The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Aug 21, 2019 #881

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    I have no problem understanding what "equal" means. Neither did Jefferson, the fact that he kept slaves does not disqualify his statement, if anything it validates it.
    Who but a slave owner himself could more readily recognize the equality between the two ?

    I suspect that your lack of understanding is more a case of wanting it to be true, rather than actual bewilderment.
     
  2. Aug 21, 2019 #882

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    The pride you speak of, the pride for your ancestors, that is a localized social construct.
     
  3. Aug 21, 2019 #883

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Yes it is
     
  4. Aug 21, 2019 #884

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Then your being purposefully obtuse
     
  5. Aug 21, 2019 #885

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    798
    The Author of Slavery in the North wrote those pages in 2000. He listed his bibliography, he listed other resources and footnoted his information. He is also a published historian. He noted he looked forward to more information coming forth.

    You are the one who paints with a broad brush because he made some mistakes following information he had at the time and want to throw the whole thing out, because it suits your purpose. In the real world, everyone makes some mistakes OR does not have the full information when something is posted. It is now approximately 19 years since he posted those pages. I rather doubt that site on slave ships was active 19 years ago.

    Yes, I have several times mentioned I was an "Advanced Amateur" on different subjects. Many times when I spent all those hours at Chatham or Battle Abbey on both weekdays and even weekends, there were very few people there doing research and quite a few times at Chatham, there were only one or two people there IF there was anyone else at all. Some of the people I met, especially at Battle Abbey, were researchers who did research for others or were in the early stages of their careers or for some of those "more well known" Historians.

    I did write down the information I was the most interested in and where it came from and the catalogue numbers back in the 1980's. While that was some time ago, original source documents don't change.

    I don't have much of that information anymore, because my interest went back to the AWI in the 1990's and more importantly, I was transferred across the country twice and lived in different places during those years in my military career. Things got lost in those moves and there were weight restrictions, so some things I wanted to save had to go. I was lucky to be able to hang onto all the books I have on a wide variety of historic subjects.

    I must point out your research of my forum name is a shockingly terrible piece of research.

    It seems you went out of your way to pick a meaning that suits your purpose of insult.

    If one merely looks online from your source, here is what is written as the first two definitions:

    Definition of artificer


    1 : a skilled or artistic worker or craftsman
    2 : one that makes or contrives : deviser had been the artificer of his own fortunes — The Times Literary Supplement (London)
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificer

    Yet even that is sloppy historic research, because you are using a modern dictionary whether online or an actual book copy.

    I've actually explained a number of times why I use Artificer as my forum name, but you failed to even research this forum before slinging your insult.

    Since your reseach is so shockingly poor and nothing but a way to insult rather than discuss, it seems I have no choice but to explain again.

    In the 18th century, Artificers with the British, British American or American Armies (depending on the time period) were those who traveled and stayed with each Regiment to repair things when needed, no matter where the Regiment was assigned world wide. They might have been hired civilians or Soldiers with special skills. "Artificer/s" was a catch all term for blacksmiths, leather workers, etc., etc. and included those who repaired the military firearms. During the 19th century, the word Atificer came more closely associated with those who repaired military firearms more than anything else. In the 20th century, the military still used the same term and almost exclusively for those who repaired firearms with the last mention in print I know of from original 1950's Ordnance Publications I have and other source documents.

    Now, this is not to say that the word "Armorer" was not used as early as the 18th century for someone who repaired arms in the military and depending on the source, one word was more common than the other. Though way out of date by the original definition of one who makes or repairs Armor even during the 18th century, Armorer has come to be the most common title in the Military as of the last half of the 20th century during my career.

    I chose Artificer as my forum name, because I have done a lot of repair and special work on both period and repro military arms (and to a lesser extent civilian arms) of the 18th and 19th centuries and alluding to my modern career. The majority of the work on original and repro arms I worked on were UnCivil War period arms though the oldest firearms I have worked on were Japanese Tenagashima's and the most expensive was a dueling/target pistol by the French Master Nicolas-Noël Boutet, during my tenure as Team Armorer for the U.S. International Muzzle Loading Team at two World Championships.

    Gus
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  6. Aug 21, 2019 #886

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    That means it's not a real thing. It's learned behavior, a control mechanism.
     
  7. Aug 21, 2019 #887

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Sorry, I don't know how to explain it in terms you will understand. I can only hope that you will come to it on your own. I cannot force you to understand.
     
  8. Aug 21, 2019 #888

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    798
    Keeping slaves ignorant and unschooled was the common practice in both the North and South where and when slaves were held. Yes, it was a control factor to keep them enslaved, though many whites did not receive education on reading and writing.

    However during at least as early as the 18th century, slaves were trained to be skilled leather workers, blacksmiths, joiners, carpenters, brick makers and other trades. Further, some slaves owned by the richest Americans were trained to be "acceptable" to wear costly clothing most whites could not afford and serve the "best" families, where the common white was not welcome.

    There were also some Slaves illegally trained to read and write in both the North and South, by their Masters, when it served their interests.

    Having stated these historic points, there was still a huge amount of racial prejudice and bigotry in both the North and South, before during and after the UnCivil War.

    Ex-slaves from Maryland and some from Virginia found that out when they flocked to Baltimore and DC to find work after the War. For the most part, they were rebuffed or only offered wages much lower than what whites earned. But it was not just there.

    Many border Northern States did not want ex-slaves in their labor pools, that would have lowered their wages. This also resulted in more racial prejudice and bigotry.

    Gus
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  9. Aug 21, 2019 #889

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Zonie

    Moderator Staff Member MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    28,726
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Damn!
    This topic isn't going anywhere and there is basically nothing to learn from it. :(

    It is almost a waste of data space that could be used to actually teach other members something about the WBS. :(
    888 posts with most of them just saying the same thing over and over and over.
     
    Va.Manuf.06, arcticap, Coot and 2 others like this.
  10. Aug 21, 2019 #890

    Billy Boy

    Billy Boy

    Billy Boy

    36 Cl.

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    48
    All civil wars are culture wars, we are in one right now, mercifully no iron is flying. The North was a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing culture and the South was an 18th century agrarian culture interested in preserving that culture. The South believed, true to the Founders’ characterization of our land, as a Republic of loosely confederated states who basically ran their own business. Slavery was critical to the Southern economy, was seen as their states rights, and formed the fuse to the keg.
     
    tenngun likes this.
  11. Aug 21, 2019 #891

    Eutycus

    Eutycus

    Eutycus

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    630
    Location:
    South Texas
    It's been a little over 13 hours since the "debate" over Slavery has died down. Now lets see what other aspects of the Civil War are going to pop up.
     
  12. Aug 21, 2019 #892

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,122
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Almost every thing we do or think in society is learned, an artifact of society. To try and assign some psych defense reason is a simple attempt to avoid the issues. Any attempt to see eighteenth and nineteenth century live through modern glasses distorts the past till it’s nothing but a feel good exercise, so one can demonstrate a moral superiority over the past.
     
  13. Aug 21, 2019 #893

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    Did you know that Harriet Beecher Stowe's famous anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, first published in 1852 had an initial print run of 5000 copies and that within 3 months sold over 300,000 copies? It was translated into German the same year. It was immensely popular, and by 1884 had gone through over 50 printings in Germany alone. It was a best seller.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  14. Aug 21, 2019 #894

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    I don't.
    You should read more 18th and 19th century "pop culture".
    You should read more Henry David Thoreau.
    The glasses I use to view the past, are period correct.


    "Talk about slavery! It is not the peculiar institution of the South. It exists wherever men are bought and sold, wherever a man allows himself to be made a mere thing or a tool, and surrenders his inalienable rights of reason and conscience. Indeed, this slavery is more complete than that which enslaves the body alone."
    Henry David Thoreau
     
  15. Aug 21, 2019 #895

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Yohogania
    He wrote his own bio for a blog he put on line. His undergrad school creds are in English and a few history courses. That doesn't make him a trained historian.

    This all comes back to your failure to check out how reliable he was as a source, and then check his use of references. I guess you fall for the "Trust me, I wrote some books and I'm a historian..." line. Hook line, sinker.

    My other half is a double doctorate who teaches undergrad and grad level courses at a nearby university. I told her what you about your assertion, the use of the flawed site, and the unreliability of what he wrote to back up his claim. The first things she said was any student of hers that turned in a study or research paper that made a similar mistake of not verifying the reliability of the source(s) would fail the assignment.

    Gus, you still can't admit you messed up. Badly. Can you be intellectually honest to admit the mistake you made was failing to verify a source, and trusting the author's claims on his own website?

    This conversation would have ended the moment that mistake was made evident.
     
    Carbon 6 likes this.
  16. Aug 21, 2019 #896

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Another cool story bro. What did you do after the dog ate your homework?

    Apparently you didn't learn much of the finer points of what real research is, and how important it is to ALWAYS verify your sources as being correct BEFORE you use them.

    No excuses are better than yours. Admit you're wrong, move on. Or can you?
     
  17. Aug 21, 2019 #897

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Looking a word up in a dictionary isn't research. Looking at your gas gauge and speedometer and then looking for a gas station isn't research. Nor is looking in the fridge to see what can be snacked on, or peeking in the kitchen if a meal is being cooked to see what's for dinner. I guess your definition of research is different than mine.

    I didn't use Webster's 1828 dictionary, because I didn't want to be pretentious in using a period definition of the word. Since you accuse me of using a "modern" dictionary, I will. Webster 1828, is the first AMERICAN dictionary, and doesn't rely on using an ENGLISH or non-American version of the language, which can be different from how ordinary and non-pretentious Americans use the language.

    For your edification, note the attached screen captures, of the word artifice, and then artificer. Then note the order in which definitions are given. They indicate the order of common usage at the time. The bad news for you is that Webster in 1828 places the importance of how artifice and artificer differently than you.

    1828 Webster, definition of artifice.jpg

    artificer.jpg

    You do like to pretend your not wrong and everyone who suggests you are in error is. A period definition by good old American Danny Webster clearly indicates the most common use of the words artifice and artificer differently than your preferred useage.

    Gus, this is another example of your own bad research. You chose a name with a double meaning, that according to Webster who defined words according to common American use, in order of use. Unfortunately for you, the modern Webster-Merrian definition and the original 1828 definitions aren't all that different.

    You still can't admit you used sloppy research even on your own self-adopted user name. Your failure to use diligence is starting to look like a pattern, not an accident.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2019 #898

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    798
    Looking a word up in a dictionary isn't research. Looking at your gas gauge and speedometer and then looking for a gas station isn't research. Nor is looking in the fridge to see what can be snacked on, or peeking in the kitchen if a meal is being cooked to see what's for dinner. I guess your definition of research is different than mine.

    I didn't use Webster's 1828 dictionary, because I didn't want to be pretentious in using a period definition of the word. Since you accuse me of using a "modern" dictionary, I will. Webster 1828, is the first AMERICAN dictionary, and doesn't rely on using an ENGLISH or non-American version of the language, which can be different from how ordinary and non-pretentious Americans use the language.

    For your edification, note the attached screen captures, of the word artifice, and then artificer. Then note the order in which definitions are given. They indicate the order of common usage at the time. The bad news for you is that Webster in 1828 places the importance of how artifice and artificer differently than you.

    View attachment 13765

    View attachment 13766

    You do like to pretend your not wrong and everyone who suggests you are in error is. A period definition by good old American Danny Webster clearly indicates the most common use of the words artifice and artificer differently than your preferred useage.

    Gus, this is another example of your own bad research. You chose a name with a double meaning, that according to Webster who defined words according to common American use, in order of use. Unfortunately for you, the modern Webster-Merrian definition and the original 1828 definitions aren't all that different.

    You still can't admit you used sloppy research even on your own self-adopted user name. Your failure to use diligence is starting to look like a pattern, not an accident.

    The last half of you whimpering bio....think many people care?[/QUOTE]

    Wow, you took shockingly poor research, where you originally looked up "artifice" and posted that instead of the information on Artificer. Not only that, but it is clear you did that as a violation of forum rules against personal insults.

    So now that you are caught having done that, you now took the time to look up the REAL WORD instead of using the wrong word and the rest of your blah, blah post is only an attempt to cover your tracks.

    You couldn't even follow your own lecture on research and it is quite apparent this most recent post is nothing more than a dodge to cover it up.

    Gus
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    tenngun likes this.
  19. Aug 21, 2019 #899

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    58 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    825
    And here all this time I thought your name (Artificer) was a Military reference.

    Did you know corps of Artificers served during the American Revolution and American Civil Wars?
     
  20. Aug 21, 2019 #900

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Artificer

    Cannon MLF Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Likes Received:
    798
    It might be time to etch this in stone, but since this is in essence what I've written on numerous occasions, I fully agree with it.

    Gus
     
    tenngun likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white