Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
 [ 103 posts ] 
Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman
Author Message
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Prolescum wrote:One wonders how deep this research went. For example, did you know the website's sitemap button's class name is "leftbutt butt"?


:0
SOURCECODERY
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:37 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

havanacat's spamming spree wrote: So Nobody ... Has actually read Mr.Heisman's book...

Waiting.....


I fucking read it. I posted that I read it. I gave a valid critique of the nonsense it contained.

It was a piece of shit from front-to-end with completely unoriginal ideas of God, and poised an almost narsicistic plotline of what would occur after his death regarding the material in an act that boasts remenisceants of Socorates and fantasies about how badass he would be after the event ... None of which occured.
If I had the patience of Historian, I would take apart the entire thing page-by-page for you and dismantle it appropriately it's insignificance to the rest of the world, and even discuss how the book Snow Crash presupposed that God was an AI way before he rolled around.

Your play.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:19 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Well today because i had a bit of spare time on my hands, i decided to read the part titled

"Converse cognates: Why the Norman Conquest was the World-Historical Ass-Kicking that Deflected the English-speaking World from the German Path to Nazism."

whilst asking myself first What does the battle of Hastings have to do with Nazi germany at the same time? Does he make a convincing link? Not really.

I must confess i haven't read it before, and as i type these words i still have only read that part. It's "Interesting" in it's own way, but i think to get the most out of it, one has to denude one's mind from the fact that it is a suicide note, and that the guy killed himself. Different places produce different conservativisms and different societies? *Yawn* Nothing new there. It only really comes out of historical circumstance and the Nazis rose to power out of the circumstances of German politics post ww1. Had Germany say won that war, European History would have been very different. The British Empire, denied acsess to the continents ports would have swiftly died. It's impossible to predict what would have happened to Russia, but it's easier to say Hitler would most likely have been little more than a mediocre painter, perhaps a Beerhall bore, but the way the victorious Kaiser would have been set up, it would have been highly unlikely for his type to get into power. Even though what i just said is nothing more than speculative alternative history. I dont see it that Nazism would have been inevitable in such circumstances of that or say the 8th century or 1066, again Circumstance had to come into play exactly the way it did in the early 20th century for Nazism to arise.

As to german Conservativism itself....

"The crucial sociological determinents of German conservative ideology are to be found in the absence until 1870 of a centralized state; in the lutheran heritage of the reformation, which fostered a submissive attitude towards authority; in the absense of a politicaly conscious middle class, and in the militaristic mentality of the Junker class, produced by it's need to hold down the conquered Slav peoples of eastern europe whose land it posessed. There is in addition, the fact that Napoleon's liberal reforms set the pattern for the whole subsequent history of political and social reform in germany to date. That tradition is a tradition of reform from above. The only system of govt ever created by the germans for themselves, A J P Taylor acidly remarks, Was Hitler's Third Reich. Although that syatem was founded in Terror, and was unworkable without the secret police and the concentration Camps, it was also the only truly national one which Germany had created, since it offered something to every class of the population, whatever reservations paticular groups might have had about the barbarianism it entailed. The old empire 'had been imposed by the armies of France and Austria; the German confederation had been imposed by Russia and Prussia, the Weimar republic by the Victories of the Allies. But the "Third Reich" rested solely on German force and German impulse; it owed nothing to alien forces. It was a tyranny imposed upon the German People by themselves." - Noel O'Sullivan, "Conservativism" p80-81.

This is what Heismann writes

"Traditional Anglo-Saxon conservatism is libertarian; it supports freedom against the government. Traditional German conservatism is authoritarian; its supports obedience towards the government..." - p1182

So perhaps some half agreement maybe if i squint my eyes if i take that quote? I've already stated elsewhere that Conservativism does not equate liberty and that it depends on what you are conserving to begin with in the first place.

I wouldn't agree with him so wholeheartedly on some other claims, let's take two from one page for example...

"America was founded as a republic, not a democracy" - p1169

But this is incorrect, the USA is both, it is a democracy and a republic and before anyone starts crying, a republic traditionaly is a state without an unelected king. In essence a republic can be seen as a type of democracy. The doge in the republic of venice was elected. The "noble republic" of Poland is an interesting case. It was more actualy more democratic than than what the British were in the 1700's for example. They did elect "King's" but they functioned more like CEO's rather than what standard kings do.





And the Ancient Roman republic?




But let's just take another claim, on the same page.

"The Civil war was "a war fought, not over slavery itself ..." - ibid p1169

But you cannot avoid it, the war was about slavery, the reason the South seceded was over slavery, the 'States Right' they were concerned with was slavery. Every issue of the war relates back to slavery, period.

"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." - Bruce Catton, (Called on the book's cover page, America's Greatest Civil war Historian) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5

"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as, economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" - Dr. Eric Walther, University of Houston.

That being said, It's still "interesting" from a philosophical point of view although some bits of his history may be a little bit off , but from what i've read it doesn't look too much like some Nihlist or Madman's work although i haven't read other sections, and from what i've read it definitely doesn't soud like a madman about to kill himself but more like the work from a deep thinker, which feels weird knowing that it is a suicide note written ultimately by someone who otherwise would be considered mad.

But i have to read other bits when i can. I dont think this review cannot be considered a complete one!

---

Still, could be worse :lol:

---

I tried to be sligtly nicer here, let's see how it works out

---

Another thing!

Maybe this is just me, or maybe i missed it. But there was not one mention of Oswold Mosley or his British Union of Fascists in that part i reviewed was there? For some reason i find that very odd. But then and again their rise and fall is only to do with historical circumstance and British politics in the 30's. 1066 meant that Fascism could never have arisen here? Really? Oh and there are still Neo-Nazi and other Far right groups in existance both in America and the USA today!
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:46 am, edited 10 times in total.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:09 pm
DeanBlog EditorUser avatarPosts: 593Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 1:49 pmLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

@theyounghistorian77
theyounghistorian77 wrote: [. . .] Still, could be worse :lol: [. . .]

Typical of the rustic vicissitude of conspiracy theorists! LOL, Indeed. This video is arguably the most absurd conspiracy-"accounts" I have heard in my life... :mrgreen:
~~L.N

“You ask ‘Is there any Florida?’ I’m inclined to answer ‘No.’ There is no Florida, there’s only this, this England, which nauseates my soul.” – DH Lawrence


انقلابی
About Us
Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:36 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Dean wrote:@theyounghistorian77
theyounghistorian77 wrote: [. . .] Still, could be worse :lol: [. . .]

Typical of the rustic vicissitude of conspiracy theorists! LOL, Indeed. This video is arguably the most absurd conspiracy-"accounts" I have heard in my life... :mrgreen:


Now that video is the definite product of a madman. :lol: I dont think Anatoly Fomenko or whoever made it has commited suicide yet though.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:42 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

theyounghistorian77 wrote: [. . .] Still, could be worse :lol: [. . .]

Image
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:52 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:
theyounghistorian77 wrote: [. . .] Still, could be worse :lol: [. . .]

Image


The stuff of my nightmares :lol:
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:09 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

That video is like someone taking a dump on a table and presenting that as their version of history.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:48 pm
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3527Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

havanacat wrote:At the end of the day, I hear only weak refutations.
That is, no one , so far, is willing to read Mr Heisman's book.

He is dismissed as "schizophrenic", "insane"....

Heh, and here we have the essential unfalsifiability of conspiracy theorists: if you read it and didn't like it, then it was because you didn't actually read it (or are part of the conspiracy). Since kenandkids, and hytegia insulted this "work", they definitely haven't read it, even if they did.

What do you want, havanacat? You want to insult us until we tell you it's a good "work"? Because that seems to be the only option you've left open that won't result in insulting responses.
Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:42 pm
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

borrofburi wrote:
havanacat wrote:At the end of the day, I hear only weak refutations.
That is, no one , so far, is willing to read Mr Heisman's book.

He is dismissed as "schizophrenic", "insane"....

Heh, and here we have the essential unfalsifiability of conspiracy theorists: if you read it and didn't like it, then it was because you didn't actually read it (or are part of the conspiracy). Since kenandkids, and hytegia insulted this "work", they definitely haven't read it, even if they did.

What do you want, havanacat? You want to insult us until we tell you it's a good "work"? Because that seems to be the only option you've left open that won't result in insulting responses.


Can we analyze havanacat's nonsense in relation to the Heisman nonsense? Heisman's "free speech" stupidity is predicated on the idea that if you dismiss him for pretty much any reason, it means he's more likely to be right. havanacat's behavior seems designed as flame-bait, because it is much easier to convince people to insult you as a way to pretend that you're smarter than everyone else, rather than presenting ideas and defending them and other things that might actually demonstrate that you really are smart. They seem to be two aspects of the same sort of mental state, don't you think?
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:56 pm
DemojenPosts: 614Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:34 am

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

ImprobableJoe wrote:Can we analyze havanacat's nonsense in relation to the Heisman nonsense? Heisman's "free speech" stupidity is predicated on the idea that if you dismiss him for pretty much any reason, it means he's more likely to be right. havanacat's behavior seems designed as flame-bait, because it is much easier to convince people to insult you as a way to pretend that you're smarter than everyone else, rather than presenting ideas and defending them and other things that might actually demonstrate that you really are smart. They seem to be two aspects of the same sort of mental state, don't you think?


That's a good idea. Lets make havanacat an experiment. At least then, this post might be worth reading and justify having a psychology forum. We do get a lot of trolls. If you're familiar with the works of H. Cleckley and R. Hare, then you'll see familiar notation on this website that discusses relevant indicators of a psychopathic personality.
Nunc ergo vos
"I think therefore you are"
Last edited by Demojen on Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:45 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:
havanacat's spamming spree wrote: So Nobody ... Has actually read Mr.Heisman's book...

Waiting.....


I fucking read it. I posted that I read it. I gave a valid critique of the nonsense it contained.

It was a piece of shit from front-to-end with completely unoriginal ideas of God, and poised an almost narsicistic plotline of what would occur after his death regarding the material in an act that boasts remenisceants of Socorates and fantasies about how badass he would be after the event ... None of which occured.
If I had the patience of Historian, I would take apart the entire thing page-by-page for you and dismantle it appropriately it's insignificance to the rest of the world, and even discuss how the book Snow Crash presupposed that God was an AI way before he rolled around.

Your play.


It was utterly not as you describe. You didn't read it.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:53 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

theyounghistorian77 wrote:Well today because i had a bit of spare time on my hands, i decided to read the part titled

"Converse cognates: Why the Norman Conquest was the World-Historical Ass-Kicking that Deflected the English-speaking World from the German Path to Nazism."

whilst asking myself first What does the battle of Hastings have to do with Nazi germany at the same time? Does he make a convincing link? Not really.

I must confess i haven't read it before, and as i type these words i still have only read that part. It's "Interesting" in it's own way, but i think to get the most out of it, one has to denude one's mind from the fact that it is a suicide note, and that the guy killed himself. Different places produce different conservativisms and different societies? *Yawn* Nothing new there. It only really comes out of historical circumstance and the Nazis rose to power out of the circumstances of German politics post ww1. Had Germany say won that war, European History would have been very different. The British Empire, denied acsess to the continents ports would have swiftly died. It's impossible to predict what would have happened to Russia, but it's easier to say Hitler would most likely have been little more than a mediocre painter, perhaps a Beerhall bore, but the way the victorious Kaiser would have been set up, it would have been highly unlikely for his type to get into power. Even though what i just said is nothing more than speculative alternative history. I dont see it that Nazism would have been inevitable in such circumstances of that or say the 8th century or 1066, again Circumstance had to come into play exactly the way it did in the early 20th century for Nazism to arise.

As to german Conservativism itself....

"The crucial sociological determinents of German conservative ideology are to be found in the absence until 1870 of a centralized state; in the lutheran heritage of the reformation, which fostered a submissive attitude towards authority; in the absense of a politicaly conscious middle class, and in the militaristic mentality of the Junker class, produced by it's need to hold down the conquered Slav peoples of eastern europe whose land it posessed. There is in addition, the fact that Napoleon's liberal reforms set the pattern for the whole subsequent history of political and social reform in germany to date. That tradition is a tradition of reform from above. The only system of govt ever created by the germans for themselves, A J P Taylor acidly remarks, Was Hitler's Third Reich. Although that syatem was founded in Terror, and was unworkable without the secret police and the concentration Camps, it was also the only truly national one which Germany had created, since it offered something to every class of the population, whatever reservations paticular groups might have had about the barbarianism it entailed. The old empire 'had been imposed by the armies of France and Austria; the German confederation had been imposed by Russia and Prussia, the Weimar republic by the Victories of the Allies. But the "Third Reich" rested solely on German force and German impulse; it owed nothing to alien forces. It was a tyranny imposed upon the German People by themselves." - Noel O'Sullivan, "Conservativism" p80-81.

This is what Heismann writes

"Traditional Anglo-Saxon conservatism is libertarian; it supports freedom against the government. Traditional German conservatism is authoritarian; its supports obedience towards the government..." - p1182

So perhaps some half agreement maybe if i squint my eyes if i take that quote? I've already stated elsewhere that Conservativism does not equate liberty and that it depends on what you are conserving to begin with in the first place.

I wouldn't agree with him so wholeheartedly on some other claims, let's take two from one page for example...

"America was founded as a republic, not a democracy" - p1169

But this is incorrect, the USA is both, it is a democracy and a republic and before anyone starts crying, a republic traditionaly is a state without an unelected king. In essence a republic can be seen as a type of democracy. The doge in the republic of venice was elected. The "noble republic" of Poland is an interesting case. It was more actualy more democratic than than what the British were in the 1700's for example. They did elect "King's" but they functioned more like CEO's rather than what standard kings do.





And the Ancient Roman republic?




But let's just take another claim, on the same page.

"The Civil war was "a war fought, not over slavery itself ..." - ibid p1169

But you cannot avoid it, the war was about slavery, the reason the South seceded was over slavery, the 'States Right' they were concerned with was slavery. Every issue of the war relates back to slavery, period.

"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." - Bruce Catton, (Called on the book's cover page, America's Greatest Civil war Historian) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5

"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as, economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" - Dr. Eric Walther, University of Houston.

That being said, It's still "interesting" from a philosophical point of view although some bits of his history may be a little bit off , but from what i've read it doesn't look too much like some Nihlist or Madman's work although i haven't read other sections, and from what i've read it definitely doesn't soud like a madman about to kill himself but more like the work from a deep thinker, which feels weird knowing that it is a suicide note written ultimately by someone who otherwise would be considered mad.

But i have to read other bits when i can. I dont think this review cannot be considered a complete one!

---

Still, could be worse :lol:

---


Thank you for at least coming out of the batter's cage and reading some of it. I will look at ur youtubes before further comment.
I tried to be sligtly nicer here, let's see how it works out

---

Another thing!

Maybe this is just me, or maybe i missed it. But there was not one mention of Oswold Mosley or his British Union of Fascists in that part i reviewed was there? For some reason i find that very odd. But then and again their rise and fall is only to do with historical circumstance and British politics in the 30's. 1066 meant that Fascism could never have arisen here? Really? Oh and there are still Neo-Nazi and other Far right groups in existance both in America and the USA today!
Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:56 am
DemojenPosts: 614Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:34 am

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Exordia: Freedom of Speech on Trial

How the Very Act of Repressing this Work
Can Verify Its Freedom of Speech Hypothesis


FALSIFIED by the very fact people have read it. A false hypothesis undermines the entire experiment.

Having read the first four hundred pages, I can say with certainty that this piece of trite is ripe with fallacious contradictions and nonsense. He frequently tries to draw parallels between fathers of philosophy and his antiquated views, as if to suggest this book is new. He's regurgitating the half thoughts of other peoples' life's work and claiming it as his own. Nice job. A suicide note of thoughts that aren't even concluded. A life wasted conceptualizing everything and realizing nothing.

Philosophies are progressive and they change over time, over consideration and with "the times". Mitchell Heisman is just another nihilist. He's only rare, because he's an intelligent nihilist. Usually intelligent people grow out of nihilism.

This piece is not an abstract attempting to intellectualize on concepts of philosophy or history but brain wash people into believing this OPINION piece is fact. He didn't do a shit load of research. Any half ass'd theologian could've puked this garbage up. I'll probably comment on this again if I decide to read the rest...but at this point, the entire article reads like a conspiracy theory with no citations and just a big bibliography.

If you think I'm going to read every book in that bibliography before my opinion on the piece should be taken seriously, you have another thing coming.
He was pretty stupid for such an intellectual. He should've become a car salesman or sold snake oil.
Nunc ergo vos
"I think therefore you are"
Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:00 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

televator wrote:
havanacat wrote:How fucking sad for England.


Oh man, if only you could hear yourself from our perspective... You just keep the laughs coming.

Also...this is clearly known a "suicide note". The guy had some issues. I suppose in a world that idolizes the likes of Ayn Rand, insane people aren't recognized as insane....



Glad "your perspective" stays amused. I am not moved, either way...
Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:26 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

@demojen,

What were the fallacious contradictions and nonsense that you discovered in Mitchell's work?
Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:31 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

@ younghistorian,

I thought he made a very good argument about the Normans and the culture they took into Europe and the New World. Every Southerner in the U.S. will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery, per se, but about landed aristocrats v. poor anglo immigrants. The poorer anglo and Irish immigrants were battling it out here against the landed (norman) wealthy. The civil war of America was a push to industrialize v. a desire to remain agrarian....slavery was secondary. Even good ole Abe Lincoln wanted the blacks to return to Africa...(see Institute for Historical Review, The Great Emancipator)

The South during the Civil War were very much Norman, and Hugenots...they resisted the push against their agrarian culture. Slaves were part of the equation, but that's it. They didn't want their lifestyle being dictated from what they saw as lower class plebians from the north.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:46 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

havanacat wrote:@ younghistorian,

I thought he made a very good argument about the Normans and the culture they took into Europe and the New World. Every Southerner in the U.S. will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery, per se, but about landed aristocrats v. poor anglo immigrants. The poorer anglo and Irish immigrants were battling it out here against the landed (norman) wealthy. The civil war of America was a push to industrialize v. a desire to remain agrarian....slavery was secondary. Even good ole Abe Lincoln wanted the blacks to return to Africa...(see Institute for Historical Review, The Great Emancipator)

The South during the Civil War were very much Norman, and Hugenots...they resisted the push against their agrarian culture. Slaves were part of the equation, but that's it. They didn't want their lifestyle being dictated from what they saw as lower class plebians from the north.


What. The. Flying. Fuck.

:|

You did not grow up in the south.
Sit down, son, and let me give you a music lesson.

I have sat here days upon days through and heard nonsense from other people of it being about Slavery and all that other bullshit. I forgave the ignorance by simply ignoring it - stupid Yankees. Now we have someone else claiming to be from the South talking out of their ass about the South in the Civil War?
Not in my forum.

Reasons the South left the Union:
1) States Rights TO DO SO (Lincoln said time and time again he was not interested in ending slavery)
2) The Ultimate Election of Abraham Lincoln that resulted as a voting fiasco. Some states decided that they wanted to turn in their votes late - those states left the union after they had realized that Lincoln would be elected. >.>
3) A deep industrial AND cultural polarization between the North and the South.
4) The already-ongoing brutal physical warfare occurring between those whom did NOT advocate slavery, and the government. (That's right - guess who was out being terrorists? The Abolitionists.) There was, of course, the boarder wars and Bleeding Kansas.

5) Fears of dem Yankees takin' away me niggers.


Slavery wasn't a real issue in this war, and it wasn't even until they were halfway DONE with the war, when morale was falling through the floor, that activist motions began so that morale was returned to the troops (they had to fight for something - what's better than to free an enslaved people that, at the core, most people still thought as lesser beings anyhow? ).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense. Every Southerner will tell you that it was about States Rights and that they wanted the United States back as described under the Articles of Confederation. Shit, they even called themselves the Confederacy.

Myself? I think that it was justified - simply because a state is meant to be a self-sufficient country and that being within the United States is supposed to be more of like a club with bouncer benefits and regulated free-trade amongst one another. Like the Europian Union is, that was how the United States was framed out to be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic - the relevance of the War of Northern Aggression is non-existent to the topic at hand. You don't know what you're talking about.
Bugger off with your brash generalizations and nonsense - I DID give you an accurate critique of the book. I said that it was a pile of shit.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:37 am
havanacatBannedUser avatarPosts: 138Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:17 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

Ummmm....I think you pretty much affirmed my point (it wasn't about the slaves, per se)...

And.... I did grow up in the South, and I'm a daughter, thank you., not a "son"..

My family stretched from SC to FL to LA to AZ.

And you didn't read Mitchell's book, so stop lying. If you had, you'd be commenting on a lot of things, but I think you only read intro and couldn't take it for some reason.

Maybe you need a freakin' mint julep, southern boy....
Last edited by havanacat on Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:46 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Suicide Note, Mitchell Heisman

havanacat wrote:Ummmm....I think you pretty much affirmed my point (it wasn't about the slaves, per se)...

And.... I did grow up in the South, and I'm a daughter, thank you., not a "son"..

My family stretched from SC to FL to LA to AZ.


Rebel born. Rebel bred.
when I die, I'll be Rebel dead.

-------------------------

You tried to make it sound like some non-nonsensical mumbo jumbo about Aristocrats and Immigrants, Hugenots, and whatnot.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:50 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
 [ 103 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests