Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
NS was in favor of everything liberal and yes that included the homosexual agenda.
I for one will not miss the liberal troll
Don’t forget to add yankees to that list; true-man-dog likes to forget about the northern slaves and only likes to remember the southern ones.
“I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910.”
Former National Park Service, Chief Historian, Ed Bearrs.
“We are willing to aid Virginia’s cause to the utmost of our ability. There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us.”
Charles Tinsley, Free Black, Pocahontas, Petersburg, Va
I’m not sure what your point is here...The Treaty of Paris was an agreement between Great Britain, France and Spain.
Good for him. Do you happen to know where Ringgold is?
Catoosa County, north Georgia. A lot of Civil War and Cherokee history, sometimes intertwined.
______________
Actually, that is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth.
Historicism is a mode of thinking in which the basic significance of specific social context—e.g., time, place, local conditions—is central; whereas the notion of fundamental generalizable immutable laws in the realm of sociology or social behavior tends to be rejected. [Wikipedia]
Someone who makes reference to universal principles in judging the past may be ahistorical or unhistorical, but by definition, he or she can't be a historicist.
But is it ahistorical or unhistorical to point out the contradiction inherent in denying people freedom and the vote and yet counting them to give one's state a greater representation than the number of free, voting people would warrant?
That would have to mean that no one questioned that practice at the time. But clearly people did question the way that a state like South Carolina received extra representatives based on 3/5 of the enslaved half of its population.
It wasn't that they wanted to give slaves the vote. They wanted to bring the states representation in Congress and the electoral college into accord with that part of the population that was actually free and taxpaying.
It was the opponents of slavery who advocated such a course, since it would weaken that institution, but clearly for some people in 19th century America there was something morally questionable about claiming representation based on people one denied freedom to.
So yes, people then and now made appeal to the principles they thought to be universal to attack the 3/5 compromise and what they believed to be the unfair advantage free Southern Whites enjoyed in Congress over and above what their population would entitle them to.
There's nothing unhistorical or ahistorical or historically erroneous in pointing that out or in making the same argument now -- and certainly nothing "historicist" about it.
Karl Popper used the word "historicism" in another sense -- to mean the belief that we could discover iron "laws of history" and run society in accord with them, but that's not relevant here.
After two world wars, "historicism" was associated with Germany and its use of historical relativism as a defense, so it became a dirty word that people associated with wrong thinking about history and morality. But to use it to mean pretty much its exact opposite -- that's something novel.
______________
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.
____________
That's not true either. South Carolina and Georgia wanted all of their enslaved population to count when congressional seats were apportioned among the states. The rest of the country wouldn't agree.
It was left to delegates from Virginia and Connecticut and North Carolina to propose other proportions that states could agree on regardless of how many slaves they had had.
South Carolina and Georgia were already committed to slavery and wanted representation based on 100% of their slave population. Most of the Northern states disagreed.
It was the other Southern states, plus Connecticut that pushed through the 3/5 compromise (with Massachusetts divided on some of the votes and Pennsylvania supporting the compromise on one key vote).
Whether you want to view this as South against North or as South Carolina and its ally Georgia against the rest of the country, the 3/5 compromise wasn't something Northerners imposed on the South.
It was also a tricky question because when it came to possible taxation on a per head basis, the slave owning states weren't keen on 100% representation either.
And where in heaven's name do you get the idea that slaveowners wanted to count their bondsmen as "fully human"? Tell me, what would letting their masters have greater representation in Congress have gotten the slaves? Would they have been able to demand fully human treatment in other things as well?
Near Chattanooga and Chickamauga.
Reading the Treaty of Paris, it's clear it was with the United States.
From that Wikipedia article you posted. Didn't you read it?
BTW, you argue like a liberal.
And you argue like someone who hasn't a clue as to what they are talking about.
“When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”
Dr. Leonard Haynes, professor Southern University
The “Richmond Howitzers” were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas where they operated battery no. 2.
“Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc.
These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks.
“Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army.”
Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. Jackson’s occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862
“There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”
Frederick Douglass.
“None…will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us.” The Richmond Sentinel, 24 Mar 1864.
“It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy,
and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men.
The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
D. STUART,
(Union) Brigadier-General, Commanding.”
If that is the case, you are going to hate lives in and was raised in the south. As a southerner who understands that slavery was the primary reason for the southern states to leave the Union and one who understands that slavery is a reprehensible practice.
And no matter how hard they try, the confederate apologists cannot separate slavery as the primary reason why the southern states left the Union.
The historical documents from that period show that the Confederacy and Slavery are one and the same.
If you folks are so disgusted and so torqued at this nation, then do something honorable, for once, just go. Leave. Or, you could follow your dead heroes and form your own little colonies, secede and declare "independence". For you and your kind, I'd support your wishes. Just never ask for foreign aid from my billfold.
To: rockrr
Even more disappointing than someone ruining a good debate are the ones whose utterances are so extreme as to make the entire site look bad.
***That’s your job, especially when your side calls our side a bunch of Klansman.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since the shoes fit, you’re stuck hobbling in them.
I’d bet you have fond memories Of NB Forrest.
From that Wikipedia article you posted. Didn't you read it?
Sure, but I didn't see that statement. Please provide the relevant quotation from the article.
Slavery was reprehensible in both the north and the south. However, it was the south which not only continued to maintain slavery, but abandoned the Union so that they could continue slavery forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.