Recruiting Forum Football Talk [RIP 9.3.2019]

Status
Not open for further replies.
#125,727
#125,727
VOLuptuousBOOMS said:
The Civil War is always a touchy subject. However, Lincoln wasn't the "savior of men" he is perceived to be in the history books.

@mrorange211 I had two college history professors who were utterly clueless. They just regurgitated what is written in the history books as fact, with a slight lean to the way they wanted history to be told. I am a Professional Engineer, does that mean that I know everything about Engineering? No it does not. I don't know jack about how to send a shuttle to outer space, but I do know how to build bridges. Some of the most ignorant people I have ever met are Professional Engineers, and in now way should they hold that title, yet they still do. I guess what I am saying is that just because you are a professional at something, doesn't mean you are good at it or know everything.

Lincoln was obviously dealt a hard card. And one cannot refute his impact toward consolidating the union. However, his tactics to achieve that consolidation are, more often than not, only shown in a positive light. I have read extensively on the Civil War, and it wasn't all good (Union) vs. evil (Confederacy) like it is so often portrayed. The Enrollment Act of 1863 (where everyone had to register for the draft unless you paid $300) and Sherman's march through Georgia are the first two acts that come to mind by Lincoln that I find any true historian finding a hard time to justify.

History taught in America is biased towards fitting a Nationalistic agenda. It always has. The civil war is portrayed with a Lincoln/Union tilt. We teach WWII and the genocide of Jews over and over and over, yet we don't discuss the any of the Genocides by the USSR, or the Cambodian Genocide after the Vietnam war, or the Belgian acts of Genocide in the Congo over rubber... The list goes on and on. We don't talk about how important the USSR was to capturing Germany. How the USSR used the same scorched earth tactic against Hitler as they did against Napoleon. If Hitler wasn't so arrogant and knew history, then we would probably all be speaking German. The reason why is because we (the US) were not the heroes in these stories. The way history is taught in America has always been centered around nationalism over fact. The Civil War is taught as good vs. evil, slavery vs. freedom, and that is an oversimplification used to promote that Nationalistic twist to history.

Little bit a rambling there, and obviously this the wrong platform for this, but I am fairly passionate about history and the way it is taught in our education systems. It's sad.
Click to expand...
4004037.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Big Orange#1, BennesseeVols and 6 others
#125,729
#125,729
T Dog said:
What about the drug war that Britain did to China. Now China doing to us with fentanyl.
Click to expand...

There's no difference. In this case, I'm all for nationalizing Purdue Pharma, liquidate everything, and use the funds to pay for opioid treatment and prevention. This is one case where I am entirely fine with the redistribution of wealth.

The Sassoons and the Sacklers are the real drug lords. Pablo Escobar and El Chapo are small potatoes in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMVol and T Dog
#125,731
#125,731
Freak said:
Not having a recruiting forum for basketball isn't a knock on the team or the sport, as I've tried to explain, it's just a matter of volume. In basketball there isn't that much to discuss and therefore those discussions are welcomed here in the basketball forum. Certainly, we can do a better job with player threads and maybe sticky a thread with commits and links to player threads, and things like that.
Click to expand...
Freak, maybe we could get a recruiting tag for the BB forum so we can filter down to those posts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChismsHeadband and MoCo_Vol
#125,732
#125,732
GoVolsDR said:
There's no difference. In this case, I'm all for nationalizing Purdue Pharma, liquidate everything, and use the funds to pay for opioid treatment and prevention. This is one case where I am entirely fine with the redistribution of wealth.

The Sassoons and the Sacklers are the real drug lords. Pablo Escobar and El Chapo are small potatoes in comparison.
Click to expand...

Do the doctors who took kickbacks and wrote out scripts like autographs get any punishment or nah?
 
#125,733
#125,733
T Dog said:
What about the drug war that Britain did to China. Now China doing to us with fentanyl.
Click to expand...
T Dog said:
Or how they taught us Indians scalped us, when in fact it was the white man scalping them for money like beaver pelts.
Click to expand...

I have taught both of those things. People who teach history do so differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner and T Dog
#125,736
#125,736
  • Like
Reactions: T Dog
#125,741
#125,741
VOLuptuousBOOMS said:
Lincoln was obviously dealt a hard card. And one cannot refute his impact toward consolidating the union. However, his tactics to achieve that consolidation are, more often than not, only shown in a positive light. I have read extensively on the Civil War, and it wasn't all good (Union) vs. evil (Confederacy) like it is so often portrayed. The Enrollment Act of 1863 (where everyone had to register for the draft unless you paid $300) and Sherman's march through Georgia are the first two acts that come to mind by Lincoln that I find any true historian finding a hard time to justify.
Click to expand...

Good comments. I'm a history guy too so I can talk about this stuff forever.

I'm sorry you had some bad history professors. Some aren't good, but using anecdotal evidence to describe the entire profession (in the way Newt's comment did) is inaccurate. Yes, as an engineer you are an expert on certain things engineering but not all engineering. Likewise, historians are experts in certain areas and not in others. However, when you reference any prominent CW historian, they mostly acknowledge Lincoln's ability to keep the union together doing certain things that were certainly controversial then and now. Overall, however, Lincoln is judged as great because with those efforts he was able to win the CW and "preserve the union as perpetual" as Jackson said in 1830.

My argument for the Enrollment Act of 1863 was that it was necessary to start conscription to finish the war effort. Remember: when it was originally proposed Lee was laying waste and Grant had not won at Vicksburg nor the Union won at Gettysburg. They needed men (leadership more because McClellan was incompetent) and the answer was conscription. Finally, when you look at the CW from the perspective of the entire war, it makes sense that he allowed Sherman to march through Georgia because that's what Grant recommended. Grant by that time was the only commander that had shown competence in a big way, and he did so with his total war tactics. IN the end, while maybe not morally justifiable, I believe the March to the Sea shorten the war much like our bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagaski did in 1945.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T Dog, UTProf, drvenner and 3 others
#125,747
#125,747
mrorange211 said:
Good comments. I'm a history guy too so I can talk about this stuff forever.

I'm sorry you had some bad history professors. Some aren't good, but using anecdotal evidence to describe the entire profession (in the way Newt's comment did) is inaccurate. Yes, as an engineer you are an expert on certain things engineering but not all engineering. Likewise, historians are experts in certain areas and not in others. However, when you reference any prominent CW historian, they mostly acknowledge Lincoln's ability to keep the union together doing certain things that were certainly controversial then and now. Overall, however, Lincoln is judged as great because with those efforts he was able to win the CW and "preserve the union as perpetual" as Jackson said in 1830.

My argument for the Enrollment Act of 1863 was that it was necessary to start conscription to finish the war effort. Remember: when it was originally proposed Lee was laying waste and Grant had not won at Vicksburg nor the Union won at Gettysburg. They needed men (leadership more because McClellan was incompetent) and the answer was conscription. Finally, when you look at the CW from the perspective of the entire war, it makes sense that he allowed Sherman to march through Georgia because that's what Grant recommended. Grant by that time was the only commander that had shown competence in a big way, and he did so with his total war tactics. IN the end, while maybe not morally justifiable, I believe the March to the Sea shorten the war much like our bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagaski did in 1945.
Click to expand...
I can see your point on the both CW topics. The Enrollment Act was obviously done out of necessity no argument there. However nothing like that had ever been enacted before, and the issue I have is the loophole for the rich. So essentialy, Lincoln took the poor/oppressed and sent them to die in a war they often had no tie to. I disagree with your opinion of Sherman’s March. The tide of the war had already turned, both the Seige of Vicksburg (Anaconda Plan in general) and Gettysburg had already happened, over a year prior. Grant was already on his Petersburg-Richmond campaign to seige Richmond. It was more of an unnecessary victory lap. While I do understand your analogy, the comparison to the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima also differ in the way that those attacks were not performed on your own fellow countrymen. Also, the Japanese had an anti surrender culture, so more drastic measures were required.

If I have any mistakes, I apologize. I’m typing this on my phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T Dog, BennesseeVols, drvenner and 5 others
#125,748
#125,748
VOLuptuousBOOMS said:
While I do understand your analogy, the comparison to the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima also differ in the way that those attacks were not performed on your own fellow countrymen. Also, the Japanese had an anti surrender culture, so more drastic measures were required.
Click to expand...

all good points. The only thing I will say regarding the above is that Sherman certainly didn't see them as his countrymen, although I think Lincoln did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner
#125,749
#125,749
mrorange211 said:
all good points. The only thing I will say regarding the above is that Sherman certainly didn't see them as his countrymen, although I think Lincoln did.
Click to expand...
If Sherman thought that, then he was fighting for the wrong side. After all, the Union Army was fighting against Southern Secession. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top