Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:44 AM   #281

Clemmie's Avatar
Ye olde librarian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Florida
Posts: 3,357

I was born in Dallas but I'm not really a Texan. I don't really understand that stance. I consider myself, more a citizen of the United States than a citizen of one state (I've lived in several, mostly considered California more my home than elsewhere having gone to high school there). I don't think I would want to shoot my relatives in Texas, but I would probably resign from the military but would not take up arms against my fellow Americans either.

I think this kind of thinking will change as we become more diverse. I have lived in Florida for many years now (over 30) and it is a very diverse state with people who come from all over the country (natives are rare).

This would probably make an interesting thread; do you consider your loyalties lie more with the country or your state?
Clemmie is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:53 AM   #282

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmie View Post
I was born in Dallas but I'm not really a Texan. I don't really understand that stance. I consider myself, more a citizen of the United States than a citizen of one state (I've lived in several, mostly considered California more my home than elsewhere having gone to high school there). I don't think I would want to shoot my relatives in Texas, but I would probably resign from the military but would not take up arms against my fellow Americans either.

I think this kind of thinking will change as we become more diverse. I have lived in Florida for many years now (over 30) and it is a very diverse state with people who come from all over the country (natives are rare).

This would probably make an interesting thread; do you consider your loyalties lie more with the country or your state?
I think you bring up a couple key points here, Clemmie. You've lived in several states, but most people back then hadn't even BEEN in any state except their own. It was just a different way of thinking back then. Remember too that at the start of the Civil War, the United States was only 85 years old. Virginia was 254 years old. The Lees had been in Virginia for 170 years.

There was also no television, radio or Internet, so they didn't have the exposure to other parts of the county and the world that we do now. I think for many Americans the concept of "country" was abstract, while the concept of "state" was something concrete that people lived with and saw every day.

I think the feeling was stronger in the South, where people tended to set down roots more and be less mobile, but it existed in the North too. Northern soldiers however didn't have to make the gut-wrenching choice of deciding between two loyalties.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:55 AM   #283

Clemmie's Avatar
Ye olde librarian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Florida
Posts: 3,357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
I think you bring up a couple key points here, Clemmie. You've lived in several states, but most people back then hadn't even BEEN in any state except their own. It was just a different way of thinking back then. Remember too that at the start of the Civil War, the United States was only 85 years old. Virginia was 254 years old. The Lees had been in Virginia for 170 years.

There was also no television, radio or Internet, so they didn't have exposure to other parts of the county and the world. I think for many Americans the concept of "country" was abstract, while the concept of "state" was something concrete that people lived with and saw every day.

I think the feeling was stronger in the South, where people tended to set down roots more and be less mobile, but it existed in the North too. Northern soldiers however didn't have to make the gut-wrenching choice of deciding between two loyalties.
Very true. Points I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing them out. It is sometimes difficult to put yourself in someone's place in the past and imagine what you would do from that person's perspective and background. It is not always easy to erase "the present."

I guess I've been a little hard on General Lee.

Last edited by Clemmie; November 14th, 2012 at 09:05 AM.
Clemmie is online now  
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:26 AM   #284

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,137

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmie View Post
Very true. Points I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing them out. It is sometimes difficult to put yourself in someone's place in the past and imagine what you would do from that person's perspective and background. It is not always easy to erase "the present."

I guess I've been a little hard on General Lee.
Nothing wrong with being critical of historical figures as long as you keep an open mind.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:33 PM   #285
Supended myself
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,829

This thread is very interesting learned a lot already!
Gorge123 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 04:15 PM   #286

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Arkansas ordinance of secession
Quote:
Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:
Lets take a look at those Arkansas resolutions. What were their complaints?

We, the people of the State of Arkansas, in Convention assembled, in view of the unfortunate and distracted condition of our once happy and prosperous country, and of the alarming dissensions existing between the Northern and Southern sections thereof, and desiring that a fair and equitable adjustment of the same may be made, do hereby declare the following to be just causes of complaint on the part of the people of the Southern States against their brethren of the Northern, or non-slaveholding States:

1. The people of the Northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States; and that party has elected a President and Vice President of the United States, pledged to administer the Government upon principles inconsistent with the rights and subversive of the interests of the Southern States.

2. They have denied to the people of the Southern States the right to an equal participation in the benefits of the common Territories of the Union by refusing them the same protection to their slave property therein that is afforded to other property, and by declaring that no more slave States shall be admitted into the Union. They have, by their prominent men and leaders, declared the doctrine of the irrepressible conflict, or the assertion of the principle that the institution of slavery is incompatible with freedom, and that both cannot exist at once; that this continent must be wholly free or wholly slave. They have, in one or more instances, refused to surrender negro thieves to the constitutional demand of the constituted authority of a sovereign State.

3. They have declared that Congress possesses, under the Constitution, and ought to exercise, the power to abolish slavery in the Territories, in the District of Columbia, and in the forts, arsenals and dock-yards of the United States, within the limits of the slaveholding States.

4. They have, in disregard of their constitutional obligations, obstructed the faithful execution of the fugitive slave laws by enactments of their State Legislatures.

5. They have denied the citizens of Southern States the right, of transit through non-slaveholding States with their slaves, and the right to hold them while temporarily sojourning therein.

6. They have degraded American citizens by placing them upon an equality with negroes at the ballot-box.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 04:40 PM   #287

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Congress had considered it.
All I've been able to find is evidence that Jefferson Davis secretly sent Duncan Kenner to offer emancipation in return for British recognition. When did the Confederate Congress offering such a deal.
Fiver is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:09 PM   #288
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
All I've been able to find is evidence that Jefferson Davis secretly sent Duncan Kenner to offer emancipation in return for British recognition. When did the Confederate Congress offering such a deal.
Quote:
On November 7, 1864, President Davis unveiled a surprise in his otherwise predictable address to the Confederate Congress. He argued that the use of slaves in noncombatant roles for limited periods had not worked as well as expected, so he asked the Confederate Congress to purchase 40,000 slaves to be used for extended tours of noncombatant duty. The “due compensation” for the increased hazards and commitment should be emancipation at the end of their loyal service. Davis did not request authorization to use the slaves as soldiers, but he held out that possibility if the only alternative was “subjugation” of the Confederacy. The Confederate Congress did not act on the plan, but the issue of arming the slaves was thereafter debated vigorously until the end of the war.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene...harp/1105.html

I never said it was popular but it was being debated well before Patrick and others spoke about it.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:54 PM   #289

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,137

One more time, fellas. This thread is about Robert E. Lee. Please limit your posting to that topic.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:31 PM   #290

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

@ Yankee and all involved

Out of respectful curiosity yankee, i must ask, if you want to learn about Robert Lee but refuse to change your mind about him then, to all: what is this part of the discussion about? After all, I believe Yankee's original questions were answered.
Panthera tigris altaica is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
lee, robert


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Robert E. Lee WHAT IF mister Speculative History 8 May 10th, 2009 05:17 AM
Robert E. Lee kahn American History 33 March 20th, 2009 07:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.