A Time in History That is Largely Misunderstood

Jefferson Davis

Stogie over at Saberpoint has started up a new blog that I thought you might be interested in. It is a blog that is going to focus on the Confederacy and of those times in our history. It is my understanding that he will be focusing on the many fallacies that has been taught of that time especially in regards to the South. For all of you interested in the history of this nation especially at the time of the war between the States I believe this will prove to be a very interesting blog. It can be reached by the following link.

Confederate Gray

Categories: History | Tags: , , , , , | 15 Comments

Post navigation

15 thoughts on “A Time in History That is Largely Misunderstood

  1. I may follow it. I know there was a lot of B.S. slung around to try getting men to go and die for the cause.

  2. The Griper

    well, as you already know, Gorges, I spent a lot of time researching that era and you saw the fallacies i found.

  3. BB-Idaho

    There is much history available..which and what contains fallacies
    are probably later opinion. Foote, Catton, McPherson, Bearrs et al. write without historical bias. In any event, if one reads enough of the stuff, one’s noggin gets clogged with odd facts like Henry Morton Stanley (recall he was the African explorer that walked into a ragged tent between the Zambesi and the Congo headwaters and
    enquired, “Dr. Livingston, I presume?” ) Stanley was an example
    of Darwinian adaptation: an illegitimate youth, he left Britain, abandoned his boat in New Orleans, found a Cotton trader to
    take him in, enlisted in the 6th Arkansas-Dixie Greys (under much pressure from the fire-eating Arkansas youth), fought at the Battle of Shiloh, got captured by the Yankees, went to prison, got out
    by volunteering for a new-formed Illinois artillery unit, deserted,
    enlisted in the Federal Navy, deserted….and became famous
    for discovering Livingston and tracing the course of the Congo
    River. Given the life story of the illegitimate kid…my spin would
    be…he was a famous bastard…. 🙂

  4. The Griper

    the only way to record history without bias is to only record the facts without any opinion, political or otherwise. and to research history without bias is to do so without a prior political opinion. and unfortunately we all have a political opinion of some kind.

    what it comes down to is truth and even that now days is just a matter of opinion. but just because it is a matter of opinion doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eliminate the obvious misconceptions of history. and there are far too many obvious misconceptions being taught in regards to history.

  5. BB-Idaho

    Huh? “far too many obvious misconceptions of history”

  6. The Griper

    the one biggest one is that the war between the States was over the issue of slavery when in fact it was over the unity of the States. this should be a no brainer as far as i am concerned and needs to be corrected.

    another one is that Columbus discovered America. this one is slowly going in the trash bin but still hanging around.

    a less obvious one is in regards to the intent of the founders of this nation which has resulted in a couple of interpretations of the Constitution and division of this nation. this one can be said as debatable to a certain extent but it should be obvious that something is wrong and the facts should be brought out into the open.

    these are just a few that i came up with off the top of my head that i feel fits the description. and i think if you look back we have found a couple ourselves as we debated a few issues over the years and ended up in agreement.

  7. BB-Idaho

    If you think that slavery was not an issue, you need to read through
    typical summaries of the causes of the civil war. For example, in
    this listing of 9 causes relating to secession and war, the
    words ‘slave’ and ‘slavery’ are used 20 times. IMO, short story-
    the northern states became more populous during the first half of the nineteenth century. The southern politicians managed to maintain parity in the senate and congress during that time. When
    it became apparent that they would become a congressional minority (mainly over the issue of whether newly formed states be slave or slave free) they chose to secede. Slavery was the south’s biggest problem- labor for cotton, they naturally feared freeing them
    (see Spartacus for example) and though the northern states had
    many abolutionists, there was no law requiring that existing slave
    states cease. The laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which
    permitted southern slave drivers into northern states following
    escapees, caused many to join the abolutionist sentiment. When
    the confederacy sought international recognition they found
    a cold shoulder. Again, the issue was slavery. As for the gallant soldiery of the south, I would agree..most were not slave owners,
    they were fighting against an invasion on their soil.
    Examine the Confederacy Constitution;
    Art IV, Sec. 2. (I) “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
    Art IV, sec 3(3)..
    “In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of
    the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
    Art I, sec 9(4)
    “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. the states or territories of the Confederate states”
    Art I, sec 9(4)..
    The causes were intertangled with slavery, the problems had
    festered for years, ‘compromises’ were detested by hotter heads on both sides. Whether we opine that the firing on Fort Sumter was
    a legitimate states right, or whether it was a blatant abuse of
    the US Consitution Art III, sec 3 “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them..” we need recognize that slaves and slavery were a major issue in the procedings of those times. As I understand it, the states rights argument in the context of 1860 only makes sense with the addendum …state’s rights to permit slavery.
    I agree, the remaining United States intended to maintain the union, but I posit that the union was fractured over the slavery issue,
    states rights being a convenient rationalisation. A rationalisation that unfortunately led to the firing on Fort Sumter.
    Yep, Griper, looking back, we have gone back and forth a bit..
    no hard feelings, just a couple of stubborn ol guys…..

  8. The Griper

    where did i deny that slavery was an issue of that time, BB? in fact i’ll acknowledge that slavery was an issue that dominated debate in the federal government in regards to many issues debated. i’ll go even as far as to acknowledge that slavery was the primary issue behind the Southern States decision to secede.

    but as i have pointed out previously and as you should recognize as a scientist the act of secession and the war are two different events thus each have their own cause. they are not one and the same event even tho one followed the other.

    even in our own research, we saw that slavery was not Lincoln’s primary concern. his one and only concern was maintaining the union. we also read the reason given by Davis and the concerns declared by both are consistent with each other.

    the idea of States Rights as a cause of the war is consistent with the idea of maintaining the union as a cause of the war. the idea of slavery is not consistent with the idea of maintaining the union as a cause of the war.

  9. BB-Idaho

    It may be that southern ‘states rights’ is the first of the five myths
    of why the south seceeded. It seems self-evident that “my right
    to own slaves” elicits little sympathy, even when couched in
    ‘states rights’ terms.

  10. The Griper

    “Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.”

    that is the most misleading statement i have ever read yet on the issue. and when did they ever oppose the right of northern states not to support slavery? that is a factor of State rights, the right of each State to make their own decision in regards to slavery, for or against.

    that is true of every right. take the second amendment as an example. every person has the “right” to own guns but it is up to you as an individual to make the decision of whether or not to actually own a gun.

    in fact i would call that the most foolish statement ever used to deny that State rights was the issue.

  11. The Griper

    don’t confuse State rights with individuals’ rights. for once you do there is no possibility for agreement.

  12. BB-Idaho

    The concept may or may not be misleading, but it can be argued from a historical viewpoint as in, for example:
    A from a liberal
    perspective, and
    B from a libertarian standpoint
    ..for the ferment leading to secession began in colonial times
    with the importation of slaves, followed by legal arguments between
    states with and states without; an the obvious position of those
    states vis a vis the federal establishment. Whether the statement or concept is ‘foolish’, I will not argue for such wanders from factual history into perceptive legal areas beyond my ken.

  13. The Griper

    at least you are acknowledging that the argument is politically influenced. now, the question becomes which argument possesses the consistent qualities that are attributed to “cause” not “effect”. and as with any disagreement there is a pro and con side.
    thus we have two possibilities;
    1. maintaining the union vs State rights.
    2. maintaining the union vs the Individual’s right to possess slaves.

    the individual’s right to possess slaves can only be the “effect” of the State retaining its rights to regulate the activity of slavery. it is the State that would deem it legal or illegal. there was no disagreement in regards to that right. Both, Lincoln and Davis were in agreement. in regards to this issue. Lincoln’s endorsement of the Corwin amendment is proof of this agreement.

    maintaining the Union deals with the activity of secession. it was Lincoln’s belief that the States had no right to secede from the Union. Davis believed that any State had the right to secede. now, we have a disagreement of a pro and con.

    now, you tell me, which would lead men to war, a argument where there was no disagreement or an argument where there was disagreement?

  14. BB-Idaho

    Davis ordered PGT Beauregard to begin firing on Fort Sumter:
    He knew he was beginning a war whatever ‘agreement/disagreement’ pre-existed. Davis was
    first a soldier, second a politician. The latter permitted him the latitude to express divergent views on secession, as for example,
    “When, therefore, disorderly persons in the northwest counties assembled and declared the ordinance of secession “to be null and void,” they rose up against the authority of the state. . . . The subsequent organization of the state of West Virginia and its separation from the state of Virginia were acts of secession. Thus we have, in their movements, insurrection, revolution and secession.” ‘The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy’-Jefferson Davis
    …only a politician could explain his own secession while decrying
    that of others as ‘insurrection, revolution’. While this let him have his cake and eat it too, one could observe that secession is
    either/or..good/bad..legal/illegal…except for Jefferson Davis who
    by any standard thought it good for his state in the first case and bad in the latter.
    ..for years the north and south in congress crafted compromise
    after compromise, typically yielding to southern interests in the
    interest of avoiding civil war. While these actions postponed
    armed conflict, they also contributed to stronger feelings in both areas.
    ..concurrent with the prehistory of the Civil War, it is instructive
    to note the construct of ‘states rights’ with respect to the slavery
    problem..perhaps best exemplified by the career ofJohn C. Calhoun ….
    ..afraid we diverge a bit on this one, Griper.

  15. The Griper

    we may diverge a bit, my friend, but will say that we have some great debates.

    1. with all of that history you just wrote down the main gest of it was that disagreement on the right of secession from the Union existed even among the slave States thus supporting my argument. The border States adds to this argument.

    2. i could write that same argument with very little variation in support of the south too. remember, we are a nation as a result of secession from the mother country. and a war followed that secession also. and if you look at it, both were fought at approxamately the similar odds of winning too.

    3. if you are going to make an argument that supports the principle that States did not have the right of secession then you are making an argument that conflicts with your liberal ideology of the Constitution being a “living” document. you can’t have your cake and eat it too, BB

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: