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

Re: An Evil and Traitorous Side?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.