The War Between The States Discussions

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
Oh no doubt, what were they thinking defending their freedom and life styles.... b~~~~~ds
One man's freedom is another man's bondage aye ?

Free men are supposed to fight oppression, they don't oppress others, that was the founding principal laid down by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers couldn't free all the slaves, they had to free themselves first, that responsibility fell upon their sons and their sons.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
Has there been one time when people have fought for freedom that the holders of political power didn’t laugh at the demand of those who were fighting?
Just once in history?
Ask the Romans, the Persians, the Normans, the Mongals, the Brits, the Spanish, The Dutch....
Any of those people think the rebels were fighting for freedom? One ?
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
Has there been one time when people have fought for freedom that the holders of political power didn’t laugh at the demand of those who were fighting?
Just once in history?
Ask the Romans, the Persians, the Normans, the Mongals, the Brits, the Spanish, The Dutch....
Any of those people think the rebels were fighting for freedom? One ?
I don't understand your question, but it usually boils down to who won.
The USA won its freedom against the British, Beat the confederacy, Germany in WW1 and again in WW2 along with Japan. Since then we haven't been liberators and we haven't won.
Rebels don't always fight for freedom either, often they fight for control.
There is a right and wrong side to every fight.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
There’s a right and wrong side????
“Treason never succeeds, for if it succeeds none dare call it treason’.
How would we remember Washington, Adams, Franklin et al had Howe been more aggressive?
do we remember Wallace as a Traitor or a hero? How about Michael Collins, Vercingetorix, Pancho Via?
Was Lenin just after power? Or did he think he was building a better world. How about Ho?
Was Richard a bad guy and Henry a good guy because he won? Was Riel a bad guy?
 
Last edited:

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
Sounding a little emotional there buddy. :rolleyes:

How should we remember leaders of the Confederacy?
Should we view them as heroes ?
Would a hero have almost destroyed the country we live in today ?
Would a hero have fought to keep people in slavery ?
How would you view them ? Your past statements say you would not favor them for this.

You worship your heroes for what ? Some false notion of a struggle for freedom that never existed ?
 
Last edited:

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
It existed in the minds of the people who were fighting for it.
And as we don’t live in their world it hubris to question their world view.
And yes I consider Lee and Johnson Longstreet and Beauregard and all the Johnny Rebs to.
But also Grant and Sherman, Custer and Mead and all the Billy Yanks were too fighting for freedom, and were all heros.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
It existed in the minds of the people who were fighting for it.
And as we don’t live in their world it hubris to question their world view.
People who lived in their world also had the same view as me. In fact, enough did to question it, to fight for it and to win.
That gives me both the right to question and to judge, because it is that same view and same world the we live in today. We are separated only by time.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
Much more then time my friend.
I can play dress up and slip in to the woods. I can strike a light. Sleep in wool and enjoy a clay pipe. But I can’t forget what I know, I can’t forget my world. I know I need to clean a wound, make sure my water is safe, I can’t look up at the moon and forget our flag flys there.
Even as you say that folks shared some views with you, don’t forget that the most liberal of the time would now be seen as grossly racist and sexist that you would be disgusted to hear.
I try hard to understand how they saw the world but I can never see it through their eyes.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
There’s a right and wrong side????
There is always a right and wrong side. The hard part is determining which is which.
In the case of the Civil War there are many metrics one can use to determine right from wrong.

For example; Self-interest.

The South's motivation was one of self-interest. The Union's was the opposite.
This should be self evident by the name "Union", It should also be evident which one was right and which one was wrong.

The whole Civil War essentially boils down to The South's self-interest.

The fugitive slave act was one of self interest on behalf of the rich slaveholders.
Walking out of congress, self-interest.
Secession, self-interest
From there it goes on and on.
As a nation, The Confederacy could not survive on self-interest.
Self-interest lost them European allies.
Self-interest denied the army soldiers.
Self-interest constrained the South's generals.
Self-interest divided the South.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
Even as you say that folks shared some views with you, don’t forget that the most liberal of the time would now be seen as grossly racist and sexist that you would be disgusted to hear.
I try hard to understand how they saw the world but I can never see it through their eyes.
Two back to back sentences that conflict each other. How can you know that the most liberal of them would be disgustingly racist by today's standards and then say that you can never see the world through their eyes. ?

Perhaps you should read more Northern literature, or perhaps some Black literature.,
Sure time changes technology, language, art, etc., but human nature changes very, very slowly.
 

Straekat

45 Cal.
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
521
Reaction score
220
Location
Yohogania
I try hard to understand how they saw the world but I can never see it through their eyes.

Several times over the last two-hundred pages of posts, you've said the views you present aren't yours, but theirs.

Now you openly admit you can "never see the world through their eyes."

Interesting.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
We can never see it through their eyes, I try hard to understand it and not condemn it using modren standards.
I can not hold the religious intolerance of the seventeenth century, but I can understand why it was important to society
I understand why Europeans expanded during the age of colonization, I don’t judge them for living in their world.
I seek to understand japan between when it was opened to the west and the Second World War
Because I try to see how they thought and why they thought that way, does not mean I agree or hold their thoughts.
And because I live in the here and now I could never hold their ideas. Where I draw the line at is asking How could they have done that, and replace it with why did they think or do such and such
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
Two back to back sentences that conflict each other. How can you know that the most liberal of them would be disgustingly racist by today's standards and then say that you can never see the world through their eyes. ?

Perhaps you should read more Northern literature, or perhaps some Black literature.,
Sure time changes technology, language, art, etc., but human nature changes very, very slowly.
No that’s not true. Attitudes can change very quickly.
When I was a kid gays were weirdos sick and perverted. By late teens they were just different, soon we willhave adults who never lived in a world without gay marriage.
Do you think ‘Blazing Saddles’ could have been made in the 1950s or today.
Things I made jokes about with my coworkers just twenty years ago could get me disciplined or even fired today.
Could you imagine the banter between the ‘Rat Pack’ on today’s tv?
All nations do things for their self interest. A government acting in its societies self interest is the only reason to have a government. To assign noble motives to one and self interest to the other is absurd
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
We can never see it through their eyes, I try hard to understand it and not condemn it using modren standards.
I can not hold the religious intolerance of the seventeenth century, but I can understand why it was important to society
I understand why Europeans expanded during the age of colonization, I don’t judge them for living in their world.
I seek to understand japan between when it was opened to the west and the Second World War
Because I try to see how they thought and why they thought that way, does not mean I agree or hold their thoughts.
And because I live in the here and now I could never hold their ideas. Where I draw the line at is asking How could they have done that, and replace it with why did they think or do such and such
So some things you think you can see or understand but other things you can't ?

Try looking at it from a psychological perspective, instead of just as historical events.
 

Carbon 6

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
1,898
A government acting in its societies self interest is the only reason to have a government.
On that point the confederacy failed miserably.

To assign noble motives to one and self interest to the other is absurd
You mean noble motives like the myth of the "lost cause" ?

Common-interest is the opposite of self-interest not nobility. The North fought to maintain the Union.
 

tenngun

Cannon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
11,514
Reaction score
1,857
Location
Republic mo
Lost cause wasn’t what the south fought for. It wasn’t lost when they were fighting.
The confederacy did fail, as did the USA when we invaded Canada. As did Red Cloud when he took on the United States. As did Harold Godwinson, or the populist poor rebellions of Europe.
‘Common interest’ and ‘Self interest’ is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Even ‘maintains the union’was in the self interest. Had the south went free, we could see a Great West, or California, all breaking off on their own.
Our own Revolution was in self interest.
 

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
434
Location
Central Connecticut
Lincoln was willing to let southern slave states keep slavery in order to preserve the Union and to avoid war.
I'm not sure what the south was after besides more riches by expanding the slave trade and the value of slaves.
Weighing that against what would become the national interest after southern secession is as clear as black and white.
It wasn't about southern freedom to keep their slaves at all, but about greed and a political power grab by southern leaders.
Trying to change the course of a nation destined to become the beacon of freedom for the world takes more than just a paper notion of grandeur.
Considering that their right to keep slavery wasn't at stake, secession appears to be about employing a divide and conquer strategy to weaken the United States and to enhance the power of the richest slave owners who controlled the rebel government.
From the Union perspective, imagine the rebels claiming dominion over part of the Mississippi River and how that could be used for their own political and economic gain and at the Union's expense.
That's not about slavery but an overt hostile attempt to weaken a sovereign nation, which is but one example of the the Union acting in it's national interest and not any self-interest.
The south had no right or logic to claim that it was acting in any national interest.
What was a national asset could only be a shared asset and could not reasonably or logically ever be taken away by the Confederate states by any legal means other than war.
The southern leaders knew what they were doing even if the southern people didn't.
There's no honor in trying to destroy the Union.
IMO it takes a lot of gall to blame the north for anything.



 
Last edited:
2

Latest posts

Group Builder
Top