Bob, relying on your great uncle's magazines, instead of using your computer to do a little research, is not a good idea.
Really? Are magazines, with articles written by vets, not important historical documents? Why is it that we should rely upon what we can find on the net instead of relying upon our family history?
History, as written on the net is bull$#!+ because it's written by idiots without a clue - it's written by dumb-asses who offer nothing more than Wicki searches instead of original research.
My great Uncle's magazines are seriously great references and the fact that you do not understand that suggests you have no understanding of historical study.
=Bob
You really need to see what is on the web, Bob. Lots of good info not written by idiots. As to my understanding of historical study. As I recall my BA is in history. I am pretty old now but seem to recall being in the honor society for my major. Guess I fooled all my professors, huh?
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Really? Are magazines, with articles written by vets, not important historical documents? Why is it that we should rely upon what we can find on the net instead of relying upon our family history?
History, as written on the net is bull$#!+ because it's written by idiots without a clue - it's written by dumb-asses who offer nothing more than Wicki searches instead of original research.
My great Uncle's magazines are seriously great references and the fact that you do not understand that suggests you have no understanding of historical study.
=Bob
You really need to see what is on the web, Bob. Lots of good info not written by idiots. As to my understanding of historical study. As I recall my BA is in history. I am pretty old now but seem to recall being in the honor society for my major. Guess I fooled all my professors, huh?
Yeah but the civil was wasn't history yet when you went to school...
You really need to see what is on the web, Bob. Lots of good info not written by idiots. As to my understanding of historical study. As I recall my BA is in history. I am pretty old now but seem to recall being in the honor society for my major. Guess I fooled all my professors, huh?
Yeah but the civil was wasn't history yet when you went to school...
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Re: Why the South lost the Civil War: some opinion « Reply #23 on Apr 23, 2012, 12:35pm »
Well my great grandfather who was with the 27Th Virginia Company C, Stonewall Brigade said. WE were starved out. Total War burning houses crops etc. It was a War they could not win but fought anyway. Also as my Great grandfather said Rich Mans War,poor mans fright. AS far as historians are concerned there is unanimity of opinion on The Civil war which if you breach you become a pariah.
To get the full picture you have to remember fifty thousand southern Civilians dies in population of about nine million.form starvation and disease. New Englanders heaver such short memory's they had three conferences of secession before the civil war and were pro slavery right up to the point they could not make buck off of it.
I notice Garrison moved from University of Virginia to Penn State Thats a huge drop off academically. aas for the Generals well Jefferson Davis was a putz,he promoted his pals and not the best men. Grant was no genius they had more men more everything.
The historians also fail to mention the high mortality rate of Confederate generals. John Bell Hood in one battle Franklin got fourteen Confederate generals (six killed or mortally wounded, seven wounded, and one captured) and 55 regimental commanders were casualties as well.
Yes he changes his mind he really liked slavery for thousands of years then got bored with it.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah
Yes he changes his mind he really liked slavery for thousands of years then got bored with it.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
Yes he changes his mind he really liked slavery for thousands of years then got bored with it.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah
What is meant by "slave" in those verses might be a little different than what you think.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
Re: Why the South lost the Civil War: some opinion « Reply #27 on Apr 24, 2012, 3:36pm »
The American Civil War was the first war to be fought on an industrial scale in The Industrial Age. It can certainly be argued that the South had better generals, but the North had better technology, communications, transportation along with naval, numerical and manufacturing superiority. Most of the MINIE ball production, steel production, gunpowder production and weapons manufacturing technology were in the North. That's why they won.
That was too much for even Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to overcome. I'm not even convinced that a victory at Gettysburg followed up by a sacking of Washington DC would have won the war for the South. President Lincoln and the Congress would have moved up to New York or Boston and continued the war from there.
...esplains the libel need for free medicine stance.
(Note to reader: "libel" has replaced the word, "liberal" because most of the leftists in America have destroyed our pursuit of happiness and taken the "Ra" out of being an actual liberal.)
Yes he changes his mind he really liked slavery for thousands of years then got bored with it.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah
I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. God is not a, "he". If anything points to a gender of God, I'd choose that God would be a, "she".
...Mary, Mother of God, a mainstay in the Catholic Church.
The American Civil War was the first war to be fought on an industrial scale in The Industrial Age. It can certainly be argued that the South had better generals, but the North had better technology, communications, transportation along with naval, numerical and manufacturing superiority. Most of the MINIE ball production, steel production, gunpowder production and weapons manufacturing technology were in the North. That's why they won.
That was too much for even Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to overcome. I'm not even convinced that a victory at Gettysburg followed up by a sacking of Washington DC would have won the war for the South. President Lincoln and the Congress would have moved up to New York or Boston and continued the war from there.
Correct me, but, ah, um, were not most of the battles in the first Civil War fought in the South and middle areas of the U.S., and not won fought too far North?
I mean, how many battles were fought in Boston and how many fought in New Orleans?
The American Civil War was the first war to be fought on an industrial scale in The Industrial Age. It can certainly be argued that the South had better generals, but the North had better technology, communications, transportation along with naval, numerical and manufacturing superiority. Most of the MINIE ball production, steel production, gunpowder production and weapons manufacturing technology were in the North. That's why they won.
That was too much for even Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to overcome. I'm not even convinced that a victory at Gettysburg followed up by a sacking of Washington DC would have won the war for the South. President Lincoln and the Congress would have moved up to New York or Boston and continued the war from there.
Correct me, but, ah, um, were not most of the battles in the first Civil War fought in the South and middle areas of the U.S., and not won fought too far North?
I mean, how many battles were fought in Boston and how many fought in New Orleans?
HAM
Aside from some labor riots, Boston saw no Civil War Battles. A fairly significant naval battle was fought in the New Orleans area, control of the Mississippi River was crucial for both sides. This was part of a large scale campaign by Gen. Grant along the Mississippi River which featured the famous battle of Shiloh and Siege of Vicksburg.
The South made one effort to invade the North, which resulted in the pivotal battle of Gettysburg.
Really? Are magazines, with articles written by vets, not important historical documents? Why is it that we should rely upon what we can find on the net instead of relying upon our family history?
History, as written on the net is bull$#!+ because it's written by idiots without a clue - it's written by dumb-asses who offer nothing more than Wicki searches instead of original research.
My great Uncle's magazines are seriously great references and the fact that you do not understand that suggests you have no understanding of historical study.
=Bob
You really need to see what is on the web, Bob. Lots of good info not written by idiots. As to my understanding of historical study. As I recall my BA is in history. I am pretty old now but seem to recall being in the honor society for my major. Guess I fooled all my professors, huh?
I've seem what's on the net and I'm not referring to scholarly articles or opinions offered by people who know what they're talking about. I'm talking about a vast number of people who only see history through an ideological lens.
Yes he changes his mind he really liked slavery for thousands of years then got bored with it.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah
I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. God is not a, "he". If anything points to a gender of God, I'd choose that God would be a, "she".
...Mary, Mother of God, a mainstay in the Catholic Church.
HAM
If you are using The Bible for your conclusion, the only evidence shows Adam being created in God's image and women being created later as a companion. And God on Earth being a man.
But...
God having sex organs would be useless and therefore probably not there. So sex is really probably not something that is even a valid question.
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. God is not a, "he". If anything points to a gender of God, I'd choose that God would be a, "she".
...Mary, Mother of God, a mainstay in the Catholic Church.
HAM
If you are using The Bible for your conclusion, the only evidence shows Adam being created in God's image and women being created later as a companion. And God on Earth being a man.
I have no clue what JOC's religion is because as near as I can tell his religion is bucks. seems to me the only thing he worships is the almighty dollar.
If you are using The Bible for your conclusion, the only evidence shows Adam being created in God's image and women being created later as a companion. And God on Earth being a man.
I have no clue what JOC's religion is because as near as I can tell his religion is bucks. seems to me the only thing he worships is the almighty dollar.
=Bob
How about contributing to the discussion instead of trying to insult current participants?
Imagine if a year took a century to unfold and you were born in the dead of winter; the coming of summer would seem a frightening change, with temperatures rising dramatically and seemingly without limit.
I have no clue what JOC's religion is because as near as I can tell his religion is bucks. seems to me the only thing he worships is the almighty dollar.
=Bob
How about contributing to the discussion instead of trying to insult current participants?
How's about JOC stops engaging in religious bigotry? His comments on the Catholic Church is just the tired old tent-revivalist argument that they worship Mary above God.
=Bob
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 8:54pm by Bob Forsythe »
I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. God is not a, "he". If anything points to a gender of God, I'd choose that God would be a, "she".
...Mary, Mother of God, a mainstay in the Catholic Church.
HAM
If you are using The Bible for your conclusion, the only evidence shows Adam being created in God's image and women being created later as a companion. And God on Earth being a man.
There is some suggestion that the earliest Jews believed God had several wives.
How about contributing to the discussion instead of trying to insult current participants?
How's about JOC stops engaging in religious bigotry? His comments on the Catholic Church is just the tired old tent-revivalist argument that they worship Mary above God.
=Bob
Actually, many believe that Catholics put Mary on the same pedestal as God. Not above.
Re: Why the South lost the Civil War: some opinion « Reply #39 on May 8, 2012, 11:25pm »
The South made a tactical error at the start by supporting slavery. That made European nations less likely to assist. That being said, if they lasted a bit longer, the Frenchies would've helped out
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p198/harris1803/AFL-1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p198/harris1803/Aztec%20Roadies/Stickersm.jpg "[image]")
