Sassenach wrote:

And, I don't care how many State declarations Sass posts. They tell us nothing about what motivated the enlisted troops.

What they tell us is why the South seceded and therefore why the war happened. But if you don't care about verifiable documented facts then I guess there's no reasoning with you. Clearly there's no kind of documentary evidence which could change your point of view. I find this a little weird myself, but you're entitled to your delusions.

Apples and hand grenades. We are discussing what motivated the soldiers, NOT why the South seceded.

Actually, there is documentary evidence that could sway me. However, that some segment of the population owned slaves does not translate into "this motivated the vast majority of Confederate soldiers." So, please don't lecture me about "reasoning." You cannot possibly "reason" from "10 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves" to "this motivated the average Confederate soldier to risk his life."

rickyp wrote:Ending the practice of revering politicians and soldiers who conspired to end the Union and keep millions enslaved due to their race begins by ending he use of emblems like the Confederate Battle Flag. And perhaps, this small step is a demonstration that there is an acceptance of the reality of the past, and the ugliness of one's ancestors, it will be easier to make some progress towards social justice.


.

Absolute bilge.

We don't have to rewrite or erase history, or ignore context to have social justice.

freeman3 wrote:Look at James McPherson's book on Why Men Fought in The Civil War.

From one of the Amazon reviews (Robin Friedman, a hall of fame, top 100 reviewer):

Professor McPherson finds that many of the soldiers in the Civil War had a firm idea of why they were fighting. On both sides soldiers fought for the preservation of liberty and the duty they perceived they owed to their country. Patriotism, in a word. Southern soldiers fought to achieve their independence and to avoid what they viewed as "subjugation" and "slavery". Northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union and, increasingly as the War progressed, to end slavery. Soldiers in both the Union and the Confederacy drew sustenance from religious convictions. They were motivated deeply by the camaraderie that developed with their fellows, particularly in their own units. In the Civil War in particular, soldiers fought side-by-side with others from their own state and community. They developed a strong bond with each other, based on the terrors of war and the privations of the camps, and fought in solidarity with each other.

I can't imagine that most if not every Southern soldier did not understand one thing: (1) The South seceded because Lincoln was elected and the South thought he was going to interfere with if not end slavery. Yes, they saw the Northern invasion as tyranny to be defended. They were defending the right to run their society as they saw fit, without intrusion from the North. Sure, when you ask soldiers why they fight they are going to give personal reasons ( like camaraderie, or defending their state, defending their homes) or high ideals like defending against Northern tyranny, all the reasons that that McPherson saw in their letters. The cause and effect between Lincoln's election and Southern secession is indisputable; the reason for secession that Lincoln was perceived to threaten slavery is indisputable. It is an untenable argument to think that Southern soldiers were unaware of this, as if they volunteered to defend their state and had no clue why their state seceded or why the North was invading. They knew--our ancestors were not idiots.

It's fair to note that Southerners fought for a complex mix of motives. Just because the proximate cause of the war was slavery that did not mean they saw it as the central issue. Probably many saw the North meddling in their society as the true issue, but of course they would have to admit if pressed that the reason always came to slavery , however much they wanted to ennoble it. In any case , when men are risking their life in campaign after campaign fighting solely to protect the property right of owning slaves, of property rights is not enough. They needed both a higher principle (defending against tyranny, a second revolution) and more concrete, personal motives like fighting for their comrades,and protecting their state, their homes , their families. But those other motives do not change the fact Southern soldiers were aware of WHY the war had begun. And at the very least those soldiers were willing to fight to defend their state when they knew their state had seceded over slavery, even if they also had other motives.

Fate

We don't have to rewrite or erase history, or ignore context to have social justice.

Here;s an example by you of how changing the "message" changes the perception.

Fate

You cannot possibly "reason" from "10 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves" to "this motivated the average Confederate soldier to risk his life

The actual information provided was that 50% of the Confederate forces came from slave holding families, or families that earned their living as a result of slavery.
But you haven't acknowledged that ...and insist on the 10% who actually owned the slaves.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:

And, I don't care how many State declarations Sass posts. They tell us nothing about what motivated the enlisted troops.

What they tell us is why the South seceded and therefore why the war happened. But if you don't care about verifiable documented facts then I guess there's no reasoning with you. Clearly there's no kind of documentary evidence which could change your point of view. I find this a little weird myself, but you're entitled to your delusions.

Apples and hand grenades. We are discussing what motivated the soldiers, NOT why the South seceded.

Actually, we were discussing the Confederacy, what the flag represents (it was the battle flag for two of the major CSA armies, a Naval jack, and the upper left part of the CSA official flag from 1863), when you tried to muddy the waters with what the soldiers were fighting for.

I don't care what their personal motivations were, frankly, but what the political leaders drafted and sent then to fight for is the issue.

But Sass has produced evidence and solid reasoning on this, while all you have is assertion that he is wrong.

Also, you never got back to me on how many southern blacks see the Battle Flag as not being about oppression of Negro slaves (and so largely their ancestors) and/or the oppression of black people in the South under Jim Crow, KKK, segregation etc. Again, I produced polling, you just assert according to your own opinions.

I have left this thread while my son was being born. His ancestors include slaves in Jamaica. I don't want to see apologetics about those who fought to preserve institutionalised, industrialised racial slavery, thanks.

rickyp wrote:Fate

We don't have to rewrite or erase history, or ignore context to have social justice.

Here;s an example by you of how changing the "message" changes the perception.

Fate

You cannot possibly "reason" from "10 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves" to "this motivated the average Confederate soldier to risk his life

The actual information provided was that 50% of the Confederate forces came from slave holding families, or families that earned their living as a result of slavery.
But you haven't acknowledged that ...and insist on the 10% who actually owned the slaves.

Also that a large number of Confederate soldiers were drafted, and so even if they opposed slavery, fought because they were forced to by a law imposed by the CSA (not each State!). The figures are higher for volunteers.

Lee was one man, and exceptional in several ways, so appealing to his story to extrapolate to the rest of the army is false reasoning.

Apples and hand grenades. We are discussing what motivated the soldiers, NOT why the South seceded.

Actually, we're not. That's just one small aspect of what we're talking about which for some reason you've chosen to fixate upon at the expense of anything else which doesn't fit your chosen narrative quite so conveniently. The broader, and more pertinent issue is the Confederate battle flag and whether it can justifiably be seen as a symbol of slavery and racial oppression. I've shown through my sources that slavery wasn't just the most important reason the South seceded, it was in fact the only reason. It follows from this that the soldiers who signed up to fight for the CSA were fighting for the cause of slavery, whatever their personal motivations might have been. The Confederate flag is the banner of an army that was raised and which fought explicitly for the right to keep black men in chains. There's no getting away from this, it's documented historical fact.

Again, I encourage everyone to watch Ken Burns' Civil War epic on Netflix. I'm up to 1864, mostly over my sandwich at lunchtime! It's a great piece of work, but also addresses most of these questions.

freeman3 wrote:I can't imagine that most if not every Southern soldier did not understand one thing: (1) The South seceded because Lincoln was elected and the South thought he was going to interfere with if not end slavery. Yes, they saw the Northern invasion as tyranny to be defended. They were defending the right to run their society as they saw fit, without intrusion from the North. Sure, when you ask soldiers why they fight they are going to give personal reasons ( like camaraderie, or defending their state, defending their homes) or high ideals like defending against Northern tyranny, all the reasons that that McPherson saw in their letters. The cause and effect between Lincoln's election and Southern secession is indisputable; the reason for secession that Lincoln was perceived to threaten slavery is indisputable. It is an untenable argument to think that Southern soldiers were unaware of this, as if they volunteered to defend their state and had no clue why their state seceded or why the North was invading. They knew--our ancestors were not idiots.

Well done, counselor. You've moved the goalposts quite some distance!

I've been arguing slavery was not the primary motivation of most Confederate soldiers. Now, you want to reduce it to "I it an untenable argument . . . (they were unaware of the threat to slavery)." Would they risk their lives for slavery? That IS the question, not "were they aware of Lincoln's abolitionist platform?"

It's fair to note that Southerners fought for a complex mix of motives. Just because the proximate cause of the war was slavery that did not mean they saw it as the central issue. Probably many saw the North meddling in their society as the true issue, but of course they would have to admit if pressed that the reason always came to slavery , however much they wanted to ennoble it. In any case , when men are risking their life in campaign after campaign fighting solely to protect the property right of owning slaves, of property rights is not enough. They needed both a higher principle (defending against tyranny, a second revolution) and more concrete, personal motives like fighting for their comrades,and protecting their state, their homes , their families. But those other motives do not change the fact Southern soldiers were aware of WHY the war had begun. And at the very least those soldiers were willing to fight to defend their state when they knew their state had seceded over slavery, even if they also had other motives.

Again, nicely done, but you are throwing up dust.

rickyp wrote:Fate

We don't have to rewrite or erase history, or ignore context to have social justice.

Here;s an example by you of how changing the "message" changes the perception.

Fate

You cannot possibly "reason" from "10 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves" to "this motivated the average Confederate soldier to risk his life

The actual information provided was that 50% of the Confederate forces came from slave holding families, or families that earned their living as a result of slavery.
But you haven't acknowledged that ...and insist on the 10% who actually owned the slaves.

No, because the number was below 50%. And, we've moved beyond raw numbers. Thanks for playing.

danivon wrote:Lee was one man, and exceptional in several ways, so appealing to his story to extrapolate to the rest of the army is false reasoning.

True.

It's also "false reasoning" to look at a percentage of slave-ownership and presume that was the primary motivation for most of the CSA.

geojanes wrote:Again, I encourage everyone to watch Ken Burns' Civil War epic on Netflix. I'm up to 1864, mostly over my sandwich at lunchtime! It's a great piece of work, but also addresses most of these questions.

Thanks. For those of us who don't have 120 hours of free time, could you provide a brief summary? Also, are his conclusions drawn from raw numbers, historical documents, or . . . ?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Lee was one man, and exceptional in several ways, so appealing to his story to extrapolate to the rest of the army is false reasoning.

True.

It's also "false reasoning" to look at a percentage of slave-ownership and presume that was the primary motivation for most of the CSA.

No. Let's just look at the ratified founding documents for the CSA and constituent States, explaining the reasons for secession, which were well known and discussed, and ignore your silly sidebar.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Lee was one man, and exceptional in several ways, so appealing to his story to extrapolate to the rest of the army is false reasoning.

True.

It's also "false reasoning" to look at a percentage of slave-ownership and presume that was the primary motivation for most of the CSA.

No. Let's just look at the ratified founding documents for the CSA and constituent States, explaining the reasons for secession, which were well known and discussed, and ignore your silly sidebar.

That does little to explain the motivations of the average soldier. But, thank you for trying to move the goalposts again.