Just Wondering

If Brooks Simpson, Rob Baker, Kevin Levin and Jimmy Dick are educators and their information is so factual, why is it that we never see anyone that we can identify as one of their students on their blogs?

Just wondering


72 thoughts on “Just Wondering

  1. Two reasons.

    1.) FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). We do not discuss students by their names or their grades on the internet.

    2.) I can’t speak for others, but I do not bring up my blog in class or to any student for that matter. Very few students have found my blog, even fewer have attempted to comment. I do not allow any of their comments in because I do not want to give the impression that it is ok for a student to communicate to their teacher via social media that is not regulated for school guidelines.

    • Rob,

      I appreciate your answers. Number 1 I can fully understand, however that is not what I am asking.

      These blogs would seem to be a natural extension of the classroom as related to history and social studies. It would give the students a chance to express their views and perhaps learn something.

      Thanks again.

      • A blog that would be considered an extension of my classroom would fall under the regulation of FERPA. To extend free access to the website, or promote the website as a teacher, would be the same as using it as a teaching tool. Meaning that federal guidelines must be met for that class website which I find restrictive. They would also be teaching things that do not match the common curriculum appropriated by the state and federal government. That is why I draw a clear line of demarcation between my blog and my classroom. I have a separate website that I use as an extension of my classroom.

      • Do I understand you correctly the state and Federal government tells you what to teach? Does that include the war was about slavery, secession was illegal, the south was fighting for slavery and all the other things we have disaggred on?

      • Georgia Public Standards

        SSUSH8 The student will explain the relationship between growing north-south divisions and
        westward expansion.

        a. Explain how slavery became a significant issue in American politics; include the slave
        rebellion of Nat Turner and the rise of abolitionism (William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick
        Douglass, and the Grimke sisters).
        b. Explain the Missouri Compromise and the issue of slavery in western states and territories.
        c. Describe the Nullification Crisis and the emergence of states’ rights ideology; include the role
        of John C. Calhoun and development of sectionalism.
        d. Describe the war with Mexico and the Wilmot Proviso.
        e. Explain how the Compromise of 1850 arose out of territorial expansion and population growth.

        SSUSH9 The student will identify key events, issues, and individuals relating to the causes,
        course, and consequences of the Civil War.

        a. Explain the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the failure of popular sovereignty, Dred Scott case, and John
        Brown’s Raid.
        b. Describe President Lincoln’s efforts to preserve the Union as seen in his second inaugural
        address and the Gettysburg speech and in his use of emergency powers, such as his decision to
        suspend habeas corpus.
        c. Describe the roles of Ulysses Grant, Robert E. Lee, “Stonewall” Jackson, William T. Sherman,
        and Jefferson Davis.
        d. Explain the importance of Fort Sumter, Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and the Battle for
        Atlanta and the impact of geography on these battles.
        e. Describe the significance of the Emancipation Proclamation.
        f. Explain the importance of the growing economic disparity between the North and the South
        through an examination of population, functioning railroads, and industrial output

      • Thanks Rob,

        Can you identify what exactly is SSUSH? Is this the entire entire course on the WBTS? Do they also provide recommended answers for each question? Is a student allowed to go outside your website or provided classroom materials to seek answers?

      • Social Studies United States History (SSUSH)
        These are the academic standards, the required skill set that must be taught. Students will be tested by the state for content knowledge on these topics.

        These are not questions, they are requirements.

        A student can go anywhere they want to get answers, that does not guarantee the accuracy of those answers though.

      • Thank you.

        Who or what determines accuracy? What if a student provided an answer, that disagrees withconventional teaching, and has a primary document to back up his answer, would he or she still be wrong?

      • Accuracy as far as what?

        A primary document does not necessarily provide an answer beyond the opinion of the author of the primary document, that is historiography 101. The obvious example is a newspaper article from 1839 which expresses the opinion of John O’Sullivan about Manifest Destiny. All that document does is give us the overzealous opinion of O’Sullivan and perhaps some insight to the movement he represents, but it does not tell us about national policy of expansion.

        This is all highly theoretical and interpretation however, and it generally does not happen in class. Fact regurgitation is the common trend in public school; shaped by federal regulation since the 1950s Cold War era.

      • So then the answer is there can only be one correct answer and that is what is taught?

        Let’s take for example the Declarations of Secession or the Cornerstone speech. Now it is common practice to take these documents and present them as proof positive the war was all about slavery. Anyone reading these documents can see the Declaration docs are nothing more than a list of grievances against the US government and we know by the author’s statement the Cornerstone is not accurate. We also know that no documents have been produced to date that proves the war was about slavery, but was rather to save the Union. Now if I answered the question of what was the war about and I answered as I have posted, using these and other primary documents to prove my point, would I be right or wrong?

      • The Declarations of Secession are official government documents, decided on and approved, which list the reasons for secession. These are easy to use primary sources which indicate the primary purpose for secession and the reasons the South was willing to go to war to defend.

        The Cornerstone Speech is merely one opinion from one man. That being said, its message when analyzed in context with the Ordinances of secession, political speeches of the era, etc. it rings true. Harry Jaffa’s A New Birth of Freedom does an incredible job of analyzing the document at length.

        Stephens is often taken out of context on “accuracy.” He states that he conferred with the reported to correct the notes, and the subsequent publications were corrected. In his recollections, he states:

        Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)

        Additionally, Stephens addresses the idea of the “corner stone”,
        Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the “corner-stone” on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

        His argument, as he believes, was embellished to mean the Confederacy was special in its regards to race. In his mind, they were merely upholding the racial principles of the U.S.’s constitution, and that which the public believed. I think this is a false idea and merely his attempt to distance himself from his own speech later in life. How could he think such things when Abraham Lincoln wrote him in 1860 saying,

        Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

        The South would be in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

        As stated before, both sides knew exactly what secession and the war was about. If a student came in with some cherry picked source declaring something else to be the primary cause, it would undoubtedly be false given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

      • “the reasons the South was willing to go to war to defend.”
        Really??? Show me anyplace in the secession documents that says anything about war.

        “political speeches of the era, etc. it rings true.”
        Really? Is that a fact? So you had to rely on Jaffa’s book to understand the document. I use as my souce to analyise the document the man who wrote it and says this — [REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]
        That is about as primary as it gets.Tell me this where did Jaffa get his copy of the speech???

        “Stephens is often taken out of context on “accuracy.” He states that he conferred with the reported to correct the notes, and the subsequent publications were corrected.”
        As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth “slavery” as the “corner-stone” of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter’s notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors.

        “In his mind, they were merely upholding the racial principles of the U.S.’s constitution, and that which the public believed. I think this is a false idea and merely his attempt to distance himself from his own speech later in life.”
        The idea of slavery wasn’t in his mind. It was written into theUS Constitution. Stephens had nothing to defend, slavery was a law in the United States at that time.
        Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

        “As stated before, both sides knew exactly what secession and the war was about. If a student came in with some cherry picked source declaring something else to be the primary cause, it would undoubtedly be false given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.”

        Speaking of cherry picked, I just caught you in the act!!!!!

        Just as I thought your mind is made up, the student must answer to your satisfaction or fail. Truth be danged. Neither side mentions slavery as the cause of the war. Lincoln doesn’t mention slavery as a cause, neither does Davis. Everyone of your buddies, Mackey, Dick,Simpson, and others have tried to prove that point. The very best any of these fellows could do is J. S. Moseby, who had nothing to do with the Confederate government.I am a fair fellow, i will let you post any document that you think proves that the war was about slavery. Please try to have it done by Monday morning. Friday and Saturday we are fishing, Sunday I take off. Monday I will post some primary documents that prove you are wrong.

      • There was no war at the time the secession documents were drawn up, so there is no reference to war. The reasons we know that they fought to defend those ideas, is because they fought to defend their secession and the reasons for that secession. This has been done by me and several others in numerous papers, posts, etc. ten fold. Learn to read.

        I cited Jaffa’s book to help you out. it is obvious from your previous statement and the statement you made in the prior comment, that you have no idea about the arguments laid forth in Stephen’s speech or Stephen’s rebuttals.

        Thanks for citing the very thing I argued….you cherry picked it by the way. You did not include the bit where he reiterates the context of his speech.

        Which is what Stephen’s argued in his rebuttal, I just said that, can you not read?

        Please tell me, what exactly did I cherry pick George. Point it out. I just included a letter where Lincoln points out that the conflict is over Slavery. John C. Calhoun knew that slavery would lead to conflict. Jefferson Davis said as much in his address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861.

        George, you have exhibited that you know absolutely nothing about school curriculum, even less about historical interpretation. You want to argue about primary documents being your only source, but you’ve shown on this thread that you have a reading comprehension problem and cannot correctly interpret what author of said document is saying. You have a good day George, keep repping Mississippi.


      • Wrong, Wrong and wrong. The Declarations are just what they are stated to be scauses of secession.Slavery had nothing to do with the war and I will prove that later. But first I want you to provide a document that proves the South was fighting to preserve slavery. Now I have given you 3 days to do so. you are college educated and a teacher, are you not up to the task?

        I can read as I have stated many times you resoort to insults when you lack facts. Shall I lower myseklf to your standards? I think not I have between a rock and a hard place.

        I have no need for a book that teels me what my opinion of a historical document should be. I CAN READ

        Yes I did I ppostedvthe rest of the story which proves you will lie and cherry pick parts that suit your agenda. You are no educator by any stretch of the word.

        I did point out exactly what you cherry pivcked. Quit acting stupid. It is an act isn’ BTW the rest of your post is just trash but I am going to levae it so peiople will know just how historically challenged you are.

        The Miss. Ed. link has nothing to do with me. Anythime you want to compare our sucess in life just let me know. BTW how does it feel to get your butt kicked by someone from such an ignorant state???? Bring your documents to keep playing.

        Repping LOL LOL LOL good choice of words white boy.

      • Right, they are causes of secession. The number one cause? Slavery. The South maintains those reasons throughout the war effort. They fight for the reasons that they seceded. If you honestly think there is a clear demarcation between the reasons for war and the causes of secession, then you are in denial.

        I already have. I’ve provided numerous documents. Read some of Jefferson Davis’s addresses to Congress, he is pretty clear in the primary purpose for secession and defense; slave property. The fact is, you don’t want “actual proof” because your mind is already made up.

        Apparently not, or you wouldn’t say such things as “Slavery was not a reason for the Civil War”

        Yes you did post what? What’s hilarious is that right above that you wrote, “I CAN READ” The sections I quoted are not “cherry picked,” they are quite literal, in context and cited for you. You just don’t like what the documents say, which is why you claim they are “cherry picked.” The reality is that you probably couldn’t explain what “cherry picked” actually is. You’ve read where others accuse you of cherry picking, and now you’ve adopted the accusation.

        Where did I cherry pick George? Please point that out?

      • Yes secession documents not declarations of war. No I can prove the war wasn’t about slavery. I am being nice and giving you the chance to post any and all documents that you have from any major player that says the war was about slavery. Can you do it? Where are all these documents that state the war was about slavery? This is your second chance. Don’t waste it.

        Yes my mind is made up. It is made up that you are wrong and cannot support your statement the war was about slavery.

        I will say it again SLAVERY WAS NOT THE REASON FOR THE WAR> PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!!

        No you cherry picked a section of the entire paragraph to prove your point. If you don’tknow what you cherry picked then you are not very smart are you?? If you want to know go find it. The extra reading practice will do you wonders.

      • I would sugget you spend your time searching for documents that prove the South was fighting to preserve slavery instead of arguing with me.

        BTW where is the Lincoln letter you included? You can post it with your other documents. Shall I give you 3 more days to get everything together?

      • Nope. I’d love to read your arguments now. Please include the many post war documents of ex-Confederates attempting to justify the war.

      • “Please include the many post war documents of ex-Confederates attempting to justify the war.”

        Nope I am not going to do that>. The reason. I believe you and Mackey have both said yoou can’t believe anything a Confederate or a neo-Confederate says.

        I will be out of town tomorrow and maybe part of Friday. You will start getting answers Saturaday of Monday. Make the best of this idle time to gather your proof together.

  2. The reason there is no reference to war in any of the secession statements, is that no Southern State, or the Confederate States of America when it was formed, wanted a war. Had the United States respected the right to secession, no war would have been fought. The Confederates fought to defend their right to political independence, and to defend their homes, lives, and the lives of their families. They did not need to fight to defend slavery, and the very idea is absurd. If they wanted to maintain slavery, they simply would have remained in the Union, like Union slave states of Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware.

  3. In keeping with the discussion between Rob Baker and me regarding slavery as the cause of the war, I want to backtrack just a minute and address some things Rob has stated down this page.

    A primary document does not necessarily provide an answer beyond the opinion of the author of the primary document, that is historiography 101. The obvious example is a newspaper article from 1839 which expresses the opinion of John O’Sullivan about Manifest Destiny. All that document does is give us the overzealous opinion of O’Sullivan and perhaps some insight to the movement he represents, but it does not tell us about national policy of expansion.
    Keeping this in mind Baker, on this same page, will promote the Cornerstone Speech of A. H. Stephens, as proof positive that slavery was a cause of the war. This is after I pointed out the reporter on the scene says this — [REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]

    Now the question becomes if historiography 101 does not provide an answer beyond the opinion—- then how can anyone use this Cornerstone Speech as a primary document? Readers may view the Cornerstone and What I Really said at — http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2011113.last

    The other source that Baker promotes as proof positive the war was about slavery is the Declarations of Secession documents, website link: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Reading these documents you will see they are nothing more than grievances against the United States, issues which the seceding states feel like the United States should address. That is all they are, war is not mentioned in these documents at all. In relation to these documents Baker says — The Declarations of Secession are official government documents, decided on and approved, which list the reasons for secession.</strong>

    I absolutely agree. They are state government documents. All dated before the Confederate government was formed February 4, of 1861.

    Baker goes on to make this statement– I just included a letter where Lincoln points out that the conflict is over Slavery. John C. Calhoun knew that slavery would lead to conflict. Jefferson Davis said as much in his address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861. To this I say, Baker please post or show us the Lincoln letter you are referring to, post what Calhoun says, about slavery being the cause and President Davis’s statement saying slavery was the cause. Now while you are doing this remember what you said about historiography 101

    Rob if you have any more facts or sources to add I suggest you do so. If not then I will soon start posting my facts proving you wrong, to this page.

  4. As I promised here is proof that the war was NOT about slavery. There are a lot instances that support my statement, however I do not want to be accused of spinning history, or grabbing at smoke in a some document that does not address the issue of war, no need for the opinion of one man as Rob says this is history 101, therefore we will use government documents last but not least no need for a lot of information or trying to spin history. Here we go—

    Ghost Amendment:
    The Thirteenth Amendment that Never Was
    “No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” –Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861
    Read more at http://ghostamendment.com/#wsL7v6m78KjUCpWA.99

    Crittenden-Johnson resolution, July 25, 1861
    Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

    Also see http://books.google.com/books?id=4YscAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA173&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cMKsUYuVI-fE0QG4zoHoAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    There you go Rob two government documents that clearly state slavery was not the cause. Do you need more???

    • Neither one of those documents “clearly state slavery was not the cause.” In fact, they lend credence to the fact that slavery was the cause of secession and war.

      • Go ahead act as stupid as you want. You know what these documents clearly state. Your comment is a prime example of why you are not taken as a serious historian.

      • Lincoln states that slavery was not his reason for going to war. The Corwin Amendment clearly reveals that slavery was not the reason why the GOVERNMENT went to war. There are so MANY “documents” proving the above that to name them all would require a volume of its own.

      • Lincoln states that slavery was not his reason for going to war

        That is a straw man argument. No historian, unless they are a moron, argues that Lincoln’s war aim was to end slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union. However, the North’s war policy is not, nor does it have to, match the South’s war aims.

        The Corwin Amendment does not clearly state any such thing. In reality, the Corwin Amendment is an attempt to appease the South one last time on the issue of slavery. The Corwin Amendment is an example of what the war was about. Northern Congressmen knew that slavery was the tension point and hoped that by addressing it, they could prevent secession and war .

      • You had better look around, friend. The world is full of those “morons” to whom you allude. Have you not noticed that the current claim by historians, race-baiters and academia is that the war was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY?? That it was about NOTHING ELSE??? Where have you been?

        As far as “preserving the Union,” that’s a crock as well. If you look up the word “union,” you will notice that such arrangements are by their very nature VOLUNTARY. What is “voluntary” about the barrel of a gun? Lincoln, his government (which he wanted to be the master rather than the servant of the sovereign States and the People and for that purpose launched his bloody war) committed treason as did every individual and State that aided and abetted him in his treason. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying War against them (the sovereign States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

        Finally, here the comments of Buchanan’s Attorney General Jeremiah Black when Buchanan asked that he find a CONSTITUTIONAL remedy to secession:

        “There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, BUT PERNICIOUS, as a means of holding the States together. If it is true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations?”

      • It trumps anything you have posted — Secession Docs Cornerstone.

        let me ask you an honest question. You are an educated man, therefore you can read. Tell me honestly why when i present these documents that cannot be refuted in sort of logical manner do you insist in arguing? Tell me why if you have never read these documents before why is it so hard to just say I was not aware of these documents. Why do insisit on supporting an agenda when you are proven to be so wrong?

      • Honest answer:

        Because they are not trump cards, and I’m flabbergasted as to why you think they are. You held on to them, promising their release like they were some type of end all be all argument. In reality, those are topics discussed in depth by numerous people plenty of times before. Nothing about the Corwin Amendment, or any other document for that matters, suggests that the way was not caused by or about slavery.

      • No Rob they are they clearly state the war was not about slavery. A third grader can see that. These two documents are far and beyond any proof that you, Brooks Simpson, Al Mackey, Jimmy Dick, Andy Hall, or Kevin Levin have supplied as proof. Now again why is so hard for you to just admit you were either not aware of these documents or they do indeed clearly state what the war was about?

      • I say again, please point out exactly where they say the war not was not about slavery. Please point out in a document, that is meant to soothe the southern secessionist feelings about slavery, where these documents say the war was not about slavery.

      • Iand i will say again, you are an educated person, read the documents for yourself. You are wrong and just don’t have the gonads admit it.

        I am not going to be a go-fer for a fool. Right now I am just letting you talk — having fun with you.

      • Again, point out exactly where it states that. Show the readers, what makes your argument. This is how the study of history works. Present your case.

      • You need to look up what “Burden of Proof” is. Obviously you have not figured it out yet.

        que childish rant in 3…2…1…

      • Am I going to have to treat you like a third grader and break every word down for you? If so I will set up a kiddie blog just for people like you.

        Like I said act as stuopid as you want

      • I am asking you directly, what do those documents you cite “clearly state? ” Because the words you use, the words you say these documents “clearly state,” exist no where on those documents. So point them out.

      • Cassandra,

        Wow, you wrote a lot and you’ve sort of shifted the topic. What historians argue the war was about, and what they argue was Lincoln’s war policy, are two different things. Historians argue that the South, as a quasi-political entity fought to affirm their secession. Which poses the question, why the secession? Why the tension? Why the sectionalism? The resounding issue always comes back to slavery. This is not to say anyone’s ancestor fought for slavery, some did, many did not. This is especially true in 1862 when the Confederate government began drafting men into service.

        And argument of semantics does not detract from the fact that the North fought to preserve the Union. This was their stated war aim, this was what they talked about and it is what they spent the majority of their time directing policy toward as well. Counter arguments to this, such as the collection of tariffs, are feeble arguments at best.

        Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says:
        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

        The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

        If you are suggestion that Lincoln waged war against sovereign states, then you are wrong. For starters, suggesting that states are sovereign in this respect, is a flimsy argument do to the aspect of Federalism and the decades of precedent leading up to the Civil War. Additionally, the North did not act in a treasonous manner. They sought to end an element of rebellion which attacked Federal property throughout the South, the most notable being Ft. Sumter. The Constitution is decidedly in the North’s favor in this sense, despite the recent attempts by people like Judge Napolitano to suggest otherwise (that is a debate all on its own though). Congressional War Powers, Congress’s ability to deal with insurrection, the President’s War Powers (established by precedent beginning with Washington), and the President’s power to hold, occupy, and possess places belonging to the Federal government. These are but a few. Even the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was within Constitutional power, though many disagreed including Jeff Davis…..who did the same thing later on. All of these issues could have been settled by the election in 1864, but that election was an absolute blowout. Even the states that felt the hand of habeus corpus voted Lincoln.

        Black’s comments show the indecisiveness of the Buchannon administration and nothing more. Black believed that secession was unconstitutional, but that the federal government could not coerce a state.

      • I didn’t “shift” anything. I responded to your points.

        Slavery was AN issue, but not THE issue. The issue was this: most of the States in the US wanted not a republic but an empire and an empire requires a strong and controlling central government. The South did NOT want such a government. It resented Congressional appropriation of Southern money to feed Northern industries (the American System); it resented Congressional interference in those territories trying to become States by forcing them to either enter the Union as a “free” rather than a “slave” state – despite the wishes of the inhabitants – or for a free state to enter into the Union at the same time to protect Northern hegemony (Kansas-Missouri). Yes, slavery was what was mentioned most often because of the radical abolitionists and their efforts to foment servile insurrection, but really, in the end, it was about power, money and the destruction of the way of life of the people of the South. Lincoln said as much after his Emancipation Proclamation – that the South was to be destroyed and replaced with “other principles.” The London Spectator pointed out the facts of the case during the war: “The principle (of the proclamation) Is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot unless he is loyal to the United States.”

      • We are not concerned what your handpicked historians have to say about what the cause iof the war was. You have been presented absolute proof in US Government documents about what the war was about. Thus ends the argumen.

        The argument to preserve the Union is nothing more than double speak for the collection of taxes. That has been proven many times. In fact I have some excellent material on the main SHAPE website that supports this point—- http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2011091 read the entire thread including the PDF.

        Treason doesn’t apply to the Confederates because they were a new country. No Confederates were charged with treason.

        Nothing in the Constitution outlaws secession. You argument is just grabbing at smoke. Try again.

        Oh yeah, I notice you only have one citation. Don’t ask me for any if you are not willing to provide the same.

      • …..In order to collect taxes, the Union must be preserved….

        I never said the Confederates committed treason, but they did rebel, and they were put to task for the action during reconstruction by losing suffrage.

        I didn’t make that argument, so you keep grabbing at those straws to provoke an argument outside the sphere of this post.

        The overwhelming bulk of the argument was about the Constitution….which was my citation.

      • I know your type now. You pretend to be interested in debate and dialogue, but you aren’t at all interested. Providing you with historical proof, even from your own side of the debate, means nothing. You do what the Lincoln-philes do – claim it’s a misprint or he was “taken out of context” and all the rest. You don’t want credible sourcing, you want to change the subject as soon as credible sources are provided. I’ve played this game far too often to waste my time doing so here. However, to show that I am not without proof of my claims about Lincoln and emancipation, I will provide you some quotes – AND their sources – which I’m sure you will then dismiss as not being what you require.

        “I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declared that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’ Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.”
        Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address – Final Text, March 4, 1861.
        (Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 263)

        “[P]laced in the [Republican Party] platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
        ‘Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless ”

        “I now reiterate these sentiments: and in so doing, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration.”
        Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address – Final Text, March 4, 1861.
        (Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 263)

        “The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
        ‘No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’

        “It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law.”
        Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address – Final Text, March 4, 1861.”

        “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution (Corwin) – which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable.”cxvii
        Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address – Final Text, March 4, 1861.
        (Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 270)

        Regarding General Fremont’s attempts to free the slaves of Southern sympathizers in Kentucky:
        “I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, in relation to the confiscation of property, and the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us – perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me therefore to ask, that you will as of your own motion, modify that paragraph.”
        Lincoln’s Letter to General Fremont, September 11, 1861.
        (Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 506)”

        “Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S. – any government of Constitutions and laws, —wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?… What I object to, is, that I as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government.”
        Lincoln’s Letter to Orville H. Browning explaining rescinding General Fremont’s emancipation of slaves, September 22, 1861.”

        “Such a proposition, on the part of the general government sets up no claim of a right, by federal authority, to interfere with slavery within state limits.”
        Lincoln’s Message to Congress, March 6, 1862.
        (Collected Works, Vol. V, p. 145)”
        Excerpt From: Joseph E. Fallon. “Lincoln Uncensored.” iBooks.

        And these are but a few on the subject. And now, if you will (or will not) excuse me, I have better things to do than to answer questions that were the supposed responses of my past factual posts.

      • I didn’t ask any questions. What you have provided is a cherry picked selection of Lincoln quotes without analysis. What you fail to understand is 2 things.

        1: The union’s war aim does not have to parallel the confederate war aim. The union fought to preserve the union. The south fought for independence to preserve slavery.

        2: Lincoln and his numerous speeches about slavery, and his intention to leave the institution alone, are attempts to reassure the South that they have no reason to believe slavery will be abolished. He is attempting to soothe them knowing that slavery lead to the tension in the first place.

      • 1. All you gotta do is prove the South went to war to preserve slavery. I have said that from the beginning. Do that and you win!!!!!!!

        2. and that is why the war wasn’t about slavery.

      • You mean besides the numerous documents that talk about secession out of fear that slavery would be abolished? Davis’s message to Congress post Ft. Sumter which talks about the tensions caused by slavery leading to war?

      • use your edit button. Type the word treason in the search box. you will find this Submitted on 2014/06/15 at 5:23 PM —


        Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says:
        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in

        Perhaps you are just confused about what you have posted? Reminds me of the Grand Funk Railroad “We’re an American Band” post????????

      • Perhaps you should learn how to read wordpress comments. For if you could, you would see that is in response to Cassandra’s post above. I was not talking about Confederates. And the Grand Funk Railroad Post is still up. Not sure what your deal is with that post.

      • It’s a song about rocking out, partying and fornication with band groupies. “filth” is in the eye of the beholder.

      • I know what the song is about. Still you have shown the fifthy language just as you haven’t proved the war was about slavery. Still I wait for you to prove my documents wrong!!

      • I actually posted the lyrics on the site and pointed directly to the eye of the beholder.

        I’ll prove your documents are wrong, right after you attempt to prove they are right. And that does not mean copying and pasting documents.

      • Yes and Connie posted the lyrics to that crappy rap song, which you defend, on her site. There is just no comparison. Oh and you just you thatas one of retarded excuses.

        My documents speak for themselves. Argue with them.

      • I don’t remember defending any rap song. It’s not really a genre of choice either.

        Your documents speak of one opinion, that of the document’s creator. And the documents your posted say, “The South is really mad over this slavery issue, maybe this will ease their fears and get them back in the Union.”

      • Cassandra,

        You didn’t respond to my points. You mentioned Lincoln’s reasons for going to war and the Corwin Amendment. When I answered, you moved on to the constitutionality of secession and the Federal government’s power therein. Let’s pick a topic and stick to it.

        I got to say, this the first time I’ve heard the empire argument. In the declarations of secession, the word “empire” appears one time. It is in reference to the British Empire. If southerners truly feared an empire, one would think they might mention it. They did, however, mention slavery over and over again. Many Southerners were in favor of the American System, because it benefited them as well. Also, because of the wave of nationalism post-war of 1812, many Southern congressman supported the measure as well. In fact, Southerners Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun were listed among the supporters. That began to crumble after the economic panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise (1820), but real resistance did not occur until the late 1820s and 1830s. Despite the great noise of South Carolina and the nullification crisis, the biggest stifle to the American System was the Federal government itself. Andrew Jackson vetoes legislation that would have extended the system.

        Admittance into the Union had to do with political power and that went both ways. Ex. California, a state that made slavery illegal in its own Constitution before applying for admittance, which irritated Southern politicians.

        Lincoln did not “say as much.” He actually did not say anything of the sort. If he did, provide a citation.

      • Actually the word “war” appears numerous times in those documents. In fact, the ordinance of secession from the state of Georgia calls the heightened tension a ongoing virtual civil war

        This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war

      • Well golly gee Gomer where does this say they are going to war over slavery?

        Here is the the actual facts—- The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers.

        War did not happen until Lincoln sent an invasion fleet to Charleston to insure the collection of taxes

      • You didn’t ask that the first time around, you argued that the word “war” does not appear in those documents. You are wrong, it appears in every one. Now you want to change the argument.

        No sir, war began the moment the quasi-Confederate government opened fire on a Federal installation.

        In Jeff Davis’s Address to the Confederate Congress shortly after Ft. Sumter, Davis gives a hello and introduction. Then he proceeds to tell the congress all about the history of slavery in the United States and the tensions between North and the South. He talks about secession over that issue, then he moves on to Ft. Sumter. Even Davis knew what led the country to war. Despite what he might try to say years later as an apologist.


      • I can give you Lincoln’s MANY quotes about his position on slavery, but if you want to know pretty much how things reached the impass that they did by 1861, please read the following (oh, and by the way, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss this situation by “sticking to one point.” It’s far more complex than that:

        Excerpted from The Secret Six: The Fool As Martyr, Volume Three of the Sacred Fool Quartet by Otto Scott, pp. 176–177
        Abolitionist agitations, mounted by a relative handful, had proceeded now for a generation. In that time [1849] its rhetoric had gradually entered every public issue and every national debate, and had created irritations everywhere. Abolitionist lecturers, writers, and leaders had risen, inch by inch against violence and heavy odds, to convince overseas observers of their importance and to create sweeping though resentful changes in the South. Even the war with Mexico and its great victories was clouded by abolitionist protest. Arguments over whether the new territories should enter the Union as free or slave states distorted congressional debate even after the 1848 elections, and in the weeks before Old Zack Taylor was sworn into office in 1849.

        Even the discovery of gold in California and the great land rush did not end the controversy. It penetrated every issue and darkened every debate. Would California be admitted as a free state? Would New Mexico be admitted as a slave state?

        The Underground Railroad was transporting a small but steady trickle of fugitives out of the South; the possibility of new free-state senators would upset the balance of power between the regions. Abolitionist agitation in the North, although barred from the South, injured the reputation of the United States abroad, soured personal relationships in the Capitol, and stifled the dialogue between North and South.

        The South smarted under a wave of denigration that issued from hundreds of Northern presses and hundreds more lecture platforms. The South’s culture and religion were denied, its classes mocked, its heritage and accomplishments ignored. Millions of Northerners re­garded the South as a region of nightmare and evil. The reality was far different. The South was a region not simply of Calvinism, but of the religious principles inherited from John Knox and Scotland. It was a region where the Bible was revered as the base of Western civilization, and where such ministers as the Reverend Theodore Parker were regarded as malignant in their influence. Lacking roads, with even its better known cities relatively small, with a population undisturbed by the streams of immigrants who poured through the North, the most important regions of the South—in South Carolina, Virginia, Tennes­see, and other states—reflected the Scots Presbyterianism of an earlier age.

        The ranks of upper-class Southern planters had been increased by the rise of King Cotton, and newcomers to these ranks imitated the manners and mores of their predecessors. In their close-knit families and customs, the planters resembled the “county families” of an older England more than they did the rising Victorians. The Southern poor white resembled the rural Scot, and believed, as did Bobby Burns two generations before, that “freedom and whiskey gang together.” Even in poverty the Southern white was a landowner, proud of belonging to a superior race.

        There were variant-pockets throughout the South, as throughout the North; towns and counties where Catholicism rather than Pres­byterianism was dominant; cities like New Orleans with a different heritage and ethnic mix than in upcountry Louisiana. There were also pockets of abolitionism, and areas such as Virginia, where slaves were barbers, clerks, house servants, and housekeepers rather than field hands. But in general the South had remained unchanged since the Revolution. Its culture and social patterns were set and familiar. Duels were still fought. Men drank, gambled, and wenched as in the 18th century, while Victorianism, with all its pruderies and pretenses, its red light districts and its hypocrisies, altered the North. Southern anger rose steadily under a Northern barrage that insisted the South revolutionize itself, dislocate its economy, and change its pattern of relations between the races—all to please the consciences of men in another region who would suffer no pain, loss, or change of status from such changes.

        At first the South was content to seal its mailbags against Northern propaganda and to issue denials and refutations. In time, abolitionist propaganda led to a worsening of the conditions of blacks; efforts to educate slaves were halted, and emancipations made more difficult. The conditions of free blacks declined remarkably. The South moved toward the condition of a garrison state in its own nation.

        As immigrants filled the North, as its wealth and commerce increased, as Northern settlers moved west, Southern leaders began to see their political power decline in the government and the nation. If more free states were admitted, each with its senators and representatives, the precarious balance of power maintained since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 would tilt, and the South would inevitably become helpless against Northern votes.

  5. Slavery ended all over the world – at least with regard to the West – WITHOUT war and bloodshed. Lincoln stated countless times (the quotes are there for those interested) that slavery was NOT the issue. What WAS the issue – or issues – was the supremacy of the NATIONAL government and tax revenues. The Corwin Amendment merely validates that understanding of the matter.

    As for slavery, Charles Francis Adams Jr., a colonel in the federal army during the Civil War and the grandson and great-grandson of Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams, wrote: “Had the South been allowed to manage this question unfettered, the slaves would have been, ‘ere this, fully emancipated, and that without bloodshed or race relations ruined.”

    Sadly, the periodicals in which this quote appeared have never been listed – or at least that information has yet to be revealed – but Sara Georgi of the Massachusetts Historical Society and involved with Adams Family Papers wrote: “It looks like this quotation (see above) appeared in a few late 19th-century periodicals with an attribution to the historian and Civil War veteran Charles Francis Adams II (2d Mass. Cavalry), but we have not been able to verify it as such.”

    Though the above statement credited to Adams has yet to be totally proven, the fact that someone so involved with the Adams family and their records KNOWS of the quote goes a long way towards doing so. Certainly, it is better proof than can be provided by so many other spurious claims of modern “historians” who frequently turn a blind eye to anything that doesn’t validate their particular agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s