Yuku free message boards

Hello, paxpatriot,

Welcome to the forum. What's your source for that statement? And can I get at it? LincolnsSparrow will be interested if you're related, and we'll both be interested if you're a civil war buff.

JP

PxP,

I was referring to your msg #3 in this thread, but you've already answered the underlying question, if you're interested in Civil War history. At what level do you study, tactics, strategy, causes, or some other?

I normally operate at what some have called the "5,000 foot level." In my perspective, the game was over by 1850. I'm much more interested in what caused the division between North and South, which was operating long, long before slavery became a divisive issue in 1830 due to William Lloyd Garrison's fulminations. The fundamental division began with Henry VIII's desire to be an autocratic monarch and his encouragement of the Dutch-influenced mercantilists of East Anglia, in opposition to the Feudal magnates of southern England. I think.

But I am also aware that not everyone is interested at that level of analysis.

Certainly slavery would have become an issue eventually.

Are you aware that there were more anti-slavery societies in the South before 1830 than in the North?

That the South only became defensive about slavery after William Lloyd Garrison took control of the anti-slavery societies, and turned it into a North vs. South issue?

That political control of the North American continent became a "hot" issue with the Louisiana Purchase? That New England feared new states west of the Mississippi would remove political control from the Northeast, and make it a backwater?

That New England discussed secession very seriously in the Hartford Convention of 1814? That it caused the destruction of the Federalist Party, when they were tarred with the brush of disloyalty as a result?

That New England expansion was blocked to the south by the Southern states, to the North by Canada, and to west by the Pacific ocean, while Southern expansion was open all the way to Tierra Del Fuego, and that Southern societies had already been formed to promote expansion into the Caribbean "Golden Circle?"

The history of the US between 1830 and 1860 was a balancing act between North and South, as they jockeyed for position in the House and Senate. Do you seriously think that was all a noble attempt of the North to prevent the expansion of slavery?

And if the ACW was a noble act to help the black man, what happened after the Civil War to those noble intentions, when even Charles Sumner became so close a friend of John B Gordon, that Gordon eulogized him after his funeral, while anti-freedmen laws proliferated all over the nation?

So much for rational discussion. Thanks for stopping by.

Well, good luck, Flattop.

I think you misunderstand what just happened.

There isn't going to be a discussion, between myself and PaxPatriout at any rate. In order for that to happen, I would first have to admit his core position, which is that the North was justified in killing around a million people in order to rescue the poor, downtroddern slaves. Not that he would put it that way, certainly.

My core position is not the obverse of that, it is that the situation developed, for good or ill, as the accumulation of actions of many different people over a very long period of time; and that I want to understand the process.

He, like most people of the North, only wants to discuss the issue of slavery, which necessarily limits the discussion to about 1830 forward, which is much too short a period of time, and frankly, I'm just not interested in taking on another person who is so shortsighted. Convincing him of anything is not something I care to do, and since he won't look, he can't contribute.

In regard to your current class on cultural interactions and critical thinking, what just occurred is a prime example of the clash of core cultural values. I am curious as to what your instructor would make of it.