Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

An Evil and Traitorous Side?

Expand Messages
  • carlw4514
    In 25738 and 25703, Mr. Seeley expresses his opinion that one side in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the ACW [sir, these remarks
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In 25738 and 25703, Mr. Seeley expresses his opinion that one side in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the
      ACW [sir, these remarks did not go unnoticed]. Mr. Seeley, I do not wish to spar with you in this matter, but would just ask that you
      not spice up your posts in this manner. If you feel your remarks are acceptable, we can take it up over private email, copies to
      Shotgun.
      Thanks in advance,
      Carl
    • tasimmo
      ... in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the ... wish to spar with you in this matter, but would just ask that you ... are
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
        wrote:
        > In 25738 and 25703, Mr. Seeley expresses his opinion that one side
        in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the
        > ACW [sir, these remarks did not go unnoticed]. Mr. Seeley, I do not
        wish to spar with you in this matter, but would just ask that you
        > not spice up your posts in this manner. If you feel your remarks
        are acceptable, we can take it up over private email, copies to
        > Shotgun.
        > Thanks in advance,
        > Carl

        Gentlemen,

        Is sectionalism finally dead, or is it not? Any serious student of
        this conflict can see that both sides were virtuous (and at times,
        perhaps not-so-virtuous). It is important to see the conflict as
        multi-dimensional and NOT as one-sided; to do otherwise would be like
        placing a sheet of paper over one eye; you'd only see half of what
        happened. Not a very good way to gain any "enlightenment" from
        studying this period of history; thus, would we not be more likely to
        repeat the tragedy?

        Tom S.
      • hank9174
        I, for one, am missing your point... HankC ... side ... not ... like ... to
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I, for one, am missing your point...


          HankC

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tasimmo" <cedarrun@e...> wrote:
          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > In 25738 and 25703, Mr. Seeley expresses his opinion that one
          side
          > in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the
          > > ACW [sir, these remarks did not go unnoticed]. Mr. Seeley, I do
          not
          > wish to spar with you in this matter, but would just ask that you
          > > not spice up your posts in this manner. If you feel your remarks
          > are acceptable, we can take it up over private email, copies to
          > > Shotgun.
          > > Thanks in advance,
          > > Carl
          >
          > Gentlemen,
          >
          > Is sectionalism finally dead, or is it not? Any serious student of
          > this conflict can see that both sides were virtuous (and at times,
          > perhaps not-so-virtuous). It is important to see the conflict as
          > multi-dimensional and NOT as one-sided; to do otherwise would be
          like
          > placing a sheet of paper over one eye; you'd only see half of what
          > happened. Not a very good way to gain any "enlightenment" from
          > studying this period of history; thus, would we not be more likely
          to
          > repeat the tragedy?
          >
          > Tom S.
        • Bill Merritt
          He s asking, why can t we all get along? hank9174 wrote: I, for one, am missing your point... HankC ... side ... not ... like ... to
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            He's asking, "why can't we all get along?"

            hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:

            I, for one, am missing your point...


            HankC

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tasimmo" <cedarrun@e...> wrote:
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > In 25738 and 25703, Mr. Seeley expresses his opinion that one
            side
            > in the conflict seems to possess all the virtue in our study of the
            > > ACW [sir, these remarks did not go unnoticed]. Mr. Seeley, I do
            not
            > wish to spar with you in this matter, but would just ask that you
            > > not spice up your posts in this manner. If you feel your remarks
            > are acceptable, we can take it up over private email, copies to
            > > Shotgun.
            > > Thanks in advance,
            > > Carl
            >
            > Gentlemen,
            >
            > Is sectionalism finally dead, or is it not? Any serious student of
            > this conflict can see that both sides were virtuous (and at times,
            > perhaps not-so-virtuous). It is important to see the conflict as
            > multi-dimensional and NOT as one-sided; to do otherwise would be
            like
            > placing a sheet of paper over one eye; you'd only see half of what
            > happened. Not a very good way to gain any "enlightenment" from
            > studying this period of history; thus, would we not be more likely
            to
            > repeat the tragedy?
            >
            > Tom S.


          • carlw4514
            It is certainly not, it would seem, Tom. Hank, this is not the first time you have been puzzled over something I was wound up about. I admire your equanimity.
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              It is certainly not, it would seem, Tom.
              Hank, this is not the first time you have been puzzled over something I was wound up about. I
              admire your equanimity.
              I have a tiny bit of Forrest's temperament myself: there is a story about F. getting an improper
              tailoring job after the war, and he went back to this tailor and accosted him over the
              matter, really reaming him out in an over-the-top tantrum, actually threatening to shoot him!
              The astonished tailor assured F he would make matters right, but it took a whole day for F to
              cool off and apologize. I've never been as bad as that, but people have told me I don't know
              what I sound like when my blood is up. In any case, I apologize to anyone who would have
              preferred to let this matter pass, but in my opinion we would be soon subjected to much worse.
              And then there's that temperament.
              Carl

              > Gentlemen,
              >
              > Is sectionalism finally dead, or is it not?
            • tasimmo
              ... something I was wound up about. I ... about F. getting an improper ... accosted him over the ... threatening to shoot him! ... took a whole day for F to
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
                wrote:
                > It is certainly not, it would seem, Tom.
                > Hank, this is not the first time you have been puzzled over
                something I was wound up about. I
                > admire your equanimity.
                > I have a tiny bit of Forrest's temperament myself: there is a story
                about F. getting an improper
                > tailoring job after the war, and he went back to this tailor and
                accosted him over the
                > matter, really reaming him out in an over-the-top tantrum, actually
                threatening to shoot him!
                > The astonished tailor assured F he would make matters right, but it
                took a whole day for F to
                > cool off and apologize. I've never been as bad as that, but people
                have told me I don't know
                > what I sound like when my blood is up. In any case, I apologize to
                anyone who would have
                > preferred to let this matter pass, but in my opinion we would be
                soon subjected to much worse.
                > And then there's that temperament.
                > Carl
                >
                > > Gentlemen,
                > >
                > > Is sectionalism finally dead, or is it not?


                Carl,

                It was simply a rhetorical question on my part - of course
                the "spirit of sectionalism" - and worse -is still alive. But I
                wasn't simply asking if we could "all get along", either. This forum
                is about having differences of opinion, or it wouldn't be enjoyable.
                But calling one side or the other "evil" isn't going to be productive
                to a meaningful discussion. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and
                that's where I'd draw it. As I said, neither side in the conflict had
                a monopoly on virtue. All one needs to do is to compare the worst
                prisoner of war camps on both sides to see this is true.

                Tom Simmons
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.