[Me]: You haven't been around these threads enough. I've argued that slavery was the main, but not the only, cause of the war. Slavery was legal at the time, and the fact that Northern states were nullifying the Constitution with personal liberty laws was a leading cause of the war.</i?
[You]: I'm glad to see you say that. I for one put God's law as the only Supreme law over the Constitution (which there should never be a conflict (since slavery was removed) because the Constitution is drawn from God's law) and although the ordinances of the First Covenant were done away with when Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, God did not want Israelites to be slaves to other Israelites. Most blacks believe in the God of Israel making them Israelites by the promise to Abraham and should not have been slaves by circumstances of their birth alone.
You've touched on part of the problem between North and South. Slavery supporters pointed to the Bible as support for slavery, and Northerners said there was a higher law than the Constitution. Southerners pushed for the Constitution to be obeyed with regard to fugitive slaves, and Northerners passed laws that public officials would lose their jobs, be fined, and be imprisoned if they in any way assisted in returning fugitive slaves. Such diametrically opposed views were almost bound to end in conflict.
Slavery was an evil. Would that we could have gotten rid of it when we founded the country, if not before.
When I was a kid about 10 years old I used to tell the other kids not to put someone down for their race, which was rare when I grew up, so maybe I would've.
Good for you. First thing you've posted that I really concur with.
I think this thread proves I'm willing to go through a lot of work to defend what right and to argue angainst the perpetuation of slavery. Do you see anyone else here doing what I'm doing? I don't except for Non and Walt. Most would rather let your side continue their falsities, exaggerations, and omission of facts unchallenged. So it could be that I would've been a radical. I've certainly had a few death threats myself over other issues.
When proven wrong, Walt will sometimes repost the discredited information on another thread. When called on it, he's said that he was posting it for the lurkers. When Walt posts something factual, I listen to him. Actually Walt is the reason I joined FreeRepublic -- he was making claims that I thought to be false and I wanted to be able to refute the claims.
I respect Non-Seq. He will usually acknowledge error, while Walt and others typically won't.
While I think slavery was the main issue that brought on the war, it wasn't the only issue involved. I don't think you will find a poster on either side who will argue for slavery.
If you see things only in terms of slavery you will miss a good part of what the other posters and I are concerned about. We are concerned by abuses of power by the central government and concerned about the preservation of the freedoms we have under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I hope that you share these concerns. That is something we should have in common.
To me the War Between The States highlights all of these issues. These threads have discussed the meaning and intent of the Constitution in depth. It is like a graduate seminar on the Constitution and our history. More often than not, I will disagree with your Northern friends with respect to the Constitution. That's OK -- they've helped clarify my views and for that I thank them.
Getting back to your point, what falsities, exaggerations, and omissions of facts have I made?
Your side spends so much time reading theories of the evil of a few northerners and those that you want to hate that you never get any other perspective and you drift far from the truth. You guys live for this stuff, you talk about it every day, you read books on it, but you never get to know much of the truth because you draw from one narrow perspective.
I'm retired now and this is a nice hobby. I get engrossed in the first-hand newspaper reports of the war and the issues. I've copied pages from an old Northern newspaper to get their perspective and bought a bound volume of old Harper's Weekly pages to get the Northern view.
Do you try to understand the other side's viewpoint?
You didn't know that confederate rapes were not reported and confederate rapists were not gone after in the confederate ranks like they were in the Union ranks.
Like I said, this has been discussed on other threads. I bought a book, Military Justice in the Confederate States Armies to investigate the issue. Only one near case was documented in 9,475 military trials whose records survive, but these trials represent less than half of the trials known to have taken place. I discoved on the web that unlike in the North, rape was a civil court matter for the Confederates for most of the war.
Again, I'd advise you to look at your posting style. You make assertions about me that aren't true. Are you simply trying to provoke reaction? It is really a poor way of convincing someone in an argument.
You've never heard of the general I just mentioned. I mentioned his story before on this thread asking for his name but no one will tell me. I'm sure your buddies know who he is and know his story but are not telling me. I can't remember his name because I don't live for this stuff like you guys do. They're not telling me his name because they're only interested in propaganda, not the full perspective.
Now who is making assertions about the other side on this thread? Would you please take a look at what you've posted. With such assertions, you shouldn't be surprised that people react to your posts negatively.
I don't doubt that such a general might exist. It is just that I've never heard of him. You apparently can't provide a name or information about him, yet fuss at me for mentioning claims made during the war? Try to be consistent.
Supplies. Do you dislike the tactics of Ike too then?
I have no problem bombing supply lines. I do have problems with looting, burning civilian houses, and harassing civilians, strangling them until they tell where they've buried the family silver.
I support our use of the atomic bomb in WWII because in the end it saved lives on both sides. I understand that the same type of argument is made to justify what Sherman et al. did. I have a problem though with the kind of thievery that took place by Union troops in the South. Sherman said his troops could take only what they needed to survive -- they went wild instead and weren't reined in. Roads in Georgia were littered with stuff they took apparently just to break.
Given you guys exaggerations, one-sidedness, and omission of facts, I don't believe anything you say. But I have said the POWs were not treated well and there were murderers on both sides. So it's possible, but I'd have to see more perpective then your "some say" references.
If you have facts to refute someone's post, then by all means please post them. We all learn from these threads. Making blanket assertions about the other side is not the way to argue. If you've got the facts on your side, someone will listen.
POWs were not treated well.
Yes, prisoners often weren't treated well. I've made the point before that prisons on both sides weren't great places to be. No prison is. Some were deadly, in fact. On the other hand, some prisoners in Texas played baseball, or at least what was called baseball at the time, and there were good and kind guards in prisons on both sides. There were bad guards too, on both sides.
We have a clan of Mexican immigrants that opened a Mexican restaurant in my town. Pretty good.
You've touched on part of the problem between North and South. Slavery supporters pointed to the Bible as support for slavery,...
They were wrong in doing so. They should've studied better. The bible clearly says not to enslave Israelites and blacks are Israelites according to the promise by God to Abraham.
...and Northerners said there was a higher law than the Constitution. Southerners pushed for the Constitution to be obeyed with regard to fugitive slaves, and Northerners passed laws that public officials would lose their jobs, be fined, and be imprisoned if they in any way assisted in returning fugitive slaves. Such diametrically opposed views were almost bound to end in conflict.
When the Constitution had laws regarding slavery, it was in conflict with the Word and needed to be amended.
Slavery was an evil. Would that we could have gotten rid of it when we founded the country, if not before.
Some tried and Jefferson himself said that slavery meant trouble.
Good for you. First thing you've posted that I really concur with. When proven wrong, Walt will sometimes repost the discredited information on another thread. When called on it, he's said that he was posting it for the lurkers. When Walt posts something factual, I listen to him. Actually Walt is the reason I joined FreeRepublic -- he was making claims that I thought to be false and I wanted to be able to refute the claims.
He mostly posts the words of the men that lived at the time, I don't know how that could be very false.
I respect Non-Seq. He will usually acknowledge error, while Walt and others typically won't. While I think slavery was the main issue that brought on the war, it wasn't the only issue involved. I don't think you will find a poster on either side who will argue for slavery.
Actually, some have said they would've been good slavemasters and such.
If you see things only in terms of slavery you will miss a good part of what the other posters and I are concerned about. We are concerned by abuses of power by the central government and concerned about the preservation of the freedoms we have under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I hope that you share these concerns. That is something we should have in common.
I think slavery was such an evil against humanity and against the preamble of the Constitution and against the Word that the Constitution wasn't complete until slavery was rid of. I see no abuse of power seeing that there was rebellion, the Constitution was broken in 4 places by the south, and the US was attacked with property stolen.
To me the War Between The States highlights all of these issues. These threads have discussed the meaning and intent of the Constitution in depth. It is like a graduate seminar on the Constitution and our history. More often than not, I will disagree with your Northern friends with respect to the Constitution. That's OK -- they've helped clarify my views and for that I thank them.
I simply think that one the reasons the president takes the oath that he does is for when there is rebellion and/or invasion. I think the founding fathers knew there would be emergencies.
Getting back to your point, what falsities, exaggerations, and omissions of facts have I made?
You claim high rape rates where there is no evidence and would not mention the confederate rapes. You won't admit POWs were treated badly. You put together about three "some say..."s to determine that Lincoln kept northern POWs locked up. You talk about the evil of northern high command without mentioning the case that I told you about...you should know this story given how much you study this. You speak of abuse of power but make no mention of the gavels of power be given to unelected officials at the conventions....off the top of my head.
I'm retired now and this is a nice hobby. I get engrossed in the first-hand newspaper reports of the war and the issues. I've copied pages from an old Northern newspaper to get their perspective and bought a bound volume of old Harper's Weekly pages to get the Northern view.
I don't think the press is the place to get the view of the northern people. I think documentary history is the place. The press is usually far behind and are usually biased.
Do you try to understand the other side's viewpoint?
I think it's made clear. Slavery is no big deal to many on your side. How can I respect their viewpoint when they're so willing to believe falsities and "some say..."s? They deny documents like the Declarations of Secession. They make up stories about those that disagree with them (me).
Like I said, this has been discussed on other threads. I bought a book, Military Justice in the Confederate States Armies to investigate the issue. Only one near case was documented in 9,475 military trials whose records survive, but these trials represent less than half of the trials known to have taken place. I discoved on the web that unlike in the North, rape was a civil court matter for the Confederates for most of the war.
And they were not being charged as the governer's letter said. How is a marshall (or whoever it was that supposed to arrest people) to arrest a soldier? Does he follow the army and pick the soldier out of a battle? I think you can see why a lot of confederate rapists were never charged.
Again, I'd advise you to look at your posting style. You make assertions about me that aren't true. Are you simply trying to provoke reaction? It is really a poor way of convincing someone in an argument.
What did I say that isn't true?
Now who is making assertions about the other side on this thread? Would you please take a look at what you've posted. With such assertions, you shouldn't be surprised that people react to your posts negatively.
I stand by my assertion that there are some on your side that know the general I'm talking about but won't tell me because they're not interested in truth, but propaganda. Some things are self-evident.
I don't doubt that such a general might exist. It is just that I've never heard of him. You apparently can't provide a name or information about him, yet fuss at me for mentioning claims made during the war? Try to be consistent.
I'm sure it would be easy for me to find him on the net. I'm making a point here and I'm going to let it linger for a while longer. Your claims are based on about three "some say..."s. You're drifting far with that tactic. My claim is based on fact.
I have no problem bombing supply lines. I do have problems with looting, burning civilian houses, and harassing civilians, strangling them until they tell where they've buried the family silver.
There were criminals in the confederate ranks too, a fact that you don't mention. Sherman's orders were against supplies, as were Ike's.
I support our use of the atomic bomb in WWII because in the end it saved lives on both sides. I understand that the same type of argument is made to justify what Sherman et al. did. I have a problem though with the kind of thievery that took place by Union troops in the South. Sherman said his troops could take only what they needed to survive -- they went wild instead and weren't reined in. Roads in Georgia were littered with stuff they took apparently just to break.
That's war and Sherman had a war to win. Those things will happen, proof being that confederates raped their own women. Does that make Lee a war criminal?
If you have facts to refute someone's post, then by all means please post them.
This thread is almost 1800 posts long. That's all I've done is refute you guy's posts.
We all learn from these threads.
Ain't much to learn from those that only tell one side of the story, and don't tell facts anyway.
Making blanket assertions about the other side is not the way to argue. If you've got the facts on your side, someone will listen.
My assertions are self-evident and I'm right.
Yes, prisoners often weren't treated well. I've made the point before that prisons on both sides weren't great places to be. No prison is. Some were deadly, in fact. On the other hand, some prisoners in Texas played baseball, or at least what was called baseball at the time, and there were good and kind guards in prisons on both sides. There were bad guards too, on both sides.
Yes, but on the whole, POWs were not treated well.