Civil War and some Myths.

[paperview]

I have 1000 times more respect for Kevin Kennedy, whom I have spent hundreds of pages debating, and he is on the neo-confederate side as well, but at least he brings forth intelligent debate and well thought out presentations.

Publius, on the other hand, is simply ...no nice way to put this: A tool and an idiot.

 

[Ringel05]

You see. This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called the “Father of the Constitution” - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

There’s No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity. I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise. Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue. The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.

 

[paperview]

...
Thats allready been addressed and proven in this thread. But you will enjoy this.
...

Isn't that cute. Fox News has a White Supremacist on.

Thomas DiLorenzo + League of the South. Lookitup.

 

[Publius1787]

The slave trade was outlawed by the constitution by 1808.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight"

Genesis of the Civil War
Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North's early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master

 

[Publius1787]

...
Thats allready been addressed and proven in this thread. But you will enjoy this.
...

Isn't that cute. Fox News has a White Supremacist on.

Thomas DiLorenzo + League of the South. Lookitup.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Objection!‬‏[/ame]

 

[paperview]

Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it. Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this. It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity. I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise. Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue. The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to reinstate slavery. You threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say my response was emotional, so be it. It looks more like a way to impugn my presentation than to actually debate.

If you have heard here or there someone say (as if it's even remotely possible) - southerners want to reinstate slavery, then you know it's not a common theme in CW threads. Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably. I think I have heard one in all my decades of discussions.

I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in history. And a fine living at that.

Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 200 years ago. I live a truly blessed existence.

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it. What it is is passion. A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history, doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own boss, but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion. Blessed, blessed passion.

 

[Toro]

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity. I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise. Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue. The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to reinstate slavery. You threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say my response was emotional, so be it. It looks more like a way to impugn my presentation than to actually debate.

If you have heard here or there someone say (as if it's even remotely possible) - southerners want to reinstate slavery, then you know it's not a common theme in CW threads. Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably. I think I have heard one in all my decades of discussions.

I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in history. And a fine living at that.

Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 200 years ago. I live a truly blessed existence.

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it. What it is is passion. A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history, doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own boss, but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion. Blessed, blessed passion.

Way cool.

 

[Ringel05]

My opponent claimed James Madison "believed in secession," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like Madison believed in secession." His grasp of basic facts is lacking. Read back for further major errors. You'll see.

As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to reinstate slavery...that's just hogwash. I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now. It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.

It's not about anyone wanting to reinstate slavery. It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept they lost.

I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity. I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise. Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue. The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to reinstate slavery. You threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say my response was emotional, so be it. It looks more like a way to impugn my presentation than to actually debate.

If you have heard here or there someone say (as if it's even remotely possible) - southerners want to reinstate slavery, then you know it's not a common theme in CW threads. Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably. I think I have heard one in all my decades of discussions.

I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in history. And a fine living at that.

Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 200 years ago. I live a truly blessed existence.

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it. What it is is passion. A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history, doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own boss, but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion. Blessed, blessed passion.

I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide. And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most. Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.
Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects. So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue? Again the choice is yours.
By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fundamental problem is that we simply disagree on who started the Civil War. If you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War it's clear that he did so over tariffs. He wanted the revenue that the south brought in, and didn't want to compete against a free trade Confederacy. If you look at the reason why some of the southern States seceded, you see concerns over slavery.

The fires were burning years before, Kevin. You know this.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

...where future secessionist threaten and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored black equality) is castigated.

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line:

It begins:
"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans,
than it is during the present canvass.
The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond:

The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...
​

​

Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people...

,...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood...

See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
​

I'm well aware that the south disliked the Republican Party based on the issue of slavery, and that it was an issue that dated back well before the Civil War. My point, however, is if you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War you can clearly see that he was worried about the south paying its duties to the federal government. He said so himself in his first inaugural address. You also mentioned in your earlier post how the tariff rate was fairly low, but you didn't mention how Lincoln campaigned on raising the tariff significantly and that after the states seceded the Morrill Tariff raised it considerably.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Publius1787: Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.

Absurd revisionism. No one takes that crap seriously. You will never be convinced.

I write now for only for the other readers. You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.

I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.

 

[paperview]

I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity. I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise. Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue. The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to reinstate slavery. You threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say my response was emotional, so be it. It looks more like a way to impugn my presentation than to actually debate.

If you have heard here or there someone say (as if it's even remotely possible) - southerners want to reinstate slavery, then you know it's not a common theme in CW threads. Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably. I think I have heard one in all my decades of discussions.

I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in history. And a fine living at that.

Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 200 years ago. I live a truly blessed existence.

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it. What it is is passion. A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history, doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own boss, but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion. Blessed, blessed passion.

I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide. And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most. Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.
Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects. So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue? Again the choice is yours.
By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?

Perhaps it was my first interaction with you on this thread, where you came barreling on about people who didn't know what they were talking about and high school versions of history...

Perhaps I misread and that wasn't meant to place me in that category. Still, it was how I first encountered your comments, so maybe that put a little hair across my hide with you first off. If I was wrong, I apologize.

You must admit the bulk of my frustrated commentary has been in dealing with someone who claims a BA in history, yet doesn't even know when the states seceded, was unaware of when the first shots were fired, apparently hasn't even read the secessionist declarations, claims Madison favored secession, didn't know submarines were used in combat in the Revolutionary war, and says that slavery was "off the table" after Lincoln was elected, amongst other tragically wrong historical facts. (Not to mention employs 6th grade spelling, and hey, I'm no great speller, I rarely concern myself with a poster's spelling or typos, but man, there's some atrocious garble in those presentations) (Get a spell checker, Publius; they're free, you know...)

As to the fact economics and slavery were intertwined as reasons for war, of course it was. It almost goes without saying. The economics of the south was completely enmeshed in slavery though. It was the literal economic blood. The tariff argument simply falls on its face when taking the fact those tariffs had been at their lowest since 1816. Now, an argument can be made as to how the agrarian economy of the south was facing peril going forward in an industrial world, and the threatened prohibition of expansion of slavery was certain to erode their economies more, how they felt trapped by their own economic and cultural foundation - but through and through, the preservation of slavery rides high and above all else as the reasons.

 

[paperview]

Publius1787: Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.

Absurd revisionism. No one takes that crap seriously. You will never be convinced.

I write now for only for the other readers. You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.

I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.

Ahem:
DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network

Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.

He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South. He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.

Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Publius1787: Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.

Absurd revisionism. No one takes that crap seriously. You will never be convinced.

I write now for only for the other readers. You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.

I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.

Ahem:
DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network

Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.

He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South. He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.

Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal

Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit. You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?

 

[Ringel05]

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to reinstate slavery. You threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say my response was emotional, so be it. It looks more like a way to impugn my presentation than to actually debate.

If you have heard here or there someone say (as if it's even remotely possible) - southerners want to reinstate slavery, then you know it's not a common theme in CW threads. Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably. I think I have heard one in all my decades of discussions.

I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in history. And a fine living at that.

Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 200 years ago. I live a truly blessed existence.

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it. What it is is passion. A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history, doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own boss, but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion. Blessed, blessed passion.

I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide. And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most. Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.
Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects. So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue? Again the choice is yours.
By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?

Perhaps it was my first interaction with you on this thread, where you came barreling on about people who didn't know what they were talking about and high school versions of history...

Perhaps I misread and that wasn't meant to place me in that category. Still, it was how I first encountered your comments, so maybe that put a little hair across my hide with you first off. If I was wrong, I apologize.

You must admit the bulk of my frustrated commentary has been in dealing with someone who claims a BA in history, yet doesn't even know when the states seceded, was unaware of when the first shots were fired, apparently hasn't even read the secessionist declarations, claims Madison favored secession, didn't know submarines were used in combat in the Revolutionary war, and says that slavery was "off the table" after Lincoln was elected, amongst other tragically wrong historical facts. (Not to mention employs 6th grade spelling, and hey, I'm no great speller, I rarely concern myself with a poster's spelling or typos, but man, there's some atrocious garble in those presentations) (Get a spell checker, Publius; they're free, you know...)

As to the fact economics and slavery were intertwined as reasons for war, of course it was. It almost goes without saying. The economics of the south was completely enmeshed in slavery though. It was the literal economic blood. The tariff argument simply falls on its face when taking the fact those tariffs had been at their lowest since 1816. Now, an argument can be made as to how the agrarian economy of the south was facing peril going forward in an industrial world, and the threatened prohibition of expansion of slavery was certain to erode their economies more, how they felt trapped by their own economic and cultural foundation - but through and through, the preservation of slavery rides high and above all else as the reasons.

I had a feeling something negative I posted you misconstrued as being aimed at you, none of that was which was my primary reason to bring up the emotional bias charge, not because of your presentation of the facts but specifically due to your response to me.
BTW, don't worry about it, you're not the only one who has misinterpreted someone else's intent.

 

[paperview]

I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.

Ahem:
DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network

Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.

He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South. He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.

Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal

Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit. You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?

No. You're just a sweet, lovable guy, who adores southern heritage and has a lot of facts wrong.

 

[paperview]

...
From the earleyer post.

...The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."
...
I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

I just had to follow up on this, as one final jab, in hopes to make you open your eyes some.
You quoted the above a few times, and use this as some kind of gotcha on how Texas Gov. Reagan emphasized the Tariff.

I've seen this speech bandied about on quite a few neo-confederate websites and by those hoping to drive the tariff point home.

Let me show you what that same Gov. Reagan, in that speech, said in the very next breath:
(Note: This is how revisionism works

Let's pick it up at the last line of the first paragraph you quoted in exaltation of Congressman Reagan:

"...You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

Now let's see what follows exactly after:

"And now you tender us the inhuman alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition principles, and ultimately to free negro equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races on the one hand, and on the other secession and a bloody and desolating civil war, waged in an attempt by the Federal Government to reduce us to submission to these wrongs.

It was the misfortune of Mexico and Central and South America, that they attempted to establish governments of mongrels, to enfranchise Indians and free negroes with all the rights of freemen, and invest them, so far as their numbers go, with the control of those governments. It was a failure there; it would be a failure here. It has given them an uninterrupted reign of revolutions and anarchy there; it would do the same thing here. Our own Government succeeded because none but the white race, who were capable of self-government, were enfranchised with the rights of freemen. The irrepressible conflict propounded by abolitionism has produced now its legitimate fruits-- disunion.

Free negro equality, which is its ultimate object, would make us re-enact the scenes of revolution and anarchy we have so long witnessed and deplored in the American governments to the south of us.

Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, I, p. 391
​

You see? Ignore that part and Gov. Reagan sure looks makes it's clear what the conflict was about.

By all means: Puff up the tariff-imbibed Mr. Reagan some more.

 

[Toro]

Ahem:
DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network

Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.

He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South. He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.

Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal

Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit. You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?

No. You're just a sweet, lovable guy, who adores southern heritage and has a lot of facts wrong.

Kevin's one of the best posters here. He should post more often.

 

[paperview]

Bumping an oldie but a goodie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bumping an oldie but a goodie.

Seems relevant considering the pointless "secession petition" nonsense.

 

[paperview]

Bumping an oldie but a goodie.

Seems relevant considering the pointless "secession petition" nonsense.

Yeah, I though so as well.

Good to see you Kevin!