Mr. T vs. the Confederacy!
Wesley Lowe
single handedly wins the Civil War.
http://www.geocities.com/lurch7.geo/tvscon1.html
Wesley Lowe
raymond o'hara
Wesley Lowe wrote in message ...
it was beneath lame the last two times .
i doubt it gets any better.
p.s. it's not remotely funny .
Stephen McCullough
of Mr. T is included.
Stephen McCullough
William G. Davis
"Wesley Lowe" <wl...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ewhF7.4591$Ne.11...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> --
>
> "raymond o'hara" <re...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:9NdF7.4729$MI.16...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> pathetic loser who needs to lighten up and get a life.
>
> Wesley Lowe
Some things do not lend themselves well to humor. Several years ago, one of
the TV Networks offered up a sit-com on the Lincoln Whitehouse. Considering
the tragic events and the loss of over a half-million lives, it was, to say
the least, a bad idea. I think few enjoyed humor more than Mr. Lincoln, and
few used it as successfully as did he. Nevertheless, 4 years of Civil War,
the moral issue of slavery, and, of course, the first assassination of a
President simply offer little room for tastes that find humor in those
events.
That aside, there were instances of humor among the men who fought, and
there were instances of ludicrous and buffoonish behavior by a fair number
of the men in leadership positions which do provide targets of satire on
occasion.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
--Lord Byron
L.M. Berkowitz
: Check out this Civil War spoof I made with Paint Shop Pro in which Mr. T:
:
It was bitchin' dude. Can you make another one in which Mr. T single handedly
whips Osama Bin Laden?
--
======================================================================
L.M. Berkowitz webm...@jewish-history.com
http://www.jewish-history.com/civilwar.htm "Jews in the Civil War"
G-D BLESS THE USA!
Drazen Kramaric
<pa7...@exNOSPAMcite.com> wrote:
>Some things do not lend themselves well to humor. Several years ago, one of
>the TV Networks offered up a sit-com on the Lincoln Whitehouse.
It was "The Secret Diaries of Desmond Pfeiffer". It ran on our TV last
year and it was bad. Bad humor, lots of inaccuracies (Grant wearing
three stars and serving in role of General-in-chief before the battle
of Shiloh) and not fun at all. However,
>Considering the tragic events and the loss of over a half-million lives, it was, to say
>the least, a bad idea. I think few enjoyed humor more than Mr. Lincoln, and
>few used it as successfully as did he. Nevertheless, 4 years of Civil War,
>the moral issue of slavery, and, of course, the first assassination of a
>President simply offer little room for tastes that find humor in those
>events.
... I find your paragraph above a bit misplaced. The World War II was
far more tragic event in the history and there is no lack of
humoristic shows situated in the period of WW2. Although I've never
seen it, I think a series about the life of Allied POWs in German camp
was large success in US and the characters like Colonel Klink became
known from coast to coast.
One of the most popular TV series in Europe in eighties was a BBC
humoristic show "'Alo! 'Alo!" situated in one bar somewhere in
occupied France. The showed used every known national stereotype about
French, Germans, British and Italians.
So if Europeans, who suffered far more than Americans in WW2 could
enjoy good WW2 comedy, Americans can and should enjoy good comedy
about ACW. "
"Desmond Pfeiffer" was simply a piece of bad comedy, nothing more,
nothing less.
Drax
William G. Davis
"Drazen Kramaric" <drazen....@zg.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:3beac360...@news.hinet.hr...
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 01:46:08 GMT, "William G. Davis"
> <pa7...@exNOSPAMcite.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Some things do not lend themselves well to humor. Several years ago, one
of
> >the TV Networks offered up a sit-com on the Lincoln Whitehouse.
>
> It was "The Secret Diaries of Desmond Pfeiffer". It ran on our TV last
> year and it was bad. Bad humor, lots of inaccuracies (Grant wearing
> three stars and serving in role of General-in-chief before the battle
> of Shiloh) and not fun at all. However,
>
> >Considering the tragic events and the loss of over a half-million lives,
it was, to say
> >the least, a bad idea. I think few enjoyed humor more than Mr. Lincoln,
and
> >few used it as successfully as did he. Nevertheless, 4 years of Civil
War,
> >the moral issue of slavery, and, of course, the first assassination of a
> >President simply offer little room for tastes that find humor in those
> >events.
>
> ... I find your paragraph above a bit misplaced. The World War II was
> far more tragic event in the history and there is no lack of
> humoristic shows situated in the period of WW2. Although I've never
> seen it, I think a series about the life of Allied POWs in German camp
> was large success in US and the characters like Colonel Klink became
> known from coast to coast.
We're talking about the US Civil War. I do not believe it compares in this
issue with WW II, or WW I, or 'Nam, etc.
Do you see opening for humor in any of the troubles the former Yugoslavia
has experienced? I do not.
>
> One of the most popular TV series in Europe in eighties was a BBC
> humoristic show "'Alo! 'Alo!" situated in one bar somewhere in
> occupied France. The showed used every known national stereotype about
> French, Germans, British and Italians.
I was never a fan of "Hogan's Heroes", and missed Alo! or whatever.
I will try to make this point:
Many WW II comedies focus on making fools of the enemy ("The Secret War of
Harry Frig"), or on the high command ("Kelley's Heroes"), or on our
civilians and home guard ("1941").
The problem with transferring comedy like that to the Civil War is that, as
the great Pogo Possum was fond of saying, "We have met the enemy and he is
us!" The same is true of the home guard. And the high command. And the
civilians. "They wuz all us!" It was a
> So if Europeans, who suffered far more than Americans in WW2 could
> enjoy good WW2 comedy, Americans can and should enjoy good comedy
> about ACW. "
But Europeans did not suffer more than Americans did in our Civil War.
I go back again to my question above: Do you find anything in the Balkan
Civil Wars which would lend itself to a "sit-com"?
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
- James Madison
Lynn
drazen....@zg.hinet.hr (Drazen Kramaric) wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 01:46:08 GMT, "William G. Davis"
><pa7...@exNOSPAMcite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Some things do not lend themselves well to humor. Several years ago, one
of
>>the TV Networks offered up a sit-com on the Lincoln Whitehouse.
>
>It was "The Secret Diaries of Desmond Pfeiffer". It ran on our TV last
>year and it was bad. Bad humor, lots of inaccuracies (Grant wearing
>three stars and serving in role of General-in-chief before the battle
>of Shiloh) and not fun at all. However,
>
>>Considering the tragic events and the loss of over a half-million lives,
it was, to
>say
>>the least, a bad idea. I think few enjoyed humor more than Mr. Lincoln,
and
>>few used it as successfully as did he. Nevertheless, 4 years of Civil
War,
>>the moral issue of slavery, and, of course, the first assassination of
a
>>President simply offer little room for tastes that find humor in those
>>events.
>
>far more tragic event in the history and there is no lack of
>humoristic shows situated in the period of WW2. Although I've never
>seen it, I think a series about the life of Allied POWs in German camp
>was large success in US and the characters like Colonel Klink became
>known from coast to coast.
>
>One of the most popular TV series in Europe in eighties was a BBC
>humoristic show "'Alo! 'Alo!" situated in one bar somewhere in
>occupied France. The showed used every known national stereotype about
>French, Germans, British and Italians.
>
>So if Europeans, who suffered far more than Americans in WW2 could
>enjoy good WW2 comedy, Americans can and should enjoy good comedy
>about ACW. "
>
>"Desmond Pfeiffer" was simply a piece of bad comedy, nothing more,
>nothing less.
>
>
>Drax
We had Alo!Alo! on Public TV and never missed an episode. It was a riot.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Brian Hampton
Kramaric) wrote:
>Although I've never
>seen it, I think a series about the life of Allied POWs in German camp
>was large success in US and the characters like Colonel Klink became
>known from coast to coast.
Just a small point. At the time _Hogan's Heroes_ was first aired,
there was a bit of controversy about whether the nation was prepared
for a farcical treatment of such a period that was still so close to
many Americans. The producers had to jump through some hoops to get
it produced. The show's later popularity coexisted with criticism
that it was insensitive to real POW's who had suffered in German POW
camps.
Personally, there are only a few subjects that I think are not open to
being the inspiration for humor. But, there will always be joyless
souls in the world who take everything way too seriously and perceive
vindictiveness around ever corner. The difference in whether humor is
good humor lies generally in its form. The best comedians don't tell
jokes; they tell the truth with a certain kind of comedic delivery.
Good comedy is to some extent insightful. The Civil War farce you
mention wasn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Hampton |You can get anything you want at
|Alice's Restaurant ... excepting
|Alice.
The Longstreet Chronicles | -- Arlo Guthrie
http://tennessee-scv.org/longstreet/ |
Drazen Kramaric
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>We're talking about the US Civil War. I do not believe it compares in this
>issue with WW II, or WW I, or 'Nam, etc.
Your comments about the ACW being inappropriate for comedy can and
should be put in wider context of making fun out of generally tragic
event such as war regardless of the newsgroup's topic.
>Do you see opening for humor in any of the troubles the former Yugoslavia
>has experienced? I do not.
The most popular film about the war in Croatia was a comedy. It had
some tragic elements and some drama, but people liked it most because
of its comic scenes.
>Many WW II comedies focus on making fools of the enemy ("The Secret War of
>Harry Frig"), or on the high command ("Kelley's Heroes"), or on our
>civilians and home guard ("1941").
>
>The problem with transferring comedy like that to the Civil War is that, as
>the great Pogo Possum was fond of saying, "We have met the enemy and he is
>us!" The same is true of the home guard. And the high command. And the
>civilians. "They wuz all us!" It was a
None of the people living now experienced Civil War personally.
Inability to laugh at one's own history shows that a society hasn't
matured to enough to cope with its own history.
One of the most popular British comedies was "Black Adder", a series
dedicated to make fun of British history. Noone was spared and the
show was hillarious, especially the six episodes about WW1. The lead
character is played by Rowan Atkinson of "Mr Bean" fame.
>But Europeans did not suffer more than Americans did in our Civil War.
Come on, Jeff. Millions of Europeans perished in WW2 and many more
people suffered under nazi occupation. Butler hanged one man in New
Orleans and it caused wholesale outrage in CSA. Hardly a day passed in
occupied Europe without some inocent civilian been killed by nazi
authorities.
>I go back again to my question above: Do you find anything in the Balkan
>Civil Wars which would lend itself to a "sit-com"?
The difference is that I (and millions of others) personally lived
through the period, while you and the rest of Americans were born at
least 50 years after the conflict ended. And as I said, the most
popular film about the war is comedy.
Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply
William G. Davis
"Drazen Kramaric" <dkra...@zap.hr> wrote in message
news:3beb9c2b....@10.248.248.10...
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 23:24:26 GMT, "William G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>
>
> >We're talking about the US Civil War. I do not believe it compares in
this
> >issue with WW II, or WW I, or 'Nam, etc.
>
> Your comments about the ACW being inappropriate for comedy can and
> should be put in wider context of making fun out of generally tragic
> event such as war regardless of the newsgroup's topic.
Why? They were comments about the American Civil War. You seek to
introduce other elements into it, I do not. You are the one who, in effect,
is trivializing it.
>
>
> >Do you see opening for humor in any of the troubles the former Yugoslavia
> >has experienced? I do not.
>
> The most popular film about the war in Croatia was a comedy. It had
> some tragic elements and some drama, but people liked it most because
> of its comic scenes.
That's too bad. I have as good a sense of humor as the next person, but I
simply cannot imagine anything to come out of that struggle which would lend
itself to humor....it was, like the American Civil War, too tragic.
>
>
> >Many WW II comedies focus on making fools of the enemy ("The Secret War
of
> >Harry Frig"), or on the high command ("Kelley's Heroes"), or on our
> >civilians and home guard ("1941").
> >
> >The problem with transferring comedy like that to the Civil War is that,
as
> >the great Pogo Possum was fond of saying, "We have met the enemy and he
is
> >us!" The same is true of the home guard. And the high command. And the
> >civilians. "They wuz all us!" It was a
>
> None of the people living now experienced Civil War personally.
> Inability to laugh at one's own history shows that a society hasn't
> matured to enough to cope with its own history.
I think you are missing the point entirely.
>
> One of the most popular British comedies was "Black Adder", a series
> dedicated to make fun of British history. Noone was spared and the
> show was hillarious, especially the six episodes about WW1. The lead
> character is played by Rowan Atkinson of "Mr Bean" fame.
>
> >But Europeans did not suffer more than Americans did in our Civil War.
>
> Come on, Jeff. Millions of Europeans perished in WW2 and many more
> people suffered under nazi occupation. Butler hanged one man in New
> Orleans and it caused wholesale outrage in CSA. Hardly a day passed in
> occupied Europe without some inocent civilian been killed by nazi
> authorities.
Over half a million dead. It was a tragedy. I have explained to you how it
was different from WW II and WW I, etc.
You insist on comapring it to these conflicts. I insist that the
comparisons are not valid.
>
> >I go back again to my question above: Do you find anything in the Balkan
> >Civil Wars which would lend itself to a "sit-com"?
>
> The difference is that I (and millions of others) personally lived
> through the period, while you and the rest of Americans were born at
> least 50 years after the conflict ended. And as I said, the most
> popular film about the war is comedy.
No, that is not the difference. I'm sorry you fail to grasp the difference.
t has nothing to do with living through it.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"These are times in which a Genius would wish to live.
It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a
pacific station, that great characters are formed....
Great necessities call out great virtues." - Abigail Adams
Maury 1722 Va
Where is the Mr T vs the CSA website?
Brian Hampton
wrote:
>Where is the Mr T vs the CSA website?
http://www.geocities.com/lurch7.geo/tvscon1.html
kmp
survivors - the little "Frenchman" and I believe, Col. Klink as well.
--
Kathy
> Just a small point. At the time _Hogan's Heroes_ was first aired,
> there was a bit of controversy about whether the nation was prepared
> for a farcical treatment of such a period that was still so close to
> many Americans. The producers had to jump through some hoops to get
> it produced. The show's later popularity coexisted with criticism
> that it was insensitive to real POW's who had suffered in German POW
> camps.
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release Date: 9/18/01
Ed Frank
> Interestingly enough, two of the actors on Hogan's Heroes were Holocaust
> survivors - the little "Frenchman" and I believe, Col. Klink as well.
You may be right about Lebeau the Frenchmen, but
Werner Klemperer was not in any real sense a
Holocaust survivor. His father, the conductor
Oscar Klemperer, got his immediate family out of
Germany in the mid-1930s, and Werner was (IIRC) a
US army veteran.
John Banner (Sgt Schulz) I believe also escaped
from his native Austria in 1938 or 1939.
Ed "I loathed the show, but am interested in
the immigration of Germans to this country" Frank
Drazen Kramaric
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>Over half a million dead. It was a tragedy. I have explained to you how it
>was different from WW II and WW I, etc.
>You insist on comapring it to these conflicts. I insist that the
>comparisons are not valid.
The comparisons are not valid only if you take a view that American
Civil War is a unique event in the history of mankind that stands on
its own and has its own standards unapplicable to any other major
conflict.
You know Americans much better than I, so if you say that Americans
can't make fun out of their own tragedy I'll accept this and will take
note about that interesting feature of American life.
Europeans, with far more tragic and more recent history of mutual
killing, can view their history with a bit of humour. British, often
mocked by Americans as stiff, have a lead in making fun out of their
history. Italians made a film about Holocaust with some comedy
elements and this film won an European festival award in Cannes couple
of years ago.
Perhaps, the ocean between us is not only a physical barrier between
our two continents, internet and jet airliners notwithstanding.
Drax
William G. Davis
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:52:03 GMT, "William G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>
>
> >Over half a million dead. It was a tragedy. I have explained to you how
it
> >was different from WW II and WW I, etc.
> >You insist on comapring it to these conflicts. I insist that the
> >comparisons are not valid.
>
> The comparisons are not valid only if you take a view that American
> Civil War is a unique event in the history of mankind that stands on
> its own and has its own standards unapplicable to any other major
> conflict.
I think it does, in many ways.
>
> You know Americans much better than I, so if you say that Americans
> can't make fun out of their own tragedy I'll accept this and will take
> note about that interesting feature of American life.
Really? Is that what you think I said? Or is that what you want me to have
said?
>
> Europeans, with far more tragic and more recent history of mutual
> killing, can view their history with a bit of humour. British, often
> mocked by Americans as stiff, have a lead in making fun out of their
> history. Italians made a film about Holocaust with some comedy
> elements and this film won an European festival award in Cannes couple
> of years ago.
>
> Perhaps, the ocean between us is not only a physical barrier between
> our two continents, internet and jet airliners notwithstanding.
Your history is much different from ours. The majority of your disputes
there in Europe have been religious based, or familial squabbles, economic,
conquering, or racial ones. The wars of the 20th century fall into that
category. Even most of our wars have fallen into those categories. The
British Civil War was one fought over religion. Your own recent conflict
was a series of ethnic disputes which resulted, in many cases, from
millennia-old pay-backs and grudges.
Not so the American Civil War. The ACW was, first, and formost, a
sociologically epochal event, totallly internal to the United States,
stemming not from ethnic or racial roots, not from familial squabbles, not
from economic sources, (although there were elements of all of these things
in the war) and certainly not from an invading horde. I think the closest
thing to it might be the French Revolution.
In America, there was a socio-economic subsystem, which, while once
nation-wide, gradually settled on the south. The polarization between the
south and the north was in existance before the nation itself was formed,
and the polarization was, essentially, sociological in nature. The economic
portion of the equation was simply present by default. There was a
difference of ideals, a problem of long-standing between the sections. It
had nothing to do with any other country. It had nothing to do with
ethnicity. It had nothing to do with conquest. It did not stem from the
admixture of various nationalities, in fact, quite the opposite...that was
apart of the makeup of the epoch which makes it unique. You can boil it
down to the fact that they went to war over differences in how they would be
governed <<within the democratic republic>>. We fought a civil war over how
to interpret the stated ideals of the American Revolution.
There are, of course, many points of comparison between all wars, but taken
as a whole, I do not believe there is anything which bears a strong
comparison to the American Civil War -- it was unique in too many ways.
Enjoy your humor. If it is the same film I am thinking of, the one about
the concentration camp won an Oscar as Best Picture. I have not seen it.
Like the American Civil War, the Holocaust is something which, in my mind,
does not lend itself to humor. I understand Benini's point, that humor made
the ordeal less intolerable, and I agree with that point, that it could, and
probably did. That's human nature. Nevertheless, the loss of 6 million
souls weighs too heavily on my heart to find humor there. I feel the same
about the American Civil War.
I don't imagine you will understand this, but I'll say no more about it.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"During my 87 years I have witnessed a whole succession
of technological revolutions. But none of them has done
away with the need for character in the individual or
the ability to think."
-Bernard M. Baruch
>
> Drax
Bruce Weiers
I had never really thought about humor and the Civil War before, but I have
to admit we are pretty solemn about it.
A couple of years ago, someone actually tried to create sitcom centered on
Lincoln's black butler, or something like that. It was truly awful, and not
at all funny.
I remember a year ago, or maybe, two, a discussion on the newsgroup about a
book of purported humor, sold to tourists at Gettysburg. Various quotations
proved completely devoid of any humor I could appreciate.
There are some mildly funny moments in Gone with the Wind, taken
seriously -- some wildly funny moments, if you want to make fun of the
movie, itself.
Memories of World War II are in the final blaze of sunset, and mostly very
solemn at the moment. Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers, are
all pretty humorless. But, let's face it, we are practically at the funeral
for that generation. When the World War II generation was merely
middle-aged in the 1950's, 1960's and early 1970's, World War II was a good
deal funnier. "Hogan's Heroes" -- a television show set in German prisoner
of war camp -- could be hilarious.
I have no idea why the Civil War does not strike us as funny. Maybe, it is
just too remote in time. I know I tend to marvel at the costumes and the
formality of speech, more than anything else. Would Europeans find Napoleon
III funny? I mean he could be pretty ridiculous in his day -- but, would
anyone today find him funny?
"Drazen Kramaric" <drazen....@zg.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:3bf2e8f8...@news.hinet.hr...
Stephen McCullough
writing, teaching or studying, but other then say the Holocaust or Bear
Bryant, I tend to find black humor in almost any era. Most of the other
grad students I know are somewhat the same way. You want that Leonardo
kid to drown in Titantic, or you argue over what president would be the
must fun to party with (Truman and William Henry Harrison were the
winners). And if you can't work in joke on Braxton Bragg or Ambrose
Burnside when talking about them, you just aren't trying.
Stephen McCullough
raymond o'hara
Drazen Kramaric wrote in message <3bf2e8f8...@news.hinet.hr>...
>On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:52:03 GMT, "William G. Davis"
>our two continents, internet and jet airliners notwithstanding.
>
>
>Drax
it's not about making fun of the cw , the three stooges and many others have
done that.
it's that the tv show in question was not funny but merely offensive , it's
writers were out to offend people mistaking that for humour .
portraying lincoln and grant as gay lovers and all white folk as crazy
drunken fools in the most unsubtle ham-handed way possible .
this show was also badly written and acted ,it's demise had nothing to do
with any "sacred " regard for history .
Gary Charbonneau
Bruce Weiers wrote:
> I had never really thought about humor and the Civil War before, but I have
> to admit we are pretty solemn about it.
The Civil War did at least give rise to this one-liner:
"But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
- Gary Charbonneau
Dennis Maggard
Over the years we've actually had a fair amount of humor revolving
around the Civil War and the news group itself here, going back to
Barbara O'Brien's purple mint julep piece, Kathie Fraser-Watson's
immortal 'Twas the Night Before Christmas parody, countless Civil War
casting calls, and many other humorous efforts, simple and elaborate,
by a number of people, myself included. The appreciation of humor by
the news group as a whole has declined over the years as the number of
John Brown and Edmund Ruffin electronic re-enactors has increased,
which is the reason I gave it up, but I don't think that says anything
about the American people -- this news groups should never be confused
with America as a whole where most people know little or nothing of
the Civil War and are not consumed by the passions which animate so
many around here.
AWCUSA trivia question: Who said that MacClellan was so slow that
where other generals lumbered forth, he always lumbered fifth?
Dennis
Dennis Maggard
<char...@indiana.edu> wrote:
Over the years we've actually had a fair amount of humor revolving
around the Civil War and the news group itself here, going back to
Barbara O'Brien's purple mint julep piece, Kathie Fraser-Watson's
immortal 'Twas the Night Before Christmas parody, countless Civil War
casting calls, and many other humorous efforts, simple and elaborate,
by a number of people, myself included. The appreciation of humor by
the news group as a whole has declined over the years as the number of
John Brown and Edmund Ruffin electronic re-enactors has increased,
which is the reason I gave it up, but I don't think that says anything
about the American people -- this news group should never be confused
Gary Charbonneau
Dennis Maggard wrote:
>
> AWCUSA trivia question: Who said that MacClellan was so slow that
> where other generals lumbered forth, he always lumbered fifth?
>
Don't know the answer to that one, but the latest issue of NORTH & SOUTH notes
that, during the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan was referred to as "the Virginia
Creeper."
- Gary Charbonneau
Colin Whipple
"Gary Charbonneau" <char...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3BF41012...@indiana.edu...
I read in a book I read recently that Lincoln once said of the Army of the
Potomac, "That is not an army, that is McClellan's bodyguard".
I think he did not regard the statement as very funny, though.
Colin
Bruce Weiers
"Stephen McCullough" <stephen.m...@ua.edu> wrote in message
news:3BF40F0D...@ua.edu...
> you argue over what president would be the
> must fun to party with (Truman and William Henry Harrison were the
> winners)
Don't know about Harrison, but I cannot imagine wanting to party with
Truman: he was not particularly witty, women -- especially pretty women
made him uncomfortable, he drank too much, and he tended to want to play the
piano and sing (you think Margaret sang badly, well she got that gene from
dad).
FDR, on the other hand, made an excellent cocktail. And, John Kennedy could
introduce you to Marilyn Monroe!
Stephen McCullough
with. As for Kennedy, I've always been repelled by his personal life.
Stephen McCullough
Brian Hampton
wrote:
>John Brown and Edmund Ruffin electronic re-enactors has increased,
>which is the reason I gave it up, but I don't think that says anything
>about the American people -- this news groups should never be confused
>with America as a whole where most people know little or nothing of
>the Civil War and are not consumed by the passions which animate so
>many around here.
In my experience, I can only say that I know far more people who find
the Civil War a constant source of amusement than I don't. And, if we
want to take this to reenacting, well, we all know how serious many of
these people are, and I think we also know, or should now, how a good
portion of the public views people who willingly wear wool suits in
the middle of July and no A/C anywhere in sight. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Hampton |"'Our country right or wrong'...
| Have you not perceived that that
| phrase is an insult to the
The Longstreet Chronicles | nation?"
http://tennessee-scv.org/longstreet/ | - Mark Twain
Brian Hampton
<stephen.m...@ua.edu> wrote:
>I think Truman, in the context of say poker night, would be hoot to be
>with. As for Kennedy, I've always been repelled by his personal life.
Kennedy has always struck me as a spoiled little rich kid, kinda like
our current President. Interestingly, a world crisis in both cases
seems to have brought out the best in them.
I've always wanted to go backwoodsing with Teddy.
[snip]
Lynn
Brian Hampton <old...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:24:47 GMT, Dennis Maggard <dmag...@cox.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Brown and Edmund Ruffin electronic re-enactors has increased,
>>which is the reason I gave it up, but I don't think that says anything
>>about the American people -- this news groups should never be confused
>>with America as a whole where most people know little or nothing of
>>the Civil War and are not consumed by the passions which animate so
>>many around here.
Agreed, in spades!
>
>In my experience, I can only say that I know far more people who find
>the Civil War a constant source of amusement than I don't.
Brian, how is this? Amusement? The worse I've seen is boredom and that is
incomprehensible to me. A friend from Minnesota, when I was recounting the
lst Minn. losing 215 out of 262 at 2nd day at Gettys said "Who Cares"?
And that's the way it is.
And, if we
>want to take this to reenacting, well, we all know how serious many of
>these people are, and I think we also know, or should now, how a good
>portion of the public views people who willingly wear wool suits in
>the middle of July and no A/C anywhere in sight. :-)
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian D. Hampton |"'Our country right or wrong'...
> | Have you not perceived that that
> | phrase is an insult to the
> The Longstreet Chronicles | nation?"
> http://tennessee-scv.org/longstreet/ | - Mark Twain
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Bruce Weiers
"Brian Hampton" <old...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ki29vtksbkuf42prr...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:07:55 -0600, Stephen McCullough
> <stephen.m...@ua.edu> wrote:
>
> >I think Truman, in the context of say poker night, would be hoot to be
> >with. As for Kennedy, I've always been repelled by his personal life.
>
> Kennedy has always struck me as a spoiled little rich kid, kinda like
> our current President. Interestingly, a world crisis in both cases
> seems to have brought out the best in them.
Kennedy was a "spoiled little rich kid," who wrote, "Why England Slept," as
his senior thesis, and "Profiles in Courage."
He was a "spoiled little rich kid," who commanded a PT boat in the South
Pacific, surviving the sinking of his ship and severe injury.
He was intelligent, witty, articulate and could be quite serious and
purposeful. He was all of that, long before the Cuban missle crisis.
George W. Bush is a profoundly uncurious and uncontemplative man, and that
is very dangerous. As far as anyone can tell, he doesn't read books, let
alone write them. George W.'s wartime service was in the air national
guard, and he blew off the last few months of that. He'd never so much as
been to Europe, before he became President. The one moment of enlightened
self-realization in his life was the consequence of drinking too much, once
too often on his 40th birthday.
He absolutely had to go after Osama and that terrorist organization, but he
did not have to declare a general "War on Terrorism," which is undefined and
open-ended. Five minutes thought would expose any thoughtful person to more
than enough pitfalls in a crusade defined in that imprecise and
unsophisticated way, to justify running the other way at top speed.
Instead, he's out playing let's make a deal with every repressive regime in
South Asia, save one.
Far from articulate, the man seems to always be addressing third graders.
I shake my head every time I hear him refer to Osama, as "the evil one."
(You'd think he went to school at Hogwarts Academy, if he were not obviously
such a muggle.) I cringed when he opened his 9/11 speech to the nation with
"good evening." He doesn't seem to think in advance about anything!
With no appreciation for consequences, because he doesn't think about them,
he provides no brake on the wholesale assault on what little remains of
American civil liberties. It is not just the fascist ring of the "Office of
Homeland Security," it is the active dismantling of the Constitution. What
Osama didn't flatten, George will knock down.
This is what William Safire, hardly a flaming liberal, had to say,
"Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president
of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to
jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion
for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the
replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts.
"In his infamous emergency order, Bush admits to dismissing "the principles
of law and the rules of evidence" that undergird America's system of
justice. He seizes the power to circumvent the courts and set up his own
drumhead tribunals - panels of officers who will sit in judgment of
non-citizens who the president need only claim "reason to believe" are
members of terrorist organizations.
"Not content with his previous decision to permit police to eavesdrop on a
suspect's conversations with an attorney, Bush now strips the alien accused
of even the limited rights afforded by a court-martial.
"His kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national security, make
up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers
disagree, and execute the alien with no review by any civilian court.
"No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between
the government and the accused. In lieu of those checks and balances central
to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now
investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an
Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination "a full
and fair trial."
Brian Hampton
wrote:
>Brian, how is this? Amusement?
Well, this comes from the fact that most of the people I know realize
how seriously interested I am and use this as the source of good
natured ribbing.
My favorite was from a friend who saw me looking at an issue of _Civil
War Times_ in a bookstore. He walked up behind me and very casually
asked, "So, what's the latest news from the front?"
He had a point. (As I said elsewhere, good humor is somewhat
insightful.) There's a kind of tendency among many Civil War
enthusiasts to re-fight battles, both political and military. A
publication named _Civil War Times_ comes across to the
unindoctrinated as sounding like a newspaper telling the latest news.
Stephen McCullough
egregious error, he appointed Robert McNamara.
Stephen McCuullough
Brian Hampton
wrote:
>Kennedy was a "spoiled little rich kid," who wrote, "Why England Slept," as
>his senior thesis, and "Profiles in Courage."
[snips]
I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of Kennedy with
you except to point out that, like Stephen, his personal life repulses
me, and it is that personal life that makes me think of him as a
spoiled little rich kid.
Ed Frank
> I think Truman, in the context of say poker night, would be hoot to be
> with.
I'd go along with that--and we could even talk
some history.
>As for Kennedy, I've always been repelled by his personal life.
Political power has -always- been a route to
more and better sex. I'm no particular fan of JFK's,
but he wasn't the only alley cat to occupy the Oval
Office.
Ed "both would have been more fun to be around
than parson Wilson" Frank
William G. Davis
"Colin Whipple" <colin...@power.net> wrote in message
news:9t13ft$15ugbp$1...@ID-93037.news.dfncis.de...
No, indeed he did not. After being shown around the Antietam Battlefield
the day before by McClellan and his staff, during which he seemed distracted
and or disinterested, Lincoln spent the night in a tent. Rising before the
army the next morning, he took his friend Hatch, who had accompanied him on
the trip, to some high ground overlooking the vast camp of the Army of the
Potomac.
From Donald's "Lincoln":
"Hatch--Hatch, what is all this?"
"Why, Mr. Lincoln," replied Hatch, "this is the Army of the Potomac."
After a moment's pause the president straightened up and said in a louder
voice: "No, Hatch, no. This is General McClellan's body-guard."
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"In giving freedom to the slave,
we assure freedom to the free:
honorable alike in what we give
and what we preserve."
--Abraham Lincoln
William G. Davis
simply do not lend themselves to humor.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
--Lord Byron
"Stephen McCullough" <stephen.m...@ua.edu> wrote in message
news:3BF40F0D...@ua.edu...
Stephen McCullough
Ed Frank wrote:
Woodrow Wilson has to be one of the oddest fellows to occupy the Oval
Office. But could he be mour dour then John Quincy Adams? (Whom I
personally admire but doubt would want to socialize with).
Stephen McCullough
Jason Corley
> FDR, on the other hand, made an excellent cocktail. And, John Kennedy could
> introduce you to Marilyn Monroe!
I think a JFK party would tire me out too quickly. A slightly less-good
partier is probably all I can handle.
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't
know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason Corley | le...@aeonsociety.org | ICQ 41199011
AChiWriter
just too remote in time. I >>
Check out Buster Keaton's classic Civil War comedy "The General" from 1926 for
a unique take on humor and the conflict.
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>it's not about making fun of the cw , the three stooges and many others have
>done that.
>it's that the tv show in question was not funny but merely offensive , it's
>writers were out to offend people mistaking that for humour .
>portraying lincoln and grant as gay lovers and all white folk as crazy
>drunken fools in the most unsubtle ham-handed way possible .
>this show was also badly written and acted ,it's demise had nothing to do
>with any "sacred " regard for history .
I suppose you didn't notice when I explicitely labeled "Secret Diaries
of Desmond Pfeiffer" as bad comedy. I watched several episodes and the
only good thing in all of them was the blonde secretary.
My point is that ACW was not more tragic historical event for
Americans than World War I for Europeans and whole of Europe enjoyed
BlackAdder's six episodes about World War I. Everything was there,
from muddy trenches, dirty uniforms, rats as steaks, stupid generals,
death penalties, night patrols in the noman land, air war, espionage,
POWs, entertaiment for troops and in the end, one great suicidal
charge with fixed bayonets against German machineguns.
After all, this very group created some hilarious stories about
Albanian Goat cavalry, dogs with antitrain mines etc.
Drax "wasn't Coolidge the most boring president?"
kmp
occupy the White House, as well. Too close to the ACW I suppose...
--
Kathy
"Stephen McCullough" <stephen.m...@ua.edu> wrote in message
news:3BF6486E...@ua.edu...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release Date: 9/18/01
BlanketGHS
>I believe I've heard that Woodrow was one of the most racist presidents to
>occupy the White House, as well. Too close to the ACW I suppose...
>
he grew up in Staunton VA and was nine when the war ended; although his family
didn't suffer during the war, he probably, as an impressionable kid, imbibed
all of the "moonlight & magnolia" aura of the South; if I remember correctly,
both his wives were
from Virginia also.
Wilson certainly enjoyed Thomas Dixon, Jr.'s the Clansman, and called "Birth of
a Nation"--"history writ with lightning"--to which someone replied "yeah, a bit
of flash, and a lot of darkness"
Read David Levering Lewis' biography of W.E.B. DuBois to get a pretty good
idea of how Wilson dealt with Black folks during his presidency.
Also, DuBois' dad (20th USCT), uncle (29th Connecticut) and mother's cousins
(54th Mass, 5th Mass Cav) fought in the ACW--just in passing
Reg Pitts
Blank...@aol.com
Lynn
drazen....@zg.hinet.hr (Drazen Kramaric) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:44:54 GMT, "raymond o'hara" <re...@mediaone.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>it's not about making fun of the cw , the three stooges and many others
have
>>done that.
>>it's that the tv show in question was not funny but merely offensive ,
it's
>>writers were out to offend people mistaking that for humour .
>>portraying lincoln and grant as gay lovers and all white folk as crazy
>>drunken fools in the most unsubtle ham-handed way possible .
>>this show was also badly written and acted ,it's demise had nothing to
do
>>with any "sacred " regard for history .
>
>I suppose you didn't notice when I explicitely labeled "Secret Diaries
>of Desmond Pfeiffer" as bad comedy. I watched several episodes and the
>only good thing in all of them was the blonde secretary.
>
>BlackAdder's six episodes about World War I. Everything was there,
>from muddy trenches, dirty uniforms, rats as steaks, stupid generals,
>death penalties, night patrols in the noman land, air war, espionage,
>POWs, entertaiment for troops and in the end, one great suicidal
>charge with fixed bayonets against German machineguns.
>
>After all, this very group created some hilarious stories about
>Albanian Goat cavalry, dogs with antitrain mines etc.
>
>Drax "wasn't Coolidge the most boring president?"
No, you have to be "into" dry N.E. humor.
I have studdied him some, he is not what he looks like if you know what I
mean?
However, we ageee at last, no one is funnier that BlackAdder and especially
the War I series. When he said"Captain Darling" it was a break up.
Stephen McCullough
Social Darwsinism. Besides blacks, his racism extended to other people
of color as well. In an incident dripping with irony, in 1919 Wilson
refused to meet with an Asian nationalist seeking his nation's
independence from France. Wilson was helping redraw the map of Europe to
express nationalistic self-defermination, but applying this concept to
Asia and Africa was alien to Wilson. So the Asian nationalist, rebuffed
by Wilson, turned to communism to help liberate his country from French
colonial rule. The man? Ho Chi Minh.
Stephen McCullough