On behalf of sane liberals, I hereby disavow YogSosoth.
When the opposition is a bunch of despicable slavers, then yes, there is a good and bad side. Unless they were fighting Nazis, then it’s harder to tell
They also deserved to die
Clever. Take a tangent from another topic about Russians and try to play that off as the same thing. With that kind of wit you could someday star in black and white films.
Hate is fine if it’s directed properly and proper direction of hate is towards people who felt that others with a different shade of skin are to be treated like animals, and those idiots who celebrate their achievements hundreds of years later. The only celebration we should have of the Confederates is the day when they were utterly defeated and their disgusting ideology made illegal by force.
That’s fine. I have no desire to be in the same group as you if that includes willful ignorance of the horrors of slavery and the blatant evilness of slavers and defenders of that ideology. If I could, I would enact a law that states that all instances of the word “Confederates” regarding the slaver South shall be followed by the word “shitbags”. Violation of this law shall be punished with slavery until you correctly denounce the evils that was the Confederate shitbags.
I don’t want to put the Governor of Virginia in a cage and feed him piss water, and therefore I don’t think slavery was horrible. Got it.
Yes. That’s kinda my point.
You’re right, on both counts. Male/female does have much more physiological basis than black/white (or whatever), but, you’re right.
I believe hatred has a corrosive effect on the hater, much like racism. I strive to free myself of it. While I am not always entirely successful, I think I am a better person for the effort, and I certainly feel better.
That would be completely grammatically incorrect. I would frown heartily upon such a law.
Please do not feed the trolls- they have extremely problematic digestive systems, plus feeding them enables them able to speak.
What? That state law didn’t apply in that case? Slavery had been banned in the North, and the Atlantic slave trade had been banned everywhere, but the US had no jurisdiction over slaves legally traded within the Caribbean, which the Spanish claimed was the case with the slaves on La Amistad.
Geez, I apologize for saying fucking SLAVERY was a bad thing. And I’m really sorry about my lack of defending slavers from being honored in a mindless circlejerk month that ignores their most brutal and evil horrors. And count me as wrong when I say say evil shits like that needed killing. I can’t imagine what I was thinking by NOT defending the Confederate shitbags responsible for one of the worst atrocities in American history. I don’t know what I was thinking!??! In fact, maybe I’ll go enslave a black person right now, just to make up for it! Would you like that, you Confederate shitbag apologist?
Some things are ok to hate. Like slavery, genocide, Nazi’s, and people who eat their steak well done.
I see the Wizard refused your request for a brain again.
Sampiro, you seem to love to bloviate on many subjects. Too bad your knowledge is shallow and incomplete and so accepting of innuendo and gossip (I hesitate to use the word lie, although that is my personal opinion of anyone with such an obvious agenda). You seem to see yourself as some sort of “historian” where General Cleburne is concerned. In this instance a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially for those who find themselves in the sights of the everybody-is-gay-they-just-don’t-know-it-yet crowd.
If you really wanted to inform you would back up your “facts”. Of course that would require proper documentation, footnotes, bibliography, all that pesky stuff that can be verified by others, like maybe a real historian. But that might not jive with the fantasy you have created. Facts are hard things to get around, aren’t they? But making facts up does seem to be more to your liking. (“long letters of yearning to a male friend” Really? No documentation. What a surprise) Well, two can play at this game.
Judah Benjamin. One familiar with Civil War writings doesn’t have to wonder why this name pops up in regard to assertions regarding General Cleburne. But I’m not going to indulge in innuendo. I’ve actually researched this claim in at lease half a dozen well-documented volumes and have found only the pragmatic statement by Benjamin from late 1864 agreeing with Cleburne as well as Robert E. Lee that “…the negro will certainly fight against us if not used for our defense.” Does your agenda want to claim Marse Robert too, since this allies him with Judah Benjamin? Incidentally, Benjamin was originally opposed to the idea. Allies? Really?
As far as Bishop Polk’s relations with the General, Cleburne supported Bragg’s removal from command upon the occasion of the arrest of Polk by Bragg. It’s also hard to believe Polk, who was pretty tight with Hardee, would hold such a low opinion of Cleburne. Of course the high command of the AOT was so riven with dissension that it was surprising that the Western army did as well as it did. One reason that Polk could have gotten a little miffed at the suggestion of freeing slaves was that he owned about 500! To him slavery was “a guarantee of white supremacy and civilization.” That’s quite a statement for a man of the cloth. I disrespect him already.
Or could jealousy be a reason, if indeed the animosity between the two generals did in fact exist? The fighting bishop was a friend of J. Davis and went to West Point. As to the other attributes for generalship…doubt remains. Perhaps the superior military ability of the Irish immigrant was just too much for the Fighting Bishop, who managed to push neutral Kentucky into the Union fold all by himself fairly early into the war. There are also several instances of Polk’s slowness in obeying orders, that is, when he did actually obey orders. Sherman did himself no favors by removing Polk with that well-placed cannon ball.
Dandy and fop? And something crossed out? Again, really?
If looking for a homosexualist innuendo among Civil War generals, do some research on General Loring commanding one of Bishop Polk’s divisions. Lee sent him west. T. J. Jackson didn’t care for him either. Naw, he wouldn’t fit your agenda’s purposes-not a very good general and definitely not a southern hero. Then there’s N. B. Forrest, quite a dandy and fop to read the descriptions. And there is recorded incidence of his sleeping with Dr. Charles Quintard. Guess he won’t do either though…that KKK thing is most troublesome. Yes, your agenda would almost have to settle on a genuine southern hero who wrote a proposal to free the slaves. Zing the South twice with one guy. How clever.
BTW, could anyone have Hardee as a commanding officer and not learn to keep his collar facings white. A friend from his Arkansas days who visited Cleburne at Wartrace wrote that “he donned better toggery than he used to wear.”
Now about Capt. Buck. Sorry to inform you but he doesn’t fit your bill either. You see, he and his wife are buried in Front Royal. He died in 1912 at the age of 72. She died in 1918 at the age of 68. Let’s do the math, kids. That would make her 10 years younger than he was. Imagine that! Skunked again by the facts. I guess I won’t bother with documentation either, but then again, my only agenda is truth.
nah I’d say your agenda is digging up threads that no one has touched in years.
No, there’s more to it than that. Death to paragraphs!
“celtic cross,” eh? Subtle!
truth doesn’t change…unless you have an agenda
Surely that’s impractical. What if they die before they change their minds?
Which is why they conveniently ignored the issue and women didn’t get the vote until 1920. Yes, we can be damn sure they were homophobes because it’s convenient to cast them as conservatives. Unless the conservative position looks unenlightened compared to Sweden at the time, in which case we can impute motives to them we have no evidence for.
No, that’s a false equivalence unless he also uses his political power to persecute the others.
[QUOTE=celtic cross]
If looking for a homosexualist innuendo among Civil War generals, do some research on General Loring commanding one of Bishop Polk’s divisions. Lee sent him west. T. J. Jackson didn’t care for him either. Naw, he wouldn’t fit your agenda’s purposes-not a very good general and definitely not a southern hero. Then there’s N. B. Forrest, quite a dandy and fop to read the descriptions. And there is recorded incidence of his sleeping with Dr. Charles Quintard. Guess he won’t do either though…that KKK thing is most troublesome. Yes, your agenda would almost have to settle on a genuine southern hero who wrote a proposal to free the slaves. Zing the South twice with one guy. How clever.
[/QUOTE]
I have no homosexualist agenda beyond the wild notion that there were homosexuals in history, even that not being exactly an obsession to me. In some of my bloviating I’ve actually defended Forrest’s legacy many times, and I don’t consider Cleburne or any other Confederate general “heroic” any more than I consider Nazi generals heroic (some were brave, brilliant, had personal honor or valor, etc., but the cause they served barred them from the Magnolia Groves of Val Halla). It looks like I did make an error on Ashby’s wife’s age, no idea where that came from or how it made it through the message board’s normally notoriously reliable peer review process, so I revoke with apologies to Mrs. Buck, and her age of course changes everything- no homosexual could possibly marry a woman 10 years his junior as it would cause the rains to stop forever and cast the world into darkness.
As for your ad homs I’ll only say that I am not and have never claimed to be a historian. I will say that somebody who uses his first ever post to open a 2 year old thread that is rife with highly charged irrational notions on both sides solely to take issue only with the fact century+ old rumors were mentioned is somebody who must want to suck a pot liquor soaked cock so bad his innards are a tinglin’ like he et tabasca on his mushed up cornbread.
But I suspect you’re somebody I already know from another board, aren’t you?
Whatever the case, ciao and bon appetit. Any further responses on your part will can wait at least a couple of years and probably won’t be answered even then, so now’s the chance to get your ‘ad homos’ out without fear of retaliation . Honoring the “Do Not Engage” policy I’ve adapted for trolls (not saying you are a troll, just that the policy I use for trolls is applicable to you) I won’t respond.
Homosexualist?
For God’s sake, don’t ask. That way lies madness.
What about a research grant? I’m picturing myself as the Degeneres Chair of Homosexualism at some big university.