Myths about the Civil War (3 Viewers)

[Rutledge]

...but I'm not sure what you or he mean by the PC writings about the difference over slavery...."States Rights" only became an argument afterwords to try and justify a horrible position.

It seems that his thesis, and I think this is something that few who've studied the war in any depth would argue about, is that the North fought to preserve the Union first and foremost. Apparently the author of the book makes the point that Northerners seemed to care about America as a great, united country with high ideals about democracy, and about people.

Ahhhh. Now I get it. Northerners were high minded, intelligent, principled and honorable men and women, with humanitarian principles and ideals. Meanwhile Southerners were unprincipled, uneducated savages of low character fighting over their right to enslave, torture and kill.

Such musings make me laugh. Not one of you would have the courage to say such things beyond the safety of your electronic screen.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Post originally supplied by Jay

It seems that his thesis, and I think this is something that few who've studied the war in any depth would argue about, is that the North fought to preserve the Union first and foremost. Apparently the author of the book makes the point that Northerners seemed to care about America as a great, united country with high ideals about democracy, and about people. Whether those Northerners practiced those ideals then or later was certainly a different matter. One can point to slaves owned in the North, draft riots, etc. etc. etc. All are valid.

Rutledge, you insist on fighting over this! You carefully chose to exclude the bold portion above from the part that you quoted.

What's being discussed is the AUTHOR'S argument, which Lancer obviously had some issue with (thus the bold commentary).

I recognize that you have strong Southern roots, and you feel that any attack on the South becomes an attack on you, but don't put words in people's mouths and then yell at them for saying what they did not say.

 

[Rutledge]

Rutledge, you insist on fighting over this! You carefully chose to exclude the bold portion above from the part that you quoted.

What's being discussed is the AUTHOR'S argument, which Lancer obviously had some issue with (thus the bold commentary).

I recognize that you have strong Southern roots, and you feel that any attack on the South becomes an attack on you, but don't put words in people's mouths and then yell at them for saying what they did not say.

I may respond to them, but I dont initiate attacks. And then, only when people take nasty shots at my relatives. {Whom, by the way, I will always defend from second guessers, Monday morning quaterbacks and preening, uber-liberal, pseudo intellectuals.}

They may not say it outright, but the implications are clearly there. One would have to be willfully stupid not to see that.

If I were to say "so and so is a real a**h***" but then offer some lame caveat, like, "at least that is what I hear from others", it certainly wouldnt resolve me from responsiblity.

If members want to discuss civil war battles and such, that is no problem. Its when people start assigning guilt and assaulting character that they become "fighting words".

 

[lancer]

Rutledge, you insist on fighting over this! You carefully chose to exclude the bold portion above from the part that you quoted.

What's being discussed is the AUTHOR'S argument, which Lancer obviously had some issue with (thus the bold commentary).

I recognize that you have strong Southern roots, and you feel that any attack on the South becomes an attack on you, but don't put words in people's mouths and then yell at them for saying what they did not say.

I need to clarify some of these quotes. The statement being quoted and identified as mine, IS NOT mine. I simply mentioned the article and Gallagher's apparent views on the subject of the primary reason for the North fighting the war. Now, I am southern in my heritage and leanings, which is what it is. I am Maryland born and bred but my mother's family is in Mobile and my father's originated in Birmingham, so Alabama is my adopted second home state. I have my views on why the war started and why it was fought but I would much rather discuss the battles, campaigns and personalities. I have found the various ACW threads really interesting and I have learned a great deal, from both sides. I quite enjoy the exchanges. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

I need to clarify some of these quotes. The statement being quoted and identified as mine, IS NOT mine. I simply mentioned the article and Gallagher's apparent views on the subject of the primary reason for the North fighting the war. Now, I am southern in my heritage and leanings, which is what it is. I am Maryland born and bred but my mother's family is in Mobile and my father's originated in Birmingham, so Alabama is my adopted second home state. I have my views on why the war started and why it was fought but I would much rather discuss the battles, campaigns and personalities. I have found the various ACW threads really interesting and I have learned a great deal, from both sides. I quite enjoy the exchanges. -- Al

Post 77, which Rutledge quoted, was actually written by Jay, Rutledge's good sparring buddy :wink2:

Al, I was in Mobile once, back in the 1970s, a very lovely city at the time (may still be just haven't been back). I was a court reporter on assignment and so was walking around and wandered into a cemetery that was very, very old, with some interesting headstones. One that I remember went something like the follows:

"Here I lie
As now you are, so once was I
As I am now, so too you will be
So prepare for death and follow me."

Quite a morbid way of looking at things. It's always stayed with me (maybe it says more about me than the deceased).