NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression, and I ran across a word that was used to describe Sherman's march across the South.

The word was "anabasis". Interestingly, the word can mean either military advance or military retreat. I think that's interesting -- a word that is it's own antonym. Is there a special name for a word like that?

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?

what? you didnt read xenophon's anabasis when you took greek in college?

its a famous but boring book.

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression

Not by any reasonable person.

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression, and I ran across a word that was used to describe Sherman's march across the South.

The word was "anabasis". Interestingly, the word can mean either military advance or military retreat. I think that's interesting -- a word that is it's own antonym. Is there a special name for a word like that?

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?

I don't know about English, but in Gujarati and Hindi, the word for tomorrow and yesterday are both "kal." You have to pick up which one the person's talking about in context.

And I'm not sure if there is a formal name for this group of words.

Sorry, I didn't read your whole post. I stopped at "War of Northern Aggression" and was then too busy rolling my eyes.

Not by any reasonable person.

...yes, by some perfectly reasonable people.

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression

Not by any reasonable person.

Indeed.

I've asked this question at least three times on NSG and never gotten an answer...how can the North be the aggressor when the South fired the first shots??

...yes, by some perfectly reasonable people.

Name one, other than yourself.

cleave is one, and as far as I knew, was the only one.

according to the oxford english dictionary anabasis is a military march. it can be used for an advance but the sentence used from "the times" about shermans march implies that it CANT be used to describe a retreat

Indeed.

I've asked this question at least three times on NSG and never gotten an answer...how can the North be the aggressor when the South fired the first shots??

your question implies that the whole thing has to make SENSE.

please allow me to assure you that it doesnt.

your question implies that the whole thing has to make SENSE.

please allow me to assure you that it doesnt.

Funny...I've heard of Ft. Sumter...it makes sense to me.

Not by any reasonable person.

Here in Virginia, even we who have no ancestors from that time refer to it as "The Recent Unpleasantness"

I've asked this question at least three times on NSG and never gotten an answer...how can the North be the aggressor when the South fired the first shots??

They have to justify their war to maintain slavery somehow. The "we were defending ourselves" gives them a pathetic moral legitimacy to trumpet to anyone who is foolish enough to listen.

Can't we simply have a word geeks thread:(

rhythms, possibly the longest word with none of the five major vowels.

See, isn't it fun

Name one, other than yourself.

I never said I did. don't be a jackass. I'm just defending their right to do so. I'm an 11th generation pennsylvanian. my direct ancestors had stops on the underground railroad in their basement. the war was, however, not about slavery, and not justified - the majority of the abolition movement opposed the war. the majority of abolitionists were pacifists, and then men who directed the war were ambivalent about slavery.

Funny...I've heard of Ft. Sumter...it makes sense to me.

oh im sorry. i meant the deep attachment that some people have to that period of history that causes them to call it "the war of nothern aggression" as if "the civil war" isnt good enough.

if you look at it the right way, the thing is all the north's fault.

I never said I did. don't be a jackass. I'm just defending their right to do so. I'm an 11th generation pennsylvanian. my direct ancestors had stops on the underground railroad in their basement. the war was, however, not about slavery, and not justified - the majority of the abolition movement opposed the war. the majority of abolitionists were pacifists, and then men who directed the war were ambivalent about slavery.

that wasn't really worthy of a flame.

They have to justify their war to maintain slavery somehow. The "we were defending ourselves" gives them a pathetic moral legitimacy to trumpet to anyone who is foolish enough to listen.

it was not about slavery. Lincoln owned slaves. the emancipation proclamation was issued DURING the war, not before. do you believe every bit of glorified nationalism the government spoon feeds you, or just this instance? I bet you think the revolution was about freedom and democracy, too.

Indeed.

I've asked this question at least three times on NSG and never gotten an answer...how can the North be the aggressor when the South fired the first shots??

Easy.. if your from the South you don't want to be the bad guy...

Anabasis means to move a large body of troops, regardless of an advance or a retreat the movement is an anabis, just a beuvack (prolly spelled way wrong) is making or breaking a camp...

that wasn't really worthy of a flame.

the implication that defending someone's right to say something, or allowing that they are rational individuals, means you somehow agree with them (or somehow are racist or bigoted) is incredibly annoying. I am also grumpy.

it was not about slavery. Lincoln owned slaves. the emancipation proclamation was issued DURING the war, not before. do you believe every bit of glorified nationalism the government spoon feeds you, or just this instance? I bet you think the revolution was about freedom and democracy, too.

Bullshit. Slavery was on the way out, there were numerous political problems of North vs. South throughout Americas entire history until the Civil War that regarded slavery. Those who try to deny the war was in the end about slavery is lying to themselves. Or are Southerners who need to increase their low self esteem about losing.

Bullshit. Slavery was on the way out, there were numerous political problems of North vs. South throughout Americas entire history until the Civil War regarding slavery. Those who try to deny the war was in the end about slavery is lying to themselves. Or are Southerners who need to increase their low self esteem about losing.

I'm not from the south, and in fact have ancestors who fought for the north. my family relocated here 10 years ago. the north would NOT have ignored the secession if the south had no slaves - it would, (and it DID) however, ignore the south for quite some time if it had kept its slaves but not seceded. the war was about secession, national identity, and maintaining centralized national power. claiming it was a righteous crusade against slavery is a propaganda move by the US government, which tries to paint a holy facade over every conflict it has initiated. lincoln himself not only owned slaves but said on multiple occasions that he would "preserve the union" (by which he means a powerful centralized government) with or without slavery. the fact that everyone involved in controlling the war from the northern end said it was about preserving the union, and the fact that a huge portion of the abolitionist movement was pacifist, is more than enough evidence that the war was not primarily about slavery.

I never said I did. don't be a jackass.

I'm not. It is, however, simply ridiculous to refer to it as the "War of Northern Aggression". If anything, it's "The War of Southern Treason".

I'm not. It is, however, simply ridiculous to refer to it as the "War of Northern Aggression". If anything, it's "The War of Southern Treason".

you, of course, refer to "the war of colonial treason" too, right? if Lee was a traitor so was Washington. (I have no love for either man) I am no fan of southern culture and do not identify as southern. the reason I'm defending "war of northern aggression" is because it's the only name I've heard that doesn't try to legitimize the war or make it sound like the fighting was for a noble cause, or somehow just. slavery was phased out in nearly every other nation that practiced it without war. I'd object just as strongly to a title that glorified the south's role. if I had to chose a label for the war it'd be "war between the states".

I'm not from the south, and in fact have ancestors who fought for the north. my family relocated here 10 years ago. the north would NOT have ignored the secession if the south had no slaves - it would, (and it DID) however, ignore the south for quite some time if it had kept its slaves but not seceded. the war was about secession, national identity, and maintaining centralized national power. claiming it was a righteous crusade against slavery is a propaganda move by the US government, which tries to paint a holy facade over every conflict it has initiated.

If the South did not have slaves then the political map of the US would be completely different so I can't even begin to estimate what the South might have done as many different decisions would have been made as the various compromises regarding slavery never would have been necessary.

And the immediate cause of the war was about slavery in the end, the South did not want abolishinists telling them how to live and the economic arguments regarding tariffs and such was a direct result of their agrarian economy depended on slaves. You simply can not get past the reality that the divisions between North and South are rooted directly with slavery, the North trying to restrict it and the South trying to spread it, thereby securing the votes in Congress to advance their viewpoints.

Further I don't recall ever suggesting that you were from the South, just that those from that area of the country can have serious complexes where the Civil War is concerned.

you, of course, refer to "the war of colonial treason" too, right? if Lee was a traitor so was Washington. (I have no love for either man) I am no fan of southern culture and do not identify as southern. the reason I'm defending "war of northern aggression" is because it's the only name I've heard that doesn't try to legitimize the war or make it sound like the fighting was for a noble cause, or somehow just. slavery was phased out in nearly every other nation that practiced it without war.

Look, you have already felt the need to flame me for disagreeing with you, and it was simply meant to point out the absurdity of calling it anything to indicate it was totally one side's fault.

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?

'Inflammable' as used in common speech and as used according to the dictionary definition.

Or, for that matter 'bad'.

If the South did not have slaves then the political map of the US would be completely different so I can't even begin to estimate what the South might have done as many different decisions would have been made as the various compromises regarding slavery never would have been necessary. And the immediate cause of the war was about slavery in the end, the South did not want abolishinists telling them how to live and the economic realities of tariffs and such was a direct result of their agrarian economy depended on slaves. You simply can not get past the reality that the divisions between North and South are rooted directly with slavery, the North trying to restrict it and the South trying to spread it, thereby securing the votes in Congress to advance their viewpoints.

the north was trying to restrict slavery because it favored industrialism. industrialism in the 1800s involved 6 year olds dying of black lung disease in cold mines and workers doing 16 hour days 7 days a week for no money. I'm not tryign to justify slavery by saying this, but house slaves probably had better lives than many "Free" northern factory workers. the north's economic system was just as exploitive as slavery was - if the north preferred a different system it was not because they cared any more about human dignity, by and large, but because their method of exploitation and dehumanization had a different facade of legitimization. I am not defending the south here, I am trying to combat the notion that the north was righteous. simplistic moral black and whites always benefit someone, and in this case it's a government that continues to abuse human rights under the pretense of bestowing liberty. sherman's march to the sea was no more about freeing the slaves than the current rape of Iraq is about "Iraqi Freedom".

again, I'm pissed at the implication that war has ever advanced the cause of freedom and that the US government is a righteous agent of justice, not because of some southern identity crisis.

Can't we simply have a word geeks thread:(

rhythms, possibly the longest word with none of the five major vowels.

See, isn't it fun

When the OP drops a turd like this one did, then no.

Look, you have already felt the need to flame me for disagreeing with you

no, not for disagreeing with me, for suggesting that A) I had to agree with an ideology because I was defending those who held it, and B) that the people espousing the ideology were fundamentally irrational. I'm a gay man who drives around listening to Iranian music on a regular basic - I disagree with the majority of the people I'm defending.

Easy.. if your from the South you don't want to be the bad guy...

Anabasis means to move a large body of troops, regardless of an advance or a retreat the movement is an anabis, just a beuvack (prolly spelled way wrong) is making or breaking a camp...

Actually it means temporary quarters in the field....

what? you didnt read xenophon's anabasis when you took greek in college?

its a famous but boring book.

Dude, these days we just download dodgy .AVIs of The Warriors off the net instead. Get with the program.

Can't we simply have a word geeks thread:(

rhythms, possibly the longest word with none of the five major vowels.

See, isn't it fun

I'm sorry for hijacking it.

"bookkeeper" is the only word in the english language with three consecutive double letters.

no, not for disagreeing with me, for suggesting that A) I had to agree with an ideology because I was defending those who held it, and B) that the people espousing the ideology were fundamentally irrational. I'm a gay man who drives around listening to Iranian music on a regular basic - I disagree with the majority of the people I'm defending.

The people espousing that idea are fundamentally irrational, or at least take a Bushist (i.e. ignore anything that might challenge their ideology) view of history.

the north was trying to restrict slavery because it favored industrialism. industrialism in the 1800s involved 6 year olds dying of black lung disease in cold mines and workers doing 16 hour days 7 days a week for no money. I'm not tryign to justify slavery by saying this, but house slaves probably had better lives than many "Free" northern factory workers. the north's economic system was just as exploitive as slavery was - if the north preferred a different system it was not because they cared any more about human dignity, by and large, but because their method of exploitation and dehumanization had a different facade of legitimization. I am not defending the south here, I am trying to combat the notion that the north was righteous. simplistic moral black and whites always benefit someone, and in this case it's a government that continues to abuse human rights under the pretense of bestowing liberty. sherman's march to the sea was no more about freeing the slaves than the current rape of Iraq is about "Iraqi Freedom"

Never said the North had the moral high ground they had policies that we would hardly agree with today but at least they didn't enslave anyone. I do not think the North was perfect but they certainly were the "good guys" in the war. And while the North was industrious and thus had no need for slavery that does not change the fact that they didn't have any slaves. The North not having perfectly pure motives does not rid the South of wrongdoing though, it does not make the Confederate "cause" any more righteous.

Dude, these days we just download dodgy .AVIs of The Warriors off the net instead. Get with the program.

And soon we'll have Tony Scott's (?) dodgy remake to see at the cinema.

Never said the North had the moral high ground they had policies that we would hardly agree with today but at least they didn't enslave anyone. I do not think the North was perfect but they certainly were the "good guys" in the war. And while the North was industrious and thus had no need for slavery that does not change the fact that they didn't have any slaves. The North not having perfectly pure motives does not rid the South of wrongdoing though, it does not make their "cause" any more righteous.

if you think factory owners were any more decent to their workers than slave owners were to their slaves then you need to read some period literature. industrialists in this time period were advocating stopping all charity to let the poor die out and encouraging the free market to allow genetically superior people to rise to the top and create a super-race of the rich to rule the poor, who would die of starvation, ushering in a new era of white-protestant glory. the 19th century capitalist eugenics movement is not remotely superior to the ideology of slave owners.

the southern "cause" was not "DEFEND SLAVERY IN ALL ITS FORMS!" it was "the centralized government has no right to tell us what to do" - this is a continuation of the federalism vs anti-federalism debate that has been going on since the nation's founding...and the strong-central-government position has always been that of the rich elite and has largely involved masterful propaganda to manipulate the masses into accepting the federal government's power and exploitive practices...usually involving war and in the last century the military-industrial complex. the issue was whether or not people should decide their morality for themselves, or be policed by a centralized government that decides what the standards of human dignity are.

The people espousing that idea are fundamentally irrational, or at least take a Bushist (i.e. ignore anything that might challenge their ideology) view of history.

so are most of the people who accept the civil war was "civil" and about "freedom". people who say that don't do it because they've read about the period, they say it because their government told them it's that way, because it is to the government's benefit for all of its past actions to be viewed in a positive light.

Look, you have already felt the need to flame me for disagreeing with you, and it was simply meant to point out the absurdity of calling it anything to indicate it was totally one side's fault.

and by the way, calling you a jackass was uncalled for. I'm sorry. internet debate is polarizing and I let outside circumstances influence my perception of you. I was wrong to do so.

you, of course, refer to "the war of colonial treason" too, right? if Lee was a traitor so was Washington. (I have no love for either man) I am no fan of southern culture and do not identify as southern. the reason I'm defending "war of northern aggression" is because it's the only name I've heard that doesn't try to legitimize the war or make it sound like the fighting was for a noble cause, or somehow just. slavery was phased out in nearly every other nation that practiced it without war. I'd object just as strongly to a title that glorified the south's role. if I had to chose a label for the war it'd be "war between the states".

that's a bit of a mouthful. what's wrong with "american civil war"? seeing as that is what it was.

that's a bit of a mouthful. what's wrong with "american civil war"? seeing as that is what it was.

you can't yell at people over the politics behind a war if you start out by agreeing with them, which is probably why the south pushed "war between the states" in the last few decades. I was going to suggest some abbreviated form of "the war in which the rich and powerful manipulated the poor into killing each other for their own greed" but that describes all of them. we could call it the fuck up of 1861? or I like, "the recent unpleasantness"

if you think factory owners were any more decent to their workers than slave owners were to their slaves then you need to read some period literature. industrialists in this time period were advocating stopping all charity to let the poor die out and encouraging the free market to allow genetically superior people to rise to the top and create a super-race of the rich to rule the poor, who would die of starvation, ushering in a new era of white-protestant glory. the 19th century capitalist eugenics movement is not remotely superior to the ideology of slave owners.

the southern "cause" was not "DEFEND SLAVERY IN ALL ITS FORMS!" it was "the centralized government has no right to tell us what to do" - this is a continuation of the federalism vs anti-federalism debate that has been going on since the nation's founding...and the strong-central-government position has always been that of the rich elite and has largely involved masterful propaganda to manipulate the masses into accepting the federal government's power and exploitive practices...usually involving war and in the last century the military-industrial complex. the issue was whether or not people should decide their morality for themselves, or be policed by a centralized government that decides what the standards of human dignity are.

Which was not wanting the centralized government telling them that slavery was somehow wrong. The South may have wanted to make their own decisions but that resulted from the slavery debate. You simply cannot get around that no matter how you try. Trying to demonize the North does not change that either even if you could compare exploiting factory workers to slavery which is not the same thing at all. I am not after all going to group the entire North into a few corporate owners. There was after all a segment of the population trying to bring about change something you can't find in the South.

But now you are trying to argue that the Southern cause was just as they shouldn't have anyone dictating what morality they should have to follow. Grand words that some fools would probably listen to even if it is kinda hard on the slaves who get the shit end of the stick while we let them choose their own moral code. Centralized government forcing a standard of human dignity on them? Are you serious? And here you earlier posted that you weren't defending them, sounds like a different message to me after reading this.

so are most of the people who accept the civil war was "civil" and about "freedom". people who say that don't do it because they've read about the period, they say it because their government told them it's that way, because it is to the government's benefit for all of its past actions to be viewed in a positive light.

It was civil and was about freedom in a very limited sense--the issue of slavery was a primary motivator for the war. You can argue that the war was based on economic factors, but slavery was at the heart of the souther economy, so no matter how you cut it, the war was about slavery. Even if you play the state's rights card, the war was about the southern states' right to own other human beings. It always comes back to slavery.

It was civil and was about freedom in a very limited sense--the issue of slavery was a primary motivator for the war. You can argue that the war was based on economic factors, but slavery was at the heart of the souther economy, so no matter how you cut it, the war was about slavery. Even if you play the state's rights card, the war was about the southern states' right to own other human beings. It always comes back to slavery.

Thank you, though I doubt this will help any, he keeps avoiding the elephant in the room, an amazing feat that.

and by the way, calling you a jackass was uncalled for. I'm sorry. internet debate is polarizing and I let outside circumstances influence my perception of you. I was wrong to do so.

No problem. Sorry, it wasn't meant to say you definitely felt it was the War of Northern Aggression, it was more stuck in there in case you did and were going to use yourself as an example.

I suspect the whole point of this thread was to call the civil war "The war of Northern Aggression".

I suspect the whole point of this thread was to call the civil war "The war of Northern Aggression".

You may be on to something there.

Indeed.

I've asked this question at least three times on NSG and never gotten an answer...how can the North be the aggressor when the South fired the first shots??

the south fired the first shot on the union fort that was within its territory.

the south fired the first shot on the union fort that was within its territory.

Their territory. Funny. Though even if you believe the South had the right to its secession their firing on Fort Sumter resulted in their defeat and the outlaw of slavery. I suppose we should be thanking them.

you can't yell at people over the politics behind a war if you start out by agreeing with them, which is probably why the south pushed "war between the states" in the last few decades. I was going to suggest some abbreviated form of "the war in which the rich and powerful manipulated the poor into killing each other for their own greed" but that describes all of them. we could call it the fuck up of 1861? or I like, "the recent unpleasantness"

well it was a war between factions within a civic nation. pretty much the definition of a civil war.

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression, and I ran across a word that was used to describe Sherman's march across the South.

The word was "anabasis". Interestingly, the word can mean either military advance or military retreat. I think that's interesting -- a word that is it's own antonym. Is there a special name for a word like that?

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?
Being an amateur writer, I have never seen a word that is its own antonym. Though it's interesting that "anabasis" means either military advance or retreat, because I would not give a military connotation to that word. It's certainly not derived from a military term, I think.

I'm sorry for hijacking it.

"bookkeeper" is the only word in the english language with three consecutive double letters.

subbookkeeper. I think that's one, but my spell checker disagrees.

Being an amateur writer, I have never seen a word that is its own antonym. Though it's interesting that "anabasis" means either military advance or retreat, because I would not give a military connotation to that word. It's certainly not derived from a military term, I think.

cleave, means both to attach and to separate.:)

subbookkeeper. I think that's one, but my spell checker disagrees.
Variation on the words don't count, you could have bookkeepers, but it's not as fun.

cleave, means both to attach and to separate.:)


Never heard "to cleave" to mean to attach. You may be right, but I just never heard it that way before.

Variation on the words don't count, you could have bookkeepers, but it's not as fun.

right then, I just remembered reading it somewhere, i don't remember though. it was a silly little page called the bookkeeper's balloon

Never heard "to cleave" to mean to attach. You may be right, but I just never heard it that way before.

It's a very old usage, 'to cleave to' etc, Shakespeare liked it.

Holy originally meant foolish; 'tis wonderful stuff.

It's a very old usage, 'to cleave to' etc, Shakespeare liked it.

Holy originally meant foolish; 'tis wonderful stuff.

It may be more common in British English. It's one of the hardest languages for an American to learn, you know.

This isn't exactly a case of a word being its own antonym, but the original use of awful was "full of awe," as in Countee Cullen's poem "Yet Do I Marvel," when he says "What awful brain compels this awful hand." Of course, awe isn't at the heart of the current usage.

The OP deliberately provoked this line of discussion, so I don't feel guilty about any hijack.

Here in Virginia, even we who have no ancestors from that time refer to it as "The Recent Unpleasantness"

But you like to consider slavery and segregation as not so recent. How quaint.

Lincoln owned slaves.

Not that it is relevant, but can you prove this?

the reason I'm defending "war of northern aggression" is because it's the only name I've heard that doesn't try to legitimize the war or make it sound like the fighting was for a noble cause, or somehow just. slavery was phased out in nearly every other nation that practiced it without war. I'd object just as strongly to a title that glorified the south's role. if I had to chose a label for the war it'd be "war between the states".

The Civil War is a neutral description. The "War of Northern Aggression" is not.

the 19th century capitalist eugenics movement is not remotely superior to the ideology of slave owners.

Both are horrible and unacceptable, but the ideology of slavery was worse.

the the southern "cause" was not "DEFEND SLAVERY IN ALL ITS FORMS!"

This is revisionist bullshit.

The warp and woof of the Confederacy was slavery (and particularly the expansion of slavery).

The Declarations of Secession make this clear, as does Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone" speech.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi)

.... Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
....



Alexander H. Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76):
...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

The OP deliberately provoked this line of discussion, so I don't feel guilty about any hijack.
Please, please feel guilty about the hijack. You are right in thinking the OP provoked this, but it was a senseless side comment, and had no effect on the topic. Please, let those who are interested in the topic leave replies, and those who are interested in debating a war that ended about 140 years ago set up their own.
As for words that are there own antonyms...I can't think of any, but anabasis reminded me of a Pyrrhic victory, which is a victory offset by the losses. For example, the Battle of Bunker Hill was a Pyrrhic victory for the British. Another Pyrrhic victory would be the Battle of Bull Run, where the Yankee aggressor...I'm kidding, I'm kidding!

Here in Virginia, even we who have no ancestors from that time refer to it as "The Recent Unpleasantness"

Poseur

Not that it is relevant, but can you prove this?

never mind. somebody in the last debate over this on these forums said mary todd lincoln owned a slave. she was born into a slave owning family but eventually "came to abhor the practice" - though I suspect that had more to do with her husbands campaign. if it had been politically expedient she would've come to abhor just about anything.

grr to you and your historical-like citation of sources! I honestly don't care about the CSA's goals or morality, because it no longer exists, I just object to using them to make the current government look good, or using wars like the civil war or WWII to suggest that war is justified or has ever had freedom or democracy as its primary motivator. I'm a hardcore pacifist and will ignore a dozen "elephant(s) in the room" if people are using them to justify killing eachother or glorify the practice as it existed in the past. I grew up within picnicing distance of gettysburg, and was frequently horrified at how people could talk about the stacks of 16 year old corpses that had littered the fields we were walking through as though they died for any good reason. people were obsessed with the war in that place in a way you don't really understand from history books...there were still bullets lodged in the frames of houses, and ghosts still shooting at each other every night. it was horrific, and no one who has stood where they died and really understood what it means to have two farm boys of an age where they should be out playing games together, who maybe *had* been friends, killing each other, can say that that war was a good thing. because the boy from maryland fought and died for different men he hero-worshiped or was conscripted by does not make him a sinner and the boy from the farm two miles away a saint. I dunno, maybe it's some kind of racial memory or past life business or just current politics muddling my perception of history, but it strikes me as fundamentally twisted and wrong to talk about wars, that war in particular, as justified. you do not mutter over someone's grave about how it's probably best that he died. honor the dead, not the political machine that killed them. people have not put this war to rest yet, and whether or not any of you believe it, the men and boys who it killed aren't at rest either.

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression

Only in the South is it called that.

I prefer "the late, great, unpleasantness" myself. ;)

if I had to chose a label for the war it'd be "war between the states".

well it was a war between factions within a civic nation. pretty much the definition of a civil war.

Yep. Civil war means that it is a war between people within the same country. Since the US has only had one, it is called The Civil War. It's a rather neutral title. Of course, if we had another civil war, then the first one would become The First Civil War, in theory.

Cleave is the only word I've heard of that I can remember at the moment. Maybe I'll remember another one. I am a writer, after all, so I love to play with words that have multiple meanings.
In other languages, sometimes the word for "hello" is the same as the word for "goodbye." :)

I was reading a history of the United States Civil War, better known as the War of Northern Aggression, and I ran across a word that was used to describe Sherman's march across the South.

The word was "anabasis". Interestingly, the word can mean either military advance or military retreat. I think that's interesting -- a word that is it's own antonym. Is there a special name for a word like that?

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?

Homonym.

But only because the way Sherman would use anabasis is not an antonym for the other meaning.

See, e.g. Twat.

'Inflammable' as used in common speech and as used according to the dictionary definition.

Or, for that matter 'bad'.

One would think that "wicked" was more on point.

This is revisionist bullshit.

The warp and woof of the Confederacy was slavery (and particularly the expansion of slavery).


Warp and weft, one would imagine.

Anyway, he's right, it wasn't just about slavery. Most of the men who died for the confederacy didn't own slaves. It's one of those complicated things. For example, do you think that the Republicans would have been so lavishly funded if it was just about "slavery".

And before you get on my tits I'm not defending the southern cause, I'm just saying it's more complex than a simple "free the slaves" v. "Keep the slaves" thing.

Warp and weft, one would imagine.

Actually you'll find that warp and woof is appropriate. Weft means woof.

Anyway, he's right, it wasn't just about slavery. Most of the men who died for the confederacy didn't own slaves. It's one of those complicated things. For example, do you think that the Republicans would have been so lavishly funded if it was just about "slavery".

And before you get on my tits I'm not defending the southern cause, I'm just saying it's more complex than a simple "free the slaves" v. "Keep the slaves" thing.

No one is saying that the Civil War was just about slavery. But it was the primary issue.

I think that Vice-President of the Confederacy would have some idea what the cause they were fighting for was -- and he said it was slavery.

On the main topic, the use of the word "moot" has always intrigued me.

"moot" means a subject for argument, disputed

But a question is "moot" when it presents no actual controversy. (See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.)

I think that Vice-President of the Confederacy would have some idea what the cause they were fighting for was -- and he said it was slavery.

Yep, and I'm sure you could say the same thing about Herbert Asquith (the British PM in 1914), but I really doubt that the cause that the British Empire was really fighting for was Belgian independence.

These things tend to be much more complex than we would like them to be. As I said, most of the people who died or got crippled in the civil war for the south never owned a slave, so it is sort of disingenuous to suggest that they were fighting for the right to own slaves.

All I am saying is that if we want to avoid big wars in the future, is that we should stop trying to reduce those of the past to single 'noble' causes.

On the main topic, the use of the word "moot" has always intrigued me.

"moot" means a subject for argument, disputed

But a question is "moot" when it presents no actual controversy. (See Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.)

Moot comes from middle english for meet. (The moot tree). It just means that the issue has already been decided, or moot upon.

edit: we all met and and decided that is what it was.

The word was "anabasis". Interestingly, the word can mean either military advance or military retreat. I think that's interesting -- a word that is it's own antonym. Is there a special name for a word like that?

My vocabulary isn't large enough to know of any other words that are their own antonyms, like "anabasis". I figure that if there are more words of this type, someone here is going to know what it is...Anyone?

Aloha.

used for both Hello and Goodbye.

has more uses also.

Moot comes from middle english for meet. (The moot tree). It just means that the issue has already been decided, or moot upon.

edit: we all met and and decided that is what it was.

Oxford English Dictionary:
Moot, a

1. Originally in Law, of a case, issue, etc.: proposed for discussion at a moot (MOOT n.1 4). Later also gen.: open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Freq. in moot case, point.

2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.
Now the usual sense in North America.

These two definitions seem to me to be opposites.

Oxford English Dictionary:
Moot, a

1. Originally in Law, of a case, issue, etc.: proposed for discussion at a moot (MOOT n.1 4). Later also gen.: open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Freq. in moot case, point.

2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.
Now the usual sense in North America.

These two definitions seem to me to be opposites.

*scratches head*

Got me there sunshine. But I wouldn't say that they were the opposites: One cannot be resolved; the other has no relevance because it is abstract or non-existent. (And is therefore unresolvable).

So, both those definitions point to the idea that it is not worth arguing about. Hence "moot" point.

I prefer my story though. Which I am sure, if we look at the footnote, is the right one. (And even if it isn't, I like it better anyway, so I am sticking with it).