On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:10:04AM -0500, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Does anyone know of long run British figures brought up to date and
> more likely to be accurate? Is my thesis reasonable? As for an
> explanation: Britain did not grow faster because people first had to
> invent the technolog
Gautam Mukunda asks
... was Southern defeat inevitable? I would actually say, in
retrospect, that it's actually fairly improbable.
This is a nice question. The early 1860s were the first period in
which the North had the economic power to fund a civil war and win.
But it just barely had
As far as I know, Gautam's and Dan's discussions of the US Civil War
are correct:
* The Fugitive Slave Act was an imposition on states' rights. It
meant a change from the previous, more or less `live and let live'
tolerance policy to a Federally imposed `you will help us kidnap
your
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, my understanding is that in the early days of the
First World
> War, American sympathies were largely with the Germans. Likewise,
the
> Irish also generally sympathized with the Germans in the World Wars
in
>
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I believe that Antietam remains the most
> deadly day in US history,
> and that Shiloh remains the most deadly battle.
>
> Given how close this conflict was to home, and for
> how long it dragged on,
> it is remarkable that the North did n
At 07:17 PM 3/1/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
>I had thought that most European sympathies lay with the
>North, given European distaste for slavery, and that the
>North did actually get some European aid? What nation(s)
>considered intervening on the South's side?
You forget the role rivalries in
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, before or since. Rem
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oh Crap!!!
> I thought you were talking 19th century.
> (hence the workhouse reference)
>
> xponent
> Been Dirt Poor Myself Maru
> rob
Ahh...now I understand. Hmm, that's an interesting
question. Who was the first _urban_ President from a
poor f
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I didn't see in his response -- the South
> did a lot of trade
> with Britain, so the Confederacy would have had
> economic ties with
> Britain.
>
> Julia
Good point, Julia. I should have mentioned that. In
fact, the South really e
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable
view.
> --- Robert Se
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Sre!
> But could a dirt poor workhouse boy ever become
> president?
> The Advantages Of A Frontier Maru
> rob
Thank you, Frederick Jackson Turner :-)
In all seriousness...Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan?
Clinton grew up lower middle class at be
Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> >From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >How could the South have won? How about no major
> >offensive operations, force the North into a grinding
> >war of attrition and denying it any major victories
> >while either getting European intervention (which
> >almos
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable
view.
> --- Julia Thompson <[
--- Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had thought that most European sympathies lay with
> the
> North, given European distaste for slavery, and that
> the
> North did actually get some European aid? What
> nation(s)
> considered intervening on the South's side?
The sympathies of Europea
From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How could the South have won? How about no major
offensive operations, force the North into a grinding
war of attrition and denying it any major victories
while either getting European intervention (which
almost happened) or a Democratic victory in 1864
I
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to bring back the discussions of the
> American generals; just a
> simple question. I'm assuming you are not saying
> Lincoln was a genius war
> president. I've only read Gods and Generals,
> otherwise I know little about
> the war. It see
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 boy had the chance to
rise to the Presidency, something t
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a
> > differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average
> > foot soldiure in the confederacy did not
"Horn, John" wrote:
>
> > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was "slavery"
> or
> > "states rights", they'd have said "states rights."
>
> Of course, the particular "states right" they were so concerned
> about losing was sla
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which was the primary concern of the politicians and
> the people in
> power, but *not* of most of the infantry.
>
> The leaders meant X, said Y, the rank-and-file
> believed Y.
>
> Julia
You know you're both stepping into a bit of a
historic
> From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a
> differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average
> foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in the retoric of
> the time?
No, it was fought over the states r
> From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was "slavery"
or
> "states rights", they'd have said "states rights."
Of course, the particular "states right" they were so concerned
about losing was slavery.
- jmh
_
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julia wrote:
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an
issue. That
> >> doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is
likely,
> >> unlikely, and very very u
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Julia wrote:
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
> >> doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
> >> unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely tha
Julia wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that
the
Civil War was fought over states rights.
The
Dan Minette wrote:
> Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
> doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
> unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the
> Civil War was fought over states rights.
The Civil
26 matches
Mail list logo
