WP: Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[JMS]

I am giving no percentage on how much it was a factor in the war because we have no way of actually calculating that. Slavery was a primary issue yes but not the only issue. If you want to assign it a percentage, and I have no idea why you would other than trying to convince people through false percentages, then give it a 51% majority because there are too many other issues involved.

Using false percentages does not make your argument anymore valid nor does it make you appear any more scholarly.

I don't think it was "a" primary issue. It was "the" primary issue for sucession and for the civil war. The wiggle room occurs in the fact that it was not the primary reason why many southerners fought the war.....

The inverse mirror of this is the Union. Slavery was a primary reason many Northerns fought the war, but not the primary reason the Union Leadership did. The Union leadership had a more pragmatic reason for fighting the war. They believed as the federalist papers clearly spell out that the nation divided would not stand. Lincoln said as much many times. Any division would mean continous war as Europe had fought continous wa over the preceeding thousand years.. The Union leadership was willing to allow slavery to continue if it meant they didn't have to fight. That leadership well understood as did the South's leadership that Slavery was on it's way out. The equalibrium which had protected it had been broken. It might take a decade or two to end it without the civil war, but it would end. That writing was on the wall.

Lastly I would say Union leadership cemented the anti slavery cause for it's population when they passed the Emancipation Proclaimation. Again this was a pragmatic move which had two effects. (1) It ensured that pro abolitionist Britain would stay out of the war. (2) It bolstered the moral of their own troops who overwhelmingly favored this result.... For the Union leadership the actual immediacy in freeing the slaves was less of a motivation than these effects.

[JMS]

Confederate apologists are wrong.

That's an over simplification which I have made in the passed. I recently finished reading a series fo autobiographies of southern warriers. Lee, Mosby, Longstreet. It suprised me how prevelent anti slave position were in the southern ranks. Lee for instance was against slavery. Longstreet too. Mosby was an outwrite abolitionist who attended anti slaver rallies in the south and publically declaired for the north in the event of war. Mosby's mother died when he was young and he and his sister were raised by a nanny from new england their father hired. Mosby ultimately fought for the South becoming one of the most famouse southern commanders( non General)... The Boogy Man which kept the union generals in DC up at night.

While I agree Slavery was the central cause for the war. Why southerners fought had a much more complex rational.

As for the history book in question here. I think it is more of a bold faced lie to imply that blacks fought for the south than an oversimplification...

My understanding is that many southern generals took slaves into their camps as body survents and occasionally these slaves fought. It's true late in the war the South actually started to recruite slaves into their ranks.. It's just disnonest to represent either instance as some sort of mandate by the black community in favor of the south.

[mcsluggo]

That's an over simplification which I have made in the passed. I recently finished reading a series fo autobiographies of southern warriers. Lee, Mosby, Longstreet. It suprised me how prevelent anti slave position were in the southern ranks. Lee for instance was against slavery. Mosby was an outwrite abolitionist. Mosby's mother died when he was young and he and his sister were raised by a nanny from new england their father hired.

While I agree Slavery was the central cause for the war. Why southerners fought had a much more complex rational.

did you only read teh last sentence of my overly long dribblings?

[JMS]

did you only read teh last sentence of my overly long dribblings?

I did, and I just reread it. I disagree that slavery was the cause which moved many southerners to war; while agreeing it was the ultimite reason why southern polititins declared war.

I disagree that slavery was the reason Union leadership pursued war when it was presented to them; while agreeing it was the central motivation especially after the Emancipation Proclaimation for why northerns fought.....

I don't think People in the south fought for a bad cause, Prior to the civil war people used to reffer to the United States with the plural. "The United State are". After the Civil war it became "the united states is". Prior to the civil war nationalism was focused around the state not the nation. I think ultimately nationalism is why many if not most southern solders fought. Basically the same reasons why Americans have always supported their political leaders and gone to war. I don't think it's ultimately falls on the southerners that their leadership had bad reasons for sucedeing, or why that leaderships disgrace should fall upon southerners who bravely sacrificed for their duty as they saw it.

[Chicken Fried]

People that fought for the south were not necessarily bad people, but they DID fight for a bad cause,

I'm wondering what you think the cause was. What exactly was the cause the South was fighting for?

[mcsluggo]

I'm wondering what you think the cause was. What exactly was the cause the Nazis were fighting for?

I suppose by your logic, you would have to ask each and every Nazi?

I assume that if you did you would get a very rich and diverse soup of answers... however, I am still confident in saying that the people that fought for the Nazis fought for a bad cause. Period. and I think the same is true the confederacy. Period. AND, I don't think it is even close to being wishy-washy relativist territory... and that is a huge deal for a <dirtmuchingpinkocommietreehuggingliberalwusswishywashy> like myself

[mcsluggo]

I am curious what the <<call it "confederate appologizers", for lack of a better term, although I am SURE that you would prefer some other terminology>> think of the big movement in Japan towards re-writing history books THERE to give what they (call them whatever you think appropriate) believe is a more nuanced and balanced account of the Japanese role in WWII?

[Seabee1973]

up to 65,000 black people fought for the south in the war Yes the federal states government didnt allow it at the time but each individual state did most were paid same as their white counter point which was not true for those northern blacks who fought.

In 1864 president Davis presented a plan that would have freed the slaves if both britain and france recognised teh sourthern states as independent of the US.

Every black that helped defend petersburg from teh north was given their freedom if they were slaves.

The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery.

The emancipation declaration only freed sourthern slaves not northern slaves.

There were quite a few blacks that also fought in the revolutionary war.

[CrabR]

Good read

Causes of the Civil War

By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm

best source for Civil war info. I used to have most of this set

http://dlxs2.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro_fulltext.html

[Predicto]

up to 65,000 black people fought for the south in the war Yes the federal states government didnt allow it at the time but each individual state did most were paid same as their white counter point which was not true for those northern blacks who fought.

In 1864 president Davis presented a plan that would have freed the slaves if both britain and france recognised teh sourthern states as independent of the US.

Every black that helped defend petersburg from teh north was given their freedom if they were slaves.

The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery.

The emancipation declaration only freed sourthern slaves not northern slaves.

There were quite a few blacks that also fought in the revolutionary war.

What do any of these facts (assuming they all are true) demonstrate to you?

Do they demonstrate that the Civil War was fought for a good cause? Do they demonstrate in any way that the ultimate motivation for the creation of the Confederacy was anything but the fear that the "peculiar institution" was endangered, and that it was necessary to secede in order to preserve the "way of life" based on slaveholding?

Or are they just efforts to obscure the discussion?

[Seabee1973]

Study teh true history of the civil war it was about states rights versus federal rights The northern states started imposing tariffs on the southern states the southern states could get stuff cheaper from europe than it could buy things from the northern states. Read a copy of the CSA cosntitution it doesnt eliminate the slaves outright but gradually grants them freedoms something the federal constition never did.

[elkabong82]

I am curious what the <<call it "confederate appologizers", for lack of a better term, although I am SURE that you would prefer some other terminology>> think of the big movement in Japan towards re-writing history books THERE to give what they (call them whatever you think appropriate) believe is a more nuanced and balanced account of the Japanese role in WWII?

I'm all for more context and understanding the complexities of people and their motivations/reasoning, I think it can enrich historical understanding if used correctly. However, I am in agreement with you that when such is used to disguise or obscure reality rather than simply show people were more complex than the simplistic good vs. evil, it is revisionist history and it shouldn;t be accepted as fact.

[Predicto]

Study teh true history of the civil war it was about states rights versus federal rights The northern states started imposing tariffs on the southern states the southern states could get stuff cheaper from europe than it could buy things from the northern states. Read a copy of the CSA cosntitution it doesnt eliminate the slaves outright but gradually grants them freedoms something the federal constition never did.

The "true" history of the civil war.

[Chicken Fried]

I suppose by your logic, you would have to ask each and every Nazi?

I assume that if you did you would get a very rich and diverse soup of answers... however, I am still confident in saying that the people that fought for the Nazis fought for a bad cause. Period. and I think the same is true the confederacy. Period. AND, I don't think it is even close to being wishy-washy relativist territory... and that is a huge deal for a <dirtmuchingpinkocommietreehuggingliberalwusswishywashy> like myself

Haha you're seriously comparing the Confederacy to the Nazis?

[JMS]

Study teh true history of the civil war it was about states rights versus federal rights The northern states started imposing tariffs on the southern states the southern states could get stuff cheaper from europe than it could buy things from the northern states. Read a copy of the CSA cosntitution it doesnt eliminate the slaves outright but gradually grants them freedoms something the federal constition never did.

You are absolutely correct. It was about the states rights to legalize slavery.

[Predicto]

Haha you're seriously comparing the Confederacy to the Nazis?

I KNEW you were going to misread it that way.

Of course he didn't say that. Read it again.

He said that what motivated any individual confederate soldier isn't any more relevant than what motivated an individual German soldier in WWII. The individual may have been a good person, but they were fighting for a bad cause.

[JMS]

I'm wondering what you think the cause was. What exactly was the cause the South was fighting for?

Abraham Lincoln the first candidate from the radical abolitionist Republican party won the presidential election Nov 6th 1860... South Carolina sucedes December 20th 1860. about a month before Lincoln takes office.....

Prior to Lincoln, James Buchannon was president. Buchannon was in no way harsh to the south. Buchannon's nick name was "doughface", a Northerner with Southern sympathies who battled with Stephen A. Douglas for the control of the Democratic Party. Buchanan's efforts to maintain peace between the North and the South alienated both sides, Buchannon owed his office to democratic support he recieved from southern states.

Buchanan's view of record was that secession was illegal, but that going to war to stop it was also illegal. Buchanan, first and foremost an attorney,

[JMS]

I KNEW you were going to misread it that way.

Of course he didn't say that. Read it again.

He said that what motivated any individual confederate soldier isn't any more relevant than what motivated an individual German soldier in WWII. The individual may have been a good person, but they were fighting for a bad cause.

Only the Germans in WWII invaded Poland, Czech, France, Austria, and Belgium and a bunch of other countries. The Southerners in the Civil war were fighting for their homes and didn't invade anybody first.... There first offensive move was fort sumpter where they ejected the union army from a base inside their territory... without killing any union soldiers I might add.. Dec 26 1860, and then proceeded to do nothing offensive for the next seven months... The first casualty of the civil war due to enemy action was Captain John Quincy Marr who was killed defending Fairfax Courthouse in Fairfax Virginia June 1 1861 from a union incursion.

[Predicto]

I'm wondering what you think the cause was. What exactly was the cause the South was fighting for?

Well, I consider the Confederate Leaders to have been honest men, so I will take them at their word. I read what they themselves said, back in 1861.

(I stole this from Henry...)

In the 'Declaration of Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." slavery is by far the biggest reason cited. It says, "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Ok, how about Mississppi's secession document. Here are the first three sentences:"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

Ok, how about Georgia - first two lines: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Texas? "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Admittedly I skimmed over Mississippi, Georgia and Texas, but South Carolina was quite clear. Their desire to maintain the institution of slavery, and the north's perceived unwillingness to cooperate with this continuation of slavery was the reason for secession.

So, Chicken Fried - Are you calling the Confederate leaders liars?

[Predicto]

Only the Germans in WWII invaded Poland, Czech, France, Austria, and Belgium and a bunch of other countries. The Southerners in the Civil war were fighting for their homes and didn't invade anybody first....

Damn. Can't you read either?

[Larry]

Study teh true history of the civil war it was about states rights versus federal rights The northern states started imposing tariffs on the southern states the southern states could get stuff cheaper from europe than it could buy things from the northern states. Read a copy of the CSA cosntitution it doesnt eliminate the slaves outright but gradually grants them freedoms something the federal constition never did.

Funny, the portions I've read say that the only time the Confederate Constitution mentioned slavery was when it mandated that all states must recognize it.

Hardly the much-trotted-out claim of "states rights".

[Larry]

Abraham Lincoln the first candidate from the radical abolitionist Republican party. . . .

Really enjoying what looks like an attempt to justify the south's secession by painting Lincoln as the aggressor.

However, also pointing out that what you're saying is "the war was about slavery".

[JMS]

Damn. Can't you read either?

I'm struggling here... I don't have my specticles on... sp sp sp...

He said that what motivated any individual confederate soldier isn't any more relevant than what motivated an individual German soldier in WWII. The individual may have been a good person, but they were fighting for a bad cause.

It's entirely unfair to compare German soldiers in WWII who took the offensive and invaded so many countries in the beginning of that war; and southern soldiers who were mearly defending their own states.

[Jumbo]

In True History, Lincoln was a Muslim socialist of African ancestry.

[JMS]

Really enjoying what looks like an attempt to justify the south's secession by painting Lincoln as the aggressor.

However, also pointing out that what you're saying is "the war was about slavery".

You are entirely misreading my intention then. How can Lincoln be catagorized the agressor if the south suceded and attacked first months BEFORE Lincoln took office?

The Republican party reffered to themselves as Radicals. Their entire mission in forming the party was to abolish slavery. It's the reason the radicals left the wig pary folded it up and formed the Republican party. They expelled all the apeasers who had blocked abolitionist intentions. Abraham Lincoln himself said when he won the election Nov 6 1860... "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free..." .Words the south heard loud and clear..... Now Lincoln didn't mean he was going to outlaw slavery... but clearly that's how the south took it. The south definitely saw the writing on the wall and didn't give lincoln any chance to act first.

Oddly enough Lincoln was a relatively unknown in the south. Lincoln had defeated four or five other men all much better known nationally and internationally for the Republican Nomination, all much more staunchly anti slavery too. As radicals are universally known for; all these other men offended each other. The little known lincoln won because he was the least offensive. He was nobodies first choice and everybodies second choice. Lincoln has said he would have sought an accomidation with the south. But the south did not give him a chance. The south reacted to the Party and took little time other than the acceptance speach to understand Lincoln.