Replies

Well... lady or not, I do protest your repeated complaints about being asked to provide sources & quotes.

And I protest the repeated trolling your side tries to engage in.

You are here trying to defend the Lost Cause myths that 99% of historians view as little more than self-serving revisionism.

You are here trying to defend PC Revisionism that 99% of historians before the current crop of Leftists viewed as little more than self serving wartime propaganda.

So you start off with the disadvantage that nobody can
take your opinions seriously. The way you add weight to mere opinions is by citing the sources & quotes you took them from.

Nah it is you who starts off with the disadvantage and who cannot be taken seriously here. You have aligned yourself with hardcore Leftist historical revisionists even though you claim to be conservative. You are obviously nothing of the sort.

Now some of us are somewhat familiar with various arguments and have seen where they come from. So we know sources for some arguments and may not challenge you on that at first.
But whenever you concoct something new, then we’ll want to see where you got it and if all you do is blow smoke in response, we’ll write it off as being nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.

Yes and I’m familiar with the drivel you PC Revisionists have been spewing in Academia since the 1980s. I’ve seen the usual BS from the usual Leftist sources and unsubstantiated claims. I am used to your side’s standard tactics.

You might look at it this way: a request for sources is also an offer to take your argument seriously, if the source proves legit.

LOL! You’ve been presented those sources umpteen times already. Lemme give you a tip. You are never going to sit in judgment here. You are never going to send me on a wild goose chase to try to satisfy some standard you determine wasting huge amounts of time when due to your bias of course, the standard can never be satisfied. I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen trolling before and know how it works.

That’s why I keep dozens & dozens of sources, quotes & data summaries handy just in case I’m challenged on them.

Yes, I do too.

Plus I know how to look up many more whenever something new comes along.

Ditto.

Let me put it this way: your opinions are only as valuable as the data they’re based on and if you refuse to supply us sources, then your opinions, by themselves, carry no weight here.

You’ve been supplied facts quotes and sources - a wide variety of sources - scores of times. We both know you will never admit that ANY Source presented that refutes your dogma will ever be deemed acceptable. If you cannot challenge its credibility, you will simply pivot to claiming its “cherry picked” or “irrelevant”. You will do anything to avoid admitting you were ever wrong about anything.

So now you are also an expert in Civil War historiography and in intellectual trends in academia? And you acquired this expertise where, exactly?

You don’t have to be an expert to read. I’ve read up on this topic quite a lot. As for my credentials, I don’t care to engage in some internet dick measuring contest over claimed credentials that none of us can actually verify. That’s just a waste of time.

I’m no expert but do remember being taught as a young man that Charles Beard’s “progressivism” and “economic determinism”, aka Marxism, were at the root cause of Civil War.

I didn’t believe it then and don’t now because that’s not what those people said at the time.

Charles Beard was correct that both sides were really motivated by money - as people pretty much always are - no matter what grand noble cause they claim is their motivation.

What they said then was slavery was their number one reason
for secession. That makes slavery important regardless of how sophisticated intellectuals with their Marxist theories might try to explain it away.

They cited the Northern states violation of the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. They were correct - that was a violation of the constitution. That however, was a pretext. It was said by many at the time - including many Northerners that it was a pretext and the fact that the Southern states were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and turned it down shows that protection of slavery was obviously not their motivation.

No, if you review the list of Civil War “schools” in my link, you’ll see that the Marxists, Progressives & leftists have always emphasized economic determinism over slavery or race.

No. Howard Zinn, James McPherson and the rest of the 1960’s Leftists who came to prominence in Academia in the 1980s were the ones who put forth the whole PC Revisionist “it was all about slavery” dogma. They and those like them are unabashed Leftists. Go to any Liberal Arts faculty today and you can see that they are overwhelmingly hardcore Lefties.

Facts & quotes are “real history” and I’ve not seen those from FLT-bird.

Then you’ve simply refused to look because I have provided them umpteen times including in this thread.

“Schools of thought”, interpretations, theories, points of view, etc., are all matters of opinions, all subject to scrutiny and revision. Opinions unsupported by substantial “real history” are worth only the electrons used to distribute them.

So you admit you cling to PC Revisionist dogma put forth in Academia by hardcore Leftists in the last generation. YOu’d have saved a lot of time if you had just said that from the start.