Worst President Yet

[k9kxq]

This link was sent to me by a very good friend who happens to be republican. I hope this dosen't become highly flamable.

http://www.worstpresidentever.com/

kxq

[KI4DYA]

Try posting here. (http://www.libertynewsforum.com/)

[K6UEY]

At first glance you would think what Moron would start a web site like this,but then you realize ,they may be dumb as a Fox. The democrats have used this methodology for many years and it works,keep telling the same lies over and over and soon some will start to believe in it.Look at the re-election of Bill Clinton,the public had 4 years to see through his BS and changing direction every time a poll changed, but they were told they were better off than they had ever been, despite headlines of companies laying off 2 to 4 thousand every week and bankruptacies hitting a new high ,credit cards maxed to the limit, but they were told these were good times, so he was re-elected and the country suffered because of it.
G.W. Bush would have to really screw up big time to live up to the reputation the left has built for him.No intelligent person with his education is going to screw up that bad. If he keeps doing the good job he is doing,the country may even be back strong enough to have a single term leftist,with out total collapse.And thats all Hilliary wants is a chance to run the country,her way. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W0UZR]

If you vote for, who's "For this, but votes against it", and, "Votes for that, and now he's against it"
Wishy Washy Kerry,,

And after he gets in there to really screw things up,,,

Then you're going to think that Bush is one of the best
Presidents then....

[k6pme]

Same old stuff. I can think of a half a dozen former Presidents were far worse than any recent. Starting with Abraham Lincoln.

I didn't even look at the website but I have a pretty good idea what it says.

[w5klb]

The worst President is NOT Bush or Klinton (although he is real close). The worst President was Andrew Jackson and we should know what party he started. Hint:Franken, Moore, Klinton, Soros, and Kerry are members. And isn't rather ironic that this party chose an animal that represents them to a tee.

The liberal disinfomation campain continues...

The WORST President is the one YOU didn't vote for!

:D

[K0RGR]

Lincoln? You criticize a war president, and a Republican to boot?

I don't know if President Dubya is our worst president ever, but I think he's the most pro-corporate in our history. And, Mussolini himself declared that fascism is the "perfect marriage of corporate power and government".

Now, I'm not anti-corporation at all, but I do believe there needs to be some regulation of them, and I find the current corporate culture to be based on the notion of making a quick buck instead of actually earning it. We created the corporation, not God, and our creation is a long way from perfect. The BPL phenomenon is a classic illustration of 'fast-buck' corporate power teamed with government fast-track authority and mutual propaganda. Multiply BPL by a thousand, and you begin to see the impact on the "little guy". The Robber Barons of the 19th century are back with a vengeance!

If you want a very, very long list of favors done for big corporations by the Bush II administration, the first two chapters of Jim Hightower's book are dedicated to them. The second chapter is printed in very small print to conserve space! You can also read the chapter on how corrupt the Democrats are, if you need some balance. I don't agree with a lot of Jim's suggested solutions, but we have to start with awareness of the problems in order to get real reform.

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ July 22 2004,06:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The WORST President is the one YOU didn't vote for!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Chuck, FT:

Aint that the truth! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K0RGR]

Well, I don't know, I voted for Jimmy Carter, and he was a very poor president. I think he's a wonderful person, and has accomplished a lot since leaving office, but he was a pretty bad president. He was lacking leadership skills. But, lack of leadership is not as bad as misleading.

Gentlemen:

Despite my self-imposed rule never to speak about politics or organized religion on Ham radio or any other List, I feel I must weigh in on this one topic.

The WORST President comes from the two political parties... ALL of Them.

To Quote Gov. George Wallace: #There is not difference in the Democrats or Republicans. #Put them in a sack, shake them up, and spill them out, they are one and the same.

I think The Bard said it best, The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers.

Hehehe.

Respectfully,
73,

Buck/K5-MKE

[k4uug]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/15237.jpg


OFFICIAL 2004 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION PROGRAM


2http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Pre-Ceremonney Concerd by: Barbra Streisand

3http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Posting the Iraqi Colors by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins

4http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

6http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Opening of United States flag burning ceremony by Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon

6:15pm - Tribute theme song to Germany sung by John Mellencamp

6:30pm - Anti-war rally no. 1 moderated by Woody Harrelson

6:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

7http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Tribute theme song to France sung by Madonna

7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.

7:20pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

7:25pm - Tribute theme to Spain sung by the Dixie Chicks and Willie Nelson

7:45pm - Anti-war rally no. 2. moderated by Michael Moore

8http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - John Kerry presents one side of the issues

8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop

9http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Gay marriage ceremony performed by Rosie O'Donnell

9:30pm - * Intermission *

10http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - United States Flag burning ceremony no. 2. by Alec Baldwin and Richard Gere

10:15pm - Re-enactment of Kerry's fake medal toss.

10:30pm - Cameo by Dean 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'

10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the UN (with the word God omitted) by Rep. James McDermott

11http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0pm - Double gay marriage ceremony.

11:15pm - Maximizing Welfare workshop.

11:20pm - John Kerry presents the other side of the issues

11:30pm - 'Free Saddam' pep rally

11:59pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

12http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0am - Nomination of Democrat candidate.



http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16574.jpg

[k4uug]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ July 22 2004,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And isn't rather ironic that this party chose an animal that represents them to a tee.

The liberal disinfomation campain continues...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif AMEN !

[k4uug]

Compassionate Cowboy

Bruce Walker, 12/19/03


Leftists, particularly Leftists from dinky European nations like Belgium, Denmark and Vermont, have contempt for any American 'cowboys.' Cowboy means more that plain old cowboys; it means hillbillies, roughnecks, lumberjacks and any other men who live a tough outdoor life. Cowboys are supposed to be dangerous dummies who drink too much and shoot revolvers on town streets.

Americans view cowboys very differently. We see John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Clint Eastwood and Gary Cooper. We see the good guys who stand up to bad guys. We see men with guns who stop Nazis from murdering Jews, Taliban goons from raping girls and Baathist party thugs from torturing children.

It is not accidental that the two American presidents most loathed by Leftists are also the two most commonly called 'cowboys' - Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It is also not accidental that these two cowboys have proven most successful in directly confronting militant evil in the world.

These sort of Americans, Leftists say, are 'reckless' and 'trigger happy.' No, they are not. They are men who shoot back. A defining moment occurred on August 20, 1981. Qaddafi, the dictator of Libya, had announced that the Gulf of Sidra was part of Libya and that it was the 'line of death' to anyone who crossed it.

President Reagan authorized the American Navy to ignore the cautions of Carter. When Qaddafi sent two warplanes to threaten the USS Nimitz, two American F-14 Tomcats rose to encounter them and when the Libyan planes fired on our Tomcats shot back and shot them down.

Hyperactive reporters peppered Reagan officials with questions: &quot;Did anyone wake the President when this happened?&quot; &quot;No&quot; was the calm answer. Our naval vessels were in international waters and we were asserting our right to be there. If Qaddifi challenged us, we would defeat his challenge - and we did. There was no need to wake the President up for that.

Cowboy presidents befuddle Leftists of all nationalities, who have no true conception of real America. These Leftists mistake simplicity for stupidity, resolve for recklessness and compassion for carelessness.

They cannot conceive of a president whose Cold War strategy is: &quot;How about this - we win; they lose?&quot; They also cannot conceive of a president who identifies evil as evil and cooly says that America will defeat evil. Leftists do not associate compassion with defeating monsters who brutalize innocent people. Cowboys and other ordinary Americans correctly understand that standing tough and being kind go together.

One consequence of Leftist delusions is that they cannot see what the rest of America can so plainly see: President Bush, like President Reagan, are first and foremost good and noble men. Their courage - their cowboy confidence - comes from abiding moral certainty. They act from love, and not from hate.

We look at President Bush as we looked twenty years ago at President Reagan. When we see these sorts of men, we see Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart on riding into town with his revolver and rifle in easy reach, determined to clean up a town terrorized by vicious outlaws. We know that the Duke never draws first and he always warns the bad guys that they better move along, if they know what is good for them. Some do, but others learn the hard way.

When the good guys have run the bad guys out of town, the people of the town are safe. The bullies who horsewhipped the old sheriff are now six feet under ground...at least. The mothers who were afraid to send their kids in the street are not afraid anymore. The shopkeepers fix repair their stores. The farmers plant crops. The choir in the church starts singing again.

Leftists have never understood the beauty and the sweetness of this image. They see men who fight as all the same. Leftists do not grasp that a 'hillbilly' like Sergeant York, a marksman of incredible skill who lived in the beauty of the backwoods and read the Bible seriously, could be a good and gentle man, who had to think hard about whether or not he could even kill another man.

The tricks and shadows of the Leftist mind can not conceive that a bundle of virtues like courage, independence, patience and strength could also be naturally connected to compassion, earnestness, honesty and faith. The Left does not see that cowboys are good, not bad.

That includes cowboys in the White House, who protect us from the outlaw gangs which understand only a steely eye and a well aimed barrel. The rest of us - normal people in Bagdad, Birmingham, Basra or Butte - understand and appreciate compassionate cowboys.

Send feedback to author

Article URL: http://www.americandaily.com/item/4014



http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/6521.jpg

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0RGR @ July 22 2004,06:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln? You criticize a war president, and a Republican to boot?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats right. When the South seceeded from the Union it was so they could achieve their own destiny and rule themselves. Thats all that the CSA wanted. To be left alone to do their own thing.

With the notable exception of Gettysburg, in all of the MAJOR battles and champians, the North invaded the South, starting with Fredricksburg, in order to forcibly browbeat them back into the Union. Lee invaded the North for the sole purpose of trying to end the war.

Lincoln is one of the President's to use the Armies against other Americans (note that I didn't say US citizens) in a wholescale all out war. The Civil War also effectively neutralized the 10 Amendment.

If Lincoln had not invaded the South there would not have been a war.

Lincoln UNDERSTOOD.. most correctly.. that a DIVIDED United States was something that would be quite detrimental to the Country.

If you read his letters and writings, you will see such statements supporting the above in much of what he wrote.

He had other reasons to be sure.. but Lincoln did NOT believe a 'separation between the two' was beneficial for the Country.

Kinda fits with a old statement (I read it in some Book a while back! &lt;grin&gt;)

&quot;A house divided against itself cannot stand&quot;

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ July 22 2004,07:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln UNDERSTOOD.. most correctly.. that #a DIVIDED United States was something that would be quite detrimental to the Country.

If you read his letters and writings, you will see such statements supporting the above in much of what he wrote.

He had other reasons to be sure.. but Lincoln did NOT believe a 'separation between the two' was beneficial for the Country.

Kinda fits with a old statement (I read it in some Book a while back! &lt;grin&gt;)

&quot;A house divided against itself cannot stand&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?

If Lincoln had not gone to war, slavery would have continued for a long time, most historians agree.

And he was a Republican! I thought Republicans hated blacks! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Beam me up, Scotty, too many down here have forgotten their own history.

[K3UD]

Everyone has their reasons for picking a best and worst President and it is usually exercise in futility.

My futile list is:
Andrew Jackson
Warren Harding
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon

Dishonorable Mention
Gerald Ford (a real victim of Nixon, as was Ford's VP, Rockefeller)
Jimmy Carter (although he may have been the best person in terms of personal values to ever hold the presidency)

My best list includes:
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
JFK
Ronald Reagan

Honorable mention:
Harry Truman
George W Bush

My subjective contribution to yet another best and worst list.

73
George
K3UD

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Lincoln had not invaded the South there would not have been a war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
&quot;Invaded&quot;?

How do you &quot;invade&quot; your own country? Was not the South part of the United States before this &quot;invasion&quot;? It seems you're implying that they never were, or am I getting the wrong impression?

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)

For the record,
1. The books I read regarding the Civil War where written long before &quot;revisionist history&quot;.

2. I am NOT racist and believe Chattel Slavery to be WRONG!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;A house divided against itself cannot stand&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The same could have been said about the Revolutionary War.

It would not have been a house divided. It would have two different soveriegn nations.

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ July 22 2004,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Lincoln had not invaded the South there would not have been a war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
&quot;Invaded&quot;?

How do you &quot;invade&quot; your own country? Was not the South part of the United States before this &quot;invasion&quot;? It seems you're implying that they never were, or am I getting the wrong impression?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
They SECEEDED.........therefore they were no longer part of the United States. The South became their own soveriegn nation. They had their own Constitution, President, Congress, etc....

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.

[k0ews]

My favorite President?
Teddy Rosevelt. He was a visionary, and brought about reforms that were needed. He brought us kicking and screaming into the 20th century, and turned us into a world player. Also, the original enviromental President.

Least favorite?
Richard Nixon. He had an extremely effective career up until the watergate scandal; ended Vietnam, opened relations with China, brought the Soviets to the table for arms reductions, and the last President before Clinton to balance a budget, in a war no doubt. Why is he my least? For all the good he did, his actions stained the Presidency forever. He re-opened fresh wounds on an already cynical public who had lost both Kennedys and had Vietnam in the previous 10 years, and re-created a cynacism toward government that we still see today.

Most dumb?
William Henry Harrison
What kind of MORON walks outside in freezing rain, without a coat, on innauguration day (remember, this was before antibiotics), and gets pneumonia and dies a month into his Presidency. Stupid move.

Smartest?
James Madison. He was the real designer of the constitution. Jefferson gets a lot of credit for having great ideas, but Madison was really the smartest kid in the class. BTW, many historians feel that HE was the founding member of the Democratic party.

Toughest Presidency from the start?
Andrew Johnson. Let's see...had to replace Lincoln; deal with reconstruction and a nation still licking it's wounds...and he got impeached.

Best Leader?
FDR and Reagan. Both guys were visionary, and the strengths of their personalities matched up perfectly with the times in which they were elected. Neither one of these men would have been remembered as much had they not come to the Presidency during very trying times. Both men gave the nation hope, and someone to rally behind.

Who did the best job?
Abraham Lincoln. The nation stayed together, and we resolved an underlying problem(slavery) that even the founding fathers couldn't resolve; they just put it off for the next generation. He set other men free; and preserved the Union. You ever notice that before that war we were the UNION, and after that war, we were the NATION?

Best Real Estate President?
Tie. Jefferson and Andrew Johnson. Talk about a couple of sweet land deals there; the Louisiana Purchase(the 10th Call Area) and &quot;Seward's Folly&quot; (KL7 land)

This was fun. The truth is that everyone's best and worst list will be different. That's mine for today. Your mileage may vary.

[k4uug]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My forefathers were Confederates who by the way did not own slaves! both fought to keep the Constitution as it was handed them by Jefferson and Washington,Lincoln destroyed the union and he created a new one with the power being a centeral government thus most states rights were lost,I belive if Lincoln was not killed the South would have never suffered the reconstruction era.If Washington was alive he would have sided with the south.New England stated voted for Seccession during the WAR of 1812 and the western expansion.That all history now we should preserve our history so we do not make the same mistakes again.&quot;Every one should do all in his power to collect and disseminate
the truth, in the hope it may find a place in history and descend
to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns, and
battles, and generals or other individuals, but that which shows
the principles for which the South contended and which justified
her struggle for those principles.&quot; # Gen. Robert E. Lee


&quot;All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.&quot;
Gen. Robert E. Lee

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1OBN @ July 22 2004,08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My forefathers were Confederates who by the way did not own slaves! both fought to keep the Constitution as it was handed them by Jefferson and Washington,Lincoln did not destroy the union he created a new one with the power being a centeral government thus most states rights were lost,I belive if Lincoln was not killed the South would have never suffered the reconstruction era.If Washington was alive he would have sided with the south.New England stated voted for Seccession during the WAR of 1812 and the western expansion.That all history now we should preserve our history so we do not make the same mistakes again.&quot;Every one should do all in his power to collect and disseminate
the truth, in the hope it may find a place in history and descend
to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns, and
battles, and generals or other individuals, but that which shows
the principles for which the South contended and which justified
her struggle for those principles.&quot; # Gen. Robert E. Lee


&quot;All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.&quot;
Gen. Robert E. Lee [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The original Constitution had no provision for slavery. In fact, the Declaration of Independence says &quot;all men are created equal.&quot;

The practice of slavery was in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence. They were preserving their own traditions, not the words of the founding fathers.

Beam me up, Scotty, the history revisionists have struck again!

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I won't argue about the Civil War bringing a faster end to slavery. But, slavery was the ISSUE of the day. The CAUSE of the Civil War the Southern States right to govern themselves.

But to say that being anti Civil War is the same as being pro-slavery is wrong.

I have been an off and on &quot;student&quot; off the Civil War for many years now. At one time I had no less than 30 books about it and had read them all more than once. Some of which include Douglas S. Freeman's 4 volume series R. E. Lee (1934-35) and 3 volume series Lee's Lieutenants (1942-44) The R.E. Lee series won the Pulitzer Prize and the Lieutenants series at one time was required reading in some military schools. Freeman won more than 25 honorary degree's for his works.

Another series was most of the works by Bruce Catton. Most of his works were written in the late 50's and early 60's. Catton wrote most from the Northern viewpoint and often quotes Freeman.

And yet more would include some of the works by both Micheal and Jeff Shaara. Micheal Shaara is best known the the book &quot;The Killer Angels&quot; of which the movie Gettysburg was based on. Micheal Shaara writes some on the Mexican War in 1847. Since all of the major players of the Civil War were Lieutenant's and Captians and saw their first combat there, studying the Mexican War is required to fully understand them in the Civil War. (Lee's brilliance as soldier first showed itself as an engineer under Gen. Winfield Scott)

I could keep going.............

My opinions of the Civil war are those that I have aquired after many years of study.

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1OBN @ July 22 2004,08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.&quot;
Gen. Robert E. Lee [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
10th Amendment.

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I won't argue about the Civil War bringing a faster end to slavery. But, slavery was the ISSUE of the day. The CAUSE of the Civil War the Southern States right to govern themselves.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The states do not have the right to govern themselves in a manner contrary to the Constitution. There's the little matter of Equal Protection under the Laws, which was not applied to slaves.

Beam me up, Scotty...

[kc2kde]

Everyone has their opinions... so what is worse? Bush being caught with coke, or Clinton having an affair in the White House?

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I won't argue about the Civil War bringing a faster end to slavery. But, slavery was the ISSUE of the day. The CAUSE of the Civil War the Southern States right to govern themselves.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The states do not have the right to govern themselves in a manner contrary to the Constitution. There's the little matter of Equal Protection under the Laws, which was not applied to slaves.

Beam me up, Scotty...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not after Gettysburg they don't.

But very broadly speaking the Constitution only spells out four area's that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over. Most of those were the result of the failings of the Articles of Confederation. Keep in mind that the States under the Articles of Confederation was only a loose coalition at best.

1. Foreign affairs
2. Common monetary system
3. Common army
4. Interstate commerce

Now the 10 Amendment says. (paraphrased) &quot;If it's not specifically permitted then it is States rights Exclusively.

The Federal Government as we know it today only came about AFTER the Civil War.

[n0ov]

George or John -- You Decide (http://www.jibjab.com/)

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7AAO @ July 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lincoln also freed the slaves... or did the history revisionists forget to mention the Emancipation Proclamation?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is true. But it took him until 1863 to do it. AFTER the South lost it's first major battle. (which was in the North, Gettysburg)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
True. But the fact remains that without the war, slavery would have continued for a long time. All reasonable historians agree on this. It was only because of the war that it came to an end as soon as it did.

So, in that sense, being against the Civil War can be seen as being pro-slavery. I don't think you want to go there, my friend.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I won't argue about the Civil War bringing a faster end to slavery. But, slavery was the ISSUE of the day. The CAUSE of the Civil War the Southern States right to govern themselves.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The states do not have the right to govern themselves in a manner contrary to the Constitution. There's the little matter of Equal Protection under the Laws, which was not applied to slaves.

Beam me up, Scotty...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not after Gettysburg they don't.

But very broadly speaking the Constitution only spells out four area's that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over. Most of those were the result of the failings of the Articles of Confederation. Keep in mind that the States under the Articles of Confederation was only a loose coalition at best.

1. Foreign affairs
2. Common monetary system
3. Common army
4. Interstate commerce

Now the 10 Amendment says. (paraphrased) &quot;If it's not specifically permitted then it is States rights Exclusively.

The Federal Government as we know it today only came about AFTER the Civil War.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The Articles of Confederation were long since history by the time the Civil War came about, so they are largely irrelevant. The Constitution was adopted in 1791, which puts it about 70 years prior to the Civil War, so it wasn't a &quot;new&quot; thing.

Bottom line: It was necessary to end slavery, by force if necessary.

This is my last post on the Civil War, though I may chime in from time to time about the worst President.

Beam me up, Scotty, I got work to do.

[K9STH]

AAO:

Didn't Scotty pass on a few weeks ago? I seem to have read something in the Dallas Morning News about this.

Glen, K9STH

[k4uug]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AAO:

Didn't Scotty pass on a few weeks ago? #I seem to have read something in the Dallas Morning News about this.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yea he was Beamed up a few weeks ago!

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AAO:

Didn't Scotty pass on a few weeks ago? #I seem to have read something in the Dallas Morning News about this.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The last I heard was that Jimmy Doohan, &quot;Scotty&quot; to so many of us, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I haven't heard of his passing, tho.

Here is a link to the story: James Doohan has Alzheimer's (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/07/people.doohan.ap/index.html)

That's part of the reason I started using that tagline... I want to remember Scotty as he was when I was a kid. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Beam yourself down, Scotty, we have a fan here! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K3UD]

Glen

I think he was diagnosed with Alzheimers.

George
K3UD

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1OBN @ July 22 2004,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AAO:

Didn't Scotty pass on a few weeks ago? #I seem to have read something in the Dallas Morning News about this.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yea he was Beamed up a few weeks ago![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO he was not. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, but is still alive.

Beam me up, Scotty!

[k4uug]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k9kxq @ July 22 2004,04:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This link was sent to me by a very good friend who happens to be republican. I hope this dosen't become highly flamable.

http://www.worstpresidentever.com/

kxq[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NORTH VS SOUTH THING !

Slavery was a legal institution in this country for over 200 years. Africans were brought here by northern slave traders to be used in northern industry, long before the antebellum South or the Confederacy ever existed. The first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts in 1641, only 17 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. &quot;The slave trade became very profitable to the shipping colonies and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire had many ships in the triangular trade,&quot; (72). &quot;The moral argument against slavery arose early in the New England shipping colonies but it could not withstand the profits of the trade and soon died out.&quot; (73).

Thomas Jefferson condemned the slave trade in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but the New England slave traders lobbied to have the clause stricken. In a short eleven year period form 1755 to 1766, no fewer than 23,000 slaves landed in Massachusetts. By 1787, Rhode Island had taken first place in the slave trade to be unseated later by New York. Before long, millions of slaves would be brought to America by way of 'northern' slave ships. After all, there were no Southern slave ships involved in the triangular slave, it was simply too cruel.

William P. Cheshire, the senior editorial columnist for the Arizona Republic recently noted, the New England Yankee who brought slaves to America, &quot;were interested in getting money, not in helping their cargo make a fresh start in the New World.&quot; He adds that northern slave ownership &quot;isn't widely known - American textbooks tend to be printed in Boston, not Atlanta - but early New Englanders not only sold blacks to Southern planters but also kept slaves for themselves as well as enslaving the local Indian population,&quot; (74).

Slavery did not appear in the deep South until northern settlers began to migrate South, bringing with them their slaves. It was soon discovered that while slaves were not suited to the harsh climate and working conditions of the north, they were ideal sources of cheap labor for the newly flourishing economy of the agricultural South. Of the 9.5 million slaves brought to the Western Hemisphere from 1500 - 1870, less than 6% were brought to the United States. This means that our Hispanic, British and French neighbors to the south owned over 94% of the slaves brought to the New World. In the South, less than 7% of the total population ever owned a slave. In other words, over 93% of Southerners did not own any slaves, (75).

Attempts to outlaw the slave trade in the north only increased the profits of smuggling. In 1858, only two years prior to the birth of the Confederacy, Stephen Douglas noted that over 15,000 slaves had been smuggled into New York alone, with over 85 vessels sailing from New York in 1859 to smuggle even more slaves. Perhaps it was their own guilt that drove the abolitionists of the day to point an accusing finger at the South, while closing their eyes to the slavery and the slave trade taking place in their own back yards.

For more than 200 years, northern slave traders made enormous profits that furnished the capitol for future investments into mainstream industries. Who is more responsible for slavery in America, the Southern plantation owner who fed and clothed his slaves, or the New England &quot;Yankee&quot; slave trader who brought the slaves here in the first place?

From 1641, when Massachusetts first legalized slavery, until 1865, when the Confederate struggle for independence ended, slavery was a legal institution in America that lasted over 224 years. The Confederate battle flag flew for 4 of those 224 years, but the U.S. flag and its colonial predecessors flew over legalized slavery for ALL of those 224 years. It was the U.S. flag that the slave first saw, and it was the U.S. flag that flew on the mast of New England slaves ships as they brought their human cargo to this country. It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.


Bibliography:
72. The Concise Dictionary of American History, (Scribner &amp; Sons), p.876
73. Ibid
74. The Arizona Repblic, June 11, 1995
75. Rober William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross - The Economics of American Negro Slavery (New York: Norton, 1974), p.14

As for the so-called &quot;Emancipation Proclamation&quot; any informed scholar knows
that it was a propaganda tool intended to (hopefully) cause widespread slave
uprisings to drain Confederate soldiers to quell them (none occurred); to
create a &quot;cause&quot; around which the North would rally (200,000 Union soldiers
immediately deserted); and to prevent seemingly-close diplomatic recognition
by France and the British Empire (which would have meant fighting those navies
to maintain the blockade). Since Lincoln knowingly excluded freeing a single
slave in any area of the North _and_ South controlled by the Union Army, it
was a transparent lie.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ July 21 2004,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">George or John -- You Decide (http://www.jibjab.com/)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Click the link.

May put things into perspective.

At least it will give you a laugh!

[w5klb]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,07:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ July 22 2004,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Lincoln had not invaded the South there would not have been a war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
&quot;Invaded&quot;?

How do you &quot;invade&quot; your own country? Was not the South part of the United States before this &quot;invasion&quot;? It seems you're implying that they never were, or am I getting the wrong impression?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
They SECEEDED.........therefore they were no longer part of the United States. The South became their own soveriegn nation. They had their own Constitution, President, Congress, etc....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It seems to me that the Civil War could of been avoided in the first place if Mr. Adams the rest of the Framers could have somehow talked Georgia into giving up their slave economy. And, if I have my history correct, Adams wanted to put an anti-slavery clause in The Constitution but Georgia and Mr. Oglethorp&lt;sp&gt;, would not want to be admitted into the Union unless the anti-slavery clause was omitted.

Some other interesting facts: After the Civil War Lincoln ordered that troops use Robert E. Lee's property in Virginia as a burial ground for the Union troops. All the millitary folk know about this place-it's called &quot;Arlington National Cemetary&quot;.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc2kde @ July 22 2004,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone has their opinions... so what is worse? #Bush being caught with coke, or Clinton having an affair in the White House?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Obviously you are unlearned as tothe reality of the truth.

BTW.. Clinton was convicted of being a perjurer amongst other things and disbarred as well.

Quite a bit of difference in being ACCUSED of something (a la your 'bush comment') and being PROVEN to have done something.

Suggest you return to the classroom and re-read and re-learn.

It'll do you good, indeed!

[K9STH]

OBN:

First of all, your treatsie on slavery is basically true.

However, your explanation on the emancipation proclamation is flawed!

First of all, 200,000 Union troops did NOT desert! That would have represented at least 25 percent of those under arms at any time and there just wasn't that kind of desertion! A relative handful may have deserted at this time due to the proclamation, but no where the numbers that you are quoting!

Lincoln's proclamation did NOT include any states that had remained in the union (including Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland). In fact, slavery was not abolished in these states until, I believe, 1868, with the passage of the ammendment that outlawed slavery. It DID include any areas of the states that had &quot;left the union&quot; including those areas that were under Union control. In fact, it was only in those areas that the proclamation could be enforced.

Lincoln's primary motive was to keep England and France from recognizing the Confederacy. Since both countries had previously outlawed slavery they couldn't recognize a government that supported slavery. Also, the defeat of the Confederacy at Gettysburg during the battle from 1 to 3 July 1863 and the fall of Vicksburg on 4 July 1863, added to this feeling. My ancestoral cousin, Brigidier General (and brevet Major General) Samuel K. Zook was mortally wounded at the edge of the Wheat Field while leading his regiment in saving the position for the Union during the Battle of Gettysburg.

By the time of the emancipation proclamation the vast majority of Union soldiers had come to regard the &quot;black&quot; situation with neither contempt or acceptance. Frankly, most of them were pretty much neutral. However, all during the war the express purpose of fighting was to preserve the union. Even U. S. Grant is supposed to have remarked that if the war was to &quot;free the blacks&quot; that he would immediately resign.

I have heard of between 7 and 10 percent of the land holders in the south owned slaves. The majority of these slave holders owned 5 or less slaves and often worked in the fields along side of them.

Also, over 50,000 (some reports give up to almost 200,000) blacks served in the Confederate Army even though they were not recognized by the central government. Many of these served as laborers, teamsters, etc. But, a significant number carried arms and fought alongside their white counterparts.

At reunions of Confederate soldiers after the war a significant number of blacks showed up. In more than one instance, no provision had been made by the event organizers to house them and the organizers tried to &quot;shuffle&quot; them off to barns, etc. The white veterans put up a howl and took the black veterans into their quarters without any &quot;hitch&quot;. It was only around the turn of the century that the trend was to not recognize the contributions of the blacks to the southern cause.

There is a cemetery within 2 miles of my house in a &quot;black&quot; area that has no less than 23 black Confederate graves! Several years ago the Sons of Confederate Veterans put small &quot;naval jacks&quot; (often called improperly the &quot;Stars and Bars&quot; which is a completely different flag) on their graves for Memorial Day. The first year nothing was said. The second year there was some concern. The third year certain organizations make such a &quot;stink&quot; that no more flags were put out. However, a large number of the descendants of those soldiers were proud that their ancestors had fought and wanted the flags returned!

Also, there have been numerous people of &quot;color&quot; who have researched their &quot;roots&quot; and found all sorts of ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. When interviewed both during the war and after, those blacks who had fought for the south were asked why. They replied basically that they were fighting for their country and not in the support of slavery or whatever! In addition, before and during the Civil War several of the largest slave holders in the State of Louisiana were free blacks! Also, there was a regiment of 1200 free blacks that was raised for the Confederate cause in, and around, the New Orleans area. When New Orleans fell, the Union commander persuaded most of these to come over to the Union side and formed a Union Louisiana unit.

Anyway, I have been a &quot;student&quot; of the American Civil War for quite a number of years and have quite a number of references including books and copies of original documents.

My direct link to the Civil War was my great great grandfather, Private William James Stump, 128th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, who elisted at the age of 45 at Michigan City, Indiana, on 1 January 1864. Who was &quot;mustered in&quot; on 18 March 1864, and who died not as the result of his wounds at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain, but as the result of Typhoid fever that he caught while in the General Hospital Chattanooga, Tennessee, on 13 July 1864. If he had remained with his unit instead of going to the hospital, he probably would have survived! He was originally buried at Resaca, Georgia, but his body, along with thousands of others, were reinterred in the Chattanooga National Cemetery!

I have other relatives beside S. K. Zook, that were with the 35th Indiana Volunteer Infantry.

My grandmother said until the day that she died that she had relatives that fought on both sides at the Battle of Lookout Mountain. However, she was mistaken about the battle. It would have had to be the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain a relatively few miles farther south. Her grand father had not enlisted until after the Battle of Lookout Mountain. However, I could never find any reference to any Confederates. I did not doubt my grandmother's word, but I figured any Confederate had be relegated to those places in family history reserved for muderers, horse thieves, and other black sheep!

I finally found a one sentence reference to a George Washington Stump from Virginia (my great great grandfather's family had come from Hardy County, Virginia, - now West Virginia - in the 1830s to Indiana). Within 5 minutes of looking on the Internet I had his basic history. He was a captain in the 18th Virginia Cavalry, was executed after being wounded by Union forces in Februay 1865. I now have the history of the 18th Virginia Cavalry in my hands!

Then I found a number of other relatives that stayed behind in Virginia that fought for the south!

My wife's family was all southern. Her relatives included 5 brothers who served with Georgia units. There were actually 7 brothers but only 5 went off to serve. Her great great grandfather stayed home along with his youngest brother. However, he was only 9 at the time and his brother was 3! Of the 5 who went off to serve, all 5 returned after the war and basically unhurt! This was almost &quot;unheard of&quot; during the war.

As such, I do have a pretty good idea as to what went on, at least in a general sense, during the Civil War.

Glen, K9STH
Former Commander Department of the Southwest
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War

[K0RGR]

All I know for certain is that my Great Grandfather lost the use of his right leg and his two brothers in &quot;the war between the states&quot;. He was wounded in the only battle in history where a U.S. general was court-martialled for gross malfeasance.

His sister wrote a family history a few years after the war, in which she stated that he was a veteran of &quot;the war to free the slaves&quot;. Indeed, while some of her own ancestors were slaveholders in Virginia, the northern branch of the family were abolitionists.

If your leanings were toward abolition, the issue was not 'states rights'. Lincoln was outspokenly anti-slavery prior to his election, which was viewed in the north as the main reason for the southern insurrection (which is what it was considered, initially). Many people point to Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address as proof that he did not have strong abolitionist leanings, but you need to look at his speeches long before he became president. Then, as now, politicians would move &quot;toward the middle&quot; in order to gain votes.

It's interesting to note that while the victor in war usually writes the history, for the last 100+ years, our most celebrated historians have been southerners, and this has colored our view of that era to some extent.

My ancestors were also &quot;Indian fighters&quot; so I have a somewhat unusual view of the Indian Wars, too...

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,10:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, I have been a &quot;student&quot; of the American Civil War for quite a number of years and have quite a number of references including books and copies of original documents.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I wish I still had mine. Alas, when burglars start loading boxes they don't look inside them first. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K4JSR]

Glen, Just a slight oversight, you neglected to correct an
earlier comment in this thread that Gettysburg was the
first major loss of the Civil War. At that very exact time
Grant got General John C. Pemberton to surrender
Vicksburg, Mississippi. The loss successfully divided
the Confederacy and angered the citizens of Vicksburg
to the the point that the did not celebrate July 4th again
until the middle 1940's.
Speaking of poor Presidents, Grant, the victor at Vicksburg and Appomattox was not a very good President
either. While no one has really proved that Grant was
personally corrupt, his administration has to go down
as one of the worst.
In actuallity, it takes a goodly number of years to pass by before you can really label any president as truly
bad. Much of the stimuli that any president has to contend with remains secret for many years after his
service and usually untill after his death.
So much for reality. Let's get back to partisan bickering
where all of the fun is! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73, Cal K4JSR

PS. Glen, don't forget William T. Sherman. He introduced &quot;urban renewal&quot; to Atlanta. There are still
some of Johnston's earthworks remaining near the
North Avenue Trade School location. I believe they are
remnants from the Battle of Peachtree Creek.
Unfortunately, there is less and less respect for fallen
American Soldiers, North and South, and these sites are
being plowed up for &quot;progress&quot;. And yes, I know it was a
Texan, John Bell Hood, who actually fought Sherman for
Atlanta. Thankfully Sherman did not burn down the
Varsity!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Sherman was not found of the blacks, either. He fought
for the preservation of the Union. But that is another
story. I do not know which takes the most space in
my hamshack, Radio books and Magazines or Civil War books and magazines. Both hobbies are demanding
mistresses! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[k0ews]

I'm noticing a seriously disturbing trend here: Ham radio operators that are Civil War junkies!!!! I guess that it would stand to reason: both attract folks interested in lifelong learning. My Dad is one of those ham radio Civil War buffs. Part of the battlefield at Antietam was fought on my great, great, great, great grandfather's farm. Longstreet occupied his house during the battle. My dad gets his fix for that one every time he goes east. When he comes my way, I like to take him to Little Bighorn, about 3 1/2 hours away.

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0ews @ July 22 2004,11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm noticing a seriously disturbing trend here: #Ham radio operators that are Civil War junkies!!!! #I guess that it would stand to reason: both attract folks interested in lifelong learning. #My Dad is one of those ham radio Civil War buffs. #Part of the battlefield at Antietam was fought on my great, great, great, great grandfather's farm. #Longstreet occupied his house during the battle. #My dad gets his fix for that one every time he goes east. #When he comes my way, I like to take him to Little Bighorn, about 3 1/2 hours away.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, I am just interested in history, period. I don't really specialize in any one area yet. Maybe when I hit 80 or so. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Beam me up, Scotty!

[KG4ZQZ]

the heck with the worst President...

i think the U.S. went to h-e-double-hockey-sticks in 1913 with the first levy of a personal income tax!

the beginning of class legislation...

[kc7jty]

I keep hearing from the forces that be that we will eventually get attacked again by the so called &quot;terrorists&quot; and it will make 9/11 look small in comparison........Oh yeah!!??.......No Sh*t. Well, I got news for them (those in our government who keep saying this) When and if it does happen WE WILL DESERVE IT!
As far as W being the worse prez.....just wait till Kerry gets in. Its all been down hill since at least R.R. I don't expect the trend to change.

[K9STH]

JSR:

I didn't say that Gettysburg was the first major southern defeat of the Civil War. What I said was that the combination of Gettysburg and Vicksburg had a major effect on the European outlook towards the Confederacy!

There were victories on both sides before July of 1863.

Now, there is an original diary by a Union officer who was present during the Pickett-Pettigrew charge at the Battle of Gettysburg who wrote, on the same day as the final battle of the Battle of Gettysburg, that the Confederate artillery was actually shelling the rear of the advancing party! Supposedly this was to keep those of Pickett and Pettigrew's forces from retreating! This diary is now in the collection of the Civil War at the Navaro Community College located in Corsicana, Texas, about 60 miles south of Dallas.

I had never heard of this until those pages of the diary were published in the Dallas Morning News as part of a feature story on the donation of the collection to the college. The collection contains all sorts of items like one of the original telegrams sent about the firing on Fort Sumter, to personal messages from both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, to one of the actual telegrams announcing the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House. The person who acquired these was a very wealthy collector and his wife donated the collection after his death.

As for the accuracy of the statement, I can only believe that a Union infantry junior officer wouldn't have any cause to report anything except what he had seen with his own eyes. He seemed to believe that this was intentional and that it took place for a fairly long length of time.

As for the burning of Atlanta: Remember that Hood had started many of the fires by setting various military installations ablaze before he pulled out. Then, Sherman did order additional military installations burned. Some of those fires did spread to adjacent buildings (both those set by Hood and those set by Sherman). Sherman did, as a matter of record, punish those of his command who set fires in non military areas. Also, he organized fire brigades that saved a lot of the civilian areas.

After the war Sherman returned, for a while, as the dean of the University of Mississippi! Also, there was an article in the Atlanta Journal - Constitution several days ago about Sherman's March to the Sea. It seems that there were many tales of damage done by soldiers under his command that were well over 100 miles away from his line of march. Also, every town that wasn't damaged came up with some sort of story about how one of the local women gave such a &quot;sob story&quot; that Sherman did not allow any damage. Of course these towns were miles away from any possible action by Sherman's forces. But, they figured that they had to come up with some excuse as to why the town wasn't damaged! As for the damage, pillage, etc., that was done away from Sherman's line of march, it seems that the vast majority of this was done by Confederate deserters, irregulars, and even some regular Confederate troops.

The burning of Columbia, South Carolina: Those fires were definitely set by retreating Confederate forces and Sherman's men did their best to put them out. This has been documented by various Confederate newspaper sources at the time. However, in an attempt to blame the &quot;yankees&quot; for everything, it became &quot;in&quot; to blame Sherman for something that he had no part at all in doing! There have been a number of articles in various Civil War modern publications that have pretty much exonorated Sherman from much of what he was blamed for!

Of course when I was a freshman at Georgia Tech a campus &quot;joke&quot; was to send someone to ask an elderly person walking down the street for directions to the Sherman Match Factory! Also, the first time I ever asked for directions to Houston street, and pronounced the name like the city in Texas, the Atlanta native looked at me like I was from outer space! Then, they said, &quot;Oh, you mean how-ston street&quot;! I also got a delayed response when I asked the waitress at a cafe near campus the first day that I was there for a &quot;coke&quot;. She thought for a minute and said, &quot;Oh, you want a Coca Cola&quot;! At the time &quot;coke&quot; was not a soutern term for the soft drink. And, we were less than 3 blocks from the international headquarters of Coca Cola!

Anyway, having been in Atlanta from September 1962 until April 1967, I did get a lot of the 100 year anniversary of the Civil War.

Glen, K9STH

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ July 22 2004,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.........Well, I got news for them (those in our government who keep saying this) When and if it does happen WE WILL DESERVE IT!.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My oh MY!

I think JTY needs a VERY VERY large and vigorous SY-style GROUP HUG! WK, X7B, and the rest! help your comrade! He needs comforting.. he's hurting!

(either that or he is putting out a job application for the 'JIHAD CHEERLEADING SOCIETY!'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I'd suggest you book the first flight OUTTA the USA since you are so convinced we deserve it.. watch out!!

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ July 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd suggest you book the first flight OUTTA the USA since you are so convinced we deserve it.. watch out!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But, but, but, K3FT, I thought The Great Kerry was going to make all the terrorists love all of us so they'd never attack us again!

[/sarcasm]

Beam me up, Scotty, before the mudslinging starts again!

[K7JBQ]

With all the fine things said here about the Recent Unpleasantness, and in line with the heading for this thread, how is that no one has yet nominated Lincoln's immediate predecessor, the hapless Buchanan?

73,
Bill

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K7JBQ @ July 22 2004,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With all the fine things said here about the Recent Unpleasantness, and in line with the heading for this thread, how is that no one has yet nominated Lincoln's immediate predecessor, the hapless Buchanan?

73,
Bill[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now there is an eminently forgettable President. Maybe that's why I forgot him. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Beam me up, Scotty!

[k6pme]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K7JBQ @ July 22 2004,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With all the fine things said here about the Recent Unpleasantness, and in line with the heading for this thread, how is that no one has yet nominated Lincoln's immediate predecessor, the hapless Buchanan?

73,
Bill[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Was that unpleasantness? I thought it was interesting discussion of the Civil War. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K7JBQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6QQL @ July 22 2004,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K7JBQ @ July 22 2004,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With all the fine things said here about the Recent Unpleasantness, and in line with the heading for this thread, how is that no one has yet nominated Lincoln's immediate predecessor, the hapless Buchanan?

73,
Bill[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Was that unpleasantness? I thought it was interesting discussion of the Civil War. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not at all, hence the capital letters.
It was an ironic term used in the southern states for years after the conflict, and still occasionally heard today, to refer to (pick one) the War of the Rebellion or the War for Southern Independence.

73,
Bill

[K6BBC]

I donno - I still remember Jimmy Carter. Had he kicked some serious ass during the hostage crisis of 1980-81, I believe the world would be a different place today.

K6BBC

[w6ez]

You guys quit picking on Abraham Lincoln.

He was a most cool dude.

a very hip cat.

[K9STH]

Remember that Buchanan won the Presidency without winning the majority of votes. His Republican opponent actually had a fair number more votes than he did. But, he won the Presidency with the majority of the electoral college. And, Buchanan was a Democrat!

Glen, K9STH

[w6ez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 21 2004,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember that Buchanan won the Presidency without winning the majority of votes. His Republican opponent actually had a fair number more votes than he did. But, he won the Presidency with the majority of the electoral college. And, Buchanan was a Democrat!

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And there wasn't a &quot;chad&quot; to be seen anywhere.

[W8EFA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember that Buchanan won the Presidency without winning the majority of votes. #His Republican opponent actually had a fair number more votes than he did. #But, he won the Presidency with the majority of the electoral college. #And, Buchanan was a Democrat!

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just goes to show you the Electoral college failed us two times now sticking us with bad presidents!

There WERE some chads in Buchanan's day.

There was Chad Jones who ran the Livery Stable over the way from the White House and Chad Rogers who was the barber/doctor in town! Then there was that infamous judge in Florida - Chad Witherspoon who sentenced more men to die than any other judge outside of Roy Bean.

He was so well know for his prediliction for capital punishment that he was known all over as


'Hanging Chad' Witherspoon..

Just to set the record straight!

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ July 22 2004,22:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There WERE some chads in Buchanan's day.

There was Chad Jones who ran the Livery Stable over the way from the White House and Chad Rogers who was the barber/doctor in town! Then there was that infamous judge in Florida - Chad Witherspoon who sentenced more men to die than any other judge outside of Roy Bean.

He was so well know for his prediliction for capital punishment that he was known all over as


'Hanging Chad' Witherspoon..

Just to set the record straight![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
FT,

Thanks for a chuckle to start my day off right.

Beam me up, Scotty!

[K0RGR]

Glen, I didn't see your post before I made mine - my G'grandfather's brother was wounded at Kennesaw Mountain and died of his wounds later. We have two conflicting records for my G'grandfather - one says he was wounded at Kennesaw and the other says he was wounded and disabled in one of the Tennessee battles that came later. Since he was promoted after Kennesaw, we assume that he either recovered from the wound there, or he actually wasn't wounded there.

One illustration of how 'the winner writes the
history' - my G'Gfathers's brother was taken to a hospital in Kentucky after he was wounded. I visited the small town, which housed a confederate garrison and hospital, which was taken over by the Union. Many of the Union soldiers died of encephalitis, here and elsewhere - it's a disease that is still common today over here by the Mississippi at least. The doctor at this camp spelled it 'encephalus'.

If you visit that town today, you will read that all of the despised Union soldiers treated there died of 'syphillis'.

[k0ews]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (K9STH @ July 22 2004,20http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3)
Remember that Buchanan won the Presidency without winning the majority of votes. His Republican opponent actually had a fair number more votes than he did. But, he won the Presidency with the majority of the electoral college. And, Buchanan was a Democrat!

Glen, K9STH

Just goes to show you the Electoral college failed us two times now sticking us with bad presidents![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Buchanan did win the popular and electoral vote. However Rutheford B. Hayes did win the Presidency in 1876 without the majority of the popular vote. What I think is even more interesting is the election of 1824, where Andrew Jackson actually won the electoral vote AND the popular vote, but the election was decided in the house of representatives, who gave John Q. the Presidency. The electoral college is a good thing, as it gives more power to the states, and lessens the oportunity for corruption and voter fraud, plus if it ever came to a popular vote, most of the smaller states and geographic regions would be ignored completely and you would see much more regional candidates. However, given the distribution of red and blue states lately, that seems to happen quite a bit, but patterns do shift and are nothing new. 30 years ago, many southern states were blue and just about all of the western states were red. Very intersting patterns indeed.

If you want to talk about the biggest CHOKE JOB for an incumbent 1 termer in history, it's not Jimmy Carter, or George Bush 1, or even Herbert Hoover. Nope...it's William Howard Taft. In the election of 1912, Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the Presidency with 435 votes, defeating Progressive party candidate Teddy Roosevelt, who got 88 votes, and Incumbent Republican William Howard Taft, who only got 8 electoral votes. Interesting stuff.

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ July 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc7jty @ July 22 2004,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.........Well, I got news for them (those in our government who keep saying this) When and if it does happen WE WILL DESERVE IT!.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My oh MY!

I think JTY needs a VERY VERY large and vigorous SY-style GROUP HUG! #WK, X7B, and the rest! help your comrade! He needs comforting.. he's hurting! #

(either that or he is putting out a job application for the 'JIHAD #CHEERLEADING SOCIETY!'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I'd suggest you book the first flight OUTTA the USA since you are so convinced we deserve it.. watch out!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I realize this is a long shot but maybe an ex soviet nuke sucessfully detonated in the Balto area with the wind blowing the wrong way that day. Those of us hurting will be able to add some to our ranks.
There won't be any hugs for you though. No exiting the country either, just a burial in some radio active dump in Nevada.

[K9STH]

I do stand corrected on Buchanan. He did win with a slight plurality over his Republican and &quot;Know Nothing Party&quot; opponents. I had misread the original story (which is confusing to say the least!). However, he didn't come close to having a majority of the popular vote! Just like in 1992 with Perot cutting into George H. W. Bush's total.

R. B. Hayes did win the Presidency by 185 to 184 electoral votes and his opponent did have a slight majority of the popular vote. That particular election was &quot;thrown into Congress&quot; and there three states, including Florida(!), that were decided to go to Hayes. it seems like Florida is always causing problems!

Glen, K9STH

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ July 23 2004,14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do stand corrected on Buchanan. #He did win with a slight plurality over his Republican and &quot;Know Nothing Party&quot; opponents. #I had misread the original story (which is confusing to say the least!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. #However, he didn't come close to having a majority of the popular vote! #Just like in 1992 with Perot cutting into George H. W. Bush's total.

R. B. Hayes did win the Presidency by 185 to 184 electoral votes and his opponent did have a slight majority of the popular vote. #That particular election was &quot;thrown into Congress&quot; and there three states, including Florida(!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, that were decided to go to Hayes. #it seems like Florida is always causing problems!

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's give Florida back to the Spanish. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif