Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This statement from the article is kind of misleading in my opinion: "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. " I don't think I have ever heard the claim that the South did not support states rights. I think the issue he is getting at is that southerners did not think they should lose ownership of their slaves if they took their slaves into a free-state. They objected to differing interpretations of property law if I understand the issue correctly. I mean, if you support chattel slavery, then a slave is property and I think it is reasonable to be upset if another jurisdiction says that this one class of property is illegitimate when you cross a state boundary. I definitely do not think that the south was trying to deny northern states their rights, that argument can probably go both ways.As to the rest of the article, his facts are correct but there is definitely a slant to the way he presents them. I too, am suspicious that he may have an agenda based on the title of his upcoming work.
Your assessment of the section on states' rights is exactly what my concern is. The author makes it seem as if the South was violating its own claimed belief by not respecting the rights of Northern states; ergo, the South was not pro-states' rights. But in truth, it seems an argument could (or should) be made that the South thought its own rights were being trampled on first, which then led to its disagreement over claims made by the North.
Well the South was guilty of hypocrisy. Southerners played an integral part in drafting the Constitution and forming the Republic. When things began to go against them politically, they cried foul. So yes, they only cared about state's rights so long as it applied to their states in particular.
Actually the author is pretty much on target. Outside of the George Bush reference (which was a stretch), I didn't see anything that I couldn't honestly say is “wrong.” In fact, this article goes hand in hand with what I was taught at UK and UofL.
I would almost bet that there is a reference in McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom"... Not at home at the moment, so I can't verify...
I think it does. I would have to dig out my copy. You could also look at sources that show the various uniforms of the Civil War. I know Prussian uniforms were listed in an Civil War Picture Book I have.
I think that history will always have fallacies in it. As the cliche goes, the winner of the war gets to write the history. Inherent in that saying is an admission that history is far from perfect. Now obviously we must strive to make it as accurate as possible so I think concern is good but I'm sure a ton of history that we have just come to accept is false. After all, we weren't there and we can't go back to prove it on a lot of things.__________My stupid history professor is making us write a term paper over Christmas Break. Professor Scrooge. Grrrrrrr >:(
Welcome to the forum!Many academic historians write their agendas into the textbooks we read. It is up to the student to examine the facts and always compare research from other sources.
It's a matter of talking only when you have something to talk about.You could say nothing but you have chosen to say bullshit.
This is an inappropriate post Smardz. Don't do it again.
Well give me some time. Let me get ILS where I want it, and then I'll put together a submission for you. I haven't written anything uber serious in a while and I look forward to doing so before I get back in school (which I've made up my mind is very very soon if I have to borrow the money to do so).
I would like to invite all the regular gang her at WCF to register at my blog to be contributors of randome Military history posts. I realize that me and Vulture are probably the only dedicated Military historians here but all of you have something to add. Just please register and I ewill fix permissions on the back end as my default is registering as a subscriber. You would not believe how many spammers try to register as contributors and send mw nasty emails when they can't. If you pick a different user name than what you have here just let me know what it is. I use my real name on the site.
I'll get over there and register today after I get home from work. 🙂
That's a mighty nifty logo and color scheme you got there!
Created the logo with Inkscape. Love that program. Vector graphics is superior to pixel images. I thought that theme was eye catching too.
Is there any possibility of doing fantasy baseball or football on this board?
Yes Sure. Get your office buddies to join and set it up. I'm not sure how to go about it, but Phid probably can figure that out since he likes fantasy leagues too. I've never done one myself so I don't know how to organize it.
Since most of you are going to be admins, you can create whatever board you think is pertinent to the success of the website. I'm wide open to anything. 🙂 Hopefully I'll have it up sometime tonight or tomorrow.
I think I'm going to break it down into pro and amateur sections and have sub sections for sports politics and economics (player contracts, franchise financial news including expansion and contraction of professional leagues). I'll also have NCAA conference sections with BCS expansion/realignment topics. There will be a ton of topic sections, but it has to be organized in a unique way. And yes Rugby, soccer, and other sports are to be a part of this. I want a smack talk section too to get the blood flowing. 🙂
Well my other boards are based around niche subjects and will never ever be that big. This can be a board that will be general enough to attract anyone and can be self sustaining as most folks like talking sports without being stupid (for the most part).
