"... the existence of slavery by itself did not cause the Civil War. Not even a disagreement over slavery was the only reason for the war. I don’t know any reputable historian who believes this." ~Brooks D. Simpson, CrossroadsAh, but what historiographers and historians, reputable and otherwise, believe, and what they write and say and publish and blog about aren't necessarily the same thing.
The whole approach of "memory" and "era" type Civil War bloggers is to focus on slavery and basically ignore everything else -- in fact, to zoom in on it so tightly, nothing else shows in the viewfinder of their virtual camera.
Call them on it, and they'll say, "Well, yeah, such-and-such was a factor, too. I don't know any reputable historians who believe otherwise." And then they immediately turn up the zoom factor on slavery again.
I guess they think we don't know they're doing this, especially when they issue lame disclaimers like Brooks D. Simpson's example above....
Connie,
ReplyDeleteGo read the Secession Commissioners and then you tell me what secession was about.
Connie,
ReplyDeleteGo read the secession commissioners and then get back to us.
Corey, take it up with Brooks D. Simpson. He's the one saying he doesn't believe slavery by itself caused the war... Yep. That's what he's saying.
ReplyDeleteBrooks D. Simpson writes on his blog (I guess he's skeered to come here and post it):
ReplyDeleteAugust 31, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Here’s Connie Chastain’s retort …
“Ah, but what historiographers and historians, reputable and otherwise, believe, and what they write and say and publish and blog about aren’t necessarily the same thing.”
In short, Connie Chastain knows what I believe. because she says so. Disregard anything I might actually say. Chastain believes she’s the source of all truth and knowledge. Don’t backsass her by saying otherwise.
The truly astonishing thing is that her little band of fawning followers actually believes this. Continue drinking the Chastain Confederate Kool-Aid, boys.
And no, I’m not going to point out that she doesn’t understand what the term historiography means (and folks don’t call themselves historiographers). Let her put up a few more blog posts on that.
However, this gets me off the hook. Since Chastain says she knows what I think and believe, she’s wasting her time demanding answers from me (because I’d be wasting my time answering her). She can just consult her crystal ball.
The rest of us move on.
I know it won't get past moderation, but here's my reply:
ReplyDeleteWhat you posted here is not my reply. It is a small part of my reply. I don't believe I'm the source of all truth and knowledge, but I do possess the ability to discern that your claim (slavery didn't cause the war) and your focus when when blogging about the cause of the war (slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery) are quite different. Crystal balls are not necessary -- just reading a sampling of what you write is all that's necessary.
The fact that you focus so much on slavery doesn't necessarily indicate that you believe slavery caused the war -- and I didn't suggest that it does. However, I do have some guesses about why you focus so much on slavery.
Demanding answers? Moi? Not about this. However, I would like to know why you downloaded the working cover of my novella, "Dumb Jock -- The Alex Austin Story" on July 7.
Billy Bearden's comments at Andy's blog are in "awaiting moderation" limbo, so he posted them on Facebook. With his permission, I'll re-post them here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndy Hall said, on September 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
ReplyDeleteIt’s not even that. They don’t know history, they don’t know heritage, all they know is what they want, right now, and they haven’t gotten immediate satisfaction. It’s a temper tantrum in slow motion. What do you think is going on at the VMFA? The SCV signed a legally-binding contract with the VMFA and now they’re having buyer’s remorse, so they’re going to stamp their feet and say, look at me! Look at me! and pick fights with everyone, including the UDC, except for the people who got them into this mess which is the local SCV camp.
It’s a good thing the Flaggers recently announced they’re one year old this month, ’cause otherwise I would’ve sworn they were four.
========
Billy Bearden said, on September 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm
The Battleflags on the Chapel went up in 1993, and remained until 2010.
I bet you didnt even know the flags were only on the Chapel while it was open for tours – perhaps 3 hours a day for a few days a week was all…
Regardless, the VMFA launched a new expansion program and that included the cutting down of numerous old historical oak trees next to the Chapel. After the trees were gone, the Chapel could be seen from the new sun deck of the 2nd floor of the VMFA, and VMFA Board of Trustees Chairman Thurston Moore was offended by the flags on the Chapel. (they had been there 17 years)
In the next BoT meeting, he offered a resolution the flags not be allowed in the next lease. It passed, and the SCV camp was given the new lease and 24 hours to either sign it or loose the the lease.
This was done obviously under duress, plus the camp wasnt able to call an emergency meeting for any discussions.
Faced with 24 hours to sign or vacate what were they supposed to do?
The VMFA claims all their wonderful virture for public consumption, but they have never cared about the Chapel. In the 50s they asked the state to allow them to tear it down to make a parking lot. They are continually encroaching on the park land. They are in violation of numerous laws. The poor souls that volunteer to provide Chapel tours freeze in the winter and cook in the summer due to lack of any enviromental controls, and only the doors open, not the windows.
The SCV camp did file a case against the VMFA but it languished in limbo for years due to the VMFAs lobbyists and legal teams. Same when the SCV camp tried to submit a bill to alter the lease terms. Frmr Gov Doug Wilder was involved in making the situation what it is today.
Yes, it will take lots of money and a favorable adminstration for positive changes, in the meantime, the Flaggers are doing what they do and compiling never before seen evidence to assist. I cannot talk about all the details, but it is fathoms deeper than what you see posted on Facebook.
Betty Giragosian said, on September 6, 2012 at 11:49 pm
ReplyDeleteAnother appalling display of ignorance by old Billy Bob Bearden is displayed on these pages tonight. I cannot be bothered by what Billy Bob writes or says. He is an irritant, like a c higger.and of no more significance. He just won’t learn our protocol.
========
Billy Bearden said, on September 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Protocol? Yes Ma’am Mrs Giragosian, I fully support the learning and application of the UDC protocol. Have you read it lately? Odd ain’t it that this protocol is being utilized by the Flaggers, and are catching all the hell from the elected elites…
http://www.hqudc.org/
Information for Members
THE CODE FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAGS
The First National flag is the official flag of the United Daughters of the Confederacy®.
The Second National flag is the official flag of the Children of the Confederacy®.
They are to be used in all ceremonies of the respective organizations. The four Confederate flags (First National or Stars and Bars, Second National or Stainless Banner, Third National, and Battle Flag) should beused whenever possible by the UDC and the CofC so the flags will become familiar to everyone and inspire devotion for their use on all days commemorating the heroes and events of the Confederacy.
United Daughters of the Confederacy Home Page
www.hqudc.org
The Official Website for the United Daughters of the Confederacy