Replies

woodpusher: "I was just documenting that you have cognitive issues...
Due to your Biden syndrome, in your confusion you imagined that DiogenesLamp had "quoted" woodpusher."
You're right, I checked your homework and it's a clear case of clerical mistaken identity -- I mistook your twin brother (or sister), FLT-bird, for you, sorry about that, young fellow.

That's ok young child, but how you mistoook a statement by FLT-bird for statement in a non-existent post of mine remains a mystery.

And maybe you can help out by explaining in what ways you actually differ from FLT-bird?

First, his handle is FLT-bird and mine is woodpusher. Second, he was on the thread and I was not.

Maybe you can help out by identifying who is living rent free in your head, woodpusher or FLT-bird?

Before you made your "quote," my handle did not even appear on the thread.

woodpusher: "Our conversation is on another thread where you established that Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Roy P. Basler were all Lost Causers. "
And here you demonstrate your own "cognitive issues" and also validate my criticism of many Lost Causers -- you can dump-truck a full 14 yards of quotes on us, but have only specious arguments to cement all that aggregate together.
First, here, you duplicated your post to jmacusa, just changing the addressee.
Second, your duplicated posts #127 & 128

First, that conversation is on another thread where you cut and ran. If you choose to resume it, do so on the proper thread.

Second, due to your lack of due diligence, failure to properly read the posts, and your typically shoddy research, you failed to notice that my #127 and #128 on the other thread are NOT duplicates as you state. They are materially different, and constituted seperate replies, necessitated by the different content of #124 by jmacusa, and #125 by BroJoeK.

For example, my first substantive reply statement in my #127 to jmacusa was "So, you think ULYSSES S. GRANT was not right about anything as quoted in my #123."

The first substantive reply statement in my #128 to BroJoeK was, "Just so we're clear, nothing from your Wikipedia links is relevant to whether anything in my #123 was accurate or false. One may be sure that the Wikipedia first severe period of violence in 1868 did not cause Reconstruction to be instituted."

Had your "attention to detail" extended to reading what I posted, up to the first substantive statement following the indented blockquote of what was replied to, you would have realized the two posts are markedly and materially distinct and different.

woodpusher: "First, that conversation is on another thread where you cut and ran. "

And yet you've brought it here.

woodpusher: "Had your "attention to detail" extended to reading what I posted, up to the first substantive statement following the indented blockquote of what was replied to, you would have realized the two posts are markedly and materially distinct and different."

And yet you used the same quotes to spring the same "trick" on both.
And you then claimed the same faux-victory over both.

But if you boil it down, the question you posed in #123 is whether US Grant was correct in December 1865 in saying that "the mass of" Southern "thinking men" accepted Union troops while "the ignorant" might not?
Indeed, did the mass violence against blacks perpetuated by the Klan & others years after Grant's 1865 report even mean Grant was wrong, or somehow (as woodpusher claims) a Lost Causer himself?!
In other words, when Grant said (Dec 1865, as quoted by woodpusher) --

"I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith."

And also:

"It is not the thinking men who would use violence towards any class of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might..."

-- did Southern "thinking men", after all, permit, encourage or even participate in violence against African-Americans, which began years after Grant's 1865 report and lasted many decades?

Now jmacusa may have his own answer to this, but mine is: that's a question which should be put to Southern "thinking men", and should you ever meet one and ask it, the answer would be of interest to everyone here.