GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

IMDB comments

POSTED BY: FIREFLYTHEMOVIE
UPDATED: Saturday, February 7, 2004 20:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19006
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:48 AM

REDJACK


Sources.
people on the net are always yakking about sources.

I'm smart. I can read. I am able, you see, to form the right conclusion without being spoon fed. However, since you seem to think that the support of documents and/or PHD's who agree with me is necessary, here are some few that might light up your dark nights of the soul.

THe U. S. Constitution.

South Carolina Congressonal Debate on Secession

Constitutional Law for a Changing America- Lee Epstein/ Thoas Walker

The Articles of Confederation

Anything by James McPherson

Any speech by John C. Calhoun

Anything by Shelby Foote


There. That should keep the kids busy while grown folks is talking.





The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


I take exception to your comment on children and adults. Of course if you want to resort to name calling, you only show your own level of maturity.

Seems the adults were talking until you showed up w/ your "details" that only you seem to be aware of, and per your own admission are formed from something other than history.

You see, I majored in history and very likely own more books on the subject than you. I asked for sources on your wild accusations that all Confederates are "scum" and that they are "damned". You have failed to do anything but list some legal documents any high school student is famaliar with, and bandied names of some die hard secessionists. Hardly evidence of your claims.

Nice try though. Better luck next time.

Oh, and

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:32 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I take exception to your comment on children and adults. Of course if you want to resort to name calling, you only show your own level of maturity.



Take exception all you like. With the exception of a single poster I've found the analysis of the issue on the Pro-Confederate side (chilling that there even is such a thing) to be thin and illformed. And ill informed.

Quote:

Seems the adults were talking until you showed up w/ your "details" that only you seem to be aware of, and per your own admission are formed from something other than history.



Sigh. Another common 'net response. It's clear I know the material in question by the statements I make. Only those without their own ability to collate the data appropriately themsleves fall back on mere regurgitation of what others wrote. I am fully capable of collating the requisite data appropriately myself.

I don't merely parrot what somebody wrote in some book and I don't limit myself to reading or assimilating only those texts which support my original thinking.

The bulk of the things I cited for you– by no means the totality of my own immersion in the subject or even a significant fraction– were ORIGINAL SOURCE documents. You can't pass those off as having been "spun" by me or somehow not central to the issue.

Grapple. Or go in defeat.

Quote:

You see, I majored in history and very likely own more books on the subject than you.


Uhh. Yeah. I'm fairly certain I could TEACH your college level history class. So what? This is not about parchment and never was. Use your own sober brain without the emotional crap and you'll see, objectively, what's what.

Anything you can't deal with beyond that point is your own lookout.

Quote:

I asked for sources on your wild accusations that all Confederates are "scum" and that they are "damned".


as Wash: God. Oh, dear God, no.

"Scum," I'll grant you, is my own assessment. I concede that point. Whoopee. Was there ever any doubt?

"Damned" OTOH is a common turn of phrase without any religous connotation. It simply means they took the side of evil whether they admitted to it later or not.

Quote:

You have failed to do anything but list some legal documents any high school student is famaliar with, and bandied names of some die hard secessionists.


Really? I wasn't aware that the complete works of Shelby Foote or the Masters level text on the evolution of Constitutional Law was High School reading these days. What school is that? I better get my kids in now.

And, frankly, if more of you had actually READ the Articles of Confederation, this "debate" would never have got going.

Quote:

Hardly evidence of your claims.


Evidence of my "claims?" Hm. Have I said something which can be disputed beyond the conclusion that the Confederates were vermin? (Granted that's a generalization and somewhat of a harsh description but then the vast weight of – what's the word– um- oh yeah- evidence supports me. There's all that enslaving and seceding and killing people, see.)

Quote:

Nice try though. Better luck next time.


Back atcha, baby. Though it'll take a lot more than luck if current performance is any indication.

As an easy primer, History Major, you might want to check out the written companion to KEN BURNS' THE CIVIL WAR. Or, if the tome is too heavy, just rent and watch.

In it you will find letters written by Confederate soldiers, their wives and children at home and others. Not saying what's IN those letters but, you know, take a look.

Despite their bankrupt worldveiw, some of them are quite beautiful.

Too bad thy took that left turn at Human Decency.


The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:52 AM

GHOULMAN


Everyone was scum at the time. All Americans thought that it was perfectly OK to subjugate others. Lincoln is a good example, he didn't believe in slavery for religious reasons... but he never threatened the slave trade in the south until a few years into the Civil War.

Soooo... in my humble opinion; the Calvinistic guilt of America may have given the President a sudden surge of morality in difficult times, or he simply needed more soldiers and had to have a real reason to convince people to go and get killed for reasons other than stopping what amounts to a massive and greedy land grab.

Not that I'd be so simple as to say 'the Confeds were evil' or 'the Union walks funny'.

Wow, funny but I didn't even need to watch PBS to come up with that answer lads. Sorry... no footnotes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 8:00 AM

REDJACK


Calvinist Guilt is an oxymoron.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 8:06 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ rubbish. Please try not to make knee-jerk posts. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 8:29 AM

REDJACK


^^^

Oh, you big silly.

The Calvinist Doctrine is clear.

Man is Fallen. Tainted forever by Original Sin. Nothing He does in this world, no act or confession, can change his Fallen state. He is Irredeamable except by God Himself.

Only God's Grace, doled out only to those He deems deserving according to some criteria known only to Him, can clean the soul.

So there's no room for guilt. Either God pulls your number out of the box or it's the Hot Place. Nothing you do in your life matters to God in the Calvinist veiw. He only likes you for Heaven or not.

America is primarily a Protestant nation, true, but it was the Calvinism of the South which allowed for Slavery in the first place.

Using a mistranslated/understood passage from the OT referring to the mark of Cain and his descendants, coupled with the basic Calvinist notion that, if you were placed in a degraded state in life (slavery, poverty, being female, etc.) it was because God wanted you there, they justified the generational abuse and degredation African Slaves.

It is a more streamlined version of the Hindu caste system which, as you know, places reincaranted souls in the approriate social class based upon the karmic debt accumulated in past lives. Untouchables at the bottom, Brahmin I believe, at the top.

American Calvinists just cut out the middle castes.

A similar baseline notion is at the heart of the concept of Manifest Destiny which, as we know, the original occupants of North America were so thrilled to have introduced to them by their European cousins.

Lincoln may well have suffered from a sense of Christian guilt but, I guarantee you, it wasn't due to the Calvinist interpretation.

But thank you for adding another ripple to this fascinating discussion.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 8:40 AM

GHOULMAN


Yea... but it's not an oxymoron is it?

Americans are often described, being a reactionary and overly religious fundamental folk, as Calvinistic in thier belief systems. That is, all that Calin crapola you mention above is buried within the American personality.

Americans are often seen as being fundementalists.

But anyho'... I feel very off topic right now. Go start a thread and define your arguments if you're so keen on academic minutia.

Now... the imdb needs to be hacked by a few browncoats ...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:02 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


No sense arguing w/ RJ Ghoulman. He or she will only insult you and start the name calling and question your intelligence.

Funny how the self appointed intellectual wannabes question everyone elses intelligence and claims. LOL

I refuse to rise to the weak bait anymore. I have better things to discuss and far more capable peers to debate with on this forum.



"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:22 AM

GHOULMAN


Hey, it's a nice little flame war. After all - ranting is the water with which the Net flows.

Besides... this BS needs a thread dedicated to the Civil War and the 'Reconstruction' if only to keep our minds occupied with actual history.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:23 AM

GHOULMAN


... this BBS !!! Oops! Goram spell check done left me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:44 AM

REKKA2


Thanks...If anyone likes warhistory...id recommend a book by Dr. Anthony Joes, "America and Guerilla Warfare." I had a course this semester with him on the subject and it was very interesting. Its a good read as well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:47 AM

REDJACK


I don't insult intelligence. Only willful bending of that intelligence to ensure one's misunderstanding of complex facts and inspire nauseating apologies for an evil and illegal regime which, of course, The Confederacy was.

Indeed I'm trying to appeal to your American-ness and your intelligence and only getting back the same uniformed drivel. I'm sorry if my tolerance for that is low. Time on Earth is too short for soft sell.

However- We can limit comversation to how cute Kaylee is or why Wash is SUCH a madman behind the wheel or how Joss got the show on the air in the first place considering the local atmo. I'm cool with that. Indeed that's why I came here in the first place.

But I also worried that the occassional comment, like those which caused this thread to diverge, would crop up.

This is the problem with basing fiction on such a complex and hurtful event as the Civil War. Any soft treatment of the activities of the aggressors (that would be the South, kids) allows for revisionists, apologists and sympathizers to have a feild day in the grey cracks.

Reading around me on this thread I see that that is, in fact, the sad result.

And, as for me being a "self appointed" anything, I'm not. I really LOVE Firefly. Check my blog.

What I don't love is anybody weaving it into the ugly history that comprised the South, the Confederacy and Reconstruction.

History is only fluid because people who don't like certin bits of it like to smooth or omit. I prefer my truths undiluted.

Just read the facts. Take out your grandfather's spin or your current political leanings. Just the unvarnished facts. There's only one possible conclusion. The not-as-bad guys beat the bad guys and then got on with the business of truly becoming Good. That business is, sadly, ongoing.

The Confederacy was an ugly rabid animal that needed to be put down before infecting the rest of the nation. THAT's what the war became about after the South started it.

Anyone who claims to beleive otherwise is either selling something or hasn't read enough.

I'm confident, given the time and enough access to facts, that even some of those who seem to dislike my veiw (or me ) will eventually embrace the truth.

But that's just me. You know; Optimistic.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 12:04 PM

GHOULMAN


^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything. The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.

However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot.

Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable. Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself. Well, compared to what? The Union? Yea, wonderful people *cough*. You see what I mean.

Sorry for being OT guy. Redjack... I hope you start a thread about the parallels you see in Firefly given you knowledge of the Civil War.

Myself... gonna go watch The Outlaw Josey Wales.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 1:06 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything.



Big of you. Considering it's true.

Quote:

The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.


You should really check both the official rhetoric and, more importantly, the PRIVATE communications of Confederates at the time.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to try to sustain debate with folks who don't know the facts and don't wish to seek them out. Only yourself and one other seem to have even a tangential grasp of the events in question. Yet those who take the proConfederate side (did I say Yikes about that yet?) continue to flap their metaphoric gums.

Please.

As I said, it would be irritating if it wasn't so disappointing and sad.

Quote:

However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot. Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable.


I think it was "rabid ugly animal." I like dogs.

Quote:

Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself.


Never did that. The only comparisson I drew was between the South and Hitler's Germany. Which is totally analogous given the 100 year gap and the technological differences. Though Andersonville was as close to Hell as most humans should ever hope to come.

Who ran that place again? Let's think.

The Confederacy was, for the 19th Century, almost precisely the same thing Hitler's Germany was to Euprope in the 20th.

The only difference between the victims of the Confederacy and the victims of the Nazis is skin color.

And, curiously, there aren't too many Nazi apologists running around these boards. Folks seem to be able to tell a hand from a hacksaw when their own great great grands aren't involved. The rosey lenses only appear when the needle points their way. Shocking.

Never said the Union was anything like Heaven. Never implied it either. "Not-as-bad" is how I described the Union.

Am I intractable? Sure. In the face of Evil? Abso-ruttin-lutely. The Confederate South was and remains a massive disgusting, truly evil blight on American history. Just as more than one of the Founders feared it would from the get.

The blight is even more pernicious because of the continual attempts to soften and minimize their behaviour by folks who don't even bother to learn what that behaviour actually was.

You and others have tried to paint me as hyperbolic yet have failed to produce even single factual refutation of any of my assertions.

The questions stand.

Name one thing- one single thing- that the South did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.

Describe in detail those things the Articles of Confederation referred to that lift their cause up out of the go se.

Tick tock.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
No sense arguing w/ RJ Ghoulman. He or she will only insult you and start the name calling and question your intelligence.

Funny how the self appointed intellectual wannabes question everyone elses intelligence and claims.



I think most folk smelled the hate (make no mistake, that's what is being espoused, no matter how much icing it's dressed up in) and passed the bait a while ago.

FLAT-EARTHER
------------------------
SYLLABICATION: flat-earth·er
PRONUNCIATION: fltûrthr
NOUN: One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: “If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith … then you are [considered] a flat-earther” (James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly December 1993).
ETYMOLOGY: From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.

-frem
diefuxdie


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Name one thing- one single thing- that the South did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.


Name one thing- one single thing- that the North did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.

A standing army
Federal Taxes
Conscription
(which is slavery, of the combat sort, and the North practiced it)

The Anti-Federalists of our founding fathers were concerned that a powerful, Federal government would become the monsterous all-consuming, self-serving beast that it has - they were CLEARLY correct even if scorned at the time.
(Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.)

These are the same folk who founded the Confederacy because that Federal Goverment began usurping powers reserved to the states ALONE, (Federal "fiat money" is in violation of the Constitution for example) and it was well on it's way to the bloated fascist monstrosity it is today.

I dare one to tell me that Patrick Henry would not be loading his trusty rifle after one good look at what we have now ?

Enough with the hate, both sides were fighting for something they really believed in, enough to die for it - men are not evil, governments are not evil, only *actions* are.

To blame someone for doing what they felt was "right" at the time and in the historical context from hindsight is easy, but it is not correct - they felt they were protecting their way of life from an oppressive, ever-expanding nightmare of red tape, taxes and exploitation.

Go on, tell us that's not exactly what happened to them when they lost ?

150 years from now, some twit on a FOPTIC Interplanet net will likely be calling US "evil"... but we ain't, some of the things we do are.

-frem
diefuxdie



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:19 PM

FOFFILMS


Wow - this topic has gone WAYYYYYYY off the original mark.

So here's my 2 cents - The IMDB has a new update which reads:

User Comments:

Animus
Hickory, NC


Date: 13 December 2003
Summary: a great series lost in FOX TVs bugzapper

FIREFLY is one of the best television series' to appear in a long time. Sadly it appeared on FOX where only the moderate will do. To have a series that is well acted, well written and brilliantly filmed is anathema to network television. FIREFLY deserved so much more, as did its fans who will never get to see the series go to the wondrous and vibrant worlds that the series would have explored had it not been shot down during its ascent. We'll never know what the real deal with River was, what Book's mysterious background was, who the Reavers truly were nor even the story behind the Blue Sun. Alas poor FIREFLY, we never knew ye...


So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!

www.fof-films.com
Firefly Fan Film - Coming SOON

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:20 PM

FOFFILMS


Wow - this topic has gone WAYYYYYYY off the original mark.

So here's my 2 cents - The IMDB has a new update which reads:

User Comments:

Animus
Hickory, NC


Date: 13 December 2003
Summary: a great series lost in FOX TVs bugzapper

FIREFLY is one of the best television series' to appear in a long time. Sadly it appeared on FOX where only the moderate will do. To have a series that is well acted, well written and brilliantly filmed is anathema to network television. FIREFLY deserved so much more, as did its fans who will never get to see the series go to the wondrous and vibrant worlds that the series would have explored had it not been shot down during its ascent. We'll never know what the real deal with River was, what Book's mysterious background was, who the Reavers truly were nor even the story behind the Blue Sun. Alas poor FIREFLY, we never knew ye...


So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!

www.fof-films.com
Firefly Fan Film - Coming SOON

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:43 PM

BOURNE


Quote:

the aggressors (that would be the South, kids)


Point of info: in the strictest historical sense (and this is one of your beloved immutable FACTS) the forces of the North (i.e. Union) were the "aggressors" as they were the first to formally declare war. Against the South.

I feel a LITTLE like a troll for pointing this out, but you do profess a desire to argue the facts...

Not that I disagree with your main argument, either :)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:43 PM

BOURNE


double post

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:47 PM

BOURNE


triple post (damn it)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:49 PM

BOURNE


QUADRUPLE post (GOR-AMMIT!)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:52 PM

BOURNE


QUINTUPLE post! what's WROOOOONG with me? must be some kind of horrible record, anyway....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 4:19 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Name one thing- one single thing- that the North did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.


Off the top of my head as I walk out to door...
The Union prevented slavery from expanding to new states.

The Union allowed blacks, one in particular, to have access to the president as an advisor.

The Union allowed fleeing slaves a safe haven or safe passage through to Canada.

The Union preserved the Union. Had that not occured things would have gone from bad to worse. Odds are good that neither the Confederacy nor the Union would have survived to present day.

I will modify this list when i get back. I'm sure there are shinier Union achievements.
Quote:

A standing army

Um. That's bad?

Quote:

Federal Taxes

So you don't like highways and phone lines and clean water and medicine etc.? Interesting.

Quote:

Conscription
(which is slavery, of the combat sort, and the North practiced it)


Well. You got me there. Conscription is awful.

Quote:

The Anti-Federalists of our founding fathers were concerned that a powerful, Federal government would become the monsterous all-consuming, self-serving beast that it has - they were CLEARLY correct even if scorned at the time.
(Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.)



Read 'em cheif. And I think my comprehension of the papers is somewhat shinier than yours.

Quote:

These are the same folk who founded the Confederacy because that Federal Goverment began usurping powers reserved to the states ALONE, (Federal "fiat money" is in violation of the Constitution for example) and it was well on it's way to the bloated fascist monstrosity it is today.


That's a load of go se. Again. The Federal government offended the Confederates by exercising its powers over INTERSTATE COMMERCE. And what was it that was being regulated out of existance? Three guesses.

Quote:

I dare one to tell me that Patrick Henry would not be loading his trusty rifle after one good look at what we have now ?


You have no idea what Patrick Henry would or would not do in modern times. Other than continue to rot.

Quote:

Enough with the hate, both sides were fighting for something they really believed in, enough to die for it - men are not evil, governments are not evil, only *actions* are.


Sorry. All beleifs are not equal. The nazis had a fairly detailed beleif structure too. And, frnakly, there was more dissent in their ranks (they tried to KILL Hitler after all) than ever evidenced itself in the Confederacy.

Quote:

To blame someone for doing what they felt was "right" at the time and in the historical context from hindsight is easy, but it is not correct - they felt they were protecting their way of life from an oppressive, ever-expanding nightmare of red tape, taxes and exploitation.


I haven't done that. I have used the morals and philosophies of the time to damn those scumbags. I've used their own words.

Quote:

Go on, tell us that's not exactly what happened to them when they lost ?


It's less than they deserved. But let's look at the Presidency of Andrew Johnson shall we? Lincoln wasn't even cold before he began cutting, reshaping or recasting all the efforts which had been put in place to give the degraded population of former slaves some parity with their former oppressors. In short order he used arcane economic means to shackle those people to the same land they'd been forced to work before the war. Jim Crow. Perhaps you've heard of it.

And you still haven't ponied up any answers.

* edited Johnson for jackson to acknowledge the correction, not to hide the mistake.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 5:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA


When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....
(like the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and how they reflect on the topic)
It defeats the point of the discussion.

You call the Confeds "evil" and then use this to "justify" the "evil" conduct of the Union, which is STILL following the same practices ?

Ludicrous.

Have your flat earth and green sky, just don't try to foist it on us.

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:30 PM

BOURNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:

But let's look at the Presidency of Andrew Jackson shall we? Lincoln wasn't even cold before he began cutting, reshaping or recasting all the efforts...



I believe you are referring to the Presidency of Andrew JOHNSON, as "Ole Hickory" died almost twenty years before Lincoln did.

And on a minor note, Jackson was something of a racist himself: he HATED the INDIANS, and tried to instigate his own little pogrom, somewhat less effective than smallpox, but...

Quote:

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.



Well, I think you oughta at LEAST know yer POTUS'S.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:35 PM

REDJACK


Johnson. Sorry. One slip. Hadda happen eventually.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:46 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....
(like the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and how they reflect on the topic)
It defeats the point of the discussion.



I'm more than happy to slap you around with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Raise a specific point and I will either agree or correct you.

Quote:

You call the Confeds "evil" and then use this to "justify" the "evil" conduct of the Union, which is STILL following the same practices?


I call them evil because they are demonstrably so. No quotations. I justify nothing.

On a side note... are you an American? Are you seriously proposing that the Confedracy was NOT evil? Or that the Union was the lesser of the two societies? Be specific in how that can possibly be so.

Also...

What evil Union practices are ongoing? Be specific. Then tell me how a Confederate win would have changed these conditions. This should be good for a laugh.

Quote:

Ludicrous.


Yes. you are.

Quote:

Have your flat earth and green sky, just don't try to foist it on us.


I'm a Flat Earther. Yet the list of benign Confederate accomplishments continuues not to appear. Funny that.

Come into the Light Carol-Anne.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 9:08 PM

BOURNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Johnson. Sorry. One slip. Hadda happen eventually.




Two slips, actually: please read my previous post concerning your mislabelling the South as the "aggressor".

Three slips, even, if we count BOTH of your erroneous references to the Jackson[sic] presidency following Lincoln's demise.

BTW, is your nickname chosen in honour of Jack the Ripper? IIRC, that's one of HIS nicknames, too...if so, kind of an odd choice, considering your stern stance on historical evil.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:13 PM

BOURNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....You call the Confeds "evil"... I call them evil because...Are you seriously proposing that the Confedracy was NOT evil?....What evil Union practices are ongoing? Be specific. Then tell me how a Confederate win would have changed these conditions. This should be good for a laugh.
...the list of benign Confederate accomplishments continuues not to appear...



If y'all don't mind, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion with something more substantive than my previous nit-picking; Red Jack, you're just bringing out the Troll in me, and I hate that. So here goes...

"All that is required for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing." (or something like that)

I forget who said/wrote this originally, but I've liked it ever since I first heard it (of all places, in a short-lived Russell Wong vehicle called "Vanishing Son" - yes, I AM a philistine!). And I think it is applicable here.

To be honest, I probably don't know my history as well as any of the main debaters here. What I DO know is a little logic and common sense, which I've applied in my own mind to my limited understanding of the socio-political situations leading up to, during, and following from the American Civil War.

On the one hand, I agree that individual soldiers - on BOTH sides - fought for their own reasons, not necessarily the same as the others, or the offical political mandate. I imagine not a few of them couldn't've given a peddlar's damn about Ideals or Morals: to many, military service might've offered a better standard of living, in terms of food, clothing and medical care than their situation at home. Others might have genuinely believed in a higher political or reason for fighting: defense of home and lands for an ignorant sharecropper, perhaps, or an end to human bondage for an ignorant Northern slum-dweller.
These hypothetical examples comprise but a fraction of the possibilities, but they are the ones that offer the greatest window for moral absolution in this conflict (well, agreeing to kill people just for better food is still reprehensible, but anyways).
But any such argument ultimately fails, if we accept the truth of the above quote. A more applicable corollary to it might read: "People get exactly the gov't they deserve." Individual citizens were given a say in how they were governed, with the expectation that they would be decently informed about the issues before they had their say. I think this is a crude approximation of some of Jefferson's ideals. Hamilton, his major opponent, felt the benighted masses were entrenched in their ignorance, and needed to be guided by their more enlightened fellow citizens (another crude approximation).
In other words, Hamilton believed that basically decent people would stand by and do nothing as evil had its way. Jefferson was hoping they wouldn't, given the chance.
Fast-forward up to the Civil War. Jefferson may have held the high ground on idealism, but it turns out Hamilton was right: the ignorant majority - North AND South - remained willfully ignorant, probably deciding that it was enough to just make a living for themselves, and maybe a family. I've heard paeans to this brand of foolishness, and all I can respond with is the "evil prevails when good men do nothing" quote.
As citizens of a state and a (Con)Federation of States, everyone has a moral obligation to keep informed of the important issues of the day. Because if they don't, smooth-talking hucksters and firebrands will lead them astray. I seriously doubt the average Southern dirt farmer really cared if he were a citizen of a Confederacy or a Union, as much as I doubt the average Northern sweat-shop labourer cared if those bunch of states down there left the Union or not. Both of these hypothetical salt-of-the-earth types likely cared for little beyond securing a living day-to-day, season-to-season. What would have tipped the balance for each of these fine fellows was how his rich neighbor/boss/alderman/etc felt about the situation, insofar as how this would affect him. Assuming he even catches wind of the true moral/political issues at stake, and realises the local fat-cats/bosses/etc are backing the wrong cause, is he gonna risk his (and his family's) meal ticket, maybe even his safety, by standing up for what's right, spreading dissent? Probably not. Boss-man says jump, you ask "how high?" And when the time comes to "jine up" (North or South), what's he gonna do, be a Conscientous Objector, flee to Canada? As much censure as Vietnam protestors faced - many of them of the more privileged classes - imagine how much worse bucking the tide would've been for the average Joe back then!
When all is said and done, though, it doesn't make the decision to fall in line any less reprehensible, merely more understandable. The same applied to the people of Nazi Germany, I'm sure, as it does to people everywhere. The people at the top of the social/economic/political food chain are wrong to enact and maintain an immoral institution (oppressive gov't, slavery, etc), and then protect it with the spilt blood of the ignorant. It is ALSO WRONG to eke out a living in willful, selfish ignorance of one's responsibilities to the community, the nation and the world, and then dutifully follow one's "betters" to war. Maybe many were misled as to the reason for the "Northern Aggression", but that's a poor excuse. Just as one is bound by the Law despite one's ignorance, one is equally bound by Morality.
That applies to BOTH sides in the conflict.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 5, 2004 8:02 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bourne:


Two slips, actually: please read my previous post concerning your mislabelling the South as the "aggressor".



In Japan, even now, schoolchildren are taught that WW2 was their battle against Western Imperialist expansion.

Pretty hefty spin but one I'm sure they prefer to the actual goods. Those few brave souls who've hoped to tell the true story faced career suicide and even assault.

IOW: Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.

See, how it works is, the aggressor in this conflict was the guy who snuck up and started shooting.

Quote:

Three slips, even, if we count BOTH of your erroneous references to the Jackson[sic] presidency following Lincoln's demise.


Same slip twice. A typo. It was clear by context who I meant. I sometimes say Peter Gabriel when I clearly mean Phil Collins. Whoopee. Yuh got me.

Hope you're also at least getting to look at all that ground you're losing.

Quote:

BTW, is your nickname chosen in honour of Jack the Ripper?


Nope. Private thing between me and some freinds. There used to be a Redmichael out there and a Redjess. I'm the last of the three still using the handle. I know about the Ripper thing, of course but, no, this ain't that. One day I'll switch to something new.

Boy. That list of Confedrate accomplishments must be huge by now.

Having a hard time whittling it down? It must be difficult to choose when your society made such comprehensive boons to the world.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 5, 2004 8:58 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bourne:
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion with something more substantive than my previous nit-picking; Red Jack, you're just bringing out the Troll in me, and I hate that. So here goes... etc.



Bourne-

When they've done reading this post I'm sure some will dive in again with the weird and scare-ifying ProConfederate Rhetoric and say that I was being snide.

I swear that I was not.

I appreciated your second post. It was thoughtful and heartfelt. I don't know what I've said or what position I've taken which would, as you put it, "bring out the troll" in you but, setting that aside, I will address what you said in the spirit you said it.

Much of it is true.

It is mostly the rulers who do the deciding when and who to fight. It is mostly the propagandas of the higher castes which impels those who can least afford it to saricfice themselves and their fortunes for some cause in which the leaders themselves might not even really beleive.

It is also true that the U.S. has never had a so-called Good Samaritan law. It's perfectly legal to stand by and watch a crime take place and do nothing. You're not even required to call the cops.

A lot of evil goes unchecked because lawabiding (I won't say "good") people fail to act morally.

I agree very much with the spirit of your post. I even understand your desire to give the benefit of the doubt to the guys who did the bulk of the anonymous bleeding out on the various feilds of battle.

But here's the thing...

You summed up with a statement implying that there was some moral parity between the North and the South in this conflict.

There wasn't.

Even if I concede that the activities of the Federal Government were outside the legitimate Constitutional bounds (and I don't really, but, for the sake of argument) you have to remember that it was over the buying and selling of human beings that the South became outraged and went to war.

If I give a speech saying something to the effect of "All those Gorram MIMES are responsible for the world's ills. Those black clothed white faced devils are a blight on the safety of decent folks everywhere! What's with the face paint? What's with the silence? What we should do is round them up and FORCE them to renounce the leotard! FORCE them to speak. If they won't?" ::throat cutting gesture::

I would be laughed at and perhaps hauled away for either extreme public stupidity or attempting to fomment a riot.

The laughter comes because the people in the crowd, quite rightly, would think my worldveiw vis a vis Mimes was, at the very best, extreme. There would be no sympathetic response to what I had to say.

With the Confederacy, the opposite is true. Horrible, insane, morally bankrupt speechs were used to whip up the appropriate sentiment in the masses, to make them ready for war. Had those masses not agreed, there would have been no war. You can't plant in unfertile ground.

For all its hideous treatment of more than a third of its population, like South Africa (until recently), the South actually considered itself to be a democracy. So, had there been any desire to stay at the negotiating table with the Federal government, the Southern Representives would have stayed at that table or face the boot come the next election.

Instead we got a brutal war.

Yes. Absolutely. There were, I'm sure, several people on the Rebel side who looked up and said "What the hell? I'm not fighting over THIS."

Just as there were several more on the Union side who did the same. "And I give a damn about those darkies why, exactly?" they might say.

But simple arithmatic tells us that the number of true beleivers must have far far outweighed the number of reluctant fighters. And, even among those reluctant fighters, the number of those who disagreed with their government on issues of Slavery and Union must have been even smaller.

How do we know? Because the South was outgunned and outmanned from the beginning, yet they kept the war going til the wheels fell off.

As fighters they were top notch. Probably better, man for man, than the Northerners.

As human beings, alas, the VAST majority fell considerably short of decent. So. To those two or three guys who were just caught up in events they had never supported or agreed with in any fashion, "I'm sorry guys. You're not evil. Just wicked unlucky."

But that leaves tens of thousands more who were not unlucky. Tens of thousands who made an affirmative choice to kill or die to preserve, as has been euphamised so many times here, "their way of life."

Again, if this stings, I'm sorry. I honestly am. It's not me. It's the math.

Consider: unlike its grand child, Nazi Germany, the Confederacy was not a Totalitarian state. There was no Rebel Gestapo running around killing or torturing the voices of dissent. There were no voices of dissent and no threat towards them had they spoken up. Those who disagreed simply rode North and joined the army of the United States of America.

You ended your post with the sentiment that there was enough indecent behaviour to go around, implying a sort of moral equivalence between the two factions.

Again, I'm sorry. I get what you're saying but that dog just won't hunt.

Lincoln was no saint, true. The Northern states were only slightly less attrocious to their black citizens than those in the South. The war could have been avoided had Lincoln simply conceded certain points.

But, again, according to the men themselves at the time, there was a primary issue at the heart of this thing. All the spinning in the world won't change that.

It sucks, since this was a war between Americans only, that the bad guys also happened to be Americans. It's an awful thing to have to grapple with that and I can see why most who trace their lineage back to the losers are either unwilling or unable to do so, especially when the grappling means accepting that great great grandpa was a right bastard. I do understand. I really do.

But I'm not sympathetic.

Because they were, in empirical fact, The Bad Guys, and great great grandpa was, almost certainly, a right bastard.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 5, 2004 10:51 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Redjack, your last post reads a bit more diplomatic, for lack of a better term, and less a rant against all things Southern.

To respond to two points:

- Andersonville: Truly a horrible prison, but not due entirely to neglect. The prison was built as the war was winding down and the South had pitiful few resources to dedicate to the prisoners. I will be happy to point out the many attempts by the commander of the prison, and the Confederate Congress to alleviate the situation in Andersonville if you require it.

Some statistics:

Union prisoner deaths: approximately 22,000 prisoners; 8% of the POW population.

Confederate prisoner deaths: numbers between 28,000 & 31,000 (exact # unknown due to burning of Richmond & Atlanta); 12% of the POW population.

As for your request for "Confederate contributions", is that during the War or the contributions of Confederates to America and society in general after the conflict? If it is postbellum, I can gladly supply a lengthy list of Confederate contributions to the expansion and settling of the West, medicine, politics, etc.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 5, 2004 11:19 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Redjack, your last post reads a bit more diplomatic, for lack of a better term, and less a rant against all things Southern.



I myself am a southerner. Born in West Virginia. Lived between W Va., Virginia and Georgia for long chunks of my life. Small ess because I'm an American. I get the whole country not only one little region.

I like the Waffle House and Po' Folks and sweet tea instead of soda.

Quote:

To respond to two points:

- Andersonville: Truly a horrible prison, but not due entirely to neglect.

The prison was built as the war was winding down and the South had pitiful few resources to dedicate to the prisoners. I will be happy to point out the many attempts by the commander of the prison, and the Confederate Congress to alleviate the situation in Andersonville if you require it.



Don't bother. The decent man would have opened the doors.

Quote:

As for your request for "Confederate contributions", is that during the War or the contributions of Confederates to America and society in general after the conflict? If it is postbellum, I can gladly supply a lengthy list of Confederate contributions to the expansion and settling of the West, medicine, politics, etc.



Post the war there were no Confederates. That would have been treason.

Southern states have given us our best authors. (Mark Twain, not Shakespeare, is IMHO, the greatest writer in the English language.) Many of our finest statesmen and women and not a few artists, musicians and scientists.

And, of course, there's Jazz.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:48 PM

GEORDIESTEVE2003


Once again some a-wipe with time on their hands wants to vent their spleen. The fan base and attention they have given this show proves that it isnt a bore, and also their efforts, such as full page articles in newspapers etc.

The cast, normally I would agree if there was a weak link, I wont blow smoke up someone's butt just because, but in this case I simply can't find one. All the cast were excellent and outstanding.

Bury that WIPE!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 7:01 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
I don't insult intelligence. Only willful bending of that intelligence to ensure one's misunderstanding of complex facts and inspire nauseating apologies for an evil and illegal regime which, of course, The Confederacy was.



Horse manure. You're posts have been quite insulting and this level of debate is both beneath your cause and couterproductive to your stated goals. Calling your opponents "scum", "children" and such are insults, designed not to convince your opponents, nor help others who might be trying to argue the same point. You don't want a debate, you want a flame war. That is apparent in your argumentative style.

Don't lie. The insults alone will cause those you are trying to convince to write you off as an immature or at least uncivil person, with no credibility, but a ton of arrogance.

The problem is that your case is quite strong. But it is not going to get a fair hearing because the manner in which you argue is too much of a distraction. You want folks to listen to you, and your point of view, try a more subtle, or polite approach. Even if you think your opponents are scum, children, or damned, telling them that to their face won't convince them of the rightness of your arguments. It will only give them cause to assume that you are full of crap, irrational, and thus not worthy of consideration.

Style does matter. You are not going to convince Browncoat1 or anyone in the audience by behaving badly. You don't need to, either. Insulting your opponent in the manner you have been doing, is not only ineffective but counterproductive. It not only won't accomplish what you want, (unless all you want is to troll for a flame war) and actually make it harder for the opposition to listen to you. If they don't listen, for whatever reason, you cannot persuade.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 8:06 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
You're posts have been quite insulting and this level of debate is both beneath your cause and couterproductive to your stated goals.



Says you. I will, of course, keep my own counsel on how to proceed. I find many of the expressed veiws here to have been so offensive it's difficult to keep from retching as I read them so, you know, there you go.

Quote:

Calling your opponents "scum", "children" and such are insults, designed not to convince your opponents, nor help others who might be trying to argue the same point.


I never called my opponents scum. Not once. I implied that some of them were children in a sarcastic and, I think, humorous way.

Obviously what that meant was that, in the context of this discussion, I find some of their veiws to be so unformed or uniformed as to resemble those of children.

Quote:

You don't want a debate, you want a flame war.


A flame war is when I just call names without making a point or, in fact, discussing the subject in question.

That hasn't happened. And it won't from this end.

Quote:

That is apparent in your argumentative style.


Yeah. Never claimed to be Socrates. Waddaya gonna do? Takes all kinds to make a world, cheif.

Quote:

Don't lie.


Never have, never will. No need.

Quote:

The insults alone will cause those you are trying to convince to write you off as an immature or at least uncivil person, with no credibility, but a ton of arrogance.


Uncivil? Have a I sworn at anynone? Insulted anyone's mother? Said anything that wasn't absolutely so? Please. I simply describe a regime and the people that supported it in the appropriate terms. You just don't like my position or the fact that I won't give an inch.

The problem is that inch doesn't exist.

Quote:

The problem is that your case is quite strong.


LOL. My "case?" LOL. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the argument here is between two equivalent veiws of the same events. It's not. It's between the facts and the results of generational whitewashing of those facts.

My "case." Sheesh.

Quote:

But it is not going to get a fair hearing because the manner in which you argue is too much of a distraction.


A fair hearing. Look. I couldn't care less what your opinion of the facts is. I'm not coming to you or anyone here with my hat in my hands hoping for your approval or even agreement.

I'm pointing out the big elephant in the room. If you choose to ignore it, that's not my problem.

I want the actual rancid goods to be displayed instead of the pretty packaging.

Quote:

You want folks to listen to you, and your point of view, try a more subtle, or polite approach.


When I want your advice on social graces I will absolutely let you know. Really. Sit by the phone.

Quote:

Even if you think your opponents are scum, children, or damned, telling them that to their face won't convince them of the rightness of your arguments.


Never described anyone living as scum or damned so drop it.

Quote:

It will only give them cause to assume that you are full of crap, irrational, and thus not worthy of consideration.


Irrational? I'm, if anything, hyper-rational. It's been a trouble to me my whole life.

Quote:

Style does matter.


To you. Not to me.

Quote:

You are not going to convince Browncoat1 or anyone in the audience by behaving badly.


Badly according to who? Last I checked we were all equals here. You're in no position whatsoever to lecture me on my behaviour. I haven't used profanity. I haven't even directly insulted anyone. Only their stupid arguments, lack of information and odious positions. That's allowed.

Quote:

You don't need to, either. Insulting your opponent in the manner you have been doing, is not only ineffective but counterproductive. It not only won't accomplish what you want, (unless all you want is to troll for a flame war) and actually make it harder for the opposition to listen to you. If they don't listen, for whatever reason, you cannot persuade.


Again. "Persuasion" is not the goal. Illumination is. Facts are facts. If some of you guys would actually LOOK at them, this thing would have defused itself a long time ago.

If I were in my opponents position I would be scrambling for all the history texts I could find to refute the claims of someone as supposedly obnoxious as me.

That hasn't happened because the facts support me. The more one delves the more one sees that what I've said is true. That can't be fun for someone who prefers the Margaret Mitchell version of history.

Ridiculous unfounded opinions are just that. I can't help that. Calling something what it is is neither insulting nor impolite. It is, in fact, the obligation of the intelligent to do just that.

All veiwpoints are not equal. Those veiws that don't conform to the facts are worhtless and should be pointed out as such.

Dressing it up with a pretty bow might soothe the ego but that's not really of much importance to me in this context.

Or of any importance, really.

You saw my response to Bourne's most recent post. He dealt openhandedly and I responded the same way.

There's a hint in there somewhere.

What could it be?



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 8:25 AM

GROOVEMONKEY


As neither an American nor a student of American history I do not want to wade into this debate. I only wish to say that the points brought up by Redjack, Ghoulman, Bourne and others were delivered in a manner that showed respect to the person with dissenting opinion and a desire to bring to light relevant information.

Draken, your previous post was counter productive to the point you were trying to make, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Redjack of, only you provide ample examples of your lack of skill in debating and show none for Redjack’s. The only examples you give for Redjack’s insulting behavior seem to be blantently false. A cannot find any example of him referring to any other posters as “scum” or “children”.

Please don’t take this as a flame, because it is not, it’s just that the tone of your post was that of a personal attack on Redjack, not his arguments.

edited to add "and others"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 8:28 AM

GROOVEMONKEY


Oops, sorry Redjack, I should of known you would of responded to that post more succinctly then I am capable of.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 9:53 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

I myself am a southerner. Born in West Virginia. Lived between W Va., Virginia and Georgia for long chunks of my life. Small ess because I'm an American. I get the whole country not only one little region.

I like the Waffle House and Po' Folks and sweet tea instead of soda.



I consider myself American, but I am also Southern. I guess it is a bit of the same torn loyalties men faced during the war; fight for your country against your home state, neighbors, family and friends, or side w/ your state and fight against your country. Not an easy decision for most I am sure.

Never been much on the Waffle House. Po' Folks is okay. Give me sweet tea any day of the week.

Quote:

Don't bother. The decent man would have opened the doors.


I agree, to a point. A soldier is honor bound to their duty and cause. One could not simply let more than 10,000 enemy prisoners loose in the South. The whole purpose of prisons was to keep those soldiers out of the fight.

Odd how you did not acknowledge the much higher death rate of Confederate soldiers in Union prisons. The Union had more resources, food and medicine than the South, yet the Confederate death rate was far higher than the CSA prisons.

On the point of Andersonville, I do not understand why all communications from the Confederate Congress, Wirz, and Union prisoners themselves were refused by Lincoln and the Union. The prisoner exchange was stopped by Lincoln and all letters asking for the exchange to continue went unanswered. Wirz event sent a group of Union prisoners on Parole to Washington to appeal to Lincoln were sent back without Lincoln so much as talking to them.

Guess Lincoln and his staff were not decent men.

Quote:

Post the war there were no Confederates. That would have been treason.
[/quotes]

Depends on your definition of treason & which side you were on. For the sake of keeping peace, let's call them ex-Confederates.

Quote:

Southern states have given us our best authors. (Mark Twain, not Shakespeare, is IMHO, the greatest writer in the English language.) Many of our finest statesmen and women and not a few artists, musicians and scientists.

And, of course, there's Jazz. .



The South, and Southerners have made many contributions to our country, and our society, as you point out. At least we can agree on that much.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:21 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything.



Big of you. Considering it's true.

Quote:

The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.


You should really check both the official rhetoric and, more importantly, the PRIVATE communications of Confederates at the time.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to try to sustain debate with folks who don't know the facts and don't wish to seek them out. Only yourself and one other seem to have even a tangential grasp of the events in question. Yet those who take the proConfederate side (did I say Yikes about that yet?) continue to flap their metaphoric gums.

Please.

As I said, it would be irritating if it wasn't so disappointing and sad.

Quote:

However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot. Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable.


I think it was "rabid ugly animal." I like dogs.

Quote:

Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself.


Never did that. The only comparisson I drew was between the South and Hitler's Germany. Which is totally analogous ...


Never? (Ghoulman counts the number of times REDJACK refered to the Confederacy as 'EVIL'... toooo many!) Well I think you're definition of 'evil' is about as sophisticated as George Dubya Bushs'.

Don't mean to gang up on ya REDJACK but you're language is confusing. You can't call the Confederacy 'evil' as it implies (or at least people will infer) the PEOPLE are evil too. And then you called them Nazis.

It's not an argument. You have an absolute position and keep trying to justify this position. Well, with launguage like that I think you're confusing people and colouring facts with your point of view.

Comparing 19th century Southern U.S people to Nazis is certainly a colourful image, but hardly accurate.

Man, we are ganging up. Sorry REDJACK. I don't have time to sift through all of this so I hope I'm not stating old news.

I dislike this forum software... get some UBB for frell sake!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:57 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


And just when I thought this was going to get civil and mature, the snide comments start up again.

Drakon, you are wasting your time. I will not waste more of mine w/ someone who insists on being rude.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 11:55 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Never? (Ghoulman counts the number of times REDJACK refered to the Confederacy as 'EVIL'... toooo many!)



I never refered to my opponents or anyone living as evil. Not once ever. The Confedracy and the South of the time was evil. That is not in dispute. I can never count it too many times.

Quote:

Well I think you're definition of 'evil' is about as sophisticated as George Dubya Bushs'.


Heh. That punk couldn't tie me in a game of tic-tac-toe much less win. Talk about insulting. As if.

Quote:

Don't mean to gang up on ya REDJACK but you're language is confusing.


Not really. If you're confused, I suggest reading aloud. It will help.

Quote:

You can't call the Confederacy 'evil' as it implies (or at least people will infer) the PEOPLE are evil too. And then you called them Nazis.


The Confedracy was, for white men, a democracy. It maintained its existance on the degredation, rape, torture and murder of literally millions of people over centuries. It determined its victims solely on the basis of skin color. The Confederacy was evil by any objective measure. You do the math. I'm not being too confusing now, am I?

Quote:

It's not an argument.


Not so far anyway.

Quote:

You have an absolute position and keep trying to justify this position.


No. I "justify" nothing. I state facts which, btw, have yet to be refuted.

Quote:

Comparing 19th century Southern U.S people to Nazis is certainly a colourful image, but hardly accurate.


Actually as far as the analogy went, it's exactly spot on. Yes, the conditions that lead Germany to war were dissimilar, but the mindset of the two nations is nearly identical. Again, if you read the writings of the people in question, you'll find them chillingly similar.

Unless of course one agrees with them. In that event there would be no chill.

Quote:

Man, we are ganging up.


Please. A lot of people holding a stupid belief doesn't give the belief any more validity. It just means a lot of people can't sift the data properly. "Gang up" to your heart's content.

But go crack a book or two as well.


The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 12:46 PM

GHOULMAN


... go se, I'm home with the 56K and MAN the DL is harsh! This thread is tooooo long! I hate this forum software. Did I meantion that? UBB please!

Please, don't take my flip GWB joke as anything but a little jab.

I'm not sure I'm on to just what the arguement is, as I say; I'm still confused.

I guess my thing here is that calling the Confederacy 'evil' as defined by the Nazis... can't be particularly justified. Apples and oranges as evil goes. Just an opinion.

And it might be safe to say that throwing around the word 'evil' to describe any arguement about a particular people is inflammatory. You can get away with evil when talking about Nazis but it's not a word I've ever heard so directly aimmed at 'the Confederacy'.

... still, in regard with how the South made it's living off the blood of millions for a few centuries, well yea! That's evil, no doubt. Right up there with the Nazis though different imho. I don't directly associate 'the Confederacy' with the South in this issue. I thought we were on about the Civil War not the history of Southern slavery (easily one of the most horrific crimes anywhere, anytime. Up there with the Holocaust, the Inquisition, etc.)

Perhaps what I mean to say is that I might agree that the Confederacy was 'evil' in some sense, certainly they were an illegal government, a junte as it where. But do you mean to say that the Southern folk were somehow 'evil' sociologically as opposed to being more or less as 'evil' as anyone else at the time. I don't know much about it but I wonder if I can infer you mean that since slavery was so large a part of everyones life that the cruelty created a culture of evil? How deep are ya goin' here partner?

See... this is what I'm missing here.

Anyho', start a new thread... I can't DL this! Im out, have a nice week-end! Shiny!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 12:52 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... go se, I'm home with the 56K and MAN the DL is harsh! This thread is tooooo long! I hate this forum software. Did I meantion that? UBB please!

You're being rude. This site is hand coded by a genius named Haken who works really hard and this is a great site. So maybe a polite suggestion to Haken is in order, he welcomes your opinion. But if you hate it so much maybe you shouldn't come here or at least stop saying you hate his site every time you post.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 1:39 PM

JASONZZZ



The Dog won't bark no more, if you stop waving the meat in front of him. It's no persuading or arguing with folks who:

1. calls you unread, unintelligent, and apparently feels the need to *remind* you aboot that at every turn of the game.

2. self-professes to be well-read and intelligent. Really? well-read and intelligent don't feel the need to overcompensate and scream that out every second of the day. The only thing it does demonstrate is how egomanical folks can be.

Otto: "Well, Monkey don't read Philosphy".
Wanda: [looks at Otto holding a book] "Really?"

Stop responding to it and it will go home and bark at himself.

Hitler himself used the same type of strategy in convincing himself and his friends very much the same things. He barks and repeats exactly the same flawed opinion and offers it as "Analysis", "Fact", and "Data". Claiming that the presumed target is "Evil". Filling the room with Hatred. Barking and Barking the exact same irrelevance and Polarizing the conversation to wear you down until you are too tired to oppose. It works well when folks are already at a lost, struggling to survive and needs something, somewhere, whatever that might "make sense" to blame. People like that are already completely convinced that their delusion gradeur is true and believes that if they bark at you long enough and hard enough, you will see it too - you see, precisely because you are "insignificant, stupid, and can't form a logical argument if it could save you. Oh but it's not your fault, it's their fault". ho hum.

Converse with him, interact with him and you give him a platform to preach. Listen to him and you aid him in his foolish irrelevent cause. Pry him and you draw him out and let him infect you with his hatred. Bah. It's always the same stream of nonsense.

Why talk with him, we can just post to each other using the same set of words on replay. I'll start:

"They are Evil"
"Just like the Nazis"
"Go read some books"
"I am ultra-intelligent, well read, and you are not"
"I offer only exact data and fact, you offer stupid uneducated opinion"
"My, look who didn't hit the library in their entire live"

I think that about sum up the entire conversation so far.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 1:54 PM

GHOULMAN


Succatash wrote:
You're being rude. This site is hand coded by a genius named Haken who works really hard and this is a great site. So maybe a polite suggestion to Haken is in order, he welcomes your opinion. But if you hate it so much maybe you shouldn't come here or at least stop saying you hate his site every time you post.
Point taken.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 2:31 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

The Dog won't bark no more, if you stop waving the meat in front of him.
blah blah blah blah blah blah scream that out every second of the day. The only thing it does demonstrate is how egomanical folks can be.



Who's screaming. Most of my sentances end in periods. See?

Quote:

Hitler himself used the same type of strategy in convincing himself and his friends very much the same things.


I'm Hitler because I likened the pre-war ( pre mid-20th century really) South and the Confederacy to the Nazis?

Yikes, dude.

Hitler would have LOVED Old Dixie.

Quote:

He barks and repeats exactly the same flawed opinion and offers it as "Analysis", "Fact", and "Data". Claiming that the presumed target is "Evil". Filling the room with Hatred.


Should we love the Confederacy? Embrace its ideals or even justify them?

I'm serious. I've asked for a list. Nothing has come forth.

Quote:

Barking and Barking the exact same irrelevance and Polarizing the conversation to wear you down until you are too tired to oppose.


I know you won't agree wiht me. But somebody has to put the actual truth out amongst all the rubbish.

Quote:

...It works well when folks are already at a lost, struggling to survive and needs something, somewhere, whatever that might "make sense" to blame. blah blah blah People like that are already completely convinced that their delusion gradeur is true and believes that if they bark at you long enough and hard enough, you will see it too - you see, precisely because you are "insignificant, stupid, and can't form a logical argument if it could save you. Oh but it's not your fault, it's their fault".


Not exactly sure what all that meant but...

I never said anyone was insignificant. I never said anyone was stupid. I said some of the notions were stupid. They are.

Quote:

Converse with him, interact with him and you give him a platform to preach. Listen to him and you aid him in his foolish irrelevent cause.


Foolish? Maybe. Irrelevant? I can't think of anything more relevant to the enjoyment of FIREFLY than a real understanding of the backdrop.

Quote:

Pry him and you draw him out and let him infect you with his hatred.


I don't hate anybody. Waste of time.

Quote:

Why talk with him, we can just post to each other using the same set of words on replay. I'll start:

"They are Evil"
"Just like the Nazis"
"Go read some books"
"I am ultra-intelligent, well read, and you are not"
"I offer only exact data and fact, you offer stupid uneducated opinion"
"My, look who didn't hit the library in their entire live"

I think thsat about sum up the conversation so far.



That would be fine, I guess if you also post

"Ignorance is best."
"Don't confuse me with the facts"
and
"Shut up. I think the Confederates should have WON."

You know, just so the opposition gets their points heard. It's all about being fair and balanced, right?




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 11:30 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:


I consider myself American, but I am also Southern. I guess it is a bit of the same torn loyalties men faced during the war; fight for your country against your home state, neighbors, family and friends, or side w/ your state and fight against your country. Not an easy decision for most I am sure.

edited

A soldier is honor bound to their duty and cause. One could not simply let more than 10,000 enemy prisoners loose in the South. The whole purpose of prisons was to keep those soldiers out of the fight.



Given their condition at the time it would have made better strategic sense to release them than to keep them. An influx of 10,000 terribly wounded and malnourished men would have drained Union reserves massively.

Quote:

Odd how you did not acknowledge the much higher death rate of Confederate soldiers in Union prisons. The Union had more resources, food and medicine than the South, yet the Confederate death rate was far higher than the CSA prisons.


My feeling on this is this:

First off, I have no specific data about the inner workings of Union POW camps. Since everyone– despite political leaning– acknowledges Andersonville as the most egregious camp, we can assume that other factors than torture and neglect are the result of the slightly higher percentage of Condederate POW deaths.

What are those other factors? Well.

The rebel army was, as you said, poorer than the American army, and had fewer men, yet was attempting to accomplish essentially the same task.

This means that the rebels were forced to fight longer once wounded and to stay in the feild with fewer supplies either medical or nutritional.

I would guess that the basic condition of a rebel soldier arriving at an American camp was worse than his American counterpart.

That would account for the slightly higher death rate.

But it's just a guess.

Quote:

On the point of Andersonville, I do not understand why all communications from the Confederate Congress, Wirz, and Union prisoners themselves were refused by Lincoln and the Union. The prisoner exchange was stopped by Lincoln and all letters asking for the exchange to continue went unanswered. Wirz event sent a group of Union prisoners on Parole to Washington to appeal to Lincoln were sent back without Lincoln so much as talking to them.


Dunno. My guess is, by that stage of the war, all Lincoln wanted to hear from the South was an unconditional surrender.

Quote:

Guess Lincoln and his staff were not decent men.


Never said Lincoln was a saint. But he was infinitely closer to being one than ANY of the Confederates. Demonstrably.

Quote:

Depends on your definition of treason & which side you were on.



No. Depends on your stated affiliation and the country you live in. And what you're willing to do about the affiliation.

Quote:

For the sake of keeping peace, let's call them ex-Confederates.


Fair enough.

Quote:

The South, and Southerners have made many contributions to our country, and our society, as you point out. At least we can agree on that much.



Hey. I'm a big fan of Americans. That's my point.

I'm bowing out now. I think the horse is well dead.

I do hope some who read this "debate" will be inspired to actually look into the history of the Confedracy and the Pre-War South. I hope that they will have the presence of mind and decency of spirit to call the thing what it was.

Not sorry about the ruffled feathers but, then, you know that.

And I love FIREFLY.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL