|
Post by Banned on Mar 22, 2007 9:08:47 GMT -6
You have the right to accept or not accept anything you like. You are entitled to your opinions and believes. However, your bigoted remarks only cause some to think less of you. Benteen had a bad opinion of Custer. Guess who betrayed and who died until the last man? Chamberlain had a bad opinion of Churchill. Who shaked Uncle Adolf's hand? And, definitely, Sean Penn has a bad opinion of George Bush. But Bush didn't shake Saddam Hussein's hand. I think I can live with this kind of bad opinion. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 22, 2007 9:23:07 GMT -6
Meanwhile the poor Iraqi who started accosting the above-pictured Saddam statue now regrets his actions and calls the Americans "occupiers." He actually misses the security and predictible electricity of the old regime, though he was imprisoned by the Baathists for nine years! "The devil you know," he said on ABC's World News this week, "is better than the one you don't."
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Mar 22, 2007 9:27:13 GMT -6
You won't go to the theaters soon, right ? You've then time to start reading articles on Iraq, for example, this one: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.eceBTW, watching ABC about Iraq is like reading the Pravda in 1980s. You would be still sure that the West is poorer than the Soviet Republics... ;D
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 22, 2007 9:32:22 GMT -6
While Iraq is a serious issues with ominous consequences, I don't think Iraq has anything to do with this forum. Keep it to Custer/LBH/Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Mar 22, 2007 9:47:03 GMT -6
It's perhaps time to realize that LBH is a serious issue too, hum?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 22, 2007 10:02:02 GMT -6
<It's perhaps time to realize that LBH is a serious issue too, hum?>
I wouldn't be here if I didn't think the LBH was interesting . . . but what happened 131 years ago should only be taken serious as to lessons learned . . . which obviously we still have not gotten.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 22, 2007 10:34:11 GMT -6
It's perhaps time to realize that LBH is a serious issue too, hum? Actually, LBH is history and relatively (in an American context) distant history at that. Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 22, 2007 10:52:50 GMT -6
Billy:
I gotta disagree about the "distant history".
We have people alive today who knew the ones who were at the LBH . . . grandparents and even some still alive with parents who were there.
And as long as we're discussing the LBH it will still be fresh in our minds.
The battle itself was not "serious" in the true sense . . . but the reasons why certainly are.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 22, 2007 11:04:50 GMT -6
If we were to accept for a split second that Benteen "betrayed Custer" ... where would Custer be if he hadn't?
His "Last Stand" death gave him a place in myth and legend. If he'd survived, any or all of the following would probably have happened: * Another court-martial, for disobeying orders. * Another court-martial, for bringing the Army into disrepute in the Belknap hearings. * Dismissal. * Bankruptcy. * Divorce, with Libbie finally tired of his shenanigans. * A slightly pathetic showbiz career, starting with the Redpath-Lyceum lectures, then maybe Buffalo Bill's Wild West, then ... who knows: exhibiting himself as a fairground curiosity, in all likelihood.
There was no wholly good future for this man, even with a victory, if he'd lived. Death got him off the hook and secured him everlasting fame. (Just tough that he had to take another 200-plus men with him.)
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 22, 2007 11:27:29 GMT -6
If Custer survived AND won a big victory at the LBH I think Custer's connections with the anti-Grant papers, politicians, and big business would have put him in a good position.
The anti-Grant press would have been crowing all over about how vindictive & petty Grant was acting to keep Custer out of the campaign.
Those anti-Grant forces wanted Grant out of office, either by him not re-running or losing an election. If so a Democrat may have won the election and only Presidents (I believe) can give out a general's star. Grant certainly wasn't going to give Custer a star . . . but a Democratic President with newspapers & big business behind him . . . more than likely would.
However, what place he would have in history would have paled to what he actually got, and Custer would only be another footnote to US history rather than controversial and (in)famous for all-time.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 22, 2007 11:38:11 GMT -6
Hmmm ... You could be right. But he'd still have been in serious money trouble ... and how far would a new President trust a man who'd dissed his Commander-in-Chief as Custer had? Yes, on reflection I think you're right that he could probably have been OK for a bit. But any sensible administration would have spotted him as a loose cannon, and made sure he was safely sidelined, one would think. Use him for the election, then ditch him; that would probably be the bright thing to do ...
|
|
jjm
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by jjm on Mar 22, 2007 13:23:49 GMT -6
"the gay pride is the summit of ridiculous exhibition. If heterosexuals do the same, we would call that obcenity. "
I'd call it Amsterdam! Jeez, you're a nutjob. Go polish your jackboots.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2007 17:29:55 GMT -6
Man, oh man! ya gotta love this stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 23, 2007 8:11:52 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
About the only thing you didn't cover in your reflection of a survived-at-LBH GAC was that, most likely, he probably could have still relied upon his writing for some sort of income. Whether folks wanted to read anything--even the infamous Civil War memoirs that were never finished--by a washed-up army officer of questionable repute ... maybe he'd take another nom de plume to write penny novels.
It's been said time and time again that America loves comeback stories. Perhaps GAC could have been our first "Comeback Kid." Well, probably not. Especially if he lost the guidance of Libbie.
Fred: I'm debating which thread is more entertaining. This one or the Inferior Civilizations; watching DC "attack in all directions ..."
--t.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 23, 2007 8:53:37 GMT -6
Tricia --
A nom de plume such as "Frederick Whittaker", perhaps?! (Now there's the makings of a nice conspiracy-theory story ...!)
Interesting to consider whether he'd have had a readership or not. When he first wrote for Galaxy, did people know who "Nomad" was, I wonder, or did his stuff get read on its own merits? If the latter, he might still have got away with it. Or, as you say, go the dime-novel route ... or write scathing editorials for Bennett ... or something. He could have made a living. But even with the fees he was commanding when at the top of the tree, it would have taken forever to pay back all the money he owed.
I wonder ... He always fancied himself as an actor, didn't he. Maybe his pal Lawrence Barrett would have given him a job. He'd be good box-office; people would come to see him out of pure curiosity, in all likelihood.
|
|