re: Civil War Confederate veteran interview

quote:

---

Salviati

---

Idiots like you who cling to a 6th grade level of understanding of the war are just as bad as the ignorant rednecks who cling to the “Lost Cause” myth.

Neither group can fathom looking at the war objectively in an effort to actually understand it. No, instead y’all yell at each other as though today were July 3rd 1863 and they were standing at the bottom of Cemetery Ridge and your side was at the top.

quote:

---

Neither group can fathom looking at the war objectively in an effort to actually understand it.

---

You aren't practicing any 'objectivity' either, man. You are pretending that your perspective is the objective one, but aren't considering what your sources are nor what bias they may possess. It is a real sloppy way of reaching 'objectivity' in terms of 'reproducibility,' as you aren't doing the basic work that historians do to reach any standard of impartiality. Maybe you should try to pick up some techniques of modern historians rather than scream into the either about 'modern viewpoints.'

quote:

---

You’d think someone who claims such knowledge of the Civil War would be aware of the fact Beauregard had lined Charleston with cannons to prevent a resupply of Fort Sumter.

Beauregard had batteries on Morris and Sullivan Island. He had already retaken Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney. He even had a floating battery in Charleston Harbor.

Resupply was impossible. The Star of the West had already been chased away. Even the Union soldiers on Fort Sumter knew they could not be resupplied from the sea.

Beauregard, Perkins, and Davis knew these facts. These are simple facts of history. Resupply was impossible, and Anderson told them he had less than a week's worth of food.

Lincoln did not manipulate the South into firing on Fort Sumter. To the contrary, they were looking for an excuse. They found their excuse.

The South started the Civil War by firing without provocation on US soldiers on US land.

---

If resupplying was impossible, why was it attempted again, despite Lincoln’s cabinet warning that it would seen as an act of war? Further Lincoln indicated that it had the desired result. And as far as the harbor being well defended, the maneuver from Moultrie to Sumter was seen for what it was, and the South still held out from military action as US Secretary of State was still ensuring the South that the forts would be abandoned. Beauregard gave multiple warnings prior to the bombardment, and no one was killed by the South.

quote:

---

You’re too emotionally involved in the subject to recognize objectivity. You’re like a rabid Bama fan when anyone says anything other than sunshine pumping about the Nick Saban. They can’t see it. Neither can you.

---

Lol. I'm not the one railing about modern viewpoints man. You brought that up by yourself.

quote:

---

My sources are decades of study of texts, biographies, and autobiographies of the men from both sides, books from the perspective of both sides, touring the battlefields, discussing the matter with Civil War historians (really the best source IMO). But I didn’t just stop there, I’ve also spent a lifetime studying the decades before not only the Civil War, but also into Colonial times and the age of exploration.

---

Great. None of that amounts to 'objectivity.' Do you understand why?

quote:

---

And as for modern histories, I’d you were like me and not just lean on modern writings for understanding you’d see just how modern politics has infected what is supposed to be history in the past roughly 50 years. A good deal of what passes for history today is little better than revisionist propaganda.

---

You dumb shithead, I rely almost exclusively on first-person sources for most periods of American history. Hence why I invoked slave narratives, secession documents, etc.

And could you give me a specific example of how modern politics has 'infected' (here you aren't showing objectivity, you realize) history? A book, article, etc. Something specific. Because, given the quality of your arguments so far, I cannot give any real weight to your opinions.

quote:

---

A good deal of what passes for history today is little better than revisionist propaganda.

---

Great, so you should have some examples readily available.

quote:

---

The people in and around Charleston knew that resupply was impossible. Lincoln did not.

---

He was advised that it would be seen as an act of war even if he didn’t know the status of the harbor’s defenses (which I’m ignorant of his knowledge with regards to).

quote:

---

The maneuver from Moultrie to Sumter was decided locally by Anderson. It was a move from an indefensible position to a more defensible position. The US owned both positions.

---

Right, moving to a more defensive position has implications when the US Secretary of State is ensuring the South that the forts would be vacated.

quote:

---

Beauregard fired hundreds of rounds without provocation upon US soldiers on US land for about one-and-a-half-days. It was a miracle that no US soldier was killed in the shelling.

---

Informing them of those plans to bombard probably had something to do with that I’d imagine. *edit: “without provocation”?, what of Lincoln’s cabinet informing him the sent provisions would be just that?

Anyway, it stands that the US moved to a position that anticipated conflict in SC’s harbor and sent provisions understanding that it would also be seen as an act of war, while the South had peace negotiators up north.

Why did they make it unavailable?

quote:

---

I take it to speak for itself unless something tells me otherwise

---

Sure, which is why I take the secession documents from South Carolina and other states at face value.

quote:

---

The fact that one party wanted to leave and the other was determined to make them stay tells you about who was getting what in return from the relationship.

---

Except one party did leave and wanted something the other party had when they did not have the leverage to do so.

quote:

---

That’s just how relationships work, it’s praxeological.

---

But not in geopolitics, which is what is at issue. The party who has the power sets the rules. Fundamentally you agree, since that is also how relationships between larger and smaller states works, praxeologically speaking.

quote:

---

I’m not sure what your point is here, unless you’re talking about an exchange you’ve been having with someone else

---

You want to make a moral claim about the South without a discussion of what their grievance in particular was.

quote:

---

Yes and they offered to pay for it. What was the US going to do with that fort in a foreign state by the way?

---

Paying isn't good enough to give up a strategic position that could control shipping in and out of Charleston. If you want to be treated like a foreign actor, then the Union's actions were perfectly consistent with their overall FP objectives.

quote:

---

Praxeology is about what’s deducible from actions taken. I’m saying that by actions taken, we can deduce who was benefiting from union and who was being taken advantage of

---

And I'm saying that in geopolitics, the relationships aren't equal. We can deduce several things from the South's actions too. It doesn't necessarily lead to a situation where the South's grievances are justified.

quote:

---

As far as the North being more powerful I don’t disagree but might doesn’t make right

---

Either you are a kid or naive as frick. Might always makes right in geopolitics. There has never been any other way in human relations. Morality either applies to all actors evenly or it goes out the window with respect to geopolitics. If you want to make moral claims, thankfully the South lost thoroughly on those grounds too.

quote:

---

You want to make a moral claim about the South without a discussion of what their grievance in particular was.

---

I said the peace commission speaks for itself in that its goal was peace, I take your “sure” to be an agreement. So unless shown otherwise, I maintain it’s the case that the South was open and up front while the North was saying one thing and implementing another.

quote:

---

Paying isn't good enough to give up a strategic position that could control shipping in and out of Charleston.

---

That’s right to control the commerce of a foreign state. SC could do without the union, the union needed SC though.

quote:

---

And I'm saying that in geopolitics, the relationships aren't equal. We can deduce several things from the South's actions too. It doesn't necessarily lead to a situation where the South's grievances are justified.

---

I’m just not sure what you’re objecting to as far as my points here or what claim you’re making exactly. I think the South was justified, I’m not sure what you’ve presented to the contrary. Remember our exchange started when I pointed out some points you were missing regarding the Sumter battle.

quote:

---

Either you are a kid or naive as frick. Might always makes right in geopolitics. There has never been any other way in human relations. Morality either applies to all actors evenly or it goes out the window with respect to geopolitics. If you want to make moral claims, thankfully the South lost thoroughly on those grounds too.

---

I’ve read this a couple times, are you saying might makes right or not?

To keep us on track though, I don’t see where you’ve objected to the following points:

The South was negotiating for peace. (You took this at face value you said)
The North was negotiating not in good faith bc they were preparing for and provoking war as negotiations were going on. (You didn’t object to my revisions and analyses on the events of Sumter)
The South thought they would benefit out of the union and the North thought they would benefit by keeping them against their will, as you pointed out the North wanted to maintain control of the South’s commerce. (Controlling commerce in SC, praxeology of one party wanting to leave and another forcing them to stay)
This is why I maintain that the battle at Sumter was justified for the South in its defense.