Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:06:12 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
From: Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Interesting Inventions
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

At 05:43 PM 04/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> > candymadigan at mindspring.com 04/02/02 05:36PM
> >At 04:35 PM 04/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:57:45 -0500 "Strong, Lee"
> ><StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
> >>writes:
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: ronkean at juno.com
> >>
> >> > Some go so far as to call it The War of Northern Aggression.
> >> >
> >>
> >> > > A common term in the South, but factually incorrect.
> >>
> >>Technically, the South agressed first, when they fired shots at a =
>federal
> >>fort.  But in the larger picture, I think it may be fair to say that the
> >>North aggressed against the South more so than vice-versa, because the
> >>Southern war aim was merely to be allowed to secede, whereas the =
>Northern
> >>aim was to conquer the South and re-incorporate it into the Union.  The
> >>question really turns on whether the Northern aggression was justified.
> >>Before the Civil war, it was generally agreed (so I have read) that
> >>states have a right to secede.  If it were not for the strong will of
> >>Lincoln to uphold the Union, I think it is likely that Southern =
>secession
> >>could have been peacefully negotiated, and if someone else had been
> >>president, that might well have happened.  Connecticut, I think, =
>actually
> >>passed a secession bill in protest of the War of 1812, though they did
> >>not apparently follow through with it.  It would be interesting to know
> >>whether Connecticut's act of secession was ever formally repealed.
> >>
> >>Given that secession was a right of states, the Northern war aim was
> >>unjustifed, on the face of it.  Also, the South was being victimized by
> >>unfair import and export tax policies, which had the effect of taxing =
>the
> >>South disproportionately more than the North, since the South was more
> >>dependent on exports than the North.  Also, the import tax protected
> >>Northern industrial interests, enhancing their profit margins at the
> >>expense of domestic buyers of manufactured goods, including buyers in =
>the
> >>South.  But there was also the great evil of slavery at issue, so it yet
> >>may be argued that right was more on the side of the North.  It is far
> >>from conclusive, though, that ending slavery was really a Northern war
> >>aim.  Slavery ended because the South was politically powerless to
> >>prevent its abolition, after the war.
> >
> >Thank you.  I get so tired of hearing how it was a 'moral war'.
>
>Well, there were some folks who were slaves that might have a slightly =
>different viewpoint.

Slavery was an excuse.  The war was about money and power.  When Lincoln
freed the slaves, he freed the slaves in the south, but the northern slaves
were only freed later.  I'm glad he freed them, but that was not the true
reason that the north went to war.  Slavery that you can't get out of is an
absolute evil, even if you have a 'good' master.  Even slavery that you can
eventually get out of still sucks.

And don't try to tell me that I don't know about slavery, I've been
enlisted in the military for 18 years.  Yes, every 4 years I've had the
option to get out and for personal reasons have chosen not to.  But there
is a reason that I know that I have 699 days until I get my soul back.

Any job that you don't have the option to say, "Take this job and shove it"
is a form of slavery.  2 years ago, I worked directly for an abusive
b*st*rd of a commander.  Had he been a permanent commander instead of
temporary or had I not moved out of his office before I reenlisted, I'd
have thrown away my retirement to get away from him.

He threatened me with a letter of reprimand for something that he IMAGINED
that I had done.  I went to the ADC and was informed that he didn't need
any evidence.  What had I done?  I rested my forehead on my hand while I
proofread a report.  I wasn't even thinking about him.  He decided that was
a gesture of disrespect.  Not because of the fact that I went back to work
when I realized that the conversation didn't involve me, but because I
rested my head on my hand when I went back to work.  And if I had tried to
tell him to shove it... Well, I doubt that I'd still be in Leavenworth.

In the civilian world, if I had a boss like that I could tell him he was an
*ssh*le and threaten to walk.  One of three things would happen; 1) he'd
fire me; 2) he'd ignore me and I'd walk; or 3) a miracle, and he'd get
better.  Now admittedly, 3 is highly unlikely, but I'd still have the
freedom to leaving.

As it is, I was very lucky that situation was temporary.

699.

Candy