Note of thanks & apology to El Confederado, goodbye

[JBMauser]

I have enjoyed this site and many of the threads that delt with "The War".  It was, is a great idea.  I am sorry I rose to the mix and was baited by Brian and his twisted view of history and the world.  I must leave and hopefully let it find it's proper balance.  I feel like I am throwing gunpowder on a fire hoping to blow it out.  I for one will continue to read and study the period.  I have been motivated by the discourse and comments tabled here in the past (pre Brian)  but It has run off the road and it no longer is what it was, like most things.  If it returns to a discussion of the Period I would like to join in.  Thanks again.  Best of luck.  JB

[victorcharlie]

JB, Even though I haven't always agreed with you I have enjoyed your post.  I also think Brian might go just a little to far to drive home a point but hey, nobody's perfect.

 I've been doing some genology and trying to piece togather the family history over the past few months and have come to realize that history is a lot like an old puzzle in that as time goes by, some of the pieces get lost.  The picture starts fuzzy and the more pieces the clearer it becomes.  Also, there are always at least 2 versions of history and sometimes many more, but to the victor goes the spoils.  I myself thank you for your thought provoking post.

[BrianMcCandliss]

JB, Even though I haven't always agreed with you I have enjoyed your post.  I also think Brian might go just a little to far to drive home a point but hey, nobody's perfect.

I don't think so at all; I believe there is an ethical responsibility to validate information upon which one acts, as well as defends.  As such, this must be challenged to correct them, lest a lie repeated becomes believed.
Otherwise, every war becomes a just war; it's far easier to validate out of ego, than to pay the price of independent thought-- but no one has the right to do so, since this leads to domination of others by force-- i.e. unjust wars.

As such, when one self-servingly rejects objective evidence which disproves such self-validating egotisms, then one is guilty of a breach of such basics ethics. It's not a matter of opinion.

Hence, a person must be held responsible for these ethical breaches, once they have been presented with conclusive evidence of such.

[victorcharlie]

I didn't say you were not ethical.....I didn't say you wern't correct.....but....every once in awhile.....ok...ok....every once in a great while.......your responses might be interpreted by some to be somewhat belittleing........I'm not criticising you but suggesting that you might be able to improve on your delivery.  If you run people off you can't have a debate.....and I can tell there is nothing you like better than a spirited debate!  You can beat a horse, or offer a carrot and usually accomplish the same thing......or as dad always said "you can catch more flys with honey than you can with vinegar."

You have the facts....your knowledge is impressive......if you improve your presentation and delivery just a small bit it would be the icing on the cake.......the trick isn't just to win the debate.....but to win where the people involved consider you a gentleman...and will debate you again.....The debate should never turn into an argument for the sake of victory......nor should you allow yourself to appear arrogant with your knowledge.

[Jim N Mo.]

Am reminded of the story of a young officer named Braxton Bragg who could not get an issue settled to his satisfaction , during his prewar service. He submitted a request for supplies but the quartermaster refused to fill it . He then resubmitted it along with more facts only to have it once again turned down by the quartermaster . Realizing that he could not work with this quartermaster he went over his head to the post commander . He was told by his commanding office " My God Mr. Bragg you have quarreled with every officer in the Army and now you are quarreling with yourself " . It seems that hard headed quartermaster who Bragg could not deal with was no one else but Bragg himself who held 2 different positions on the small post . History shows he never learned from the experience and continued alienating people the rest of his life . History also shows he felt he knew better than all those around him no matter the facts and his record shows he could of not of been any more wrong !!!

[victorcharlie]

Jim:  Are you comparing Brian to Braxton Bragg?

Brian is in my opinion a very good debater.......I'm just trying to help him become a master debater!

[BrianMcCandliss]

I didn't say you were not ethical.....I didn't say you wern't correct.....but....every once in awhile.....ok...ok....every once in a great while.......your responses might be interpreted by some to be somewhat belittleing........I'm not criticising you but suggesting that you might be able to improve on your delivery.  If you run people off you can't have a debate.....and I can tell there is nothing you like better than a spirited debate!  You can beat a horse, or offer a carrot and usually accomplish the same thing......or as dad always said "you can catch more flys with honey than you can with vinegar."

You have the facts....your knowledge is impressive......if you improve your presentation and delivery just a small bit it would be the icing on the cake.......the trick isn't just to win the debate.....but to win where the people involved consider you a gentleman...and will debate you again.....The debate should never turn into an argument for the sake of victory......nor should you allow yourself to appear arrogant with your knowledge.

I  have to disagree here, since, as I say, the truth is a defense of itself. As such, it's self-defeating to compromise truth for the sake of tact and diplomacy, since this necessarily alienates the inalienable. If one subscribes to beliefs based on emotion and pretense rather than logic and facts, then they're a hopeless case anway, and it's best to argue the truth rather than negotiate a settlement.

I think this is the entire problem with political-correctness, in that the objective is seen relative situational ethics, i.e. mutual satisfaction rather than recognition of absolute inalienable freedoms.

In reality, enemies make dangerous friends, and if you allow yourself to forge an agreement with someone who doesn't believe in freedom, then  you're essentially defeating your own purpose.

I don't think I'm being extreme, since there is no dishonor in telling it like it is; and I don't see how I could be more tactful without compromising. I don't care to put on a song and dance, to convince people the house is burning-- I'd just rather yell "fire."

[BrianMcCandliss]

Am reminded of the story of a young officer named Braxton Bragg who could not get an issue settled to his satisfaction , during his prewar service. He submitted a request for supplies but the quartermaster refused to fill it . He then resubmitted it along with more facts only to have it once again turned down by the quartermaster . Realizing that he could not work with this quartermaster he went over his head to the post commander . He was told by his commanding office " My God Mr. Bragg you have quarreled with every officer in the Army and now you are quarreling with yourself " . It seems that hard headed quartermaster who Bragg could not deal with was no one else but Bragg himself who held 2 different positions on the small post . History shows he never learned from the experience and continued alienating people the rest of his life . History also shows he felt he knew better than all those around him no matter the facts and his record shows he could of not of been any more wrong !!!

Speaking of song and dance, you remind ME of a man named Abraham Lincoln, who distracted from his obvious lack of substantial argument, by routinely engaging in underhanded, anectodal personal attacks-- like the above-- under the false pretense of comedic license regarding a different person, but which were undoubtedly deliberate character assassinations. Lincoln was also the most deranged lunatic in world history, so I really don't feel the need to respond to such an obvious argumentum ad hominem/ non sequitur.

In short, I'm quite aware of the political tactic which Lincoln made popular-- and which you seem to find witty and clever-- to your own self-deception-- of "guilt by association;" however here I'm more accurate in comparing you with a mad tyrant, than you are in comparing me with an obsessed bureaucrat.

The truth is a defense of itself-- A is A. If you can't accept that, then it's no wonder you stoop to such underhanded and evasive tactics.

[victorcharlie]

Brian:  Try not to confuse political correctness with common courtesy, good manners, and respecting the dignity of the individual.  i.e good character.......The problem with beating a horse comes when you need to catch him the next day.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Brian:  Try not to confuse political correctness with common courtesy, good manners, and respecting the dignity of the individual.  i.e good character.......The problem with beating a horse comes when you need to catch him the next day.

You're assuming that these arguments were honest disagreement, but they weren't. They involved falsehoods, inventions, and pure concocted propaganda, all in violation of intellecual honesty and ethics.

Again, there is a duty to validate information upon which one bases such claims-- but it is clearly unethical to engage in dishonest defense of such out of self-interest, at another's expense.

And this occurred in every case in which I employed any sort of invective-- and only against such a breach of ethics.

[victorcharlie]

Brian:  Try not to confuse political correctness with common courtesy, good manners, and respecting the dignity of the individual.  i.e good character.......The problem with beating a horse comes when you need to catch him the next day.

You'll have to give me some specific examples; I've seen flaming before on boards and I don't recall doing that.

However if someone states a clearly fraudulent argument, I'll call them a fraud; that's not an insult, it's just an observation.

But I make no apologies for defending my freedom-- if the South was right to kill for invaders, then I certainly have the right to take the kid-gloves off against those who sympathize with the occupation afterward.

While you have the right to "take off the kid gloves" be smart about it.  I don't think you intend to appear rude or arragant, and I don't take it that way.  I think it serves no purpose to quibble over petty comments so I'd prefer not to point out specific details but I have raised my eye brows on some of your comments in the past.  Not that I disagree with you, but because a little more tack could have been employed and got you to the same place.   A little controversy is sometimes a good thing and JBMauser was useful to you because he gave you opportunity to make your points.   Dissention among people is really an opportunity.  Your opportunity left for another forum.

All this a side....we are where we are in the Marxist circle.....where we go from here is the next question.  Will Marxist theory prove correct in regard to the Uninted States?  I think we already are a Socialist society under a socialist government.  For example, I as a property owner can't burn a pile of brush without the federal government telling me when, how long, and what I can burn.  I sacrifice my liberty every day for the "common good" of the people.......right?

[BrianMcCandliss]

[quote="victorcharlie]  I think it serves no purpose to quibble over petty comments [/quote]

Well think again; that's quite offensive right there.
And if you can't list a specific example, I can't respond.

However the point remains, that it was not my purpose to convince, but to prove; the truth is a defense of itself, and those who won't see it, simply prefer lies.

But I do have something to say in my own defense:

I was, as I see it, only as blunt as I had to be, though that may seem to you more than was necessary; however I might have been doing this longer than you have, hence am more familiar with such tactics-- particularly when I am using the full honesty of my real name, while they hide safely behind the anonymity of a pseudonym; and what you call "tactless," I may simply call TACTICAL, i.e. engaging in adversarial word-play which is apt to turn hostile and personal.

So if you want to tell a matador how to fight the bull, at least have some experience; otherwise it's easy when you're not facing the horns.

All this a side....we are where we are in the Marxist circle.....where we go from here is the next question. Will Marxist theory prove correct in regard to the Uninted States? I think we already are a Socialist society under a socialist government. For example, I as a property owner can't burn a pile of brush without the federal government telling me when, how long, and what I can burn. I sacrifice my liberty every day for the "common good" of the people.......right?

As I've stated, the Civil War was a coup of socialism against the sovereign states, just like in the USSR exactly 50 years later.

As for your rights, that's between you and  your state-- and possibly the federal government; however the key word there is "possibly," since otherwise I really can't explain to you how you have NO rights under the current system. Rather, you can be taken away by force, and your life and liberty sacrificed at the behest of the state; while this isn't necessarily likely, the fact that it CAN happen under the current order, proves that you have NO RIGHTS under the law-- only PRIVILEGES.

This, then, sets where you stand against the current system: they make the rules, and you follow; your existence is wholly subordinate-- and secondary-- to that of the state.

That, by definition, is socialism; however true to socialism, such is a ruse for rule by elite special-interests: in this case,  faceless corporations which lobby for control over the state, and hence of individuals.

This is inevitable under a centralized government, since power, like water, follows the course of least resistance-- eventually seeking its own level; however a decentralized administration of true democracy, permits the perpetual establishment of freedom via competition against tyranny.

Until we have that again, we won't have freedom; however the good news is that the written law entitles us to that very style of government.
[/quote]

[Jim N Mo.]

I have to disagree here, since, as I say, the truth is a defense of itself. As such, it's self-defeating to compromise truth for the sake of tact and diplomacy, since this necessarily alienates the inalienable. If one subscribes to beliefs based on emotion and pretense rather than logic and facts, then they're a hopeless case anway, and it's best to argue the truth rather than negotiate a settlement.

Brian if you truly feel this way , why did you change your post , in reply to me , last week that included the photo of the back half of a horse just because I had pointed out your actual knowledge of the war Between The States ?

[dukkillr]

I have no idea what sparked this debate, and I only read this thread because it's been so active and I was curious.  I'm surprised by Brian's clear thought and writing style.  It seems this board is more often dominated by blind thought and ideology (in all threads) than by those who actually can explain something based on a logical thought process.  I also share his belief that the truth is always a defense, but truth can be difficult to define, particularly when wielded offensively.

Then I saw this:

Lincoln was also the most deranged lunatic in world history,

Which I thought was, well, at best a gross exageration, at worst a simple counter insult.

Then I saw this:

They involved falsehoods, inventions, and pure concocted propaganda, all in violation of intellecual honesty and ethics.

It seems that absent any proof that Mr. Lincoln was The Most deranged lunatic in World History Brian is making a claim of the caliber he is objecting to.

[victorcharlie]

Dukkillr.....there have been a variety of these statements.   I didn't want to be the one to start pointing out these kind of things.  I find myself in ageement with Brian most of the time.  I kind of think of it as over kill.....that's okay with me........I was just trying to point out to him that to win at all cost is what he's posting against.

[BrianMcCandliss]

I have no idea what sparked this debate, and I only read this thread because it's been so active and I was curious.  I'm surprised by Brian's clear thought and writing style.  It seems this board is more often dominated by blind thought and ideology (in all threads) than by those who actually can explain something based on a logical thought process.  I also share his belief that the truth is always a defense, but truth can be difficult to define, particularly when wielded offensively.

Then I saw this:

Lincoln was also the most deranged lunatic in world history,

Which I thought was, well, at best a gross exageration, at worst a simple counter insult.

Then I saw this:

They involved falsehoods, inventions, and pure concocted propaganda, all in violation of intellecual honesty and ethics.

It seems that absent any proof that Mr. Lincoln was The Most deranged lunatic in World History Brian is making a claim of the caliber he is objecting to.

I've provide ample proof elsewhere. There can be no doubt that Lincoln was deranged, given his psychography; however this has unfortunately been eclipsed by his hagiography. However, the devastation to freedom which resulted from his deliberate actions and lies, is certainly second to none when one considers actual destroyed freedoms-- and after-effects-- rather than simplistically comparing simple body-counts.

As for the "most" deranged, we have to look at the fact that he destroyed the free United States as we knew it during the 19th century, and  touched off the "Red Tide" of world-socialism in the 20th.  In fact, I've already provided the personal letter of admiration written to Lincoln by none other than one Karl Marx!

In referencing famous deranged lunatics, one charicatured figure that most will most often knee-jerk to mind, is one Adolph Hitler; however, Hitler was simply a political descendant-- even a creation-- of the world-debacle which Lincoln started; after all, it was the unwarranted US involvement in WWI-- as well as the US-created Great Depression-- which gave Hitler his promotion from corporal to Fuhrer, and likewise gave Lenin and Stalin their promotions as well. In fact, Lincoln wrote the book on deranged tyrannical lunacy in terms of his tactics which he used to effect political coups,  while currying support in those whom they called "useful idiots," who were willing to play God-- or as Lincoln called it, "the better angels of our nature--" in echange for a piece of the power.

When examining the facts in their interrelated totality, there can be no doubt that Lincoln was certainly no less ruthless than the others-- in terms of either force or duplicity-- however he lacked any of their exculpatory factors of extreme circumstances; they did not necessarily destroy more freedoms, but rather simply began with fewer in the first place.

Quite the opposite, in fact: he turned the freest land in the history of the world, into a rank Machiavellian empire.

Those who dramatize that "the union was being torn apart, leaving Lincoln no choice," and that "Lincoln wanted emancipation" are delusional themselves, in that the South was willing to re-join the Union willingly on April 4, 1865, provided that they would not be retained by force; however without waiting for their response, Lincoln ordered the ships and troops to Fort Sumter on April 1.

Likewise, the Hampton Roads Peace Conference had similar results, i.e. the South agreed to give up slavery if they would not be brought back by force, but Lincoln said that he didn't care about the slaves any more than wild pigs, but that secession would NOT be an option-- he wanted an empire, not a Union.

Finally, we have to look at what I've been claiming all along: that the states were sovereign nations under the law, and had every right to secede at will;  likewise, the notion that this would somehow "destroy the Union" is utter poppycock, since the states created the Union, and would not destroy it for the remaining states by leaving-- any more than new states joining;  and in any event no state was beholden to the Union it in any way.

Hence, it seems that at in terms of deranged historical lunatics, Lincoln can definitely take the place as the worst of the worst; however the hagiography and revisionism in defending him is undoubtedly a close second.

[BrianMcCandliss]

Dukkillr.....there have been a variety of these statements.   I didn't want to be the one to start pointing out these kind of things.  I find myself in ageement with Brian most of the time.  I kind of think of it as over kill.....that's okay with me........I was just trying to point out to him that to win at all cost is what he's posting against.

Actually I'm not posting against anything, but for the truth. Lincoln was against the truth, supposedly for a good cause in his mind-- and that mind was very compromised.

That being said: if anyone could provide clear compelling evidence that the states legally surrendered their sovereignty and secession-rights in ratifying the Constitution, I would defend Lincoln's actions as at least carrying the key element of being legal-- as I intoned in my paper "Were the States Sovereign Nations?"

However as I also wrote in that paper, it has been proven that this was never their intent-- and Lincoln's claims were purely fabricated in order to ruthlessly apply plausible deniability for his outright coup d''etat, so as to present the illusion of legal authority-- while silencing anyone who posed a problem.

Thus, it's hardly surprising that Hitler, Lenin and Stalin learned their basics at Lincoln's knee.

[dukkillr]

your "facts" would mostly qualify as circumstantial evidence in a court room... I can now see how you induce such strong objections...

[BrianMcCandliss]

And I see you're a coward who can't speak for himself.

[Greybeard]

Brian if you don't stop showing your ass you're going to force me to get into the middle of this. That last remark was totally uncalled for. It's time to get back to following the rules on this forum.

While I agree with your points I can't agree with the way you make them.

[BrianMcCandliss]

At least I didn't swear at anyone. Ta!

[Artilleryman]

Brian you have referred to your paper a number of times.  Have you published it?

[dukkillr]

And I see you're a coward who can't speak for himself.

Huh?  Could you please elaborate on how I'm a coward and I can't speak for myself?  Since you're very strong on "facts" there should be some good ones to explain a personal insult you made without having any idea who I am.

[Graybeard]

dukkillr, I've already taken him to task on it. Let's let it lay. He was grossly out of line and it needs to end at that. Any possible explaination is just gonna get him in deeper and he don't need to be in any deeper on this one.