 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 831 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I don't feel the need to defend everything said in the essay that I posted, because I don't believe everything that is maintained there. However, you have not presented proof of any factual errors related to events in the war and statements made by various personages. So, basically, you and Hank C. are saying that you disagree with opinions and interpretations of events by the author of the essay.
I presented the essay in an attempt to illustrate that the causes of the war were complex and went beyond simply the issue of slavery. Events and actions by both sides had been leading up to the conflict since the first days of the Republic. The essay included statements from people of that time, both north and south (and foreign), citing their opinions on economic factors that came into play.
I also believe that the average southern soldier felt that he was giving his blood in defense of his home and to achieve independence, rather than to defend the insititution of slavery. Likewise, the average northern soldier would have maintained that he was fighting to save the Union, not to free the slaves.
Hank C's response to the essay was not addressed to me, but I can respond to some of what he said. I do believe that we are living in an age of political correctness. The PC position is to portray those who served the CSA as misguided at best. I've seen lesson plans on the Internet that greatly oversimplified the issues and wondered how poor white southerners could have: "Fought for slavery." I am pleased that I got my basic education several decades ago, and am not in the public school system as a student nowadays.
As I said above, Hank C's response does not dispute any historical facts in the essay. However, I am in full agreement with his last objection. The south was not: "Coerced" into firing the first shots. I believe that the master politician, Lincoln, set the trap for them at Ft. Sumter. However, they proceeded to jump in themselves with both feet.
Before federal property was seized, I believe that there was considerable opinion in the north to let the: "Wayward sisters" go in peace. Taking federal property, especially by firing guns, was the most stupid thing that the southerners could have done, and at precisely the wrong time. All it accomplished was to lose whatever sympathy they had in some areas. But it does not surprise me that they did what they did. One of the reasons that they lost the war was a tendency to put: "principle" above: "practicality."
At Ft. Sumter, all that they needed to do was wait Anderson out. He himself gave them the date when he would have to abandon the place. They could then have offered compensation to the US Government for the property. It wouldn't have changed the outcome in all probability. However, it might have forced Mr. Lincoln to provoke some other event in order to inflame passions in the north, so that he could go about the business of raising an army. Mr. Davis' wish to be: "Left alone", could not have come to pass.
As for my postings in general, please feel free to continue your attempts to rebut them. You have every right to be wrong when telling me that I'm wrong.
PS- Calcav did not actually call me a :'Troglodyte." He just seems to think that I am one.