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..

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!

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.

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.

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.

On 9/14/2015 2:59 PM, 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.



Guys like Sharpton and o'Bama have to keep it going. Otherwise their
lives would have no meaning.

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.

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.

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.

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.