Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4385
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by Xan » Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:24 pm
Completely inaccurate, horribly so for a very dedicated set of abolitionists who were in a minority but a politically powerful one.

If you read the war was not primarily over slavery at its core, you are reading widely discredited historical theories generated by southern historians starting in the 1880s running into the 1940s. There are huge numbers of accounts written by wealthy European travelers concerning discussions they had with southerners and northerners on the issue of slavey.

The historicity on this is pretty clear.

That’s not to say the large majority cared, they did not.

Finally, the historical record, and particularly regarding Lincoln, makes it very clear anti-slavery opinion hardened considerably over the period of the war. So what may have been true in 1861 was not by 1865. Many writers who take this stance seem to snap the chalk line in 1861. I’ve always been befuddled by this line. It’s destroyed by one rhetorical question: Why did the southern states secede?

Wars do that.
It's been programmed into us that secession equals war, but that just isn't so. The American Revolution is one example, but there have been plenty of peaceful secessions in the world. In fact I'd say it's the most common by far. Look at the breakup of the British Empire. Or the Czech Republic splitting from Slovakia. Or Norway and Sweden splitting.

It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:00 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm


It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.
Xan,
Would you elaborate? What was the reason for the second batch of states that seceded if not slavery?

And in your second statement are you saying slavery was the reason for the (first batch) secession but not the reason for the war? If yes, then what was the reason for the war?
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4385
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by Xan » Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:25 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:00 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm


It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.
Xan,
Would you elaborate? What was the reason for the second batch of states that seceded if not slavery?

And in your second statement are you saying slavery was the reason for the (first batch) secession but not the reason for the war? If yes, then what was the reason for the war?
The second batch was responding to an invading army.

I believe that the battle between decentralized small government and big federal government was the root.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:54 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:25 pm
glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:00 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm


It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.
Xan,
Would you elaborate? What was the reason for the second batch of states that seceded if not slavery?

And in your second statement are you saying slavery was the reason for the (first batch) secession but not the reason for the war? If yes, then what was the reason for the war?
The second batch was responding to an invading army.

I believe that the battle between decentralized small government and big federal government was the root.
Thanks, I think I'll look into this further. I don't quite understand the situation with the second batch. If their only or primary reason for seceding was being "invaded" by the Union army, then why did the Union invade them in the first place? Not to mention if they haven't yet seceded, they're still part of the United States so how can the Federal army's presence be an invasion?

I understand much of this is controversial and has been hotly debated by historians. I think the majority view seems to be that the states' rights vs big government argument is a trojan horse for the root issue of insistence on perpetuating slavery.
Reading their secession statements, it's hard to disagree as frequently as slavery is overtly mentioned. Nonetheless, the Lost Cause narrative took the position that any connection between the two issues was pure coincidence and many people seem to concur. I hadn't heard there was a difference in secession reasons between these two batches of seceding states.

On the comment in your other post about secession not necessarily equaling war, I agree. But wouldn't you say when secession has not resulted in war, it's been when the parties were in agreement and the secession was consensual?
This is a big difference from when one party unilaterally declares secession and effectively throws a "what are you going to do about it" ball in the other party's court.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:22 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:24 pm

Completely inaccurate, horribly so for a very dedicated set of abolitionists who were in a minority but a politically powerful one.

If you read the war was not primarily over slavery at its core, you are reading widely discredited historical theories generated by southern historians starting in the 1880s running into the 1940s. There are huge numbers of accounts written by wealthy European travelers concerning discussions they had with southerners and northerners on the issue of slavey.

The historicity on this is pretty clear.

That’s not to say the large majority cared, they did not.

Finally, the historical record, and particularly regarding Lincoln, makes it very clear anti-slavery opinion hardened considerably over the period of the war. So what may have been true in 1861 was not by 1865. Many writers who take this stance seem to snap the chalk line in 1861. I’ve always been befuddled by this line. It’s destroyed by one rhetorical question: Why did the southern states secede?

Wars do that.


The author of the above does not belong to the group you described - "the southern historians".

This is him: https://www.internationalpolicy.org/peo ... ny-Sjursen

"Danny Sjursen is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. His public writing and scholarship focuses on U.S. military policy, the Greater Middle East, imperialism, civil rights history, and the linkages between war and empire at home and abroad. A retired U.S. Army officer and West Point graduate, he served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at the military academy.

He lives with his two sons in Lawrence, KS, home of the University of Kansas - where he earned an MA and is completing a PhD in American History. Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet and visit his professional website for further information and past work."



You say it is clear? Where is your support for this other than what you have retained as an interpretation on this?

The Southern States seceded because they wanted to be able to expand slavery into the new parts of the country. The North did not want them to do that over several aspects of economic self-interest on the part of the North.

So, yes, the North was against Slavery in terms of how it would affect their economic futures but not for the reason of the misery that Slavery brought to the actual slaves.

Also, who fired the first shot and declared war? It was not the North -- which I know you already know.

Do you disagree with what the author states here?

"It is nearly impossible to illustrate the magnitude of the American ordeal of civil war. It is not just the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, but the fact that this war — perhaps more than any other — utterly transformed the United States. The bookshelves simply overflow with fascinating military histories of the conflict, and I’ll leave that part of the story to their distinguished authors. Rather, let us here examine how, in the course of just four years, the war moved from being dedicated solely to the preservation of the Union to becoming a war of liberation to emancipate slaves.

"How, in other words, did President Lincoln move from his above quote — declaring that he would do nearly anything with the slaves (including leaving them in bondage) to preserve the Union — to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and, eventually, the Thirteenth Amendment constitutionally abolishing slavery in 1865? What’s certain is that Lincoln himself may have transformed — for both tactical and moral reasons — as a brutal war moved him squarely into the abolitionist camp. This is perhaps the most profound tale of this horrific war: the one with the most transformative effects."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:33 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:24 pm

Completely inaccurate, horribly so for a very dedicated set of abolitionists who were in a minority but a politically powerful one.

If you read the war was not primarily over slavery at its core, you are reading widely discredited historical theories generated by southern historians starting in the 1880s running into the 1940s. There are huge numbers of accounts written by wealthy European travelers concerning discussions they had with southerners and northerners on the issue of slavey.

The historicity on this is pretty clear.

That’s not to say the large majority cared, they did not.

Finally, the historical record, and particularly regarding Lincoln, makes it very clear anti-slavery opinion hardened considerably over the period of the war. So what may have been true in 1861 was not by 1865. Many writers who take this stance seem to snap the chalk line in 1861. I’ve always been befuddled by this line. It’s destroyed by one rhetorical question: Why did the southern states secede?

Wars do that.


It's been programmed into us that secession equals war, but that just isn't so. The American Revolution is one example, but there have been plenty of peaceful secessions in the world. In fact I'd say it's the most common by far. Look at the breakup of the British Empire. Or the Czech Republic splitting from Slovakia. Or Norway and Sweden splitting.

It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.


I read in the book several items that go against your (implied) assertions.

"But a closer look narrows the gap between the two belligerents. The North had essentially no army — its paltry regiments were mostly spread across the vast western interior fighting Indians. Furthermore, some of the most able US Army officers —think of Robert E. Lee, T. J. “Stonewall” Jackson, and James Longstreet — quickly resigned their commissions and joined the new Confederate army. That army, of course, was mobilized rather quickly because it had a head start. After John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, spooked southerners from Virginia to Texas formed militias to stave off perceived threats of slave rebellion. Many of these local militiamen would form the core of the future Confederate armies.

Perhaps the biggest equalizer, however, was the matter of opposing war aims. The Union could win only if it conquered and occupied much of the South. A win for the South, on the other hand, meant simply not losing. This is a much easier, and defensive, task. The Union could count on long supply lines (which had to be guarded) and frequent guerrilla attacks by the Confederates at its rear. The South fought on familiar turf and with much shorter supply lines. And the population numbers were themselves deceptive. Though the North counted seven-tenths of the white population, the South counted nearly four million slaves. These laborers kept the southern agrarian economy churning and freed up millions of potential soldiers for the Confederacy. Conversely, northerners, out of fear of crippling their economy, couldn’t mobilize nearly so high a percentage of the workforce."

"So it was that Lincoln’s desire to keep the border states in the Union informed the president’s strategic thinking in the war’s first year. Lincoln had to downplay the abolitionist sentiments of his Republican Party and reassure Northern Americans — most of them wildly racist — that this war was for union, not a crusade against slavery. In keeping with this strategy, in the war’s early months most Union commanders were ordered to return runaway slaves and enforce the Southerners’ rights to their “property.”

Lincoln didn’t want and, he thought, couldn’t afford a crusade. What was needed was a quick victory, and a limited war that didn’t too badly damage Southern property or increase border state sympathy for the Confederacy. Initially, Lincoln called for only seventy-five thousand three-month volunteers, and this is telling. One grand victory and the seizure of the Confederate capital in nearby Richmond, Virginia, might just end the war in one fell swoop. Of course, it was not to be. The green Union army was outled and, ultimately, outfought at the July 1861 Battle of Bull Run, near Manassas Junction, Virginia, and fled back to the District of Columbia in disarray."

I had thought it was in this book that I had read about the second batch. But I am not finding it. Was it in the book you recommended? If so, I will for it in that book when I start reading it again after writing this.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:36 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:25 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:00 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm



It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?

So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.


Xan,
Would you elaborate? What was the reason for the second batch of states that seceded if not slavery?

And in your second statement are you saying slavery was the reason for the (first batch) secession but not the reason for the war? If yes, then what was the reason for the war?


The second batch was responding to an invading army.

I believe that the battle between decentralized small government and big federal government was the root.


What can you cite to support your belief?

The book had this to say about the 1860 election, the results of which were the prelude to the war.

"Thus, no matter how hard we try, it would be inappropriate to paint the 1860 election as one between civil rights Republicans and slave/segregation Democrats. What actually happened was this: An honest, incorruptible candidate (Lincoln), who was somewhat more progressive on race and slavery, won only 40 percent of the popular vote but carried an electoral majority by winning the entire North. The southerners, then, acted the sore loser and seceded without even giving Lincoln a chance to govern. From their perspective, the three candidates who were more amenable to slavery had won a majority (60 percent) of the popular vote and thus Lincoln lacked a mandate. True enough, but he had won a constitutional majority, and, in the end, we must remember that it was the South that seceded, the South that insisted on the evacuation of federal military installations, and, ultimately, the South that fired the first shots on their American brothers in Fort Sumter, South Carolina. By early 1861 it was clear: there would be war. John Brown had been right."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:47 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:25 pm

[

I believe that the battle between decentralized small government and big federal government was the root.


From the book you recommended: "In truth, the United States had scarcely any national government to disintegrate. Outside of its small standing army, its military was decentralized. So-called volunteer (but in fact, paid) regiments would be organized under the control of individual states, led by often inexperienced politicians or other local dignitaries. Militia were funded by private citizens, cities, and states on the uncertain expectation of federal reimbursement. "

Your statement does not go along with the above description.

The book also asserts that Slavery was not the North's reason for going to war:

"Antislavery, it was asserted, was not the North’s reason for fighting. Edmund Clarence Stedman, a journalist and poet living in New York, insisted in a letter to his mother in Italy that the war “is not waged by abolitionists, is not the result of abolitionism.” Yet some on either side sensed that slavery was unlikely to be unaffected. The Atlantic Monthly queried, rhetorically, “Are we indeed only fighting . . . for the control, by the interest of free labor or of slave-labor, of certain remaining national territories?” The implication was that the war was too great for a purpose so small.

Slavery, as Lincoln would say, was “somehow” at the heart of it, even if emancipation was not the overt goal. In late May, General Benjamin Butler, the commander of the Union-held Fort Monroe, which guarded Chesapeake Bay, gave refuge to three Black runaways. When a Rebel colonel, approaching under a flag of truce, sought to reclaim his human property, Butler replied that the men were “contraband of war” and would not be returned to their master. Although Butler acted on his own, without authorization from Lincoln, his action signaled that the South’s economic system would be at risk in the war, for other Blacks were sure to seek their freedom as well. Thaddeus Stevens, the brilliantly caustic progressive congressman, grasped that the North’s full purposes could not yet be spoken or perhaps even imagined. “Our object,” he said tartly, “is to subdue the rebels.” Beyond that, he thundered, “Ask those who made the war what its object is. Do not ask us!”

The South had two purposes—to win its independence and to perpetuate slavery. Although it was generally assumed that these aims were mutually reinforcing, the war had put slavery in jeopardy. And a minority of southerners sensed that the peculiar institution would not survive a long war."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:51 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:25 pm



The second batch was responding to an invading army.



Here again your same recommended book contradicts what you wrote above. The second batch came in immediately after the South started the war and before Lincoln "invaded".

"The shelling of Fort Sumter put paid to the hope of avoiding war, but it enlarged the Confederacy to a plausibly viable scale. Once Lincoln called for troops, Virginia’s delegates flipped and ratified an ordinance of secession. Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee followed. The addition of these four states doubled the nonslave population of the Confederacy, which could not have lasted long without them."

But thanks again for recommending such an excellent book.

It is one of those books for me that I don't have to even finish reading its first page before deciding it is going to be an "A" class book.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:30 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:24 pm

Completely inaccurate, horribly so for a very dedicated set of abolitionists who were in a minority but a politically powerful one.

If you read the war was not primarily over slavery at its core, you are reading widely discredited historical theories generated by southern historians starting in the 1880s running into the 1940s. There are huge numbers of accounts written by wealthy European travelers concerning discussions they had with southerners and northerners on the issue of slavey.

The historicity on this is pretty clear.

That’s not to say the large majority cared, they did not.

Finally, the historical record, and particularly regarding Lincoln, makes it very clear anti-slavery opinion hardened considerably over the period of the war. So what may have been true in 1861 was not by 1865. Many writers who take this stance seem to snap the chalk line in 1861. I’ve always been befuddled by this line. It’s destroyed by one rhetorical question: Why did the southern states secede?

Wars do that.


More from Xan's recommended book:

"Chase diverged from Lincoln most consequentially over the latter’s measured approach on slavery. The backdrop for Chase’s frustration, and that of the so-called Radical Republicans, was the failure of either the administration or Congress to make abolition a formal goal of the war. Four days after Bull Run, Congress took a decided step backward, approving (over Thaddeus Stevens’s withering objection) the Crittenden Resolution, named for a Kentucky congressman and slave owner. Its Senate sponsor was also a border-state slave owner, Andrew Johnson. The Crittenden Resolution explicitly affirmed that the war “is not waged . . . for any purpose of . . . interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Confederate] States.” Thus, Congress—by an overwhelming majority—went out of its way to reassure wavering border states as well as war mothers that their sons’ lives were not being risked for the freedom of the Negro. This surely comported with the wishes of most white northerners."

"Chase was extremely unhappy with Congress’s reactionary declaration. He was hardly mollified when, in August, Congress passed the Confiscation Act, legalizing the seizure of southern property (including slaves) employed in the rebellion. What he and Thaddeus Stevens regretted was that the Confiscation Act was toothless. In contrast, Lincoln took note that even this weak antislavery measure received virtually no support from Democrats or border-state representatives. What the President distilled, in other words, was that an explicit antislavery policy would further divide the Union, which he sought to avoid at all costs."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:35 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:51 pm

But thanks again for recommending such an excellent book.

It is one of those books for me that I don't have to even finish reading its first page before deciding it is going to be an "A" class book.
Vinny, for those of us that can't find it buried in this or the pre-split off thread, what's the name of this book that so impressed you?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:11 am

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:35 pm
Vinny, for those of us that can't find it buried in this or the pre-split off thread, what's the name of this book that so impressed you?
I think it’s this
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12731&p=244076#p244076

At least, that’s for Lincoln.
Before that, or prior as he would say, Vinny wrote:
Referring to the 1,200 page book which led me to write the above:
on Russia, Germany and WWII. I was confused by that because “the above” was a quote from kbg and below was more vinnytext, or the book being quoted by vinny. I could not find a title.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:12 am

dualstow wrote:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:11 am

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:35 pm

Vinny, for those of us that can't find it buried in this or the pre-split off thread, what's the name of this book that so impressed you?


I think it’s this
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12731&p=244076#p244076

At least, that’s for Lincoln.
Before that, or prior as he would say, Vinny wrote:
Referring to the 1,200 page book which led me to write the above:

on Russia, Germany and WWII. I was confused by that because “the above” was a quote from kbg and below was more vinnytext, or the book being quoted by vinny. I could not find a title.


1. Correct on the first book -- recommended by Xan.

2. Incorrect on second book. The correct book is: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08HL93XGK/?c ... _lig_dp_it

A True History of the United States: Indigenous Genocide, Racialized Slavery, Hyper-Capitalism, Militarist Imperialism and Other Overlooked Aspects of American Exceptionalism (Truth to Power)
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:11 am

Ah, thank you.

late EDIT: Here’s a google books link of the above title for those who don’t want it in their Amazon search history (and haven’t already clicked)
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_ ... QBAJ?hl=en
RIP Marcello Gandini
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by Kbg » Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:41 am

Not sure why anyone is quoting this guy as a reference. He’s not even an historian…not that non historians can’t write good history but my take on the guy is he had a very bad experience in the Army and has an axe to grind.

And yes there were two batches of states…of course this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the attack on Fort Sumter being an attack BY the Union on the South. Lincoln was very politically astute on this matter…he was very clear the Union would not fire the first shot in the coming war but it would defend federal property/armories.

Geez people this is ridiculous…

Lincoln becomes president exit batch 1, the South attacks Ft Sumter…exit batch 2. That’s the timeline.

As they say, we are all entitled to our opinions but not the facts.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by Kbg » Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:50 am

Deleted...over the top, no value added
Last edited by Kbg on Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:09 am

Before googling it, I guessed the author, incorrectly. Thought it was going to be Howard Zinn.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:50 pm

Vinny, I just noticed the book is only 683 pages. Where’d you get the 1,200 figure?
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:37 am

dualstow wrote:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:50 pm

Vinny, I just noticed the book is only 683 pages. Where’d you get the 1,200 figure?


That was a prior book on World War II. You are conflating books that I've made reference to.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sun Sep 25, 2022 1:07 pm

I am? Isn’t that what I said in the first place? Look at my post above from 7:11AM EST.I said the 1200-pager was a WW2 book.
You then “corrected” it to a different book. Or you mean it was a book on WW2, but a different one?

Please give me the title of the 1200-page one if you have it.
RIP Marcello Gandini
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:33 pm

dualstow wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 1:07 pm

I am? Isn’t that what I said in the first place? Look at my post above from 7:11AM EST.I said the 1200-pager was a WW2 book.
You then “corrected” it to a different book. Or you mean it was a book on WW2, but a different one?

Please give me the title of the 1200-page one if you have it.


Yes, you are now correct that the 1,200 page book was on World War II. But you confused me by bringing it in this topic because I do not see at all where I wrote in THIS topic what you quoted.

Hence I was assuming you were referring to the other book on U.S. History I'd just completed.

But this is the 1,200 page book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0892QB6XQ/?r ... l_huc_item
A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II 2nd Edition, Kindle Edition

To be hopefully clearer I was confused by you asking about a book on World War II when the recent discussion had been regarding The Civil War.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Sun Sep 25, 2022 4:37 pm

The Lincoln book was all I saw on the Civil War, and I think that’s the one that glennds was asking about. You don’t make it easy btw. Everything is “that book.” I found that title by searching Xan’s posts.

But, you have supplied another title, so even if it was like getting blood from a stone, I thank you.
RIP Marcello Gandini
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by glennds » Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:25 am

dualstow wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 4:37 pm
The Lincoln book was all I saw on the Civil War, and I think that’s the one that glennds was asking about.
Vinny, I appreciate that you're an avid reader and that you share passages that were particularly thought provoking to you.
If you were to indicate the name/author of the book at the beginning or end of the quoted passage, it would help keep things straight, especially if multiple books are involved.

BTW, the one I was asking about turned out to be Sjursen's A True History of the United States. I haven't bought it yet or decided if the author's message may be a product of his own biases as Kbg suggests.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by vnatale » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:15 am

glennds wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:25 am

dualstow wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 4:37 pm

The Lincoln book was all I saw on the Civil War, and I think that’s the one that glennds was asking about.


Vinny, I appreciate that you're an avid reader and that you share passages that were particularly thought provoking to you.
If you were to indicate the name/author of the book at the beginning or end of the quoted passage, it would help keep things straight, especially if multiple books are involved.

BTW, the one I was asking about turned out to be Sjursen's A True History of the United States. I haven't bought it yet or decided if the author's message may be a product of his own biases as Kbg suggests.


As far as his alleged biases go? He does have a PhD in history and the US Army did have him teaching the book's exact subject matter to cadets at West Point. He also, I believe, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd say that by an unbiased view that he'd be considered creditable.

You have a good suggestion but there are oftentimes not that many passages that are responded to. So I'd rather use the exception method wherein if someone like you wants to know where it comes from you ask and I will let you know. Otherwise it'd be a lot of extra work on my part with no benefit to anyone.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Vinny’s Mexican Adventure

Post by dualstow » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:15 am

I would love to insert the title or a link to the book, but I’m afraid I’m going to get it wrong again!
Maybe I could “sticky” a list of book titles mentioned, with no context.

✓ Done viewtopic.php?f=15&p=244321#p244321
RIP Marcello Gandini
Post Reply