AssemblyBoard

I did a stupid thing once again. And the same thing happened once again. With the same familiar pattern.
I'm a slow learner I guess.

I was at the "other" BB and someone was making a case for why they wished the South had won the Civil War. Like an idiot, I E-mailed this individual and asked "Are you crazy?" I didn't want to post concerning it because I thought it was more of a private matter. Saying "are you crazy?" wasn't the choicest of words to use, but they seemed to fit at the time. I then made some statements anti to this person's position. Lo and Behold my E-mail was posted and critiqued point by point(my name was not mentioned though).

This critique of course prompted another response from me(part of the "pattern" I mentioned) where I tried to critique the critique in another E-mail. This again was posted and critiqued line by line at which point I was exhausted by this person's sarcasm and condescending attitude. But, glutton for punishment that I am I sent one more E-mail after perusing the Internet and seeing several articles on the Civil War that stated that slavery indeed was the central issue of the war(This individual had said that slavery and the North's desire for it's abolition actually only played a small part in the South's secession.).

Then the inevitable happened(I say inevitable because it has happened at least 4 times before). In a post dealing with an entirely different issue this individual felt drawn to bring me into the conversation as a person he "felt sorry for" who comes to the BB as a "crutch". The pattern had followed it's course as before, from argument to "put down" on a bulletin board. A couple of times this was done by name, this time by inference, they knowing that I would know they were talking about me. And again, I felt I had been "baited" and then caught, and then thrown down. I had been told several times, by several people, that it was a waste of time to even try to argue with this person. I have to say that after 4 serious attempts at it I have to agree.

I had sent one last E-mail to this individual trying to defend myself coming to this bulletin board. Saying they "felt sorry for me" and this place was in a sense a "crutch" for me pissed me off, and I'll be honest. But when I re-read what I sent him a light went on. When I first came to the BB I would have said "I come here for healing"(this individual mocked me incessantly for saying that at the time by the way). But I told this individual "I go to the BB to have some fun. I consider everyone there my friends. Most of the time I go for maybe ten minutes twice a day and post some humor or reply seriously if I feel I can add anything to the conversation(paraphrase). The Bulletin Board is not my life."

I realized after sending this E-mail that I really have healed tremendously in the last year--far more than I had in many years previously. My first posts on the board were all about how hurt I had been, how devastated I had been, etc.--but I realized that now I come to have some fun and fellowship. Occasionally I might share a testimony to the past, but my main topic is no longer my pain and my suffering. This Bulletin Board and all of the people here has truly helped me in a tremendous way. And I want to thank everyone who shares here for all of your thoughts, and opinions, and feelings and testimony. Anyone who wants to make posts to put me down, or state what a loser I am is not someone I should seek fellowship with anyway. Someone like that is "full of it" for sure.

So why do I post? Because I realize through this how much I have been "built up" here by honest, sincere people. The only people who have ever tried to "tear me down" are not on this BB. I have truly learned my lesson today. I will never go to the other BB again---and they will be able to tell, because they can see my IP address. And it's simply because I want to be around brothers and sisters who are sincere, are free enough to see through deception, and who are able to joke around a little too. Who can read a hilarious story such as Scott's, about "giving the finger" when he was a little kid, and not get all uptight and "holier than thou" about it, and ask him if he's "walking with the Lord". I've been like a moth flying around a candle by even visiting over there. I circled the candle about 4 times seriously, and I got singed----don't want to get burnt. Thanks again to those who post regularly, and to those more infrequently. And Mark, thanks so much for the "Wounded Pilgrims" thread--it's benefited so many. It's been a little over a year since this BB started. Several people have come and gone. But there are many who read and never contribute to the board. I know this because I have been E-mailed by them when a particular post moved them, or another was particularly funny to them in some way.

Despite what statistics might say, and they truly are golden :D, many, many people have been helped by the conversation that takes place here. Maybe one day the Lord will show us all what he accomplished through the Geftakys Website and this offshoot bulletin board. I think it's probably vastly more than we think it is. As I said before, I'm a slow learner, and sometimes I needlessly learn things the "hard way".
So, I will stay away from the other BB, but I will pray for the individuals there. They've got some unraveling to do, and some eyes that need to be opened, but they are the Lord's precious sheep just the same. Sheep shouldn't be on pedestals though, it's dangerous up  there. So I'll pray that they'll rejoin the flock out in the pasture where they can truly be fed.

--Joe

I actually read through that little dialogue there, and would agree with Matt to some extent.  The statement, which apparently placed you into a huff


I would say that Matt could have been a bit clearer in his initial statement, but regardless, you make his case for him.  Upon simple mention of "the South winning the war", the automatic response was the commonly taught misconception involving slavery and rebellion accepted as fully and completely defining "the South".  This is the tragedy that pervades to this very day; a very common misnomer taught in public school systems that hinders the American perspective of our own history, keeping us content with an answer while in reality, an all-inclusive one is rarely found.  Perhaps I completely misunderstood what Matt was trying to say, but I interpret his posts to revolve around the idea that the South is unfairly treated in today's mainstream media, the end result being its current state.

While Matt seems well-capable to defend his position, I will also add my personal conclusion after reading several of his posts that he has a tendency to be rather sarcastic (and drawn out?) in his responses, which does not mix well with his intellect as it has a tendency to confuse rather than express.  

(sorry if I jumped over the main intent of your post, but I felt the above should be said at least once (http://www.buildingup.net/post/images/smiles/new_rainfro.gif))

--
lucas

What other BB, pray tell?  :)

A good book to read about the politics of the Civil War is
Forced into Glory. Lucas is right about one thing- the commonly presented perspective is hardly supported by the facts of history.
Verne

Holy cow, a topic on this board I actually have some knowledge about! Woo hoo! It only took 367 days and 50,000 or so posts.

Unfortunately, this is always one of the busiest weekends of my year - birthday parties, basketball league showdown, sleepovers, etc.

I will say this though: there is some small amount of credibility to Matt's contentions. And it has nothing to do with racism.

He also presents some seriously flawed conclusions, irrelevant arguments and misleading stats. Hopefully I'll get a chance to answer some of those things within the next couple days.

Since the Confederate States did NOT win that war, I'll confine myself in this post to saying that the most tragic thing about it (disclaimer re: loss of life, etc.) was the centralization of power in the federal government which we have never recovered from.

Not an original thought, I know but the best one grounded in actual history.

Things get a little tastier when you start throwing assumptions around such as, "What if the South had won?"

And I can't get started on that or I'll be up all night. Suffice it to say, I don't believe Matt's ideal would have fallen as neatly into place as he would have us believe.

Interesting stuff, though.

Have a nice weekend, gang, I'll be busy trying to outwit a gang of 10-year olds in an all-night Lord of the Rings Risk marathon. I may be in trouble. ;D

Scott

Yep.  I'm not expert on the Civil War, but it was a serious blow the idea of State's rights.  

I honestly don't think the seagull is a racist, just less than wonderful to debate with.

Slavery is horrible.  Those who would say the Bible condones slavery are usually cut from the same cloth as a Geftakys.  The type of slavery we had in this country is the biblical equivalent of man-stealing.  

I don't know enough about the war to comment further, but it does seem as if it would have been better to not have fought over it, except in a diplomatic sense.  I look forward to getting an education on this.

Brent

It is also quite possible that this particular subject was choosen with a view to getting a rise out of some people. I am sure there was surprise that Lucas and Scott did not entirely disagree with his thesis. It is a subject of incredible food for thought, and I am particularly interested in the aspect of events that speak to the sovereign ways of God in the affairs of men, and the nature of the Christian stance and witness of the church of Jesus Christ during that awful period. It should lead to some great discussion! I will probably just do a lot of listening on this one. I am interested in hearing other perspectives. A very good Civil War historian is Shelby Foote.
Verne

Dialogue and debate are one thing..........which is done I think here.

Conducting oneself in the manner of the Seagulls BB is downright unfair.  One particular Seagull participant would have risen in the assembly ranks to become a LB, I think, rather quickly.  He adeptly uses the assembly type tactics of subterfuge (something designed to deceive: a plan, action, or device designed to hide a real objective, or the process of hiding a real objective.)  

While we participate with honesty in our interactions with these individuals, they conduct themselves in the above mentioned manner, which makes one crazy.  That is why I will no longer have any correspondence with these individuals.  I no longer want to feel crazy.

Come to think of it.........that is why in the last few weeks I have made the decision to not try and pursue repairing former relationships (the disfunctional ones) in the assembly.  I no longer want to be made to feel crazy.  I have gotten out from under the fog and interacting in this manner......and I won't go back there!

I also noticed that Civil War post on the "other" site.  I never thought I'd see a history thread on here.

My take on the war is that their were myraid reasons for the start of the war.  Very rarely does a single issue start a massive conflict (with the exception perhaps of Helen being kidnapped to Troy!).

Slavery was but one issue and Lincoln, the master politician, played it well.  He knew that by giving the Emancipation Proclamation, it would initiate a groundswell of support among a subsection of the Northern population.  Politics were politics back then just as they are today.  And Lincoln was the master of them.  This is what help make him a great President in addition to all of his other traits.

BTW, I work for an publisher that puts out many Civil War titles.  I have contacts with over 20 Civil War professors–both pro-southern history, pro-northern, and revisionist.  So if we need any expert analysis on the War, let me know and I'll get it for us!

Joe,

The mystery has been solved. I was curious as to whose email was been picked apart. It is unfortunate that a discussion on the 'civil war' war turned into an opportunity to jab-at-Joe for his participation on this BB. Joe, I am glad that you are a regular participant on this BB. I wish you'd post more often. I love your sense of humour, and, for the most part, I agree with your prespective. We now need to convince Brent to vote for GW. ;D

Lord bless,
Marcia

Scott, Lucas---

I'd be interested in hearing your viewpoints. Don't be surprised though if I ask "What, are you crazy?" But that's what's great about the BB--varying viewpoints allowed. I am a direct descendant on my mother's side to General P.G.T. Beauregard of the Confederate Army. They still revere him in the South and are erecting a statue to his memory. Despite this relation, I am still glad the South lost the war. In my opinion it would have been disastrous to the very existence of the U.S.A. had the South won. But, this is just my opinion of course. But, I do like the song "Sweet Home Alabama" more than I like Neil Young's "Southern Man" :D

take care, Joe

     There is no doubt about it, Joe, you are everyone's favorite pinata! ;D ;D ;D

     Now I have two honest questions:

(1.)  Having been gone from the assembly atmosphere for so long, I have either forgotten or left before it was born:  What is this "Selfer's Prayer" everybody is always bringing up?

(2.)  Why do so many people keep visiting the Roaring Seagulls BB, but hardly anyone posts on the friendly Rest For the Weary BB anymore?

RSVP, al

*ahem*

"Father I admit, that I am a Selfer
and have been struggling in my own resources
 to live the christian life.
 ........
ect
"


Not much interesting discussion happening there?  Honestly, I vistit RFTW more than AB or SWTE

--
lucas

I do believe you're onto something!
It is my thesis that at least one of the people over there never quite accepted the fact, that, sycophantic fawning on the Geftakys' notwithstanding, entrance was never granted into the coveted (by some) inner ring...how remarkably pitiful!!  :(
Verne

Al----

I think when you and I were there the prayer was called "The Cycle of Devotion". I think the "Selfer's Prayer" is basically a revamp of that. Correct me if I'm wrong though all of ye who are in the know.

--Joe

Joe,

General Beauregard is the fellow that started the shooting.  He was the commander of the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

He also took over at Shiloh after Johnston bled to death because he didn't get the wound in his foot treated.

Tom

                  A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE CIVIL WAR

1. Slavery was definitely the root cause of the Civil War.  It came up at the Constitutional Convention but the North had to give in on the issue or the South would have bolted.

2. Even before that the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had prohibited slavery in the new states.  

3. When the Northern states agreed to the 3/5 compromise to assure Southern ratification of the Constitution they pretty much set the stage for problems down the road.  After that the South had a disproportionate influence on national policy for decades.

 No new free states could come into the union without a corresponding slave state coming in at the same time.  In this way they kept the Senate evenly divided between slave and free states, and they could therefore block any anti-slavery laws from passing.

4. In the 1840's it seemed that some amicable solution could be found, such as England had done by freeing the slaves and compensating the former owners.

5. But during the 1850's the issue was taken up as a religious doctrine.  Southern preachers gave sermons and wrote books and articles claiming that slavery was the black man's natural state and the white man's burden.

This really heightened emotions on both sides, and people began to vilify their opponents as agents of Satan.  In the 1850's, this was taken very seriously.  People really believed the other side was Satanically inspired.

Remember this?
"He is stamping out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored".

It could be argued that the Civil War was a religious war at its root...but I suspect that economic policy was a greater factor.

Remember that the main cause of the Mexican war was Southern desire for more slave states to be carved out of Mexican lands.

6. In 1860 the Democrats split into pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, allowing the election of Abraham Lincoln with 42% of the vote....1% less than Clinton.

7. Lincoln was the first anti-slavery president, so with the North's growing population making control of the House solidly anti-slavery, the South turned to State's Rights theory to justify secession.

8. The North went to war to prevent secession by the South.  The war was not fought to free the slaves...but slavery was the issue that caused it.

9. After 556,000 Americans had died...the Union was preserved.

10.  The South was already the poorest part of the Union, even before the war.  They were way behind in every measure of wealth, except for cotton and tobacco production.

11. If anyone disagrees with me I will give them a bad grade.  If they persist in disagreement, I will call their mother.  They will be SOOO BUSTED!


God bless,

Thomas Maddux

You contradict yourself with this statement, IMO.  Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors. It is rather hindersome to name a "root cause" after something which can be broken down even further.


Hardly revolutionary as it contained a rather harsh fugitive slave clause.

Are you referring to the Mexican-American war led by President James Polk?  Its causation can most definitely be attributed to his extreme expansionist views, with little to do with slavery.  Now, the North and the South fought over the issue of slavery in regard to this new land, but the appropiation of it was rather politically neutral.

Quoted from The Price of Liberty:

As early as the Revolutionary period, Thomas Jefferson proposed relocating African Americans beyond the boundaries of the new nation. Similarly, as late as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln still envisioned a great black exodus that would purge the country of African Americans once and for all. Colonization, as this idea became known, rested upon the contention that blacks and whites (due to innate racial differences, polarized societal statuses, and pervasive racism) could not live together in social harmony and political equality within the same country. To many of its advocates, colonization was an ideological middle ground between the immediate, nationwide abolition of slavery, which seemed an ever remote possibility, and perpetual black bondage, a proposition that even some southern slaveholders found discomforting.

True, free the slaves.....but he didn't want to live near any of them

This is because industry was based in the North, and a very new North at that.  Not exactly comparative to today's situation.

just a few quick......"addressions"? (http://www.buildingup.net/post/images/smiles/newsmilie1027.gif)
--
lucas

     Just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Maddux:
Will all of this be on the test?
And how long will Lucas' detention be?

 ;Dal

I dunno...........I'm just not that much into history.......whine.........I know I should be......looking at your past to not make the same mistakes, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

I just want to live in the present, thank you very much (said very quickly) ;D

RFTW was designed to be a place where only things worth posting were posted.  Hence, the fewer numbers of posts.  It is the "serious," BB.

It is my favorite, but I don't drag all this sort of stuff over there.  I'm rarely even sarcastic over there...well maybe a bit.  

If you have a sincere question, that's the place to ask it.

Brent

Handbook to Happiness by Charles Solomon introduced us to the 'selfer's prayer'. I am not recommending this book. GG and BG used it extensively to teach us methods of 'overcoming'. RFTW has a thread that discusses this topic  General Category / Assembly / "S" in the center

Marcia

1. "rather hindersome" ?
2. It was the slavery based economy that led to the list of causes you have given.  Agricultural and trade issues were important also, but it was the cotton/tobacco based economy that made them important.


Hardly revolutionary as it contained a rather harsh fugitive slave clause.
.
Enlighten me.  What did the clause say?

Are you referring to the Mexican-American war led by President James Polk?  Its causation can most definitely be attributed to his extreme expansionist views, with little to do with slavery.  Now, the North and the South fought over the issue of slavery in regard to this new land, but the appropiation of it was rather politically neutral.
.
Lucas, thousands of Southerners moved to Texas in order to receive Mexican land grants.  The reason they wanted land was to grow cotton, for which purpose they brought their slaves. By 1830 the slave population of Texas was 10%. When Mexico abolished slavery, they refused to obey the law, which led to Mexican attempts to enforce it.  Resultant fighting led to open rebellion and their declaration of independence.  

In the 1840's Andrew Jackson worked to get congress to annex Texas, and in 1844 President Tyler submitted a statehood treaty to the Senate...but it was voted down by anti-slavery northern states.

you are correct that expansionist pressure led to the annexation of Texas in 1845, but the leaders of the expansionists were Southerners, and wanted to expand slavery as well.

Quoted from The Price of Liberty:

As early as the Revolutionary period, Thomas Jefferson proposed relocating African Americans beyond the boundaries of the new nation. Similarly, as late as the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln still envisioned a great black exodus that would purge the country of African Americans once and for all. Colonization, as this idea became known, rested upon the contention that blacks and whites (due to innate racial differences, polarized societal statuses, and pervasive racism) could not live together in social harmony and political equality within the same country. To many of its advocates, colonization was an ideological middle ground between the immediate, nationwide abolition of slavery, which seemed an ever remote possibility, and perpetual black bondage, a proposition that even some southern slaveholders found discomforting.

True, free the slaves.....but he didn't want to live near any of them

One can hardly call Jefferson, a slaveowner, anti-slavery.  True, when discussing political philosophy he opposed it in theory, and even advocated abolishing it at times.  But in his practical life he was a member of the Virginia gentry who's wealth and power were supported by the sweat of slaves.  He also is known to have fathered children with one of his slaves.  He was no abolitionist.

Lincoln was outspokenly anti-slavery.  That does not mean he was an egalitarian.  He pretty much reflected the racial attitudes of his times.  

This is because industry was based in the North, and a very new North at that.  Not exactly comparative to today's situation.

The reason industry was based in the North was that Southerners had discovered a way to make money without working for it.  Slavery.

Thomas Maddux

Lucas,

     Debatin' a native-born Texan with a degree in History and a life-long love of the subject...

     [/font]

     Y'all keep right on debatin'-- yer gettin' us all an eddicashun...

 ;D ;D ;Dal

Take my comment to mean that I feel discussing the Civil War with an emphasis on slavery is ultimately a simplistic and flawed approach.  Such emphases hinder, as they force connections not necessarily relevant.


So, you are going to tell me (for example), that when South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832 and threatened to withdraw from the Union, it was because of slavery?


---
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

Article 6,
Northwest Ordinance of 1787
---


This is quite true, easily evidenced by Southern democrats completely boxing out Martin Van Buren and Whig Henry Clay from the presidential race after they announced they were against immediate annexation of Texas......thus allowing Polk to come to the forefront

I would still point out that it was only after General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna established his dictatorship in Mexico did the Texans revolt.....ie, slavery did not cause the war but it was likely the cause for Texans to be there in the first place (two different issues in my eyes).


Heh, my comment actually had very little merit in terms of its response content - i just disapprove of how much Lincoln is praised in this country and enjoy voicing this whenever possible ;)  

Come on now, what kind of response is that?   ???

It seems to me that you are using utilizing history to prove a position, but not utilizing it to create the position.....

Anyway, I really hope you don't mind my challenges to your points.  My intention is not at all to be impertinent; I just love to debate  ::)
--
lucas