"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...


"HeyBub" wrote

I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
bitter.

Interesting comment that reminds me of the current situation. I've heard
of people referring to "our side" when they had absolutely no family in
the US at the time of the Civil War. It just happened that their
ancestors, often from Europe, settled in a particular state and a hundred
years later, those people are taking sides based on where they happen to
live.

Bigotry and paranoia know no borders, and apparently have an infinite shelf
life as well.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

Civil wars, OTOH ...

A revolution is what the winning side calls a civil war provided they were
the rebels. Some in the south tried to depict the U.S. Civil War as the
second American revolution (in the expectation of winning), but since they
lost it remained a civil war.

If memory serves only about a third of the colonists actively supported the
rebellion at first, another third were effectively neutral, and the final
third supported the crown. Those numbers shifted later of course.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
primary cause of the North invading the South.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and
you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all
the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in
making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of
you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our
country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop,
but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The
United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had
power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe
that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but
always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more
acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of
devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and
this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from
danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals
cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into
rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a
government, and those who insist on war and its desolation."

*****

"You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by
falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other
quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of
government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have
never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by
seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr.
Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of
provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your
armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis,
Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families
of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now
that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors,
but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition,
and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to
desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked
to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their
inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it
can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with
a view to perfect an early success."

Excerpts from a letter to the Mayor and Councilmen of Atlanta
12 Sept. 1864
William Tecumseh Sherman

In article ,
says...

On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:


I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,

You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?


The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
(Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
Territory, etc.).

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free..."

And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
primary cause of the North invading the South.


So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
Confederate states are "your side"?

No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.

On 4/15/2011 12:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:


I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,

You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?


The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
(Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
Territory, etc.).

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free..."

And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
primary cause of the North invading the South.


So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
Confederate states are "your side"?

No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.


So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

In article ,
says...

On 4/15/2011 12:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:


I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,

You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?


The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
(Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
Territory, etc.).

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free..."

And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
primary cause of the North invading the South.


So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
Confederate states are "your side"?

No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.


So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

Your wife and children and 1/3 acre of land do not constitute the
governments of 11 states.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't fly.

On Apr 14, 12:04*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Bill wrote:

You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
stamps.

Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
civil war. *Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
sure thinks so.

I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.

Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
war generals on their stamps. *Opportunity lost. *Discussing it
(here) is good though.

I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
bitter. Time will prove us correct.

Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.

Yup!. And let's send that uppity O'Bama back to the cotton fields
where he and the rest of his Cu****e tribe belong. And let's give him
a proper Christian name while we're at it instead of that pagan
infidel one.


[Yes the above is sarcasm for those who don't get it]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:05:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

"Treason doth not prosper, here's the reason"
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason"

What was the difference between the southern states (not individuals)
seceding and the colonists seceding from Britain?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

In article ,
says...

"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

"Taxation without representation" was the issue. I can't see where
having representation makes much difference though.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:15:14 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

It wasn't about taxes, rather representation. The FF really *wanted* to be
treated as Englishmen rather than property.

On Apr 15, 9:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote



Ain't that the truth! *I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. *That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. * It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Luigi

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote:

You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
stamps.

Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
sure thinks so.

I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.

Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
war generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it
(here) is good though.


I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
bitter. Time will prove us correct.

Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.


LOL!

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

Civil wars, OTOH ...

A revolution is what the winning side calls a civil war provided they were
the rebels. Some in the south tried to depict the U.S. Civil War as the
second American revolution (in the expectation of winning), but since they
lost it remained a civil war.

If memory serves only about a third of the colonists actively supported
the rebellion at first, another third were effectively neutral, and the
final third supported the crown. Those numbers shifted later of course.

Just as the number of (dare I say it?!) Nazis diminished enormously upon the
conclusion of hostilities and the occupation of Germany.

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:05:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

"Treason doth not prosper, here's the reason"
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason"

What was the difference between the southern states (not individuals)
seceding and the colonists seceding from Britain?


Only one: the South lost the war.
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote



Ain't that the truth! *I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. *That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. * It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

On Apr 16, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? *What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act,
effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British
empire.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? *What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act,
effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British
empire.

Still adds no sense to your post, other than perhaps the 30 years snipe. The
Civil war was *not* about slavery. That it ended it was perhaps one of the
only worthwhile side effects, however.

On Apr 16, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:





On Apr 16, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? *What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act,
effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British
empire.

Still adds no sense to your post, other than perhaps the 30 years snipe. *The
Civil war was *not* about slavery. *That it ended it was perhaps one of the
only worthwhile side effects, however.

Sorry, I forgot and I stand corrected. The South seceded because
Dishonest Ape was about to raise import duties and force them to buy
shoddy expensive Northern goods.

Luigi

On 4/13/2011 6:09 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:27 pm, wrote:

Troll? You are truly an idiot. I am on here all the time making
relevant (and occasionally intelligent) postings and replies. Here is
the first sentence of the definition of "Troll (Internet)" from
wikipedia... sound familiar.

"In Internet slang, a troll is a user who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

I'd like to upgrade my "idiot" comment to asshole at this time.

Based on that definition you are both trolls, as are most of us.
Personally, I think weak interpretation of "trolls" is like calling
everyone you disagree with a racist, bigot or homophobe. Neither of you
are trolls, and in fact, I can't say I've met a real troll in this
group, although my suspicions have been occasionally aroused.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com