USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But it appears that in all the arguments for secession, slavery was the main point raised. That the North would take away slavery. Now, that may not be what the common man fought for, but that was why the common man had to fight; because his leaders decided slavery was good enough to fight for.

This comes from primary sources (the speeches for secession in state houses across the South).

Just because they'd try to justify to others that it was really about some philosophical ideals of states rights was made up after the fact to make it seem better.

Hence, why primary sources are so important to the study of history; to get closer to the truth.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But it appears that in all the arguments for secession, slavery was the main point raised. That the North would take away slavery. Now, that may not be what the common man fought for, but that was why the common man had to fight; because his leaders decided slavery was good enough to fight for.

This comes from primary sources (the speeches for secession in state houses across the South).

Just because they'd try to justify to others that it was really about some philosophical ideals of states rights was made up after the fact to make it seem better.

And the whole "Lost Cause" thing, which was just bull.

We do "this is what they really meant" all the time and no one bats an eye. It's because people try to portray themselves in the best possible light.



Apparently it was (as Mr Fun points out in his last post). I'm not sure why you'd think you know what was in his academic course of study better than him, though.

Ummm:

Stated motivations and actual motivations are two different things.

Like the stated motivation for going into Iraq (whether you consider it to be WMDs or democracy in the Mid East) being completely bull****.

quote:
That would actually be a revision of a revision. In other words no revision at all, simply a debunking of sensational pop history.


Which historians claimed that the Europeans deliberately were wiping out the natives? Well, I guess aside from smallpox blankets, which DID occur.

You believe what people argued 150 years ago, but not toady?

I do too, but you shouldn't use a shaky argument like that.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You believe what people argued 150 years ago, but not toady?

I believe what they said 150 years ago over what they said 130 years ago on the issue . Supporting facts seem to indicate that slavery was much more important than those in the last 19th C want us to believe.

OTOH, supporting facts seem to indicate Iraq was not invaded for the two main stated reasons (the actual reasons probably were stated by groups like PNAC, but not in front of a national TV audience).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Supporting facts seem to indicate that slavery was much more important than those in the last 19th C want us to believe.

I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that they attempted to cover up thier motivations or were somehow dishonest about them given the historical record.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. - Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession

It was about States Rights, it just happened that one of the rights they were most interested in was slavery.

OTOH, supporting facts seem to indicate Iraq was not invaded for the two main stated reasons (the actual reasons probably were stated by groups like PNAC, but not in front of a national TV audience).

I think you have your tin foil hat on too tight, Slaughter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that they attempted to cover up thier motivations or were somehow dishonest about them given the historical record.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. - Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession

It was about States Rights, it just happened that one of the rights they were most interested in was slavery.

The historians of the late 19th Century, early 20th tried to downplay the centrality of slavery. They threw in all these other arguments. It was about the philosophical ideas of States Rights (just a normal states vs. federal debate), or tariffs, or all sorts of things to downplay how much slavery was essential to secession.

I'm not saying the people who seceeded were dishonest about their motivations, but people afterwards, who wanted to celebrate the Confederacy tended to be.

I think you have your tin foil hat on too tight, Slaughter.

So... you think it was actually because of WMD or democracy in ME? I think I reserve the tin foil hat for those who believe that.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that they attempted to cover up thier motivations or were somehow dishonest about them given the historical record.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. - Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession

It was about States Rights, it just happened that one of the rights they were most interested in was slavery.

It was about hundreds of millions of dollars invested in slave property.

[DinoDoc]

Why do you even quote me or respond to me Fun if you patently refuse to actually read what I post? Just go ahead and put me on ignore and continue to post random responses to me. At least then they'll be more amusing.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why do you even quote me or respond to me Fun if you patently refuse to actually read what I post? Just go ahead and put me on ignore and continue to post random responses to me. At least then they'll be more amusing.

Yes, you stated that slavery was an issue, but you point out that it was merely tied to the issue of states' rights.

I pointed out the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars was not a side-issue tied to states' rights. Huge investments like that are not a side-issue attached to states' rights; it was the central issue.

[Patroklos]

Damn, I go away for lunch and THEN Mr. Fun comes back

First of all, yes, when I was a graduate student, we took a historiography course as a requirement. I enjoyed taking this course, and would have taken it as an elective anyway; it was crucial for our academic and professional development in the study of history.

I am glad to hear that. Why are you ignoring everything you should have learned in said class?

Also, Molly and I posted pictures of racist-motivated lynchings to drive home the point that too many people in United States today are ignorant about the history of our country's race relations. This is one of the reasons why we STILL have race relations problems today; you cannot begin to help heal relations between blacks and whites without knowing our country's history in this regard.

You, yes. Molly, no. In any case all that stuff about the post reconstuction South is irrelevant, nothing I said has anything to do with what the laymen of 1880+ South thought.

[quote]And let's get back to Pattycake's point about historiography. During the early twentieth century, the white South had essentially won the war over the memory of the Civil War, when white Northerners came to accept the white supremacist vision of the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

This is precious. So now it is a conspiracy. The North, the very people who supposedly fought for the emancipation of the slaves are now in cahoots with the evil Society of Southern Gentlemen?

Just so I have it right, the opinions of all the people with first hand knowledge, access to veterans, in possession of god know how much material no longer available to us, not to mention all the same material we have now are somehow compromised because they don't say what you want about the Civil War?

Thankfully, scholarly research in 1950s and especially during 1960s began to seriously challenge the white supremacist's "Lost Cause" storybook version of Civil War and Reconstruction.

More like the 1980s. And I am not talking about the "Lost Cause" crap. You know damn well that the vast majority of the scholarly work on the subject made no bones about the South's link and acceptance of slavery.

Until you can find some scholarly fraud on the part of 100+ years of professional historical research and publishing, their conclusions are not only valid but far more authoritative than anything published today (unless, of course, they have new primary material).

Hence, why primary sources are so important to the study of history; to get closer to the truth.

You realize you just posted two paragraphs about how important primary sources are, right?

Primary sources trump all suites in the world of history unless you can prove them false, usually with better primary source. This is not the case here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Until you can find some scholarly fraud on the part of 100+ years of proffesional historical research and publishing, their conclusions are not only valid but far more authoritative than anything published today

So the modern historians who have access to primary documents "are somehow compromised because they don't say what you want about the Civil War"?

And Mr Fun is right that the white South won the fight over the version of events of the Civil War. They tried to push a states rights not slavery type of history and the Confederacy fought for freedom from federal oppresion and all sorts of BS. Things that are still circulating around in frightening amounts.

[Patroklos]

ut it appears that in all the arguments for secession, slavery was the main point raised. That the North would take away slavery.

It was the main point raised at the time, but there were plenty of other ones raised. Tariffs. Taxes. Currency. It should be noted that quite a few Northern states were all about state soverignty when foriegn tariffs came up.

I will make no arguement that slavery was near and dear to the hearts of Southern power brokers at the time as their economy was based on it, that has absolutely zero relevance on whether one considered it a state right or not.

Slavery was simply the hot topic issue. They could have just as well be arguing over the right of the government to tax cotten/tobacco 50% and gotten the exact same reaction from the South (they almost did get it from the North under similar circumstances.).

Now, that may not be what the common man fought for, but that was why the common man had to fight; because his leaders decided slavery was good enough to fight for.

So in other words they fought over states rights, slavery being an issue at hand at that time within that framework. Note the South didn't have anything against other states exercising their soverignty by banning slavery within their borders. Even the hand wringing about future slave states was merely a constitutional issue, they didn't care that Missouri itself might be a free state, but that that would give the Congress the ability to legislate over them.

Just because they'd try to justify to others that it was really about some philosophical ideals of states rights was made up after the fact to make it seem better.

You might want to tell that the John Calhoun.

Apparently it was (as Mr Fun points out in his last post). I'm not sure why you'd think you know what was in his academic course of study better than him, though.

A book published in 2006 won't be in a course until 2007, when he was done with school. He just said, again, two of those books were not in his courses.

believe what they said 150 years ago over what they said 130 years ago on the issue . Supporting facts seem to indicate that slavery was much more important than those in the last 19th C want us to believe.

Then read your correspondences, because what they said 150 years ago is the same thing HISTORIANS said 100 years ago. That is that slavery was important, state rights were important, and the threat of the govermnent to violate state soverignty to take slavery away is what they started the war. As you said yourself for the rank and file the violation of states rights period, for whatever reason, is why they took up arms.

[Patroklos]

I pointed out the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars was not a side-issue tied to states' rights. Huge investments like that are not a side-issue attached to states' rights; it was the central issue.

As I pointed out Mr. Fun, slavery was not the only issue that the North could have assualted to generate the same response, it was simple they one they did choose. The North proved this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It was the main point raised at the time, but there were plenty of other ones raised. Tariffs. Taxes. Currency. It should be noted that quite a few Northern states were all about state soverignty when foriegn tariffs came up.

I will make no arguement that slavery was near and dear to the hearts of Southern power brokers at the time as their economy was based on it, that has absolutely zero relevance on whether one considered it a state right or not.

Slavery was simply the hot topic issue. They could have just as well be arguing over the right of the government to tax cotten/tobacco 50% and gotten the exact same reaction from the South (they almost did get it from the North under similar circumstances.).

This is kind of what I'm talking about. The whole "it could have been anything" is just bull**** (you kind of go back and forth, say it was the main issue, but it could have been anything). They didn't really do anything when the Tariff of 1832 came up except voice their displeasure. They didn't do anything when it came to taxes or currency.

They did rise up when it seemed their institutional slavery would be threatened. It was not simply the "hot topic issue", it was the reason for secession, and any other issue would NOT have raised such a fuss. It hadn't come close to doing so in the past.

And remember it was slavery which almost caused the Southern states to not join the indepedance (as Jefferson wrote about the moral wrongs of it in the Declaration).

So in other words they fought over states rights, slavery being an issue at hand at that time within that framework. Note the South didn't have anything against other states exercising their soverignty by banning slavery within their borders. Even the hand wringing about future slave states was merely a constitutional issue, they didn't care that Missouri itself might be a free state, but that that would give the Congress the ability to legislate over them.

If that was really true, they wouldn't have protested so much when Northern states wanted to free slaves that entered their states when Southerners were traveling throughout (ie, the basis for the Dred Scott case).

And you are trying to re-write the "hand wringing about future slave states". The Missouri Compromise was come about by slave and free states, both of whom didn't seem to mind that Congress had the ability to legislate over them in that instance. Unless you mean it would give the North the ability to legislate over the South on the issue of slavery.

A book published in 2006 won't be in a course until 2007, when he was done with school. He just said, again, two of those books were not in his courses.

He actually said that 2 books were coursework and all 4 were used in his studies. I'm assuming the other 2 were used in his thesis.

Then read your correspondences, because what they said 150 years ago is the same thing HISTORIANS said 100 years ago. That is that slavery was important, state rights were important, and the threat of the govermnent to violate state soverignty to take slavery away is what they started the war. As you said yourself for the rank and file the violation of states rights period, for whatever reason, is why they took up arms.

Please. Historians had completely devalued the central role slavery played. It was all "states rights", not slavery crap, until recently, when the "revisionists" said, hey, wait a sec, states rights is basically code for slavery and it was more central than they put on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Again, if they are using the same sources why the disconnect. In reality they are using selected sources, and disregarding what doesn fit (like correspondeces, peoples own damn words!).

Because the ones in the 1900s couldn't be using selected sources and disregarding what didn't fit. Those people were using them all, right?

Like the same thing with Reconstruction? After all, they were using the same sources, so the modern historians of that period may just be disregarding what doesn't fit?

Oh wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_School

Never mind that.

Take that up with historiography. Most of it is not this "Lost Cause" BS you think, far from. That is another myth in the making.

Why exactly did I hear so much of in a positive light by the right (of which I was a part at the time) while growing up? The Lost Cause was a myth, created by white Southerners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[Patroklos]

Damn, nevermind, I accidently copied NAVNUPWRTRACOMNOTE 1301 over what I had typed

I am sure you guys would have found it facinating, but I have deleted it.