|
Civil war - Ken Burns
Harry got me thinking about it the other day. It is a great show., I
am just wrapping it up. This is perfect for the way I "watch" TV. I have an RF head set and I use the TV like a radio while I am doing other things. This is a great script. You really don't need to see the same slides over and over to enjoy it.. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too!
|
Civil war - Ken Burns
Tim wrote:
It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! Brings back it was not really that long ago. My mother said she had an uncle or grand uncle that limped from a civil war musket ball in the leg. Was an Ohio Regular. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
|
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On 9/14/15 6:28 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/14/15 6:28 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. What is revisionist? Even Lincoln would have left slavery if it had kept the Union together. Emancipation proclamation was late in the war, and only covered secessionist states. Did not ban slavery. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On 9/14/2015 7:23 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/14/15 6:28 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. What is revisionist? Even Lincoln would have left slavery if it had kept the Union together. Emancipation proclamation was late in the war, and only covered secessionist states. Did not ban slavery. Based on my very cursory reading on the Civil War, Lincoln wanted to ban slavery in territories not yet states but was not necessarily pushing to ban slavery in the south. As you mentioned, he was willing to accept slavery in the south if it would save the union. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On 9/14/15 7:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/14/2015 7:23 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/14/15 6:28 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. What is revisionist? Even Lincoln would have left slavery if it had kept the Union together. Emancipation proclamation was late in the war, and only covered secessionist states. Did not ban slavery. Based on my very cursory reading on the Civil War, Lincoln wanted to ban slavery in territories not yet states but was not necessarily pushing to ban slavery in the south. As you mentioned, he was willing to accept slavery in the south if it would save the union. Lincoln wanted to ban slavery, period, but, as a compromise, agreed to only push to ban it in the western territories. This was not acceptable to what became "the South," and the southern states began seceding even before Lincoln was inaugurated. The central issue was the abolition of slavery. It is interesting that where talk of secession arise these days, it is almost entirely in "the South." |
Civil war - Ken Burns
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/14/15 7:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/14/2015 7:23 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/14/15 6:28 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:07 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:01:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: It is a great program Greg. I took interest in it when it came out. I had 3 2xgreat grandfathers that fought in the bloody thing. A 2xgreat uncle too! I was surprised at how much anti-war activities there were in the north. According to Burns, most of them also were not really believing this war was over slavery. They sounded like the soldiers the US has sent off to fight in other people's civil wars. They were not sure why they were there, they just went because they were told to go by the government. The most common given by the southerners for why they were fighting was because the union soldiers had invaded them. Again, that could have been written today of some of our misadventures. It really sounded like three quarters of a million people may have died for a war that didn't have to be fought. I think slavery would have fallen from it's own weight and the union would have come back together ... but I have always had that opinion. === One of the guys that I go target shooting with is the official historian for the local Sons of the Confederacy group. Nice guy but definitely has strong red neck roots. He claims that the primary cause for the "War of Northern Agression" was economic. Apparently the federal government imposed tariffs on cotton which impacted the southern agriculture business. After the south refused to pay, the north threatened to blockade the ports. This may be revisionist history for all I know but that's the official party line in some circles. Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Was economic in that slavery was almost dead. And the Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which meant there could be huge cotton farms, which were labor intensive to pick. At the same time, the Northern controlled Federal government wanted a higher tax on cotton. We were supplying most of the worlds cotton at the time. So between the taxes on the main money maker for the south, Lincoln, who,was anti slavery, was elected. The south now worried about excess taxes and killing off the labor supply. Therefore a war. South would probably been better off without slavery, as no jobs, you could get labor for less cost then maintaining slaves. Plus the States Rights issues, and the fact the rich were figuring the war would last only a couple months, and be won by the south. And he rich politicians went to war, and probably made an extra fortune off the poor *******s fighting the war. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. What is revisionist? Even Lincoln would have left slavery if it had kept the Union together. Emancipation proclamation was late in the war, and only covered secessionist states. Did not ban slavery. Based on my very cursory reading on the Civil War, Lincoln wanted to ban slavery in territories not yet states but was not necessarily pushing to ban slavery in the south. As you mentioned, he was willing to accept slavery in the south if it would save the union. Lincoln wanted to ban slavery, period, but, as a compromise, agreed to only push to ban it in the western territories. This was not acceptable to what became "the South," and the southern states began seceding even before Lincoln was inaugurated. The central issue was the abolition of slavery. It is interesting that where talk of secession arise these days, it is almost entirely in "the South." But Lincoln had been elected. Was financial. Rich wanting cheap labor. Something you seem to push these days. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:54:49 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: I'm waiting for their views on the JFK assassination Dick Cheney did it of course, you silly. Just ask Harry ;-) |
Civil war - Ken Burns
|
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 06:42:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. So what? Was secession that big a deal? Isn't it likely that they could have formed a partnership with the north and ended up stronger than they were? If the confederacy had seceeded it is very likely that they would have annexed a large part of Mexico, if not all of it and when they partnered up again with the north, the US would have had most of North America. Hell we might not have had to steal Panama from the Colombians. We might have already had it. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? I have said before, slavery was likely to have fallen from it's own weight, particularly if the rest of the world forced it with economic pressures. If the black people had been allowed to advance without having the stigma of a war behind them, we are very likely to have had a better result. It might be noted that after the war, the north resented their northern emigration and set the seeds for the northern brand of racism that still exists today. The last I heard the most racist city in the US was Indianapolis. The most segregated cities in the US are in northern states. Income inequality is a blue state thing, San Francisco being the worst.. One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. North and south. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. Same as slavery was extended by the Cotton Gin. And only about 25% of North Carolina owned slaves. So was no a majority. Seizing fort sumpter was more likely an act of desperation to the Norths actions. And Northern Democrats, carpet Baggers, raped the south after the war. With Sherman destroying most of the land ownership records, and local Democrat Appointed administrators putting a huge property tax on property, people lost their homes. Lots different than Lincoln had imagined. Lots of remaining hate over the aftermath. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On 9/15/15 1:34 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. A cotton picker? Practical mechanical cotton pickers "arrived" about 80 years after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps you are confusing Eli Whitney's cotton gin with World War II era mechanical cotton harvesters. Whitney spent much of his life in New Haven, my home town. He manufactured cotton engines there, as well as firearms. He was a close friend of James Hillhouse, another famous businessman from New Haven. In fact, there is a technical high school named after Whitney in the New Haven area, and I went to Hillhouse high school. Whitney, however, went to Hopkins Grammar, a prep school that is located only five minutes from where my parents built their home. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/15/15 1:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. A cotton picker? Practical mechanical cotton pickers "arrived" about 80 years after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps you are confusing Eli Whitney's cotton gin with World War II era mechanical cotton harvesters. Whitney spent much of his life in New Haven, my home town. He manufactured cotton engines there, as well as firearms. He was a close friend of James Hillhouse, another famous businessman from New Haven. In fact, there is a technical high school named after Whitney in the New Haven area, and I went to Hillhouse high school. Whitney, however, went to Hopkins Grammar, a prep school that is located only five minutes from where my parents built their home. Read for comprehension. I said slavery was extended and made profitable by Whitney's cotton gin. Slavery was almost done before that. I said if someone had designed a mechanical cotton picker about the same time as the Cotton gin was invented, slavery would have died quickly. Was cheaper to hire people than keep slaves in most cases. Big f'n deal about living in New Haven. My mom's relatives were living in New Haven in the 1700's. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:52:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/15/15 1:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. A cotton picker? Practical mechanical cotton pickers "arrived" about 80 years after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps you are confusing Eli Whitney's cotton gin with World War II era mechanical cotton harvesters. Whitney spent much of his life in New Haven, my home town. He manufactured cotton engines there, as well as firearms. He was a close friend of James Hillhouse, another famous businessman from New Haven. In fact, there is a technical high school named after Whitney in the New Haven area, and I went to Hillhouse high school. Whitney, however, went to Hopkins Grammar, a prep school that is located only five minutes from where my parents built their home. Gosh. I spent 12 months in Seoul, Korea. Tell us more about all the time you spent in Vietnam finding the bodies of soldiers killed in action and left behind by their units. What organization was that again? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:27:05 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:52:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. A cotton picker? Practical mechanical cotton pickers "arrived" about 80 years after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps you are confusing Eli Whitney's cotton gin with World War II era mechanical cotton harvesters. Whitney spent much of his life in New Haven, my home town. He manufactured cotton engines there, as well as firearms. He was a close friend of James Hillhouse, another famous businessman from New Haven. In fact, there is a technical high school named after Whitney in the New Haven area, and I went to Hillhouse high school. Whitney, however, went to Hopkins Grammar, a prep school that is located only five minutes from where my parents built their home. Gosh. I spent 12 months in Seoul, Korea. Tell us more about all the time you spent in Vietnam finding the bodies of soldiers killed in action and left behind by their units. What organization was that again? === I've researched Harry's military service claims and believe he was probably in the British Thermal Unit. He never said it was a US general that he worked under, and that might explain his obsession with the king's english. |
Civil war - Ken Burns
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:33:22 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:27:05 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:52:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/15/15 1:59 AM, wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:35:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Even if the goal was to end slavery, I always had to ask, wouldn't a system of economic sanctions work better than a war that killed 2.5% of the entire US population? After all, sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa in a little over 30 years and if you listen to people like Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson or Cornel West, it still hasn't ended here over 150 years later. The war certainly never ended the conflict between north and south. If anything it only made the divisions stronger. Whew. Thank goodness you fellas were never allowed to teach in the public's schools, at least not in the non-civil war revisionist part of the country. Do you think that a war that killed 3/4 million people and destroyed the economy of the part of the country where all of the slaves resided was good for the slaves? This was a 19th century Iraq. The north invades, broke virtually everything and then just left. Those freed slaves were abandoned in a devastates landscape and most ended up going back to the same plantations they used to work at, begging for a job.Their pay pretty much covered their living expenses but not always. Life did not really change much for them for almost 100 years. You think that was the best solution? I still have to ask "what if" and wonder if a program of economic sanctions and boycotts of slave grown cotton would not have been more effective. I still think war is always the last choice, not the first choice but that was the only option that was offered. You seem to forget that the South started the civil war by seceding, by grabbing Union facilities and forts, and by firing the first shots. Was the civil war good for the slaves? Well, it got them freed. Perhaps if only we waited another...what? Another 100 years for them to be emancipated? And I'm sure that if the colonists of the 1770s had only waited another 100 years, Queen Victoria would have set them free, and I forgot, how long did it take for the Brits to set India free after the English traders took over commerce and made virtual slaves of the ordinary citizens? About 130 years, eh? One of the problems with reconstruction after the civil war was that there was still a white power structure and white ownership of virtually everything. That kept the newly freed blacks impoverished, and the impact of that is still being felt today. Revisionist. Slavery would have died very quickly if someone had invented a cotton picker earlier. A cotton picker? Practical mechanical cotton pickers "arrived" about 80 years after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps you are confusing Eli Whitney's cotton gin with World War II era mechanical cotton harvesters. Whitney spent much of his life in New Haven, my home town. He manufactured cotton engines there, as well as firearms. He was a close friend of James Hillhouse, another famous businessman from New Haven. In fact, there is a technical high school named after Whitney in the New Haven area, and I went to Hillhouse high school. Whitney, however, went to Hopkins Grammar, a prep school that is located only five minutes from where my parents built their home. Gosh. I spent 12 months in Seoul, Korea. Tell us more about all the time you spent in Vietnam finding the bodies of soldiers killed in action and left behind by their units. What organization was that again? === I've researched Harry's military service claims and believe he was probably in the British Thermal Unit. He never said it was a US general that he worked under, and that might explain his obsession with the king's english. Now why didn't I think of that? He does spew a lot of hot air. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com