|
Solihull Exile wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
Yes, that's right. I should have known better than to place any faith the Euro. And my continued faith in it, rather than my running screaming from the room and embracing graciously and gratefully a currency which is itself shot and has been for years, proves me to be a defeatist and moral coward of the worst kind. What's best, d'you think? For being perverted enough to feel more ties to Europe than I do to England should I drown myself in shame, lock myself in a room with a loaded revolver and do the decent thing? Or should I throw myself on the mercy of my fellow countrymen and beg for forgiveness for being such a gutless wanker? Maybe I could sing "Rule Britannia" loudly and repeatedly until I actually start to believe some of it? Whatever it is that you'd like me to do I'll do it. That's the nature of we defeatists. No backbone, you see. Plenty of "fizz" but no "bang". As for any advice regarding my movements... well, I'll move at my own pace, thank you.
I'd also like to apologise for my unpardonable lack of historical understanding. I'd always believed that the American Civil War -triggered not by slavery {see, I'm such a fool that I even got that wrong} but by the secession of no less than 11 of the "united" States - qualified as a "split" that had "been considered for {sic - you should have said "in"} The USA". Or, rather, it wasn't so much "considered" as it was "declared intention". And not only was it "declared intention", it was intention carried through to action. From 1861 to 1865 those 11 States were governed independently from Virginia. So, it had always been my stupid, mistaken, wilful and almost wantonly ill-educated belief, it was pretty much the settled view of those 11 States that that - as far as their membership of the Union was concerned - was that. I can probably be forgiven for this {but why should I be when it's so obviously erroneous?}, but when people start setting up alternative governments then they're in all likelihood quite set on an alternative and independent future. How utterly pan-headed and stupid of me. The Confederate Government clearly meant something else by;
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government {my italics}, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."
Maybe "Dear Bram, we'd quite like to still be governed from Washington, you mustn't take any of this seriously, I mean it's not like we want to rock the boat or anything. We only used the word "Confederate" because no one in the office knows how to spell Unytid Unytied Untidied
Unedited... see what I mean, Bram?". Perhaps you can tell me what they really meant. Clearly you know much more about it than I do. I mean it looks like a "split". Or at least the "consideration" of one. But there I go again. Me and my stupid misunderstanding of what are, on the face of it, clear and easy-to-read statements and documents. And it's now crystal clear to me that firing on Fort Sumter was the strongest signal the South could send that they intended to stay in the Union as long as there was breath in their bodies. The so-called "Rebel" Yell was the greatest misnomer in the history of the English language. Those guys were, I'm now convinced, simply shouting "let us back in..." I'm ever so glad you're here to put me straight. Buddy.
Likewise, I'd always just sort of assumed that Lincoln's policy with regard to slavery was to contain rather than abolish it, at least for the foreseeable future. But now I see the light. And because, unlike you, I know nothing about history, once again I'm grateful to have that stupid canard crushed before my very eyes.
I'd like to thank you for setting me straight.
However, there's just one little thing that's kinda bugging me.
There were something like 646,392 {Yeah, I know that's a curiously precise figure for "something like" but what the hell, I'm no historian, just a political and economic idiot. An obviously a really clever person like you who really knows his stuff will probably be able to tell me how they arrive at these figures} dead or wounded in what appears, after all, to be not, despite my previous completely ignorant beliefs, something to do with a country either threatening to "split" or actually "splitting". That's something approximating 2% of the entire population of the U.S. at the time. That's one hell of a lot of people. The U.S, has never lost anything like that in percentage terms in any of its {many} conflicts since. Clearly, though, this was nothing to do with the potential breaking up of the United States Of America. I know that because you've told me quite plainly and knowledgeably that such an event has never happened, even in terms of intention. As you have told me "Some countries have split recently,like Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/Sudan,but that has never even been considered for The USA". So just what did all those people get killed or wounded for? Surely it can't have been for the reasons Lincoln himself gave in the Gettysburg Address, a section of which I reproduce here -
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live {my italics again}
- because that would suggest that he was just as much an idiot as I am when it comes to spotting whether or not a country {in this case he was probably an even bigger idiot than me because that country was his own, the poor demented sap} has "considered" "splitting".
Thank you once again for pointing out the deficiencies in my education and understanding of history. It's certainly given me pause for thought.
On the other hand, it's just possible that your grasp of history is even worse than mine. Your patent lack of understanding of what "a civil war" is {and especially what lay at the heart of the American Civil War - the very existence of the "Union"} might just suggest that this is the case. In which case you may wish to be just a little more careful in future.
Made no sense at all!
The eurozone is dying,accept it and stop waffling please.
I have to agree,even BR's reptile people made more sense.
Doesn't make sense to me either.
Time to move on,it's getting boring.
|
Forums 
