The system was eminently practical in other terms. Regiments needed labor: extra hands to cook meals, wash clothes and dig latrines. When black men and women were willing to do these things, whites were happy not to ask inconvenient questions — not the first or the last time that the allure of cheap labor would trump political principles in America.

When Lincoln finally unveiled the Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862, he framed it in Butleresque terms, not as a humanitarian gesture but as a stratagem of war.

And then you have to take that last sentence for what it is - funny, Butler wasn't necessarily calling freed slaves "free people", and the Emancipation called them. Funny how I don't see slaves being referred to as contraband in that document. It's all fine and well to take an article at face value and attempt no critical evaluation of it as you have done, it's something else entirely to think about it critically.

[LeadBolt]

Apparently for you, to think of people of color as contraband property rather than as people is funny, while supposedly fighting to free them.

To me it is cynical to do so while benefitting from their labor without paying them and freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

I guess it is a matter of one's paradigm.

[citdog]

General Jubal Early, Lee's "Bad Old Man"


http://www.jubalearly.org/jubal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

Lincoln also freed the slaves in all states. The Emancipation Proclamation was an emergency war declaration. Soon afterwards he and the Congress began work on the 13th Amendment which barred slavery in all states and territories. It passed the Senate and House before he was assassinated... but, it wasn't enacted until after he was dead.

[citdog]

General Edward Porter Alexander Lee's artillery chief


http://thomaslegion.net/edwardporteralexander.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citdog]

Brig General Stand Waite CSA the only Native American general officer on either side


http://www.civilwarhome.com/watiebio.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

Lincoln also freed the slaves in all states. The Emancipation Proclamation was an emergency war declaration. Soon afterwards he and the Congress began work on the 13th Amendment which barred slavery in all states and territories. It passed the Senate and House before he was assassinated... but, it wasn't enacted until after he was dead.

Look whose back from flying over Libya. Is it more satisfying to drop real bombs or verbal ones?

[citdog]

carnage at the crater


http://www.craterroad.com/carnage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Wedgebuster]

carnage at the crater


http://www.craterroad.com/carnage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Apparently for you, to think of people of color as contraband property rather than as people is funny, while supposedly fighting to free them.

To me it is cynical to do so while benefitting from their labor without paying them and freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

I guess it is a matter of one's paradigm.

Not at all. You're taking the same path that others have taken to try to prove a point that isn't there. You're trying to, on one hand, say that the North went to war to free the slaves, and then say that because many in the North were racists, that that is cynical. No reputable scholar would ever say that the North went into the war with the goal of freeing the slaves. Slavery was certainly the main and underlying cause of the Civil War (that's almost undeniable), but the North didn't go into the war expressely to end slavery. That developed over time, actually, much as the article indicates.

And then your attempt to use 21st century racial views to judge the racial views of people 150+ years ago is just convenient to make your point, no matter how inaccurate it is to judge in that manner. Again, the article goes to great pains to point out how people who had never even seen a Black man in their lives went from knowing nothing about them, then seeing them as contraband, and then seeing them as human beings deserving of freedom. And they did this over just 2 short years (4 if you want to use the whole war and the move to the 13th ammendment). And to you that's not quick enough and is therefore a display of cynicism. Considering that we as a country have struggled to deal with race for going on well over 150 years since the end of the war I think it's actually pretty cynical on your part to criticize a 4 year window that made perhaps more progress than than we have since.

So yes, you're right, on one aspect, it does depend on one's paradigm. But your's seems much closer to that of citdog and his like than I'm sure most people would like to be.

[citdog]

Apparently for you, to think of people of color as contraband property rather than as people is funny, while supposedly fighting to free them.

To me it is cynical to do so while benefitting from their labor without paying them and freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

I guess it is a matter of one's paradigm.

Not at all. You're taking the same path that others have taken to try to prove a point that isn't there. You're trying to, on one hand, say that the North went to war to free the slaves, and then say that because many in the North were racists, that that is cynical. No reputable scholar would ever say that the North went into the war with the goal of freeing the slaves. Slavery was certainly the main and underlying cause of the Civil War (that's almost undeniable), but the North didn't go into the war expressely to end slavery. That developed over time, actually, much as the article indicates.

And then your attempt to use 21st century racial views to judge the racial views of people 150+ years ago is just convenient to make your point, no matter how inaccurate it is to judge in that manner. Again, the article goes to great pains to point out how people who had never even seen a Black man in their lives went from knowing nothing about them, then seeing them as contraband, and then seeing them as human beings deserving of freedom. And they did this over just 2 short years (4 if you want to use the whole war and the move to the 13th ammendment). And to you that's not quick enough and is therefore a display of cynicism. Considering that we as a country have struggled to deal with race for going on well over 150 years since the end of the war I think it's actually pretty cynical on your part to criticize a 4 year window that made perhaps more progress than than we have since.

So yes, you're right, on one aspect, it does depend on one's paradigm. But your's seems much closer to that of citdog and his like than I'm sure most people would like to be.

please gannonjocksniffer don't make me go all cold harbor on you. this is a bad week for me as i am reminded of how miserable I was marching away from Richmond and leaving it in the hands of the coercers all of those years ago.

[citdog]

Battle of Bentonville Genl Johnston's last stand


http://www.nchistoricsites.org/bentonvi/bentonvi.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

please gannonjocksniffer don't make me go all cold harbor on you. this is a bad week for me as i am reminded of how miserable I was marching away from Richmond and leaving it in the hands of the coercers all of those years ago.

Really, Cold Harbor? So you're basically saying that you're on the ropes, about to be fatefully entrenched into a losing position that will result in your absolute and unconditional surrender and you're capable of one more, ultimately fruitless counterpunch? Who knew you were so close to capitulating? It's like Apppomattox of you.

[LeadBolt]

Apparently for you, to think of people of color as contraband property rather than as people is funny, while supposedly fighting to free them.

To me it is cynical to do so while benefitting from their labor without paying them and freeing only those in areas under rebellion, but not in areas or to owners loyal to the Union.

I guess it is a matter of one's paradigm.

Not at all. You're taking the same path that others have taken to try to prove a point that isn't there. You're trying to, on one hand, say that the North went to war to free the slaves, and then say that because many in the North were racists, that that is cynical. No reputable scholar would ever say that the North went into the war with the goal of freeing the slaves. Slavery was certainly the main and underlying cause of the Civil War (that's almost undeniable), but the North didn't go into the war expressely to end slavery. That developed over time, actually, much as the article indicates.

And then your attempt to use 21st century racial views to judge the racial views of people 150+ years ago is just convenient to make your point, no matter how inaccurate it is to judge in that manner. Again, the article goes to great pains to point out how people who had never even seen a Black man in their lives went from knowing nothing about them, then seeing them as contraband, and then seeing them as human beings deserving of freedom. And they did this over just 2 short years (4 if you want to use the whole war and the move to the 13th ammendment). And to you that's not quick enough and is therefore a display of cynicism. Considering that we as a country have struggled to deal with race for going on well over 150 years since the end of the war I think it's actually pretty cynical on your part to criticize a 4 year window that made perhaps more progress than than we have since.

So yes, you're right, on one aspect, it does depend on one's paradigm. But your's seems much closer to that of citdog and his like than I'm sure most people would like to be.

Boy have you missed my point entirely! I in no way believe that the North went to war to free slaves. I believe they went to war for economic and political reasons and came to emancipation as a way to justify their actions and to take the moral high ground. In no way did the go to war to end slavery. The racial views of today you mentioned were aimed at your comments, made in today's setting not in the article.

When I moved to the North in the 1970's many of the people there assumed they were intellectually and morally superior because they did had a different accent than I did. THey would often mis state my views and change the subject and not listen, much the same as you they would assign beliefs to me that were not there, such as your statements that I was trying to prove the north went to war about slavery and adding racial attitudes of today into that time. Those statements or implications are no where in what I wrote.

I stand by my original assertion, that the War was not motivated by a desire by the North to free slaves and that they came to the emancipation idea reluctantly and cynically. Please refrain from adding more to my argument of a bogus nature so that you can defeat the bogus argument you added. Those sorts of tactics are beneath you and more of what I would expect from less adept posters.