| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 06:48 pm |
|
41st Post |
|
calcav Member
|
TD, I cannot begin to point out all of the factors in that essay that I disagree with. With the wealth of knowledge available in this day and age it still shocks me that such rehtoric still exists. Some of it made me irritated, some of it made me feel ill. In the past I have been hesitant to express my views on some of the more flammable issues as they have on occasion been mistaken for NPS policy. (You should see a few of the blistering PM's I have recieved.) Sometimes I feel that I should remain quiet. This is one of those times. Perhaps I should create a new logon. Adios Last edited on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 06:50 pm by calcav |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 07:01 pm |
|
42nd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
The article David White was alluding to can be found here, and he's right - it's excellent! BTW - for all members: if I find that PM's are being used to "flame" other members for their views, I'll shut the whole PM system down.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 08:17 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
In the early days of the Republic, the southern states held their own in terms of political power, but as the 19th century progressed, this began to change. As southerners saw it, the Congress began to favor northern interests at the expense of the south. To them, the gradual loss of political power meant the loss of economic power. You make it hard to argue with you TD, but I must take issue that "Congress began to favor northern inerest at the expense of the south." Most ceretainly the balance of power was swinging the other way, but it hadn't yet. The "north" had fallen all over itself making concessions to the desires of the "south." The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 is but one example. Another is ithe first 13th Amendment. Still another is the Committee of 33. It's not like the southern leaders had no alternatives. It is quite apparent that the political power in the south was heading for a country of its own.....no matter what. I see nothing "noble" in that. The "south" pure and simple, fell prey to a small but vicious group of secessionists. In short, it got screwed, royally. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 08:33 pm |
|
44th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Has anyone noticed that "liberty" has yet to further join in the discussion? Miss LIberty is simply incapable of getting beyond the stories she's been told. When her familiy's lore is questioned, there is no basis for discussion. It is this and that's that. Period. Distressing that one so young has been deprived of an opportunity to think. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 08:49 pm |
|
45th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Ole, You and I can argue about this law or that, or about how onerous one tariff or another was. The key words in what I wrote were: "As the southerners saw it." I was not addressing the veracity of their views, only the views themselves. The southerners were, quite frankly, used to getting their own way. As they saw it, they were gradually being surrounded and dominated by their opponents. All they could see in the future was more of the same coming. We can argue whether their political philosophies dictated their economic ones or vice versa. But I believe that they saw no future for themselves in the direction that the country was heading. I strongly disagree with your view that a few "vicious" Fire-Eaters somehow hoodwinked the southern population into favoring secession. Certainly, many in the south were opposed to the idea at that time, or even in general. The idea was even voted down initially in some places. Some areas of the states that seceded were pro-Union, and remained so. But I believe that the majority of the southern people in 1861 found the idea of their own nation to be preferable to remaining in one in which the majority held beliefs that had diverged from their own.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 05:17 am |
|
46th Post |
|
Kentucky_Orphan Member 
|
TD- a little off topic, but was texas not the first state to not have an "out clause" when it joined the union? That is to say it was not expressed that the state should have the right to sucession if they believed their union with the United States was not to their advantage (I mean expressed by the state, and so lets not even touch bases with the second amendment) That is probably a even more prickly issue than slavery by itself, whether states have a right to leave the union should they so choose without interference. Most historians they put on the television all seem to think the founding fathers would have been startled that the constitution they devised would still be in service and would be proud of what america has become. The first part of that I would tend to agree with, the second part, however....
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 05:46 am |
|
47th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Kentucky Orphan, The agreement between Texas and the United States that allowed Texas to be annexed did not specifically address the right to secede from the US. Many believed that ALL states had the right to secede if they chose to, because secession was not forbidden by the Constitution. Thus, it was allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments, etc. See the Statehood section below. Republic of Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The agreement did contain some unusual provisions. One allowed Texas, if it chose to, to be divided into as many as five states. The prospect of ten senators from here would, no doubt, cause major heartburn in other areas of the country, especially the northeast. If ever attempted, it would surely be challenged by those who might say that the 1845 agreement no longer was applicable, since Texas chose to secede in 1861. All of that would be argued back and forth. The agreement allowed Texas to keep its public lands. (It later ceded territory outside of its present borders to the federal government.) This was useful later as it allowed the state to control its oil reserves, though that was not imagined in 1845. There were other unusual provisions- such as the right to fly the state flag at the same height as the US national flag. But, basically,the bottom line was that the Texas Republic was out of funds by the early 1840s. The US government assumed debts owed by the Republic of Texas as part of the deal. It also provided protection to Texans from hostile Indians, and incursions by the Mexican Government. The annexation was seen as advantageous for both parties. Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:17 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 01:56 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
ole Member
|
I strongly disagree with your view that a few "vicious" Fire-Eaters somehow hoodwinked the southern population into favoring secession. I haven't held that view very long, but it explains some of the more irrational actions. Will start a thread on that very subject so as not to hijack this one. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 02:59 pm |
|
49th Post |
|
David White Member 
|
TD:As the 19th century progressed, the cultural differences between north and south grew more profound. The north became less agricultural , and more industrial. Great immigrations came into the country due to wars and other conditions in Europe. Most of these immigrants flooded into the northern states raising northern population levels more significantly than southern ones. The north became more urban, and less and less like the south. As time passed, the attitudes of people in the two regions diverged more and more. You could say that the two regions developed different mindsets. (Or at least more different than they had had originally). Excellent post, you crystallize the issues very well. I would say the mindsets had always been very different, it’s just the issues that divided over the things that united started coming more and more into the forefront as the 19th century progressed. Heck, I could say we blame the war on the pilgrims and the cavaliers. The cultural differences between north and south had always been there. Certainly the cultures both changed over time too. This may be too general of a statement but they almost seemed to have passed each other in the night at some point in time. The Pilgrims started out very religious and today their offspring in New England tend to be thought of today, in general, as not quite as religious as southerners and commercially minded. The Cavaliers started out as a commercial enterprise without any real religious intent. Today the holy rollers are generally considered more at home in the south, than the NE. There may be a book or at least an article for some historian to work on.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:23 pm |
|
50th Post |
|
ole Member
|
The usual astute post, David. What you've said bounces around now and then, but it seems to be quite neglected. The more vociferous of the talkers often refer to the difference between the cavaliers and the roundheads. I tend to ignore such pronouncements as, apparently, do many others. It would be worthwhile to explore that idea, but it seems that it gets side-tracked by real issues. There was an element in southern society that thought itself to be of a superior class. We don't very often get into discussions of that factor. But, and it is only a germ of a thought, it would seem that there was a self-assumed aristocracy among the wealthier southerners. One that couldn't be bothered with such things as cooperation and the rule of law that they hadn't personally approved. More than a bit thin, but it might be worth chasing. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:40 pm |
|
51st Post |
|
ole Member
|
I cannot begin to point out all of the factors in that essay that I disagree with I got bollixed up somewhere in the duelling links. I'll assume you were referring to the essay on Lew Rockwell's site, rather than the essay by Langley. Rockwell's site is, may I be politically incorrect here?, a bit extreme. I appreciate it's position and do refer to it. But to cite essays on it as approaching fact just steps a little over the line of rational.. Please tell me that that was what you were saying. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:34 pm |
|
52nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Ole, Calcav was irritated and made ill by this essay that I posted a link to earlier. A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War I said that I agreed with some of what the author maintained (about the causes of the war and the actions taken by the federal government). The implication I took from the response was that I was considered to be something of a troglodyte for giving credibility to any of it, in spite of the: "wealth of knowledge" that is out there.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:45 pm |
|
53rd Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
The trouble with Miller and the liberterians at LewRockwell is that they demolish straw-men, present opinion and analysis as fact and frequently contradict themselves. For example, can they provide the textbook where "Today American children are taught in the nation’s schools, both in the North and South, that it was wrong for people to support the Confederacy and to fight and die for it"? "Only the United States and Haiti freed their slaves by war. Every other country in the New World that had slaves, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, freed them in the 19th century peacefully." Thank goodness they learned from our experience... "the war freed four million slaves into poverty"... and a liberterian is in favor of '40 acres and a mule' or some other 'handout'? "Although certainly a contentious political issue and detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue." Apparently the textbooks used above have no cites for the major issues of the 1850s from the compromise of 1850, through the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Dred Scott decision to John Brown and others... "Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter." So, Dickens, the british novelist and social critic is an economist as well... "Lincoln coerced the South to fire the first shots..." yeah, right... With essays like this, the problem is not what is incorrect but where to begin... HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 09:47 pm |
|
54th Post |
|
ole Member
|
I would very much prefer that we refrain from labelling one a troglodyte. It's an arcane observation, but it deserves thought and discussion. TD is, however wrong I think, a rational man and sane. (You should see some of the wild posts on other boards!) He merits consideration and respectful rebuttal. Kinda like, we disagree and let's find out why. Any post on Rockwell's site is automatically questionable. That's not a nice way to look at it, but it is realistic. And that's not to say that there's no value to any of them. Some are quite thoughtful and worth consideration. The one linked, however, does not fall into that category. It's repetitive goofball stuff we've been seeing for quite some time. It boggles me that people actually believe that claptrap. I'd better stop there. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 09:54 pm |
|
55th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
I would just point out that nobody labelled anyone a troglodyte. This was TD's interpretation of Calcav's post, but it was never said. Just in the interest of "fair refereeing".
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
56th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Ole, 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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 11:36 pm |
|
57th Post |
|
Doc C Member 
|
To back track to a previous post regarding Stowes book, to base one's view of slavery on a piece of fiction is a stretch (don't take the erroneous view of my condoning slavery in the least) but for a much more accurate view of this horible practice, one should read Douglasses' autobiography written about ten years previously. There is no way one can view slavery as anything other than an abysmal practice. In my opinion, I don't think there was or has been a more important or influential afro-american individual than Douglas. It's a waste of anyones time and efforts arguing the good points (none) of slavey, in any period of time, PERIOD. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:08 am |
|
58th Post |
|
ole Member
|
If it is necessary to pick apart (was it Miller's?) the essay posted on Rockwell's site, I will reluctantly do that. It would take little effort, but it would also be an exercise in wasting everyone's time. I suppose I ought to go back and look at it again. At first viewing, it appeared to be the same old revisionist BS we get treated with from time to time. Will be back with that, maybe tomorrow. ole On second thought, my stomach really is not up to it. Just looking it over once again makes me want to upchuck. You figure it out. Last edited on Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:12 am by ole |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:13 am |
|
59th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Ole, You don't have to if you don't want to.  Wow, I just saw your edited posting. If I had known that link would ruin two stomachs ( and probably more), I would have gone elsewhere for sources to bolster my argument on causes of the war.  Maybe the thread should be renamed: "Indigestion Over Sherman's March to the Sea." Last edited on Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:25 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 03:20 pm |
|
60th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Texas Defender, In my mind when Miller's essay is distilled there is nothing left. It's well written but vacuous and poorly organized. Even superficial scratching of his paragraphs reveals little basis for his conclusions. You are correct that few poor white southerners fought for slavery. They were fighting to protect their home. But why men fought and the causes of the conflict are 2 different topics. After all, Pearl Harbor did not cause World War II, but it sure induced a lot of enlistments. IMHO, Lincoln set a trap at Fort Sumter for the southern politicians in the same way I set a trap for burglars by owning a TV and a stereo and then going out to dinner. It's not a 'poor choice' - it's a deliberate decision on their part just waiting for an opportunity. I do not mind an honest disagreement, as it helps us both hone our opinions  HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:43 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Top |
