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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Hardly evidence of your claims.

---

Quote:

---

Nice try though. Better luck next time.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

the aggressors (that would be the South, kids)

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

A standing army

---

Quote:

---

Federal Taxes

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.)

---

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.

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Ludicrous.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bourne:


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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

That is apparent in your argumentative style.

---

Quote:

---

Don't lie.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that your case is quite strong.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Style does matter.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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."

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 ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

It's not an argument.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Man, we are ganging up.

---

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!

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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".

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Guess Lincoln and his staff were not decent men.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---