Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[Pvt Schnapps]

Truth is a very elusive commodity. Karl Marx thought the truth was the Communist Manifesto. Hitler thought the truth was fascism. Facts and opinions are often very blurred, particulalry in history and politics.

Everyone has their own individual biases that taint their opinions and perspective, even the indomitable Patrick Moynahan.

Truth can indeed be elusive; in case of historical truth, we try to vector in on it with interpretations from the facts as we know them. We can learn new facts that change our interpretations (for example, a new diary comes to light), or learn new ways of looking at the facts (for example, we find that the diarist recorded a few dates wrong), which will also alter our interpretations.

Most people recognize the line between these interpretations and mere opinion, which exists without any particular relation to any particular facts. Based on the evidence before us, this thread has pretty well demonstrated on which side of the line your posts fall.

[firstmdes]

Truth is a very elusive commodity. Karl Marx thought the truth was the Communist Manifesto. Hitler thought the truth was fascism. Facts and opinions are often very blurred, particulalry in history and politics.

Everyone has their own individual biases that taint their opinions and perspective, even the indomitable Patrick Moynahan.

The weird part of this whole debate has been that many of us have used the words of the leaders of the secession movement to show their motives and their attempted defense of slavery. Others in this thread ignore the original sources and quote 20th Century interpretations of the "truth" and preach about how their interpretation is the truth. No room for the facts. Facts that come directly from the Southerner's mouths! Somehow you need to re-read your statement about truth and opinion and take it to heart.

[Blockade Runner]

The weird part of this whole debate has been that many of us have used the words of the leaders of the secession movement to show their motives and their attempted defense of slavery. Others in this thread ignore the original sources and quote 20th Century interpretations of the "truth" and preach about how their interpretation is the truth. No room for the facts. Facts that come directly from the Southerners mouths! Somehow you need to re-read your statement about truth and opinion and take it to heart.

I have come to the conclusion that we will never agree on very much concerning the WBTS. I can present a thousand quotations, and your people can present a thousand quotations as a rebuttal. What does it really prove? Does it prove that my quotation is right, or that yours is right? Is it even remotely possible that some of the quotations you have cited were taken out of context. And is it possible that some of the individuals quoted may have eventually changed their opinions regarding slavery? Since the latter question is purely speculative, no one will ever really know the answer.

Let's face it, much of what we believe comes down to personal perspective. You claim that certain quotes are facts, and I can counter that there were voices inside the Confederacy, (such as General Cleburne), who wanted to use slaves as soldiers. That did occur at the end of the war. Many historians believe that slavery would have been eventually abolished with or without the war. Irrespective of that, I do not believe based on research and reading that I have done, that the war was fought over the issue of slavery. What you've read and researched brings you to a different conclusion.

I will never change your mind about certain aspects of the WBTS, and you will never change mine. It basically becomes an exercise in futility, and it's tedious.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

"Minds are like parachutes - they only work when they're open."

[Frenchie]

I will never change your mind about certain aspects of the WBTS, and you will never change mine. It basically becomes an exercise in futility, and it's tedious.

You didn't find it tedious until you realized the other side of the debate had far better ammunition and held an unassailable position on the high ground.

You said, in effect, that for you the truth is what you say it is and for others it is what they say it is. That is ridiculous nonsense. We can't speak to those people of the time, but they still speak to us - we can read what they put down as their beliefs, reasons, etc. What they said is what tells us why they tried to secede and started a civil war, and they said they did it to preserve slavery. Denying it is calling them liars, and the least silly thing about doing that is trying to get us to believe they were all in collusion to deceive everyone else about the real reasons. Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret as long as two are dead." I say that every time I hear someone blathering about their favorite conspiracy theory.

I mean, come on, don't you realize the absurdity here? I guess not, it probably isn't part of your "truth".

[tompritchett]

You said, in effect, that for you the truth is what you say it is and for others it is what they say it is. That is ridiculous nonsense. We can't speak to those people of the time, but they still speak to us - we can read what they put down as their beliefs, reasons, etc. What they said is what tells us why they tried to secede and started a civil war, and they said they did it to preserve slavery. Denying it is calling them liars, and the least silly thing about doing that is trying to get us to believe they were all in collusion to deceive everyone else about the real reasons. Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret as long as two are dead." I say that every time I hear someone blathering about their favorite conspiracy theory.

I don't think that the argument was over the facts but how they were being interpreted. Both sides were in agreement that the slavery was the major catalyst that drove the secessions. However one side is arguing that the war was fought over slavery because without slavery there would have been no secessions, while the other side is saying that the war was fought over the right of those states to secede for whatever reason their reasons were. IMHO, in this case the disagreement is not over the facts but how each side believes those facts are linked.

[firstmdes]

I have come to the conclusion that we will never agree on very much concerning the WBTS.

I actually came to that conclusion quite a number of posts ago, but thought I would try a little longer.

I can present a thousand quotations, and your people can present a thousand quotations as a rebuttal. What does it really prove? Does it prove that my quotation is right, or that yours is right? Is it even remotely possible that some of the quotations you have cited were taken out of context.

Except for the Lincoln book, what quotes have you offered to refute the "slavery caused the war" argument?

And is it possible that some of the individuals quoted may have eventually changed their opinions regarding slavery? Since the latter question is purely speculative, no one will ever really know the answer.

I will not deny that many men and women of the Confederacy changed their minds over time. Four years of slaughter can change the most entrenched ideas. Kevin Dally (aka: Georgia Frame) sent me the following quote which backs up your claim of changing opinions:

Confederate Soldier, S. T. Foster , Captain in the 25th Texas Cavalry (dismounted) from his book, One
of Cleburne's Command…
April 30th, 1865…
“It seems curious that men’s minds can change so sudden, from opinions of life long, to new ones a week old.
I mean that men who have not only been taught from their infancy that the institution of slavery was right; but men who actually owned and held slaves up to this time, --have now changed in their opinions regarding slavery, so as to be able to see the other side of the question, --to see that for man to have property in man was wrong, and that the “Declaration of Independence meant more than they had ever been able to see before. That all men are, and of right ought to be free” has a meaning different from the definition they had been taught from their infancy up, --and to see that the institution (though perhaps wise) had been abused, and perhaps for that abuse this terrible war with its results, was brought upon us as a punishment… These ideas come not from the Yanks or northern people but come from reflection, and reasoning among ourselves.”

Let's face it, much of what we believe comes down to personal perspective. You claim that certain quotes are facts, and I can counter that there were voices inside the Confederacy, (such as General Cleburne), who wanted to use slaves as soldiers. That did occur at the end of the war. Many historians believe that slavery would have been eventually abolished with or without the war. Irrespective of that, I do not believe based on research and reading that I have done, that the war was fought over the issue of slavery. What you've read and researched brings you to a different conclusion.

Yes, there were a few members of the C.S.A. who were interested in the liberation of slaves for military service. If I remember correctly, these people were the exception to the rule and were considered crazy by the majority of those who heard their ideas. Personally, I am glad Patrick Cleburne was ignored and his career possibly ruined by this idea. If the idea had been put into practice, the war would have lasted longer and many more would have died for, more than likely, the same end.

I will never change your mind about certain aspects of the WBTS, and you will never change mine. It basically becomes an exercise in futility, and it's tedious.

I find this approach to debate and discussion rather defeatist. I have held many opinions and beliefs about the Civil War for years. Some have been firmly in place from the beginning and some are newly formed. The best way to convince me is to take the words and actions of the people who lived the history you are discussing and make your points from them. I find it hard to deny the words of Stephens, et al when they were written/spoken in the heat of the moment, when a person's true thoughts are being uttered. Anything they say years after the war borders on damage control.

Nice debating with you!

[RebelBugler]

I don't think that the argument was over the facts but how they were being interpreted. Both sides were in agreement that the slavery was the major catalyst that drove the secessions. However one side is arguing that the war was fought over slavery because without slavery there would have been no secessions, while the other side is saying that the war was fought over the right of those states to secede for whatever reason their reasons were. IMHO, in this case the disagreement is not over the facts but how each side believes those facts are linked.

I believe Tom has clearly articulated the nature of the arguments.

For those still insisting that the War was fought over slavery, I would respectfully suggest examination the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, passed by Congress of the United States on July 25, 1861. Clearly, this is primary documentation from the period that states that the war WAS NOT being conducted for the purposes of [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']"overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,"[/FONT] but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." If we are to believe Congress, this citation is irrefutable evidence as to why the Union engaged in War with the South.

Lastly, there had been questions as to attempts by the South to negotiate a peaceful settlement and provide financial compensation to the North for Federal installations. Following the inauguration of President Davis on February 9, 1861, and by a Resolution of the Confederate Congress, a Peace Commission was sent to Washington DC to discuss an amicable resolution of the crisis and compensation for Federal installations in the Confederate states and payment of the South's pro rata portion of the National Debt. Unfortunately, Lincoln refused to meet with these individuals.

[firstmdes]

I believe Tom has clearly articulated the nature of the arguments.
For those still insisting that the War was fought over slavery, I would respectfully suggest examination the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, passed by Congress of the United States on July 25, 1861. Clearly, this is primary documentation from the period that states that the war WAS NOT being conducted for the purposes of [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']"overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,"[/FONT] but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." If we are to believe Congress, this citation is irrefutable evidence as to why the Union engaged in War with the South.

RebelBugler, I state again that we have not been debating the reasons Lincoln and the North went to war. Yes, Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union and defend the Constitution. Even if he wanted to end slavery from the beginning, he would not have gotten the support of all remaining states if he declared that the war was for the destruction of slavery. Look what happened in NY in 1863!

The debate that we have been having is about why the South went to war. Forget Lincoln quotes and U.S. Congressional debates or resolutions. These do not tell us why the South did what the South did. The "Founding Fathers" of the Confederacy were trying to defend their perceived rights to place other humans in bondage. They may have tried to package it as one of many "state's rights" issues, but the non-slavery related issues were not war-worthy! Can anyone truly think that men and women would be whipped into a frenzy over paper money, vetos and presidential terms?

Let's stop posting support for why the Union fought and post support for why the Confederacy fought.

[tompritchett]

Let's stop posting support for why the Union fought and post support for why the Confederacy fought.

There are two issues here - why the typical Southern soldier took up arms and why the Confederacy took actions that ended up initiating a war. As for the first, I believe that most Southerners believed that they would not be allowed to leave the Union peacefully and took up arms to defend themselves from a possible Union invasion specifically and from what they perceived to be Northern interference into their affairs generally. Once the bullets started flying, there was loyalty to their home states (Confederate officers such as Lee as well as senior officials as Davis - both of whom were openly opposed to secession), defending the right of states to determine their own destinies without interference from the Federal government (a sentiment still shared by many today) as well as the motives listed in the prior sentence. As for why the Confederacy decided to fire on Sumter, the best reasons that I can give is a massive case of hubris and a sense that their honor was at stake in allowing Northern troops having any semblance of controlling access to one of her major ports (control that was true only in theory but not in fact because of the extreme vulnerability of the garrison to fire from the various shore batteries). Yes, one of the major items that they were protecting from Northern interference was their right to have slaves but, given that slightly less than 1/3 of families in the Confederacy actually owned slaves as of the 1860 census, I think that you have to look at the larger picture and the issues involved as I outlined them above.