I am a retired Ph.D., and I am by nature and training a researcher.
You tell me that you are a Ph.D. and you tell me to get off a history thread, and I'm the elitist? You guys have to get over the idea of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of elitist. Relying on established authority may be faulted as weak or sheep-like, but it's not modest "little people" who think that they are going to overturn established opinion.
I have been participating in these Civil War discussions for years. Time was, I'd put in a lot of research and go running after any book that would prove a point. I don't have time for that now. I'm not really in the mood. Still, I think I have made a contribution here and continue to do so, though in a more modest way.
I don't think it's out of line to say that I'm not going to bother running down everything you make reference to, and to invite others who may be interested to look into your claims. There are people out there (maybe) for whom this is fresh and new. They'd do a better job of tracking down sources and forming a time line than I'd do even if I wanted to. The alternative would be to simply ignore what you say. Would that be better?
If I've slighted your own contributions, that has a lot to do with my own attitude and situation right now. The way you have of treating every discussion as though it were a one-on-one debate, an excuse for barraging others with all manner of arguments, whenever somebody might just want to make a small point is another reason.
Also, I don't really think anything is going to be resolved by these discussions. I'm not saying historical research is useless or a waste, but the beginning of the American Civil War is (like the beginning of WWI) one of the most researched, most debated topics ever, and trying to force a conclusion one way or the other just isn't going to work.
Finding dozens of Southern editorials on secession that say that Lincoln's inaugural meant war doesn't really prove anything, any more than finding, say German editorials from 1914 making claims about French or Russian actions (or French or Russian editorials about German actions), because they say exactly what one would expect people in a war fever, intent on conflict, would say.
Finally, I'm at a loss as to what the upshot of all this is. To prove that the current government is illegitimate? To restrict the federal government to the powers it had in 1850? To break up the country? To vindicate the Confederacy, a government that certainly wasn't any better than its adversary? To make Lincoln the great villain of American history? To feel better about being Southern than you already do? I'm not saying it's all a waste or I wouldn't participate, but there are definitely reasons why this becomes trying and wearying at times.
You called my posts massive data dumps that you didn't have time to reply to and that professional historians had addressed their points. According to you, my data-filled posts that you didn't want to respond to were wasting people's time. That is why I posted back that if you were going to complain about posts filled with historical data on a history thread, "Then why are you wasting our time and yours on a history thread and disparaging sourced information posted to the thread?" I didn't tell you to stay off the thread. Isn't history the point of these threads?
The alternative would be to simply ignore what you say. Would that be better?
I post historical information that you can respond to or not. Your choice.
... trying to force a conclusion one way or the other just isn't going to work.
Where am I trying to force a conclusion? I provide historical information that supports my opinion. If you want to provide some historical information that indicates my sources are wrong, please do. I'd appreciate it. If you're too busy or don't have an inclination to research the issue, so be it. Again, it's your choice to respond or not.
Finding dozens of Southern editorials on secession that say that Lincoln's inaugural meant war doesn't really prove anything ...
The only time I posted "dozens of Southern editorials" was in my own thread in 2004, though I've provided a link to that thread maybe four times over the years to posters who probably had not seen it. And besides, I posted both Southern and Northern editorials. I even provided a link to the text of Lincoln's speech. Strictly speaking, the subject wasn't secession. It was the editorials' opinions of Lincoln's first inaugural and what it meant. The editorials showed how very far apart the two sides of the country were. I'd not seen such a collection of editorials anywhere before.
You (at least, I think it was you) suggested a New York Times book to me based on their own articles during the war. I bought that book and later their disk containing the articles they published about the war and related issues during the war. For that, I thank you. I'm open to useful suggestions like that. It is another history source for me. The main problem with their articles on disk is that the text they provided was apparently prepared by optical character recognition, and some of the results had a number of errors when I compared to the actual articles themselves.
Finally, I'm at a loss as to what the upshot of all this is.
To prove that the current government is illegitimate? [rb: No]
To restrict the federal government to the powers it had in 1850? [rb: No]
To break up the country? [rb: No]
To vindicate the Confederacy, a government that certainly wasn't any better than its adversary? [rb: The Confederacy wasn't a perfect government at all, but I think the Confederacy's view of the Constitution was certainly more accurate than Lincoln's. The history I was taught oh so many years ago oversimplified history, IMO. I wanted to research what actually happened myself and post on threads where the history of that period is discussed. I had access in local libraries to great collections of newspapers of the period. What actually went on didn't always make it into the history books.]
To make Lincoln the great villain of American history? [rb: Up until recently, he violated the Constitution more than any other president. And, I believe, and I think the data support my opinion, that Lincoln initiated war because to let the South go with its far lower tariff than the North's recently passed Morrill tariff would ruin the Northern economy. I think the South went to war to protect its own slave based economy. And for other reasons as well.]
To feel better about being Southern than you already do? [Heck, as I've posted on these threads, I argued against segregation while living in the Deep South in the 50s and 60s. I donated food to the march on Selma because I thought that blacks had a right to vote even if it was not for the party I favored. I went to hear Martin Luther King speak. I argued at work during a summer job that blacks had the same rights as whites, and I got threatened with murder by a white hick. I voted against the Democrat race-baiters and segregationists when I became old enough to vote. So, I know both the good sides and the bad sides of the South. I wouldn't trade it, warts and all, for any other part of the country, and I've been to all 50 states.]
I'm not saying it's all a waste or I wouldn't participate, but there are definitely reasons why this becomes trying and wearying at times.
If it's trying to you, don't bother posting. I would much rather have you provide some information, whether it supports my argument or not. Mostly though, you seem to post opinions, not data.