Happy Robert E Lee Day

[simplicio]

What were his orders, rogue?

I'll jump in, I meant to include the content of his orders earlier.

He was told to hold the three forts, and an attack would be seen as aggression, hostilities. The orders also acknowledged that his force was too small for the task, and that concentrating his forces in one fort was probably the prudent move.

His orders were clear, he was to hold the harbor, and the initiative was left to Anderson (how he should execute the orders).

So two points: How he was to deploy his paltry force was up to Anderson, and if fired on, it would be seen as hostile, he would need to respond.

In my opinion, the Confederates opened fore to spark hostilities to prevent the (unlikely) resupply of the fort. Men on both sides recognized the gravity of firing on the fort. It was really small battle, not much to study compared to other battles of the war. But the interesting part is the behind the scenes negotiations, and how it affect the actions of the principle actors in the drama, the men on the ground, especially Beauregard and Anderson, who had been close friends.

[JimL]

I'll jump in, I meant to include the content of his orders earlier.

He was told to hold the three forts, and an attack would be seen as aggression, hostilities. The orders also acknowledged that his force was too small for the task, and that concentrating his forces in one fort was probably the prudent move.

His orders were clear, he was to hold the harbor, and the initiative was left to Anderson (how he should execute the orders).

So two points: How he was to deploy his paltry force was up to Anderson, and if fired on, it would be seen as hostile, he would need to respond.

In my opinion, the Confederates opened fore to spark hostilities to prevent the (unlikely) resupply of the fort. Men on both sides recognized the gravity of firing on the fort. It was really small battle, not much to study compared to other battles of the war. But the interesting part is the behind the scenes negotiations, and how it affect the actions of the principle actors in the drama, the men on the ground, especially Beauregard and Anderson, who had been close friends.

Exactly, so he didn't escalate the situation as rogue would have us believe, he was fired upon.

[simplicio]

Exactly, so he didn't escalate the situation as rogue would have us believe, he was fired upon.

The discussion is not mere quibbling over details, but a completely different understanding of the battle, where each point is contradicted by a brief introduction to the facts or study of the events.

But similar views are found elsewhere, part of a southern interpretation of the war. The usual quote is that the victors write the history, but in this case, the history is from the vantage point of the defeated and an attempt to show the south as the victim in all aspects. Even the opening salvoes.

It is the history found among groups like the neoConfederates. And in the context of a Christian discussion board, one has to wonder why that view has taken root among Christians.

[MaxVel]

The discussion is not mere quibbling over details, but a completely different understanding of the battle, where each point is contradicted by a brief introduction to the facts or study of the events.

But similar views are found elsewhere, part of a southern interpretation of the war. The usual quote is that the victors write the history, but in this case, the history is from the vantage point of the defeated and an attempt to show the south as the victim in all aspects. Even the opening salvoes.

It is the history found among groups like the neoConfederates. And in the context of a Christian discussion board, one has to wonder why that view has taken root among Christians.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Probably because they're all evil racist scumbags, unlike you.

[simplicio]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Probably because they're all evil racist scumbags, unlike you.

Hmmmmm, whenever any hint of heretical philosophical views creeps into the church, the hints are seen, and condemned as evidence of underlying betrayal of the faith.

Critical race theory is one example. But no amount of glomming onto historical perspective of the racist seems to draw a protest.

Even if the historical perspective is not accompanied by any inherent racism, it leaves open the possibility, and opportunity, for the church to be the incubator for racist ideas. One role of the church is to stand athwart history and yell stop when no one else is inclined to do so. (can't leave that role to the Trotskyites at National Review!)

[simplicio]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Probably because they're all evil racist scumbags, unlike you.

Some people are comfortable with the view of Christianity as irenically coexisting with racist views.

Others are not.

[Bill the Cat]

Some people are comfortable with the view of Christianity as irenically coexisting with racist views.

Others are not.

Some people call Judaism racist.

[simplicio]

Some people call Judaism racist.

Yes, some people do call Judaism racist.

I happen to disagree with that assertion. My question to you is: Do you think Judaism is racist?

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, some people do call Judaism racist.

I happen to disagree with that assertion. My question to you is: Do you think Judaism is racist?

Depends on which definition of "racist" we are using...

[simplicio]

Depends on which definition of "racist" we are using...

An excellent rhetorical technique, masterfully done, BilltheCat.

Bring in a point, "Some people think Judaism is racist", then sidestep any discussion. (and I notice that the preceding posts!)

Yes some people think Judaism itself is racist, and for the most part those that do are recognized as antisemites.

[Bill the Cat]

An excellent rhetorical technique, masterfully done, BilltheCat.

Bring in a point, "Some people think Judaism is racist", then sidestep any discussion. (and I notice that the preceding posts!)

I had the flu all week. I wasn't sidestepping. I want you to define what you mean by racist. Like Ben Shapiro says, you can't have a discussion with someone when you define words differently.

Yes some people think Judaism itself is racist, and for the most part those that do are recognized as antisemites.

Not true. There is an exclusivity inherent in Judaism for the bloodline of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.