On 19 Nov 2007 18:10:23 -0500, Dick Adams
wrote in :
>kangaroo16 wrote:
>> Joseph Coulter wrote:
>>> kangaroo16 wrote:
>
>>>> but I think that most would consider the side that fired the
>>>> first shots in a war would usually be considered the aggressor.
>
>Fort Sumter is a classic example of the victor rewriting
>history to justify their actions. The Gunnery officer at
>the Fort that day was Abner Doubleday who was later credited
>with inventing the game of baseball - which he did not.
What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? If
the cite had claimed that someone named "Abner Doubleday" I
wouldn't have even noticed it, and cannot even be bothered to
check to see if he was or wasn't.
Firstly, the name of the "Gunnery Officer" is totally irrelevant,
IMHO. Even if it was, am quite confident that there has been
more than one "Abner Doubleday" in the US before or since.
Only the historical incident is significant, not the names of the
people involved. If the name was mentioned in the cite, and
again I can't even be bothered to check, why would I try to
verify that he was the "Abner Doubleday" who is claimed
[by someone, somewhere, and you don't provide any cites], to
have "invented" the "game" of "baseball".]
Without cites, the claim is not verifiable and meaningless.
Even then, does the "game" of "baseball" have any particular
significance? Not to me. Have played it, when forced to do
so in a physical education class in grade school & high school.
Meaningless, childish game to me, even then. IMHO, boring enough
to even play at it, let alone watch the others doing it, such as
the school team.
Yet even supposedly sensible adults came to watch the local team
play. Perhaps they had a child in the team? Hard to see why
else they would bother.
Yet I understand that many adults even watch the so called
"world series" personally or on T.V.
Does most of the rest of the world play baseball, or have
even heard of it?
The game of "baseball" was derived from "cricket", which also
has a world following, and there is even a "World Series
Cricket", although I'm not sure it goes by that name.
From my point of view, either game is boring, even to the
players. Both are equally boring to me. At least I understand
the basic rules of "baseball" though I would have to be paid a
lot to actually watch it. Cricket would even more boring to
play, let alone watch, so the my wage would have to be greater.
Hey, just got a great idea! The girls game of skipping rope
would offer just as many variables, probably more.
How many times can "Jane" hop the moving rope before she
fails to do so as the speed is increased.
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!
Of course, we need not bet on human sports at all. We could
always watch grass grow, or paint dry. To me, all wouldn't be
very interesting, though.
Same for dog races, horse races, camel races, etc.
Anyway, is this enough to explain my lack of interest in sports?
Can provide more, if desired.
To return to the theme of your post, though, why should I give a
damn about "baseball" or the possible "inventor of same".
Neither has anything to do with historical realities, law, or
whatever.
Now, Dick, if you can bring yourself to issue a meaningful
challenge that will explain the start of the Civil War without
bringing in irrelavant data on sports, then am willing to debate
the issue with you. [Nice try, though, might convince some
people....]
>>> You might look at it that way, but an independant state invaded
>>> by an occupying and unfriendly force cannot help but defend itself
>>> from such invaders.
>
>> Ah, but was it a truly "independent" state according to the
>> Constitution? From memory, it wasn't, but easy to check.
>> ...
>> The Constitution, from memory, didn't allow any state to secede
>> from the Union, and the U.S. Federal Gov't had the right
>> to install Facilities in any state, such as Fort Sumter in S.C.
>
>Read the 10th Amendment which says any power not specifically
>given to the federal government belonged to the States and
>that is the logic for secession.
Personally, I believe that the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant
document for the time it was originally written in 1776, and it
was a brilliant document at the time.
In a reasonably good world, with sincere citizens, it would all
be valid even today.
None of the amendments would have been necessary, if all humans
would be willing to live by the spirit of the original document.
Of course, from a historical and religious point of view, the
original Ten Commandments given to Moses would work pretty well
too...if people would follow them.
Did they? Not even long enough for Moses to get down from the
mountain. Religious readers can tell you the story of how he
found some of his followers worshiping a "golden calf".
Later on, Jesus had an even simpler message. Basically "Do unto
others..."
As a quick reference see:
http://www.answers.com/topic/do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you
>
>> ...
>> When Texas joined the Union it insisted on the right to
>> secede at any time in the future. Am not sure if this
>> right still exists.]
>
>Obviously not, since the Union Army ignored Texas' right to
>seceed.
>
>Texas does have the right to slit into as many as five States,
>or so I have been told.
>
>> ....
>> As historians have said, the South had little chance of winning
>> the war from the start, at least without outside help. It didn't
>> have enough of an industrial base to even provide basic necessities
>> for the population, let alone win a war.
>
>The South did not expect there to be a war. They had taken over
>all of the Union forts in the South without firing a shot. Only
>Sumter remained.
Perhaps the Union was a bit too tolerant of rebellion at the
time?
What if they hadn't been? Then the U.S. wouldn't have become a
"world power" but a mere collection of "independent" "nation
states" such as the Balkans in Europe.
To speculate a bit, suppose that the human race had all agreed on
the words of Jesus, or leaders of other faiths.
http://www.edminterfaithcentre.ca/goldrule.htm
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
