Comments on: Two Virginias Two Civil Wars http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 25 May 2013 03:21:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Bill Smith http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-779026 Bill Smith Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:13:01 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-779026 Joseph, Thanks for your kind reply - gotta confess that mine was not so kind. Peace is indeed accepted! -Bill Joseph,

Thanks for your kind reply – gotta confess that mine was not so kind. Peace is indeed accepted!

-Bill

]]> By: Patrick http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-778990 Patrick Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:59:30 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-778990 Bill, This post was made before you and I exchanged, and resolved, our differing points of view. It was deliberately intended to be polemical and stirring so as to get a conversation going, which conversation already took place. Peace. Joseph Bill,

This post was made before you and I exchanged, and resolved, our differing points of view. It was deliberately intended to be polemical and stirring so as to get a conversation going, which conversation already took place. Peace.

Joseph

]]> By: Bill Smith http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-778794 Bill Smith Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:33:49 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-778794 Ya know, bluntly, I have never objected - and never will object - to the concept that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. What I find offensive (and honestly a bit mystifying) is the insistence that there is apparently no other possibly existent reason for why the war was fought! For some reason, anyone who would offer any alternate reason why the war was fought is cast as a dangerous, self deluded (or worse, deliberately misled) racist who secretly still supports the southern 'peculiar institution' somehow... How in the world is it possible that those who argue for more data to be presented and more positions to be considered are accused of cover-up and white-wash?!?!??? Is it not those who insist that only their understanding is somehow the exclusively correct and only plausible hypothesis? Is it not white-wash to deride an opposing view – especially when historical facts are presented in support of that position? For cryin’ out loud – get down off yer skittish high-horse! Yes, the Civil War was fought because the south seceded. Yes, the south seceded primarily (and please note, I’m saying primarily, NOT exclusively!!!!!!!) because they wanted to keep their slaves. Now, you want more reasons? If you’re willing to let the discussion progress beyond the 5th grade level of understanding for the whole thing, and will be gracious enough not to accuse me of racism, white-washing, naiveté, or (heaven help-us) TEA partying…, I’ll be happy to suggest a few: 1) The south felt that keeping slaves was necessary to their economic stability and growth. 2) The south felt that freeing the slaves would be dangerous to the whites who lived in the south. 3) The south fought because they believed there should be less power in the federal government and more power with the states. 4) The south fought because they were invaded. 5) The south fought to protect their homes and families. 6) The south fought because they felt what they were doing in their homes was frankly none of the Yankee’s business. 7) The south fought because some believed it was in the best interest of their slaves to be ‘protected’. 8) The south fought because of what they saw as unfair tariffs on goods they wanted to purchase from Europe --- and many more! Are all these reasons ‘valid’? Maybe yes, maybe no, but they ARE the reasons many men, and their leaders, gave! Some (hopefully most) reasons were given honestly as they understood them; no doubt some were self-delusional or even worse. BUT THEY WERE THE REASONS THEY FOUGHT – none-the-less. Bottom line is this. You can’t fight a war without those who are willing to take up arms to fight it. In my mind that is at least on an equal footing with the reasons the leaders give for a conflict (or the reasons some self-righteous ‘historians’ try to shove on their memories). Each soldier had their own particular reasons for carrying a gun and shooting at someone else – and I’ve got news for you, IT WASN’T JUST SLAVERY!!!!!! There were over 3 ½ million men who fought – and there were at least that many reasons the civil war WAS fought! Do I know them all? Of course not!!!! Neither do you! Many of the known reasons men fought for the civil war died with those who fought – both on the battle field and with the rest of that generation as it passed away. Just to make my own motives crystal clear, I’m a Yankee to the core – the only relatives I have who fought, fought for the north. I hate slavery – and have been blest to not only abhor racism, but to have been raised in a family where my parents vociferously found it repugnant as well. It is dangerous, indeed flat out wrong, when folks naively parrot stuff like Joy Masoff. It is wrong, in fact morally repugnant to suggest that slaves were somehow better off when they were enslaved. Yes, the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. To respond to such dangerous naiveté as Ms. Masoff presents with sanctimonious single-issue blinders, however, smacks of nearly equal error. Let’s not go that dangerous route. Perhaps those who are paranoid of white-washing by their opponents should check what color paint is on their own brush? Ya know, bluntly, I have never objected – and never will object – to the concept that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. What I find offensive (and honestly a bit mystifying) is the insistence that there is apparently no other possibly existent reason for why the war was fought! For some reason, anyone who would offer any alternate reason why the war was fought is cast as a dangerous, self deluded (or worse, deliberately misled) racist who secretly still supports the southern 'peculiar institution' somehow… How in the world is it possible that those who argue for more data to be presented and more positions to be considered are accused of cover-up and white-wash?!?!??? Is it not those who insist that only their understanding is somehow the exclusively correct and only plausible hypothesis? Is it not white-wash to deride an opposing view – especially when historical facts are presented in support of that position? For cryin’ out loud – get down off yer skittish high-horse!
Yes, the Civil War was fought because the south seceded. Yes, the south seceded primarily (and please note, I’m saying primarily, NOT exclusively!!!!!!!) because they wanted to keep their slaves. Now, you want more reasons? If you’re willing to let the discussion progress beyond the 5th grade level of understanding for the whole thing, and will be gracious enough not to accuse me of racism, white-washing, naiveté, or (heaven help-us) TEA partying…, I’ll be happy to suggest a few:
1) The south felt that keeping slaves was necessary to their economic stability and growth. 2) The south felt that freeing the slaves would be dangerous to the whites who lived in the south. 3) The south fought because they believed there should be less power in the federal government and more power with the states. 4) The south fought because they were invaded. 5) The south fought to protect their homes and families. 6) The south fought because they felt what they were doing in their homes was frankly none of the Yankee’s business. 7) The south fought because some believed it was in the best interest of their slaves to be ‘protected’. 8) The south fought because of what they saw as unfair tariffs on goods they wanted to purchase from Europe — and many more!
Are all these reasons ‘valid’? Maybe yes, maybe no, but they ARE the reasons many men, and their leaders, gave! Some (hopefully most) reasons were given honestly as they understood them; no doubt some were self-delusional or even worse. BUT THEY WERE THE REASONS THEY FOUGHT – none-the-less.
Bottom line is this. You can’t fight a war without those who are willing to take up arms to fight it. In my mind that is at least on an equal footing with the reasons the leaders give for a conflict (or the reasons some self-righteous ‘historians’ try to shove on their memories). Each soldier had their own particular reasons for carrying a gun and shooting at someone else – and I’ve got news for you, IT WASN’T JUST SLAVERY!!!!!! There were over 3 ½ million men who fought – and there were at least that many reasons the civil war WAS fought! Do I know them all? Of course not!!!! Neither do you! Many of the known reasons men fought for the civil war died with those who fought – both on the battle field and with the rest of that generation as it passed away.
Just to make my own motives crystal clear, I’m a Yankee to the core – the only relatives I have who fought, fought for the north. I hate slavery – and have been blest to not only abhor racism, but to have been raised in a family where my parents vociferously found it repugnant as well.
It is dangerous, indeed flat out wrong, when folks naively parrot stuff like Joy Masoff. It is wrong, in fact morally repugnant to suggest that slaves were somehow better off when they were enslaved. Yes, the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. To respond to such dangerous naiveté as Ms. Masoff presents with sanctimonious single-issue blinders, however, smacks of nearly equal error. Let’s not go that dangerous route. Perhaps those who are paranoid of white-washing by their opponents should check what color paint is on their own brush?

]]> By: Joseph http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-711994 Joseph Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:19:33 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-711994 Comment # 2 was meant as a response to comment #1, not the article. Concerning the article: This syndrome of dual views on important historical events has been plaguing mankind from the beginning. Usually, as your article states, it is caused by those who are sensitive to the accuracy of the facts, as they attempt to skew, white wash, or camouflage those events. Without a doubt this maneuvering occurs across the board, so it is up to knowledgeable professionals and action groups to referee the opposing dual viewpoints, thereby clearing away the exaggerations and fabrications. Thank you for the effort expended in 'Two Virginias Two Civil Wars.' And for also shining the light on yet another attempt by confederate heritage groups to revise history. Comment # 2 was meant as a response to comment #1, not the article.

Concerning the article: This syndrome of dual views on important historical events has been plaguing mankind from the beginning. Usually, as your article states, it is caused by those who are sensitive to the accuracy of the facts, as they attempt to skew, white wash, or camouflage those events. Without a doubt this maneuvering occurs across the board, so it is up to knowledgeable professionals and action groups to referee the opposing dual viewpoints, thereby clearing away the exaggerations and fabrications.

Thank you for the effort expended in 'Two Virginias Two Civil Wars.' And for also shining the light on yet another attempt by confederate heritage groups to revise history.

]]> By: Joseph http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-709909 Joseph Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:51:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-709909 And what were those many other reasons? All the so called 'many other reasons' would not have led to secession and civil war - contentions, riots, duels, serious filibusters in the Senate... probably, but not civil war. The only naive ones are those who would give credence to the 'many other reasons' as part of the causes for the Civil War. An egregious racial philosophy mixed with a peculiar theology; slavery; the state's claimed right to maintain slavery, an arrested southern culture enslaved to a proslavery economy; and a growing national conscience to end slavery forever; these are the ONLY causes that led to secession and civil war in 1860. All other reasons are a moot point. The soldier's reasons for fighting - on either side - is a matter of personal conscience, and they are to be respected for it. But the soldier's reasons for fighting are not in the same category with the causes which led up to the Civil War. The North did not fight on the 'slavery issue,' the South did. They fought to preserve it. Lincoln merely called up reserves to protect the capital and recover stolen federal property from secessionist activism, not to force the slavery issue. The South decried his actions as a declaration of war and it escalated from there. The emancipation proclamation of 1862 was clearly a very smart political and military move. Lincoln did not wage war against slavery, the way the South waged the war to preserve it. But it does not mean that Abraham Lincoln would not have done all he could, after the civil war, in a meaningful legislative way, to end the infamous institution of slavery forever. His speeches and addresses say he most certainly would have done so. And what were those many other reasons? All the so called 'many other reasons' would not have led to secession and civil war – contentions, riots, duels, serious filibusters in the Senate… probably, but not civil war. The only naive ones are those who would give credence to the 'many other reasons' as part of the causes for the Civil War.

An egregious racial philosophy mixed with a peculiar theology; slavery; the state's claimed right to maintain slavery, an arrested southern culture enslaved to a proslavery economy; and a growing national conscience to end slavery forever; these are the ONLY causes that led to secession and civil war in 1860. All other reasons are a moot point.

The soldier's reasons for fighting – on either side – is a matter of personal conscience, and they are to be respected for it. But the soldier's reasons for fighting are not in the same category with the causes which led up to the Civil War.

The North did not fight on the 'slavery issue,' the South did. They fought to preserve it. Lincoln merely called up reserves to protect the capital and recover stolen federal property from secessionist activism, not to force the slavery issue. The South decried his actions as a declaration of war and it escalated from there.

The emancipation proclamation of 1862 was clearly a very smart political and military move. Lincoln did not wage war against slavery, the way the South waged the war to preserve it. But it does not mean that Abraham Lincoln would not have done all he could, after the civil war, in a meaningful legislative way, to end the infamous institution of slavery forever. His speeches and addresses say he most certainly would have done so.

]]> By: Bill Smith http://www.historynet.com/two-virginias-two-civil-wars.htm#comment-623543 Bill Smith Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:12:13 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683134#comment-623543 You know, we just had this discussion over on two other branches of this website. Under the 'Irreconcilable Differences' article, a well reasoned approach was presented, and I would applaud and recommend the article. Another branch, 'Secession - Revisionism or Reality' gives a simple-minded view that slavery is the sole cause of the Civil War. Mr. Holzer even goes so far as to brand those who disagree with that view (continuing with the simple-minded, name-calling approach, I suppose) as promulgating myth, and standing in support of racism and against our president and Civil Rights. I agree and applaud Mr. Welborn’s input to the latter mentioned article, that the Civil War was fought for many reasons: to limit the root cause of the war to slavery or state’s rights is indeed a dangerous simplification of that conflict. President Lincoln made it quite clear that the north did not begin the fight (at least) with the desire to abolish slavery; it was to "Preserve the Union". Without doubt, the south fought primarily (but NOT exclusively) to support the 'peculiar institution' against Northern aggression. The North, however, started the war with the stated intent to NOT fight on the slavery issue! As the war progressed, President Lincoln recognized the need to call a spade a spade and add slavery to the list of things the Union was fighting for - but to simplistically say that slavery was the reason for the fight is just as misleading as believing everything Google tells you. Yes, many in the South fought to preserve slavery – especially if it meant protecting their homes from what they feared would be bands of freed slaves invading them (most did not own slaves themselves). Many also fought ‘for slavery’ in the sense that they believed it was necessary for their livelihood. In the North, while abolition blood was ‘up’, and many indeed fought to free the slaves (54th Massachusetts comes to mind), most fought to do exactly what their President called them to do, “Preserve the Union” — many fought because they were drafted. While there are primary causes of the war – slavery and state’s rights certainly being at the top of the list – it is simplistic, Google-like naiveté to see a single one or two causes that lead to the conflict. You know, we just had this discussion over on two other branches of this website. Under the 'Irreconcilable Differences' article, a well reasoned approach was presented, and I would applaud and recommend the article. Another branch, 'Secession – Revisionism or Reality' gives a simple-minded view that slavery is the sole cause of the Civil War. Mr. Holzer even goes so far as to brand those who disagree with that view (continuing with the simple-minded, name-calling approach, I suppose) as promulgating myth, and standing in support of racism and against our president and Civil Rights.
I agree and applaud Mr. Welborn’s input to the latter mentioned article, that the Civil War was fought for many reasons: to limit the root cause of the war to slavery or state’s rights is indeed a dangerous simplification of that conflict. President Lincoln made it quite clear that the north did not begin the fight (at least) with the desire to abolish slavery; it was to "Preserve the Union". Without doubt, the south fought primarily (but NOT exclusively) to support the 'peculiar institution' against Northern aggression. The North, however, started the war with the stated intent to NOT fight on the slavery issue! As the war progressed, President Lincoln recognized the need to call a spade a spade and add slavery to the list of things the Union was fighting for – but to simplistically say that slavery was the reason for the fight is just as misleading as believing everything Google tells you.
Yes, many in the South fought to preserve slavery – especially if it meant protecting their homes from what they feared would be bands of freed slaves invading them (most did not own slaves themselves). Many also fought ‘for slavery’ in the sense that they believed it was necessary for their livelihood. In the North, while abolition blood was ‘up’, and many indeed fought to free the slaves (54th Massachusetts comes to mind), most fought to do exactly what their President called them to do, “Preserve the Union” — many fought because they were drafted. While there are primary causes of the war – slavery and state’s rights certainly being at the top of the list – it is simplistic, Google-like naiveté to see a single one or two causes that lead to the conflict.

]]>