|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cause of Civil War | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
he was trampling all over another, less popular and less well-known moral issue that the they felt was nevertheless bigger and more important. There was no trampling before the secession. The Lincoln election was just an excuse. They were losing on the political and social front in more and more of the country. The slave holding elites were also losing the lower and middle classes in their own states. I still do not see any huge "states rights" issue that Lincoln was responsible for, or that the slave holding states were having their "states rights" infringed upon any more than any pother state. They never gave the political process while Lincoln was President a chance. If there is a moral argument, they lose on the slavery issue and they lose on not even attempting to work with in the existing political framework. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Without participation from Artie on this thread it is pretty much dead. I figured he would have no way to back his claims and assertions with any sort of coherent argument or any evidence. His lack of participation has shown this to be true. As I told slevesque on another thread, if you present unevidenced assertions you have every reason to expect to be called out. If you don't want to or can not back your arguments don't make them here. I and others will demand evidence.
I would like to thank everyone that made this an interesting thread. Dr A, Anglagard, NWR, NoNukes, Bluejay and Jar, showed how to have a meaningful thread with evidence presented to bolster ones argument. I think a review of this thread would be a good lesson for apologists and fundies on how to present evidence and back ones argument. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The thread is up to 110 posts, artie made 3. 2 were just more unevidenced assertions. The third used a paragraph from wiki followed by more assertions. All of his arguments have been countered quite well.
My comment about lack of participation was not the lack since his last post, but his lack since the initiation of the thread. From his first post to the thread.
thanks for the opportunity to discuss this in a thread where it belongs, I hope the Admin allow us to continue this one. He never addressed the Lee part of the OP at all. He only addressed two states out 6 that he made assertions about and he hasn't made a post since this classic of debating style.
LOL why is it always some jackass from TX of all places pulling this shit? Fucking Steers and Queers. So which are you: nutless, or a cocksuker? eat shit mother fucker. Now do you want to add to the thread or were you just happy to find another way to show your dislike for me. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince.
Well at least you admit that it was nothing more than a personal attack. Keep on the high road there CS.
apprently you don't like the taste of your own medicince. Did you notice how I had a very clear, understandable explanation to counter your criticism. You admit that yours is nothing but a personal attack, much different than me.
I did misunderstand you there... but I still don't like you I don't give a rats ass. I don't come here to be liked. Maybe you might want to consider arguing the point instead of the person. Like I asked before, do you have anything to add to this thread or do you just want to show you don't like me? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
There were some comments about the legality of secession. I am not sure that the founders thought it would be something that was legal or allowed.
Washington made it very clear in the document known as "Washington's Legacy" which he wrote as the war was coming to an end.From his "Circular to State Governments" quote:8 June 1783 Source Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
You actually create a long post with absolutely nothing to support your argument. Your rant consists of personal attacks and name calling, but where is the evidence to back up the assertions you made.
Come on lets see some evidence not just name calling and more assertions. You have yet to address the OP. 1)Provide evidence for the spurious Lee quote, or admit you have no evidence it is a quote from Lee.2)Provide evidence, that has not already been refuted,for this comment but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave. Now do you have anything or are you going to continue to lash out with your name calling and foul language? Most of us try to maintain a civil debate here, but if all you can do is resort to foul language then I will just ask the mods to shut down the thread. In case you are unaware of how a forum like this works, I will spell it out for you. 1)You make an assertion.2)Someone counters your assertion with evidence(it helps to have a source to show some support for the argument). 3) You support your assertion with evidence and a cogent argument. You have never done step 3. Whenever evidence was presented against your assertions, you either ignored, resorted to name calling or made more assertions. Time to put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your original assertions, or quit posting to this thread. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
First of all you are completely changing the argument. You claimed Lee made a quote. I have challenged you to support the quote. Do you have any evidence Lee made the quote? Either produce it or admit you have no evidence.
I readily agree that Lee was not a hard line slave owner. At best he was conflicted.
Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?! Do you know why Lee freed the Custis slaves in 1862? Because it was in the terms of his father-in-laws will.Now here's the tricky part. Evidence. quote:Will of George Washington Parke Custis In a letter to his wife Lee states the slavery is a necessary evil to turn blacks into good Christians and condemns abolitionists for wanting to interfere in the good work of slavery.
Lee's Letter to his wife More about Lee's attitude toward slavery.
quote:Source Even more Lee's reasons for fighting were very complex. His reasons are not the subject of this thread. The subject is did he say what you assert. So far you have provided no evidence.
I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate,
How about defending your original assertions? I can more than stand my own on any historical debate.
Catholic Scientist was dead on about you.
What you and CS think about me has no impact on me whatsoever. How about defending your assertions?
Everything you have copied and supported is about the cause of the civil war, and when I respond to that, you move to goal posts to say we are talking about something else (its not a clever tactic, its weak), so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.
Whining gets you no where. Show how the goalposts have been moved. The premise of the OP is very simple. In this whole post you have shown no evidence that Lee made the quote you attributed to him. I will probably be accused of copying Dr A if we make any of the same points. Earlier today when I tried to post the site went down. So if you want to claim these are not my points then too bad. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory. Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route. Do you ever have any evidence for your assertions?How could he have handled the war peacefully? The confederates opened fire first. He was supposed to allow the Confederate States to secede? How would that have been good for the states that remained? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I got a little carried away, I think maybe 2 out of 21 posts he/she actually looked something up and posted his/her own thoughts. MOST of the time he/she is your echo.
Care to show evidence for this assertion?
he/she claims its all about a quote I used from the quote of the day thread. Well that is what the OP says, and since I wrote the OP I should know what the thread is about. BTWAny evidence at all that Lee said what you claim? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
I have stated my reasoning for why Lee felt this way. the only response you can muster is "can you show evidence for your assertion?" and that is it, you are horrible at debating anything, its like talking to a droid. Its called History, look it up, I am not your TA.
Yes you have stated your reasoning but you have not provided evidence that Lee felt the war was not about slavery. Your reasonings are not evidence. Have you looked at the historical evidence(with referneces) I have presented to show why your assertions have no factual basis? Can you at least attempt to address the evidence I have provided? Ok lets look at the OP.
quote: I take it that you concede that there is no evidence that Lee stated this. Now lets look at your evidence that Lee felt this way, even though he never said it.
Message 5nothing Message 16 but laced with obscenities Message 119 nothing Message 123 nothing Message 124 Finally after you have been called on it many times you finally address Lee. You have a quote from a website that has no references for its assertions. Anyone that knows anything about historical research knows that without sources assertions are worthless. Who wrote this info? What is their source for this info? Then this.
And being the son of a Revolutionary Calvalryman, and Marrying into George Washinton's Family, and living across the Potomac from D.C. He was an american military man at heart, a Patriot.
Smoke and mirrors. None of this has anything to do with Lee and his feeling about slavery. I on the other hand have provided first hand evidence about Lee's views of slavery and his actions as a slave owner.
He did not want to fight a war against Americans, and against the people in his home state. So he resigned from duty and went to serve with the Virginians. He was not into politics and had no say on whether Virginia would stay or leave the Union. He knew what would happen and he wasn't going to be the cause of it, especially against Virginians. How does this lead to your assertion of him believing the civil was was not about slavery? I have provided extensive evidence that Lee was an active and hands on landowner.
Don't you find it rather odd that Lee freed his slaves in 1862 (slaves that he never purchased, but inherited), even though as you assert he was fighting for slavery!?!
I showed how this is not a valid argument in Message 135.
who would believe that? seriously? Message 126nothing Message 130 nothing Message 131 nothing Message 138 nothing Message 139 nothing You keep claiming the goal posts are moved, but you haven't even attempted a kick. I have looked at every one of your posts and you have not presented anything to support that Lee said anything like you claimed or any evidence that he felt that way. You have presented nothing at all about his feelings about slavery, except on unsourced unreferenced website and all that site said was "He entertained no special sympathy for slavery." Nothing at all about how he felt about the war and slavery. So show me, show all of us how the goal posts have moved. As I have stated before. You might want to try with evidence as a start.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
This is as lameass as it gets in a debate. Therefore, you can make any assertion and no one can question it. I can just as well say that this is a quote from Lee.
Robert E. Lee writes:
In your reasoning you have to accept this as true because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Since I have evidence he was a vigorous, hands on slave owner it must be true. The Civil war was totally about slavery Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it. Would you mind showing that puppet governments were set up by the military in order to ratify the 13th amendment? Please some sort of evidence, not just more of these assertions. You very well could be correct, but unless you provide some semblance of evidence I have no reason to believe anything you say about the civil war or any historical period. Was the New Jersey government, that did not ratify it, replaced by puppet government too? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Lee was a very complicated man. He was deeply conflicted on slavery and secession. He felt that slavery was a necessary evil. it was the "white man's burden". There is very compelling evidence has shown earlier and in your own post, that he could be a brutal slave master.
There has been nothing shown that he had a belief that the war had nothing to do with slavery. The apologists can word it any way they want, but the war was about slavery. It was about states rights. The states rights issue was the continuation and spread of slavery. Artie blows smoke and builds strawmen that the southern states were reacting to the unconstitutional actions of the Lincoln government, but the facts show this is untrue. Seven states passed secession ordinances before Lincoln was inaugurated. It was about preservation of the southern culture. This culture was based on slavery and an aristocratic slave owning class. This was a culture that kept the lower class whites subjugated as well as blacks. Why would a farmer or factory owner want to pay a white laborer a decent wage, when he can use a slave. All of Artie's arguments that slavery was not the reason for secession have been shown to be lacking in evidence or not addressing the full picture. If he wants to claim states rights he needs to show a states rights issue that does not have a basis in the slavery issue. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Would you mind showing that puppet governments were set up by the military in order to ratify the 13th amendment?
Your claim is this.
Artie writes: The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it. I know all about reconstruction. You are asserting that the reconstruction era governments in the south were set up in order to ratify the 13th amendment. I am asking for evidence that this is the reason they were set up. As I said before, maybe you have evidence for this. I know of none but am more than willing to be enlightened. BTW, do you have any more to add to your defense of your assertions about Robert E. Lee? You have repeatedly insulted me and accused me of dishonesty and practically plagiarizing Dr. A, but you have done little or nothing to defend your assertions about Lee. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
I guess it is time to wrap up this thread. The purpose of this topic was to give artie a chance to back up his wild assertions. He has done very little to defend them and the arguments he did use were soundly rebutted by numerous posters. Even though Catholic Scientist will jump all over me, I think it is fair to say that Artie has decide not to participate in this thread anymore. If he wants to make more comments I look forward to them, but I feel that before the thread is forgotten in the dustbins of EVC, I would like to make a final post.
He provided no evidence for the validity of the Lee quote. He did not even provide his source. That makes me wonder how reputable the source was. Even if Artie could defend his assertions he went about it the wrong way. Instead of finding evidence that showed Lee felt the cause of the civil war was not slavery, all Artie did was present evidence that Lee was conflicted about slavery. That is it. Artie distorted facts about Lee's ownership and selling of slaves. Maybe not intentionally but the facts are distorted in his accounts. Confederacy revisionist websites are like fundie and creationist websites. They lie. His defense for his statements about states seceding for reasons other than slavery have also been shown to be outright revisionism. States rights is just a code word for slavery. What is the states right they were trying to protect through secession? Slavery. Preserving the southern culture is another code word for slavery. What part of the southern culture were they trying to protect through secession? Slavery. Slavery was a huge millstone around the neck of all the people of the south. George Washington was well aware of it, but even he could not break out of the socioeconomic system that relied on slavery. Artie and his like revisionists can make all the arguments they want. They can serve up all the southern apologetics they want. The bare facts show that slavery was a very fundamental part of the causes of the Civil War. I am still waiting for valid, well reasoned, sourced arguments showing that slavery was not a fundamental reason for the secession of the southern states. Instead I get stuff like this.
Re: Another call for evidence. this post is a perfect example of your dishonesty, if you know the history as you claim you do then you know the answer about a recontructionist puppet government If there is something about the reconstructionist governments that I do not know and would support his argument, would it not have been a good idea to include that info in the post. Alas, assertions are easy, finding evidence for assertions is a bit more difficult Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Iblis does not state that the Wesley Norris account is questionable. He is referring to something else.
Though his story was published, after the war, and though it is often repeated to prove Lee actually had someone whipped, it really does not. Norris made an accusation or an allegation that Lee had him and two others whipped. However, this is not proof that Lee was ever involved in a whipping. Do you have any sources showing that the Norris account is false? Is it proof? No. Few things are. The account certainly squares with the Lee that did not honor the terms of is father in laws will.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024