> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 8:14 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Civil War
>
> >
>> I'll give one recent example from Tex
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'"
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: Civil War
> I'm going back through older messages (in reverse order) that
> required a bit
onday, August 13, 2007 9:35 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Civil WAr
>> that great. First of all, they could still have the labor of the
>> slavesjust as tenant farmers...as they did later.
>
> And they certainly did, but at the cost of their former afflu
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'"
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:24 PM
Subject: Civil WAr
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dan M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
would have had an impact, but I don't think it would have been
> that great. First of all, they could still have the labor of the
> slavesjust as tenant farmers...as they did later.
>
> > As I said, there was slavery in the North prior to the Civil War, but
> > it w
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Br!n: Civil War II
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:37:09 EST
In a message dated 11/17/2004 6:30:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you wish upon a star, you
In a message dated 11/17/2004 6:30:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you wish upon a star, you should do so from afar.
-Travis "Taylor-made/Don't ask" Edmunds
That's Teighlore on this list, bud.
___
http://www.mccmed
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Br!n: Civil War II
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:26:23 -0700
On Nov 16, 2004, at 10:19 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Couplets are a lot
On Nov 16, 2004, at 10:19 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Couplets are a lot of work, no doubt.
Do you dress 'em in a baby sonnet when they go out?
Couplets come from mental storks
not the likes of Brin-L dorks.
{:D
(The above being an emoticon of a happy baby in a bonnet, of course.)
--
Warren Ockrassa,
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Br!n: Civil War II
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:21:15 -0600 (CST)
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> -Travis &q
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> -Travis "expecting no reply/not expecting a reply/reply expecting not am
> I/rhyming triplets/Boston Coffee Party" Edmunds
AIGH! TRIPLETS! AIGH!
Julia
Twins Is Complicated Enough Maru
___
http:
From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Brin: Civil War II
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:31:04 -0500
JDG - Who thought it was bad that Kerry based his campaign on refighting
the V
>At 04:29 PM 11/9/2004 -0800 d.brin wrote:
>>--
>>Some of you recall I used a metaphor - "the Union has been conquered
>>by the Confederacy". Some ridiculed this, pointing to the Plains and
>>Mountain states, forgetting that those areas DID
At 04:29 PM 11/9/2004 -0800 d.brin wrote:
>--
>Some of you recall I used a metaphor - "the Union has been conquered
>by the Confederacy". Some ridiculed this, pointing to the Plains and
>Mountain states, forgetting that those areas DID allow slavery
>befo
At 08:20 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>You know, you're the second person recently to say
>this. While Antietam was the deadliest day in
>American history, Shiloh actually isn't even in the
>top 5 in casualties in a single battle in the Civil
>War. Gettysburg
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > What do you think about reconstruction in regards to
> > Dunning Vs. Foner
> > schools of thought?
>
> > rob
>
> I'm ashamed to admit that I don
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECT
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wr
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > If Republican moderates had not let themselves be
> > led by the Radicals,
> > do you think the party would have had an easier time
> > consolidating
> > power in Congress? I
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If Republican moderates had not let themselves be
> led by the Radicals,
> do you think the party would have had an easier time
> consolidating
> power in Congress? I'm thinking that after Johnson
> was stripped of
> power (leading to the era of str
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
nk), but not
because they didn't want to.
> Was the post-war North economically strong enough to
> revitalize the
> Southern economy?
Probably not. The South took something like a century
to recover fully from defeat in the Civil War, I
believe. OTOH, it's worth remembering
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wro
At 06:30 PM 3/2/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>> A friend of mine and I recently had a long discussion regarding the
>> motivations of the "ordinary Confederate soldier" with an
>outstanding NPS
>> Ranger at Richmond National Battlefield - Cold Harbor a couple
>weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> He pointe
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think that is to some extent "spin". The kind
> where only part of the
> truth is presented in order to make a point. I
> suspect that it
> originates with the Radical Republicans (The
> Reconstruction era ones,
> not the contemporary ones ) as pa
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Why fight in the Civil War?
> At 03:13 PM 3/1/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>
; it is remarkable that the North did not eventually
> choose to settle.
>
> JDG
You know, you're the second person recently to say
this. While Antietam was the deadliest day in
American history, Shiloh actually isn't even in the
top 5 in casualties in a single battle in the
At 03:13 PM 3/1/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so
>> arguably it was *fought* over that.
>>
>> A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation
At 04:48 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Not at all. But it is impossible for us, in the
>modern context, to imagine a war like the American
>Civil War. No Western power had fought a conflict
>that devastating since 1815, and the United States has
>never come close,
raised is an interesting one, but I don't
think it
> is quite that easily resolved. In particular, people like Lee
would lose
> their whole way of life if the North won the Civil war. Gautam
beat me to
> the consequences for poorer whites. What I was going to say is
that the
>
--- Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that will what you mean, or was Lincoln critical
> on a strategic/tactical
> level?
>
> -bryon
Oh no. You realize that you've made a critical
mistake here, right Bryon? I can blabber on this
topic for _hours_. People have been known to bleed at
th
before the nation was probably
> one of the major factors that lost the war for the South.
I think the question you raised is an interesting one, but I don't think it
is quite that easily resolved. In particular, people like Lee would lose
their whole way of life if the North won the Civil
From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the
Civil War that perhaps the single most important
reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham
Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic
North, where a dirt-poor farm
tedly with that statement. If economics was the driver, the
South would have rejected slavery long before the Civil War. What I've
read suggests that slavery was terribly inefficient because of its
coercive nature and the requirement that a slave owner support his
slaves from cradle to
At 05:46 AM 11/27/2002 -0600 Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>At 10:48 PM 11/25/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States
>
>
>Wrong.
>
>It's called "The War of Northern Aggression."
In Boston, they call it "The Rebellion" - which is more accurate,
Ronn said:
> It's called "The War of Northern Aggression."
Didn't the US Civil War start with the Confederacy firing on Fort
Sumter? And wouldn't that make it "The War of Southern Aggression"?
Rich
GCU Hazy Knowledge
_
At 10:48 PM 11/25/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States
Wrong.
It's called "The War of Northern Aggression."
;-)
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Slavery wasn't an end unto itself, however.
Slavery was an end in itself because self-aggrandizement is an end in
itself, and in the South the two were flip sides of the same coin.
This does not mean it was not also a means to other ends. But one rac
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Doug
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:50 PM
...
> That's the succinct answer. Obviously it is difficult to accurately
> summarize the determinant of any great human conflict in a few
> sentences,
Nick Arnett wrote:
I wasn't, so please amplify. I was a lousy history student. I've made up
for a lot of that in regard to the Renaissance and Reformation, but not U.S.
history, I fear. What *was* the Civil War (or, if you're south of the
Mason-Dixon line, the War Between th
> >>how to free slaves (except female slaves). It was the
> religious who used
> >>the bible as justification for slavery in the south, before-during-after
> >>the civil war.
> >>
> >
> >Same argument as above. The war was about economics and states&#x
41 matches
Mail list logo
