Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Someone there called it the War of Northern Aggression, even though the South seceded and fired the first shots on Ft. Sumpter.
While the South had excellent military leadership and exceedingly brave soldiers, they were fighting for a lost cause and those who want to revel in this lost cause today say they are only doing it to honor their dead. The truth is more complex, and many of these folks blame the Federal government for them living in a double wide and driving a 1983 Chevy Chevette.
That's why Republicans formed the Tea Party, to harness these low information conservatives.
|
While I do think it was a bad idea for South Carolina to fire on Ft. Sumter. The story of Ft. Sumter is more complex than you make it out to be. The real truth is, there were dozens of US military bases all over the south when the south seceded. Every single US military base was abandoned by the US government without a single shot fired, except for Ft. Sumter.
South Carolina ordered the US government to abandon Ft. Sumter. Which was positioned right in middle of the mouth of Charleston Harbor. But the US government refused to abandon Ft. Sumter, unlike the dozens of other US forts that were abandoned elsewhere. The South Carolina military decided that the best way to get the US regiment stationed at Ft. Sumter to surrender, would be to cut off any ships attempting to resupply it. But Lincoln decided he was going to resupply the fort regardless.
This caused South Carolina to demand the surrender of Ft. Sumter, or else it would be fired upon. Well, Ft. Sumter refused to surrender itself. And it was fired upon. Not a single person died from the barrage, and it was eventually surrendered. And that was how the Civil War began.
The question is, did South Carolina have the right to fire on US government property? Should the US government have been able to keep a fort positioned directly in the middle of one of the busiest ports in all of the confederacy?
I mean, that would be like the Mexicans having a fort in the middle of Galveston bay in Texas. Or if the French had a fort on the mouth of the Mississippi river. Or if the British held a fort in Boston Harbor. The truth is, the US government kept Ft. Sumter not because it was really trying to protect its property. It kept Ft. Sumter because it wanted to be a thorn in the side of the "rebels". Especially the most anti-federal state of them all, South Carolina.
Had the US government just abandoned Ft. Sumter, like it abandoned its other bases. Which southern state wanted to go to war with the United States government?
If you flip that around. Had South Carolina not fired on Ft. Sumter, what was Lincoln going to do? Just let the south secede? Was the Civil War really caused by the firing on Ft. Sumter? Or was the Civil War inevitable. And Ft. Sumter was used as a justification for the war.
The truth is, Lincoln was going to start a war one way or another. Don't be deluded into believing otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsilver
Patriots win. Traitors lose. When you win you will get to write history.
|
I don't rep many people, but this deserved a rep. I get so tired of people and their name-calling. And I don't think people realize that the word Patriot, and Traitor, to some sense are interchangeable words.
In the Revolutionary war, we called ourselves patriots. The British called us traitors. Had we lost that war, George Washington would have been just as much considered a traitor today. As we see Benedict Arnold.
The southern states saw themselves as Patriots. In fact, they considered calling the new southern country "Washington". Because they believed they were carrying on the patriotic tradition of George Washington himself.
The problem I have with the word patriot. Is that while it can be used to denote a person who will stand up and fight for the principles of his nation. In most cases, so-called "patriots", are the ones who just believe everything their government tells them, and will do as they are told by their government without question or protest.
I would guarantee you would believe me to be extremely unpatriotic. I would consider myself to be the greatest patriot in this country. And if I was to create a country, I would call it "Jefferson". Because I would be continuing the principles of the best founding father and president of them all, Thomas Jefferson. Though, I like John Adams as well.
Did you know that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the exact same day. And that day was July 4th 1826. Exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Simply amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3
If a degree doesnt mean you're educated than it seems pretty pointless
|
A degree is a way of proving you have knowledge in a particular field. You may be "educated" in that field, but it does not mean you have much knowledge beyond that field. Thus it does not mean you are "intelligent". It does not mean you have any "experience". Nor does it necessarily even mean you can even apply your knowledge towards any particular task.
The definition of "educated" can vary significantly from person to person. If you go back a thousand years. If you could read and write, you were considered educated. I highly doubt most people would consider someone with only basic language and math skills to be "educated".
I personally only consider someone to be educated, if they both have the necessary minimum amount of basic skills(reading, writing, math). But also they should have a "general knowledge" of the world. Including things like history, philosophy, psychology, and science.
Think of it like this. If you had a child, you would want that child to be educated. But what that really means is that, you want them to be able to understand the world. While also having a set of "skills" to be capable in the world. You wouldn't let your children loose on the world only with skills. Because simply having a "skill" doesn't mean that you actually understand the world and can interact with others.
Basically, would you consider a child prodigy who graduates high school at 12 and has a masters degree by 17; To be better educated than a 40-year old high school dropout, who has had jobs in a variety of fields. Who has been married twice. And spends most of his free time reading history and philosophy. I wouldn't.
Which is why I get irritated when certain people claim to be educated, on the basis that they have a college degree. Whether you have a college degree, doesn't suddenly give me much faith in your ability to actually make decisions. You are going to need a lot more than a piece of paper to convince me. Though a college degree is at least more likely to grab my attention.
The truth is, a college degree doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. You don't even instantly get a job just because you have a degree. All it does it allow employers to find people who seem to have the most promise. They might invite you for an interview, so they can actually gauge whether or not you are actually educated and knowledgeable. Which is why you have plenty of people with college degrees who are either unemployed, or employed in an entirely separate field than what their degree is in.
Many employers require college degrees, regardless of whether or not the job actually requires a college degree. Why is that? Does having a college degree means you are more capable? No. It is to protect the company from managers hiring or promoting friends and family to high positions that can't do the job. Or to stave off "discrimination" lawsuits which could come from those improper hiring and promotion practices.
With that said. I don't mean to disparage people with college degrees. But I do get irritated with people who seem to believe that college degrees are somehow a testament to someones character, or their ability to make decisions. You having a masters degree doesn't suddenly mean you have more of a right to make decisions for me or anyone else. In regards to arguments to political arguments. College degrees are practically meaningless.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
