Multicoloured Confederates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Jonathan Palfrey -> Multicoloured Confederates (2/18/2007 10:30:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I'm just interested to find this aspect of the Civil War that isn't much talked about. Wikipedia's article on the CSA currently states merely that "The rank and file of the Confederate armed forces consisted of white males with an average age between 16 and 28. A few Black Freedmen also served in regular formations. Many thousands of slaves served as laborers, cooks, pioneers and in other non-combat roles."


Forget Wikepedia!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get real.

There is a ton of info. about this that Wikepedia and posting Wikepedians don't know about in the least bit at all.

I nor anyone else is saying the CSA Armed forces were in the main composed of AF-Am's!!! What is being said and pointed out with historical accuracy is that thousands of AF-Am's fought in the CSAAF, as well as mainly served in non-combatant roles, and without their contribution and the contribution of all the skilled and unskilled AF-AM workers that remained loyal to the South the Confederacy would not have lasted as long as it did.

Many of the AF-AM Southerners that remained loyal to the South, both military and non-military that worked in the armaments industry etc., were given pensions by the states they lived in and served. Awarding of pensions was quite prevalent in the South, seemingly more so than in the North. Most Northerners were not Abolitionists and could have cared less if the AF-Am's became free or not. Several Indian Inf. regiments mutinied when they learned that AF-Am troops were to serve in the same Army as they.

Chris


Hey, hey, calm down. I cited Wikipedia to illustrate what seems to be "common knowledge". However, if you have better information, there's nothing to stop you adding it to Wikipedia yourself. I've made small edits to a couple of Wikipedia pages recently; it's not difficult.

I've also transferred this topic to a new thread because it seemed misplaced in the "ETA on the Patch" thread.



christof139 -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/18/2007 10:54:56 AM)

quote:

Hey, hey, calm down. I cited Wikipedia to illustrate what seems to be "common knowledge". However, if you have better information, there's nothing to stop you adding it to Wikipedia yourself. I've made small edits to a couple of Wikipedia pages recently; it's not difficult.

I've also transferred this topic to a new thread because it seemed misplaced in the "ETA on the Patch" thread.


Go here for very detailed and good and interesting info.:

http://tinyurl.com/333ggv

I wouldn't waste my time editing or posting at Wikepedia. I have better things to do.

'Common knowledge' in this case is just plain common ignorance of a complex subject.

Haven't I met you before at some stupid know-it-all wargaming group or the like??

You should also calm down etc. yourself.

Chris



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/18/2007 11:50:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
I wouldn't waste my time editing or posting at Wikipedia. I have better things to do.


But you're willing to spend lots of your time posting messages here, which has a much smaller audience. Oh, well, each to his own taste.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Haven't I met you before at some stupid know-it-all wargaming group or the like??


I very much doubt it. And I'm amazed that you're taking this hostile attitude to me for no reason. My replies to you have been consistently friendly.




christof139 -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 4:38:20 AM)

quote:

But you're willing to spend lots of your time posting messages here, which has a much smaller audience. Oh, well, each to his own taste.


What is your problem?? I could care less about an 'audience', but since you mention it you must yourself desire an 'audience'.

quote:

I very much doubt it. And I'm amazed that you're taking this hostile attitude to me for no reason. My replies to you have been consistently friendly.


Look at your first quote here in this message, do you call that friendly without any inuendo??

Like I said, that is my reason for not posting anything at Wikepedia, IOTW, there are much better and enjoyable sources to be had, although Wiki does have some very good info., but concerning the subject we are speaking of it only has generalized info.

If you are so interested in posting at Wikepedia why don't you do so, and quit asking me why I don't when I gave you my resons for not posting at Wiki. Quit telling others what to do, as you are overstepping bounds and being obnoxious and presumptuous and dictorial.

So, a bit more of your own medicine here, why don't you go to the site i posted and do some follow-up research on the many references posted at that site and do as you're trying to tell me to do, that is, go post yourself at Wiki. [:D]

Thank you, Chris



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 12:36:29 PM)

This is just absurd. All I've done in this series of messages was to express polite interest in your own messages, and to ask you to calm down when you seemed to be getting over-excited.

Well, my interest in you and your messages has ended. Goodbye.



christof139 -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 1:34:04 PM)

quote:

This is just absurd. All I've done in this series of messages was to express polite interest in your own messages, and to ask you to calm down when you seemed to be getting over-excited.

Well, my interest in you and your messages has ended. Goodbye.


Well [X(][&:][8|], good, I was never interested in you, your mind, your reasoning, the horse you rode in on, etc. period.

I'm not 'over-excited', but rather insulted my your mockery and your own absurd and silly and self-serving, self-centered, obnoxiousness.

Seems you're the one that is 'over-excited', getting all uppity and such, blowing your cookies. You should go take your meds and post yourself at Wiki. [:(]

You're also a bit hilarious. [:D]

Hmmph. Indeed, Dr. Watson, or is it Chef Inspector Clouseau?? [&:][8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]




Twotribes -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 2:29:17 PM)

This passes as polite conversation now? I personally have no doubt as to whom was polite and whom was obnoxious.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 2:33:41 PM)

Just in case anyone else is still reading this thread (why, I wonder?), I'd just like to point out that I have never set out to mock, insult, or dictate to this person in any way.

Apparently he's so determined to make enemies that he's capable of finding injury in the most innocent of messages.



christof139 -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 3:17:22 PM)

quote:

This passes as polite conversation now? I personally have no doubt as to whom was polite and whom was obnoxious.


Yeah, Read some of your own most holy, sanctimonius remarks.

I love know-it-alls, they always start something, then take things so hard, and then say it they weren't at fault about anything, oh no, not their perfect little hypocritical all-knowing yahoo selves.

Have a good one, I have to go manage my well armed Bdes., that I think it was you that implied I knew not anthing about, such as what a Bde. actaully is.

Then there was the other that seemed to think Cavalry in the ACW never charged in mass and always fought dismounted, fortunately some others and I pointed his error in his thinking. he was also off about the french Cavalry charges, in the plural, at Waterloo.

Seems may people that are gamers assume things they shouldn't, not only about events but about other people. One of the first things taught in the military and in law school, law enforcement, the medical field, and many other fields is not to assume anything. Basic.

Just cry a river thar ya'll.

Chris



christof139 -> RE: Multicoloured Confederates (2/19/2007 3:20:46 PM)

quote:

Just in case anyone else is still reading this thread (why, I wonder?), I'd just like to point out that I have never set out to mock, insult, or dictate to this person in any way.

Apparently he's so determined to make enemies that he's capable of finding injury in the most innocent of messages.


Once again you are trying to tell me what I am attempting to do, and this further illustartes you're all-knowing, assuming character. [&o][&o][&o][8|]

You are so obvious it's pathetic. if not obvious, then simply obnoxious.

Ta, Chris



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.187012