Reconstrucion - New book & interview with author -

[ironfoot]

You can listen to the interview:

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=01-09-2006&view=storyview

[BrianMcCandliss]

Why listen to talk about something illegal and oppressive?

[ironfoot]

Why listen to talk about something illegal and oppressive?

Because you might learn something. But you don't seem interested in that.

[BrianMcCandliss]

I'd prefer to learn about something LEGAL. Reconstruction was a dictator's plot for the fate of brutally raped and conquered nations-- nothing more.

[ironfoot]

The author is a professor of history at Columbia University. But that would mean nothing to you. You don't need (and apparently don't have) any academic credentials. You already know everything and don't need to learn facts or hear arguments that may be in contrast to your world view. If somebody disagrees with you, they are (your words) "insane" or "ignorant" or "studied law in a manure pile".

[BrianMcCandliss]

If you're going to make up your facts, while you ignoring the real ones -- which are presented to you-- then you can't expect to complain when you're CALLED on it.

As for "credentials," you might want to look up a logical error-- which I've mentioned before-- known as "arguing from authority," e.g. "Professor Soandso said the earth is flat, so it must be true."

Nevermind that Columbia University depends on federal accreditation in order to stay in business-- and thus continue being able to charge top-dollar to hand out all those nifty little diploma's.

Hence, "Professor Soandso" might be looking more at his paycheck (and his standing in the academic community), than the truth. History isn't written by the victors-- but rather by self-interested historians who work for them, and thus flatter them and validate their victories. We look back at history and look with shame at the shameless fawning over other tyrants-- such as the party-hacks of Communism-- and yet the hypocrisy is ironic when modern historians continue to do the same thing for Lincoln and the Civil War.

No victory fits more neatly into this category, than Union-victory in the Civil War-- which shifted more power to the central government, than the Bolshevik Revolution. As such, there has been precious little debate on the Civil War at the official level-- or in fact from anyone who draws power from the federal government (which includes state and lower levels as well, now that everything answers to the federal level).

Simply put, they don't dare risk biting the hand that feeds them.

Likewise, there's been an obvious pact between media and post-bellum government, not to question its legitimacy; this is the source of the "left-wing" bent in modern journalism. As Dilorenzo states here:

The legal rationale that was invented by the Lincoln administration to "justify" its abolition of freedom of the press was a "Confiscation Act" which held that any citizen who was known to criticize the administration’s policies was guilty of treason and would have all of his personal property confiscated by the state. Informers who informed on fellow citizens who were subsequently found guilty would be given 50 percent of the guilty party’s property. It was Soviet-style "justice."
...
The abolition of free speech, moreover, was an essential ingredient of their success, something that does not seem to be lost on today’s Republican Party."

As such, our system is so entangled in the web of deceit which created the current system via federal victory in the Civil War, that finding an honest answer is like finding a Nazi-party member who admits to hating Hitler: those who aren't too brainwashed and self-absorbed... are too scared.

However, basic objectivity doesn't allow for favorites; one cannot claim that the Constitution is a national document by original intent-- when plain history shows that it wasn't, and that the states were-- and by that token are-- individual sovereign nations. Rather, such deception falls under the definition of pure historical revisionism.

[ironfoot]

{If you're going to make up your facts, while you ignoring the real ones -- which are presented to you-- then you can't expect to complain when you're CALLED on it. }

What are you talikng about now?

I did not state any "facts" about reconstruction.
I provided a link to information about a new book on reconstruction.


{As for "credentials," you might want to look up a logical error-- which I've mentioned before-- known as "arguing from authority," e.g. "Professor Soandso said the earth is flat, so it must be true." }

So, if you ran a university, you would not bother hiring people with credentials?
When you need medical help, you don't care if the doctor graduated from medical school?
You claim to be an expert, yet provide no proof of peer review and approval, refuse to read something that may challenge your view of history, then have the nerve to attack the credentials of a professor you do not know?

[BrianMcCandliss]

Obviously you know nothing about debate-- if you don't know the rules of logic and discourse, I suggest you learn before you leap-- since you've obviously been doing a lot of leaping, but very little learning.

However if you simply don't LIKE the rules of logic and discourse, take it up elsewhere. I wont waste my time arguing with a spout-off.

[ironfoot]

Back to name calling?
"Spoutoff"?

What "rules of debate"?
This is thread about a new book dealing with reconstruction.
The thread had a link to an interview with the author.
You were the first to reply.
Your reply was:
"Why listen to talk about something illegal and oppressive?"

How does that contribute to a "debate"?

[BrianMcCandliss]

If an expert is significantly biased, then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) at they would be able to remain objective.

Hence, by even discussing Reconstruction, a bias is clearly present-- a bias that the war was a legitimate act by the Union.

[ironfoot]

You said you won't read the article, so how do you know it is biased?
You attack others as "ignorant" but refuse to read the article you comment about.
You said "I wont waste my time arguing with a spout-off."
So why are you still here?

[BrianMcCandliss]

There's really nothing to discuss-- Reconstruction was as illegal as the invasion. That's a FACT.
Either he acknowledges that-- or he's a propagandist. Period.

[ironfoot]

I thought you promised to leave?

[BrianMcCandliss]

You think funny; I didn't promise squat.
 You're not the only one on this board; if you were, I WOULD leave. So far you haven't really stated a single relevant fact in the case against Southern secession-- as evidenced by this emotionally loaded question like "Does anybody here still love America?"

Obviously the seceding states didn't want to stay in the Union-- and if the states are being held by force, then either you need to show the legal right of the Union to do this, or else you hate freedom.

[ironfoot]

You keep mixing threads. One would expect you to know better, you claiming to be so smart. This thread is about an interview with a history professor regarding his book on reconstruction.

[BrianMcCandliss]

And any discussion of Reconstruction, is meaningless without the fundamental context of its legitimacy-- just like discussing the Holocaust, requires the prior context that it was mass-genocide.

Reconstruction was similar to the Nazi Holocaust-- while the Civil War was similar to the internment into concentration-camps-- and therefore justice demands that these things be discussed in a similar context.

[BrianMcCandliss]

And any discussion of Reconstruction, is meaningless without the fundamental context of its legitimacy-- just like discussing the Holocaust, requires the prior context that it was mass-genocide.

Reconstruction was similar to the Nazi Holocaust-- while the Civil War was similar to the internment into concentration-camps-- and therefore justice demands that these things be discussed in a similar context.

Otherwise, a discussion of Reconstruction, would be like talking about the Holocaust simply as a feat of ingenious engineering by the German military, and brilliant political maneuvering by Hitler-- which it was, on both counts. The South needed Reconstruction, like the Holocaust victims needed internment and execution.

[williamlayton]

ALL discussions which propose an opinion should be prefaced by "I believe".
I believe, Opinions do matter but generally they are most important to the propsers of the opinion.
Blessings

[BrianMcCandliss]

It depends, sir, on the legal status of the situation in question; that alone is a matter of relevant fact, upon which the issue as a whole pivots.

Few, for example would argue that Ted Bundy was murdered; and certainly no one familiar with law would argue that he was railroaded: rather, due process was upheld at every step.  Meanwhile, the factual evidence weighed in favor of culpability beyond any shadow of a doubt-- in spite of his junk-law argumentation to the contary

The South, meanwhile, was definitely railroaded; if Mr. Bundy's jurors were jailed if they refused a judge's orders to ignore exculpatory evidence-- which was suppressed in favor of manufactured evidence; and if he was arrested without charge, while likewise the police acted as judge, jury and executioner, then the situation would have been the same.

Therefore the justification for talk of Reconstruction otherwise, hinges on the factual nature of the claim that the US invasion of the South, was in fact a lawful act.

Therefore, if it was a lawful act, let's hear the proof. Otherwise, we're validating atrocity by discussing it in the absence of condemnation.