New Civil War postage stamps

On Apr 14, 12:04=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> >> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
> >> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
> >> stamps.
>
> > Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
> > civil war. =A0Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
> > sure thinks so.
>
> >> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
> >> but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>
> > Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
> > war generals on their stamps. =A0Opportunity lost. =A0Discussing it
> > (here) is good though.
>
> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
> bitter. Time will prove us correct.
>
> Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.

Yup!. And let's send that uppity O'Bama back to the cotton fields
where he and the rest of his Cushite tribe belong. And let's give him
a proper Christian name while we're at it instead of that pagan
infidel one.


[Yes the above is sarcasm for those who don't get it]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
> correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
> primary cause of the North invading the South.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and
you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all
the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in
making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of
you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our
country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop,
but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The
United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had
power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe
that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but
always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more
acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of
devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and
this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from
danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals
cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into
rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a
government, and those who insist on war and its desolation."

*****

"You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by
falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other
quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of
government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have
never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by
seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr.
Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of
provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your
armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis,
Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families
of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now
that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors,
but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition,
and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to
desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked
to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their
inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it
can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with
a view to perfect an early success."

Excerpts from a letter to the Mayor and Councilmen of Atlanta
12 Sept. 1864
William Tecumseh Sherman

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
> bitter.


Interesting comment that reminds me of the current situation. I've heard of
people referring to "our side" when they had absolutely no family in the US
at the time of the Civil War. It just happened that their ancestors, often
from Europe, settled in a particular state and a hundred years later, those
people are taking sides based on where they happen to live. Happens with
sport teams too, so I' guess I should not be surprised.

What an idiot.

Nuff said.

On Apr 12, 9:26=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
> are capable of =A0treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? =A0I pass.=
YMMV.
>
> Bill

On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>
I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
commemorates their sacrifice.

On 4/14/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
>>> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
>>> stamps.
>>
>> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
>> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
>> sure thinks so.
>>
>>> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
>>> but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>>
>> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
>> war generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it
>> (here) is good though.
>>
>
> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,

You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're in
favor of letting a state make slavery legal?

but that's not a reason to be bitter. Time will prove us correct.
>
> Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.
>
>

On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,
>>
>> You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
>> before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
>> in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?
>>
>
> The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
> example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
> the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
> those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
> (Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
> Territory, etc.).
>
> "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
> eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
> or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
> against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
> free..."
>
> And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
> correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
> primary cause of the North invading the South.
>
>
So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
Confederate states are "your side"?

"J. Clarke" wrote:
> No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
> States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was
> conquered by
> the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.
------------------------------------
They wern't "forced", they could have chosen to fall on their swords.

Good grief, 150 years later, the "Civil War" is still being fought.

"States Rights" lost.

Give it up.

Lew

On 4/15/2011 12:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,
>>>>
>>>> You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
>>>> before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
>>>> in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
>>> example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
>>> the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
>>> those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
>>> (Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
>>> Territory, etc.).
>>>
>>> "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
>>> eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
>>> or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
>>> against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
>>> free..."
>>>
>>> And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
>>> correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
>>> primary cause of the North invading the South.
>>>
>>>
>> So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
>> Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
>> the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
>> Confederate states are "your side"?
>
> No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
> States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
> the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.
>
>
So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

On Apr 15, 9:15=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
> > Ain't that the truth! =A0I remember reading somewhere that most of the
> > population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. =A0=
That
> > seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>
> But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. =A0 It was worth fighting f=
or NO
> taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Luigi

On Apr 16, 8:29=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi <luigizan...@gmail=
.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> > Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
> >> > population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. =
That
> >> > seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>
> >> But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting fo=
r NO
> >> taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?
>
> >But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
> >massive murderous civil war. :-)
>
> Huh? =A0What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act,
effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British
empire.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
> YMMV.
>
> Bill

Perhaps you should be embarrassed. You don't celebrate, you commemorate.
You also learn history and, hopefully, gain enough knowledge so you don't
repeat it.

I'll be sure to buy and save some of the stamps to pass on a bit of history
so my grandkids can learn from it too.

Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we come
across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
participants, you can become a better person with better views of how to
live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers to
their families. You don't see such eloquence today.

You are missing so much.

>
> All the room I left for you to express an alternative viewpoint and that
> is all you could come up with? =A0Go buy some stamps!
>

I think idiot says it all.

On Apr 12, 11:27=A0pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

Troll? You are truly an idiot. I am on here all the time making
relevant (and occasionally intelligent) postings and replies. Here is
the first sentence of the definition of "Troll (Internet)" from
wikipedia... sound familiar.

"In Internet slang, a troll is a user who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

I'd like to upgrade my "idiot" comment to asshole at this time.

> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>
> >> All the room I left for you to express an alternative viewpoint and th=
at
> >> is all you could come up with? =A0Go buy some stamps!
>
> > I think idiot says it all.
>
> troll.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>>
> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
> commemorates their sacrifice.

Our Memorial Day in OZ is November 11
Remembrance Day
Veterans Day
Armistice Day
Whatever you call it, it is for the remembrance of fallen soldiers
and also for the celebration for the ones who returned
of which there are not many left

Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,
>
> You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
> before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
> in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?
>

The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
(Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
Territory, etc.).

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free..."

And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
primary cause of the North invading the South.

in 1496677 20110415 024358 "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
>> bitter.
>
>
>Interesting comment that reminds me of the current situation. I've heard of
>people referring to "our side" when they had absolutely no family in the US
>at the time of the Civil War.

Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
> population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
> seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 4/14/2011 6:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> I think the stamps send the wrong message. Certainly putting civil war
> >> generals on the stamps sends the wrong message (IMO). Put some bloody
> >> cotton bales on the stamps instead!
> >
> >>
> >> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
> >> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not
> >> a know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I
> >> know, and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic
> >> (about it). You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of
> >> course, entitled to your opinion)?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
> > some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage stamps.
>
> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
> sure thinks so.
>
> > I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way, but
> > it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>
> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil war
> generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it (here) is
> good though.

"They" are on the side of making money for the postal service.
Commemorative stamps are not about deciding whether the events depicted
are "good" or "bad", they are about whether they will sell or not.

You do understand that the whole point of a commemorative stamp is that
the collector puts it in a stamp album and the postal service never has
to deliver the service that the purchaser paid for do you not?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> > Just Wondering wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,
> >>
> >> You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
> >> before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
> >> in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?
> >>
> >
> > The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
> > example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
> > the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
> > those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
> > (Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
> > Territory, etc.).
> >
> > "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
> > eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
> > or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
> > against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
> > free..."
> >
> > And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
> > correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
> > primary cause of the North invading the South.
> >
> >
> So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
> Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
> the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
> Confederate states are "your side"?

No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 4/15/2011 12:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> >>> Just Wondering wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost,
> >>>>
> >>>> You're picking sides on a conflict that ended a century (more or less)
> >>>> before you were even born? What's that about? Does that mean you're
> >>>> in favor of letting a state make slavery legal?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The War of Northern Aggression initially had nothing to do with slavery. For
> >>> example, Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was issued three years after
> >>> the war began and only abolished slavery in the states in rebellion. Yes,
> >>> those states still a part of the Union were not affected by the decree
> >>> (Maryland, Delaware, D.C., Oklahoma Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah
> >>> Territory, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
> >>> eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State
> >>> or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
> >>> against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
> >>> free..."
> >>>
> >>> And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
> >>> correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
> >>> primary cause of the North invading the South.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> So when you say "Sure, our side lost," what do you mean by "our side"?
> >> Does that mean you're in favor of a state engaging in civil war against
> >> the nation? Just what was it that makes you take the position that the
> >> Confederate states are "your side"?
> >
> > No state engaged in civil war against the nation. The Confederate
> > States of America was a separate sovereign nation which was conquered by
> > the United States and forced at gunpoint to become part of it.
> >
> >
> So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
> that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
> sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
> me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

Your wife and children and 1/3 acre of land do not constitute the
governments of 11 states.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't fly.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
> > population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
> > seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>
> But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
> taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

"Taxation without representation" was the issue. I can't see where
having representation makes much difference though.

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George W Frost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>>> YMMV.
>>>>
>>> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
>>> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
>>> commemorates their sacrifice.
>>
>> Our Memorial Day in OZ is November 11
>> Remembrance Day
>> Veterans Day
>> Armistice Day
>> Whatever you call it, it is for the remembrance of fallen soldiers
>> and also for the celebration for the ones who returned
>> of which there are not many left
>>
>
> Surely many from Korea and Viet Nam?
>


Yes, but when they first began Remembrance Day on November 11, it was the
Anniversary of Armistice Day in Europe after WW1

Bill wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
>> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
>> stamps.
>
> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
> sure thinks so.
>
>> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
>> but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>
> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
> war generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it
> (here) is good though.
>

I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
bitter. Time will prove us correct.

Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote
> I think the stamps send the wrong message. Certainly putting civil war
> generals on the stamps sends the wrong message (IMO). Put some bloody
> cotton bales on the stamps instead!

>
> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
> know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
> and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
> it). You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled
> to your opinion)?
>
> Bill

You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have some
sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage stamps. I'm sure
that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way, but it is an
opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.

> Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
> population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
> seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

> Civil wars, OTOH ...

A revolution is what the winning side calls a civil war provided they were
the rebels. Some in the south tried to depict the U.S. Civil War as the
second American revolution (in the expectation of winning), but since they
lost it remained a civil war.

If memory serves only about a third of the colonists actively supported the
rebellion at first, another third were effectively neutral, and the final
third supported the crown. Those numbers shifted later of course.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
>> bitter.

> Interesting comment that reminds me of the current situation. I've heard
> of people referring to "our side" when they had absolutely no family in
> the US at the time of the Civil War. It just happened that their
> ancestors, often from Europe, settled in a particular state and a hundred
> years later, those people are taking sides based on where they happen to
> live.

Bigotry and paranoia know no borders, and apparently have an infinite shelf
life as well.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>>> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
>>> pass. YMMV.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we
>> come across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
>> passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
>> participants, you can become a better person with better views of how to
>> live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers to
>> their families. You don't see such eloquence today.
>>
>> You are missing so much.
>
> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
> know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
> and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
> it). Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
> of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
> directly. I have read some of the letters you referred to and I am not
> ambivalent about how I feel about the civil war. You don't need to visit
> a battlefield to find eloquence. One reason you don't find the same sort
> of eloquence these days is that the recipient no longer has to wait on the
> pony express to receive message. The cost of postage has gone way
> down(look at my cost of delivering this message)!
>
> You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled to
> your opinion)?
>
> Bill

Bill, if you are advocating not using The American Civil War on stamps,
then you should also be advocating not using any detail of the Civil War,
nor any mention of any conflicts with the first residents of America in any
movie.
Hollywood has survived a lot by using stories of battles between our
ancestors.
How many movies have there been made which depict the American Civil War ?
Frankly Bill, you don't give a damn

Bill wrote:
> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
> pass. YMMV.


Around here, we call it "the recent unplesantness." Sometimes "our second
war of independence."

But I know what you mean.

As an aside, there's an awful lot of gilding on the event. Often overlooked
is the economic reason for the War of Northern Aggression. In 1860, cotton
accounted for 40% of the country's exports. For the United States ?>to lose
that source of revenue would be a tremendous burden for the North to bear.

I'm sure this factored in to some northerners' thinking.

George W Frost wrote the following:
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> "George W Frost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>>>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
>>>> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
>>>> commemorates their sacrifice.
>>>>
>>> Our Memorial Day in OZ is November 11
>>> Remembrance Day
>>> Veterans Day
>>> Armistice Day
>>> Whatever you call it, it is for the remembrance of fallen soldiers
>>> and also for the celebration for the ones who returned
>>> of which there are not many left
>>>
>>>
>> Surely many from Korea and Viet Nam?
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, but when they first began Remembrance Day on November 11, it was the
> Anniversary of Armistice Day in Europe after WW1
>

Same here in the US. It was called Armistice Day in my youth. After
WWII, it was changed to Veterans Day.
Memorial Day is a separate holiday. It started in 1868 as Decoration Day
and was to commemorate the soldiers on both sides of the US Civil War.
After that, It included all soldiers of all wars.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:15:14 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
>> population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
>> seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>
>But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
>taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

It wasn't about taxes, rather representation. The FF really *wanted* to be
treated as Englishmen rather than property.

On 4/12/2011 12:26 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>
> Bill

Sorry, I forget to add: "OT". I just added it.

On 4/12/11 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 12:26 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Sorry, I forget to add: "OT". I just added it.
>
too late, you must now go any and a Festool as your penalty. :-)

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 4/12/11 12:57 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 4/12/11 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 12:26 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Sorry, I forget to add: "OT". I just added it.
>>
> too late, you must now go any and a Festool as your penalty. :-)
>
/s/any and/and buy/

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 4/12/2011 1:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>>

> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
> commemorates their sacrifice.

Commemorate:

(1) Recall and show respect for (someone or something) in a ceremony

(2) to serve as a memorial or reminder of:

(3) to make honorable mention of.


Which do you like? All 3 have too much solemnity for my taste.
To my mind, and admittedly, I've read only 1 thick book on the subject,
it was an atrocity.

Bill

On 4/12/2011 1:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>>
> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
> commemorates their sacrifice.


Yep, a bunch of sacrifice which seems would not have been necessary,
save for greed/hate.

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> What an idiot.
>
> Nuff said.


All the room I left for you to express an alternative viewpoint and that
is all you could come up with? Go buy some stamps!


>
> On Apr 12, 9:26 am, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass. YMMV.
>>
>> Bill
>

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
>> pass. YMMV.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Perhaps you should be embarrassed. You don't celebrate, you commemorate.
> You also learn history and, hopefully, gain enough knowledge so you
> don't repeat it.
>
> I'll be sure to buy and save some of the stamps to pass on a bit of
> history so my grandkids can learn from it too.

I think the stamps send the wrong message. Certainly putting civil war
generals on the stamps sends the wrong message (IMO). Put some bloody
cotton bales on the stamps instead!

>
> Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we
> come across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
> passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
> participants, you can become a better person with better views of how to
> live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers to
> their families. You don't see such eloquence today.
>
> You are missing so much.

I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
it). Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
directly. I have read some of the letters you referred to and I am not
ambivalent about how I feel about the civil war. You don't need to
visit a battlefield to find eloquence. One reason you don't find the
same sort of eloquence these days is that the recipient no longer has to
wait on the pony express to receive message. The cost of postage has
gone way down(look at my cost of delivering this message)!

You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled to
your opinion)?

Bill

Bill wrote:
Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
> of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
> directly.

I rescind this. But, IIRC, alot of them were in this category.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4/12/2011 1:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>
>> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
>> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
>> commemorates their sacrifice.
>
> Commemorate:
>
> (1) Recall and show respect for (someone or something) in a ceremony
>
> (2) to serve as a memorial or reminder of:
>
> (3) to make honorable mention of.
>
>
> Which do you like? All 3 have too much solemnity for my taste.
> To my mind, and admittedly, I've read only 1 thick book on the subject, it
> was an atrocity.
>
> Bill


"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can
never forget what they did here." A. Lincoln from the Gettysburg Address.

How do we "never forget", if we are not reminded?

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"George W Frost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly people
>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
>> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
>> commemorates their sacrifice.
>
> Our Memorial Day in OZ is November 11
> Remembrance Day
> Veterans Day
> Armistice Day
> Whatever you call it, it is for the remembrance of fallen soldiers
> and also for the celebration for the ones who returned
> of which there are not many left
>

Surely many from Korea and Viet Nam?

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>
>> All the room I left for you to express an alternative viewpoint and that
>> is all you could come up with? Go buy some stamps!
>>
>
> I think idiot says it all.

troll.

George W Frost wrote:
> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>>>> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
>>>> pass. YMMV.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we
>>> come across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
>>> passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
>>> participants, you can become a better person with better views of how to
>>> live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers to
>>> their families. You don't see such eloquence today.
>>>
>>> You are missing so much.
>>
>> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
>> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
>> know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
>> and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
>> it). Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
>> of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
>> directly. I have read some of the letters you referred to and I am not
>> ambivalent about how I feel about the civil war. You don't need to visit
>> a battlefield to find eloquence. One reason you don't find the same sort
>> of eloquence these days is that the recipient no longer has to wait on the
>> pony express to receive message. The cost of postage has gone way
>> down(look at my cost of delivering this message)!
>>
>> You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled to
>> your opinion)?
>>
>> Bill
>
> Bill, if you are advocating not using The American Civil War on stamps,
> then you should also be advocating not using any detail of the Civil War,
> nor any mention of any conflicts with the first residents of America in any
> movie.
> Hollywood has survived a lot by using stories of battles between our
> ancestors.
> How many movies have there been made which depict the American Civil War ?


> Frankly Bill, you don't give a damn

That was Scarlett, not me. I don't give a damn about Hollywood. I'll
take a bird and a tree in a green meadow or a fish in pure water over a
movie anyday. Are you a movie director, or something--what is this
Hollywood thing? I care more about nature which evidently is in need of
my support more than the civil war. Lots of folks act like the Earth is
theirs to do with as they please when, at least from my point of view,
they are only guests... Mr. George, what do you stand for?

Bill

George W Frost wrote:
> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George W Frost wrote:
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>>>>>> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
>>>>>> pass. YMMV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we
>>>>> come across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
>>>>> passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
>>>>> participants, you can become a better person with better views of how
>>>>> to
>>>>> live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers
>>>>> to
>>>>> their families. You don't see such eloquence today.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are missing so much.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
>>>> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
>>>> know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
>>>> and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
>>>> it). Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
>>>> of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
>>>> directly. I have read some of the letters you referred to and I am not
>>>> ambivalent about how I feel about the civil war. You don't need to
>>>> visit
>>>> a battlefield to find eloquence. One reason you don't find the same
>>>> sort
>>>> of eloquence these days is that the recipient no longer has to wait on
>>>> the
>>>> pony express to receive message. The cost of postage has gone way
>>>> down(look at my cost of delivering this message)!
>>>>
>>>> You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled to
>>>> your opinion)?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Bill, if you are advocating not using The American Civil War on stamps,
>>> then you should also be advocating not using any detail of the Civil War,
>>> nor any mention of any conflicts with the first residents of America in
>>> any
>>> movie.
>>> Hollywood has survived a lot by using stories of battles between our
>>> ancestors.
>>> How many movies have there been made which depict the American Civil War
>>> ?
>>
>>
>>> Frankly Bill, you don't give a damn
>>
>> That was Scarlett, not me. I don't give a damn about Hollywood. I'll take
>> a bird and a tree in a green meadow or a fish in pure water over a movie
>> anyday. Are you a movie director, or something--what is this Hollywood
>> thing? I care more about nature which evidently is in need of my support
>> more than the civil war. Lots of folks act like the Earth is theirs to do
>> with as they please when, at least from my point of view, they are only
>> guests... Mr. George, what do you stand for?
>>
>> Bill
>
> You were the one who complained about the Civil War stamp issue Bill
> then I said there were movies about the Civil War, so why protest about
> stamps without complaining about the movies ?
>

I guess it would depend on the movie.
You have to "choose your battles"! ; )

Bill

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:27 pm, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Troll? You are truly an idiot. I am on here all the time making
> relevant (and occasionally intelligent) postings and replies. Here is
> the first sentence of the definition of "Troll (Internet)" from
> wikipedia... sound familiar.
>
> "In Internet slang, a troll is a user who posts inflammatory,
> extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
> online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
> of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of
> otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
>
> I'd like to upgrade my "idiot" comment to asshole at this time.

I don't think it's fair for you to assess yourself. In this case, you
acted like an idiot (or a troll--I don't discriminate). Either way,
please go brighten up someone else's life! Go collect stamps, maybe.

Bill

>
>> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>>
>>>> All the room I left for you to express an alternative viewpoint and that
>>>> is all you could come up with? Go buy some stamps!
>>
>>> I think idiot says it all.
>>
>> troll.
>

"George W Frost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "George W Frost" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 4/12/2011 10:26 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>>>>> people
>>>>> are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I pass.
>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen them. Do they "celebrate" or rather "commemorate"? We
>>>> have Memorial Day. It doesn't celebrate our fallen soldiers, it
>>>> commemorates their sacrifice.
>>>
>>> Our Memorial Day in OZ is November 11
>>> Remembrance Day
>>> Veterans Day
>>> Armistice Day
>>> Whatever you call it, it is for the remembrance of fallen soldiers
>>> and also for the celebration for the ones who returned
>>> of which there are not many left
>>>
>>
>> Surely many from Korea and Viet Nam?
>>
>
>
> Yes, but when they first began Remembrance Day on November 11, it was the
> Anniversary of Armistice Day in Europe after WW1
>

IIRC, there are none of them left in UK or USA. And the WWII bunch are going
fast ...

"The lamps are going out ..."

On 4/14/2011 6:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote
>> I think the stamps send the wrong message. Certainly putting civil war
>> generals on the stamps sends the wrong message (IMO). Put some bloody
>> cotton bales on the stamps instead!
>
>>
>> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
>> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not
>> a know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I
>> know, and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic
>> (about it). You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of
>> course, entitled to your opinion)?
>>
>> Bill
>
> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage stamps.

Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
sure thinks so.

> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way, but
> it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.

Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil war
generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it (here) is
good though.

Bill

On 4/14/2011 12:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> On 4/14/2011 6:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote
>>>> I think the stamps send the wrong message. Certainly putting civil war
>>>> generals on the stamps sends the wrong message (IMO). Put some bloody
>>>> cotton bales on the stamps instead!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
>>>> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not
>>>> a know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I
>>>> know, and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic
>>>> (about it). You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of
>>>> course, entitled to your opinion)?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
>>> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage stamps.
>>
>> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
>> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
>> sure thinks so.
>>
>>> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way, but
>>> it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>>
>> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil war
>> generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it (here) is
>> good though.
>
> "They" are on the side of making money for the postal service.
> Commemorative stamps are not about deciding whether the events depicted
> are "good" or "bad", they are about whether they will sell or not.
>
> You do understand that the whole point of a commemorative stamp is that
> the collector puts it in a stamp album and the postal service never has
> to deliver the service that the purchaser paid for do you not?

I surely agree with your first point (making money) and your second
point is a special case of that, though, admittedly, I wasn't thinking
of that strategy.

HeyBub wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
>>> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
>>> stamps.
>>
>> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
>> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
>> sure thinks so.
>>
>>> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
>>> but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>>
>> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
>> war generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it
>> (here) is good though.
>>
>
> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
> bitter. Time will prove us correct.
>
> Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.
>

And, if Mr Obama and friends don't produce a little joy, seeing a little
"civil discord" on the evening news wouldn't surprise me at all.... I
wonder if you can get a buzz from drinking tea made out of commemorative
civil war stamps and hot water? Watch for me on the evening news...lol

Bill

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:46:30 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

> nteresting comment that reminds me of the current situation. I've heard
>>of people referring to "our side" when they had absolutely no family in
>>the US at the time of the Civil War.
>
> Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

Civil wars, OTOH ...

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:36:02 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

> And, no, I'm not in favor of a state legalizing slavery - I was just
> correcting the common, but wrong, notion that slavery, per se, was the
> primary cause of the North invading the South.

There is a story which may or may not be true, that Lincoln was asked at
a party "Mr President, why not just let the South go?" He supposedly
replied "Let the South go??? Where then would we get our revenues?"

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:05:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

> So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
> that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
> sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
> me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?

"Treason doth not prosper, here's the reason"
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason"

What was the difference between the southern states (not individuals)
seceding and the colonists seceding from Britain?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> You seem to be an intelligent and educated person, but you just have
>>> some sort of hang up on the Civil War or commemorative postage
>>> stamps.
>>
>> Yes, I have a "hang up" about hate and greed and, in particular, the
>> civil war. Maybe it's just a (my) personal problem? SamanthaProducts
>> sure thinks so.
>>
>>> I'm sure that many will look at this sad history in the wrong way,
>>> but it is an opportunity to teach what NOT to do if handled properly.
>>
>> Yes, One needs to wonder which side they are on when they put civil
>> war generals on their stamps. Opportunity lost. Discussing it
>> (here) is good though.
>>
>
> I share your pain. Sure, our side lost, but that's not a reason to be
> bitter. Time will prove us correct.
>
> Lift your chin, Bill. Be proud. The righteous will ultimately triumph.
>

LOL!

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.
>
>> Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
>> population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
>> seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>
>> Civil wars, OTOH ...
>
> A revolution is what the winning side calls a civil war provided they were
> the rebels. Some in the south tried to depict the U.S. Civil War as the
> second American revolution (in the expectation of winning), but since they
> lost it remained a civil war.
>
> If memory serves only about a third of the colonists actively supported
> the rebellion at first, another third were effectively neutral, and the
> final third supported the crown. Those numbers shifted later of course.

Just as the number of (dare I say it?!) Nazis diminished enormously upon the
conclusion of hostilities and the occupation of Germany.

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:05:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> So if I take may wife and children, and my 1/3 acre of land, and declare
>> that we have seceded from the United States, that makes us a separate
>> sovereign nation? And if officials of the U.S. government act against
>> me, they engage in war and conquest of a sovereign nation?
>
> "Treason doth not prosper, here's the reason"
> For if it prosper, none dare call it treason"
>
> What was the difference between the southern states (not individuals)
> seceding and the colonists seceding from Britain?


Only one: the South lost the war.
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

On 4/13/2011 6:09 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:27 pm, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Troll? You are truly an idiot. I am on here all the time making
> relevant (and occasionally intelligent) postings and replies. Here is
> the first sentence of the definition of "Troll (Internet)" from
> wikipedia... sound familiar.
>
> "In Internet slang, a troll is a user who posts inflammatory,
> extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
> online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
> of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of
> otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
>
> I'd like to upgrade my "idiot" comment to asshole at this time.

Based on that definition you are both trolls, as are most of us.
Personally, I think weak interpretation of "trolls" is like calling
everyone you disagree with a racist, bigot or homophobe. Neither of you
are trolls, and in fact, I can't say I've met a real troll in this
group, although my suspicions have been occasionally aroused.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George W Frost wrote:
>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> What an embarrassment. Celebrating carnage and just how horribly
>>>>> people are capable of treating each other! 150 year Celebration??? I
>>>>> pass. YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> Our lives are shaped by the thoughts, speech, and actions of others we
>>>> come across, both in life and in history. The people on both side were
>>>> passionate about their reasons to fight. If you study the war and the
>>>> participants, you can become a better person with better views of how
>>>> to
>>>> live with your fellow man. Read some of the letters from the soldiers
>>>> to
>>>> their families. You don't see such eloquence today.
>>>>
>>>> You are missing so much.
>>>
>>> I haven't neglected learned a little about it. That's how I got my
>>> present understanding--certainly not from the popular culture. I'm not a
>>> know-it-all. I'm closer to being the opposite. I just know what I know,
>>> and I'm taking it from there. Most people appear to be apathetic (about
>>> it). Analogous to this, virtually everyone commenting about Lew's price
>>> of gas posts commented with regard to how it would affect him or her
>>> directly. I have read some of the letters you referred to and I am not
>>> ambivalent about how I feel about the civil war. You don't need to
>>> visit
>>> a battlefield to find eloquence. One reason you don't find the same
>>> sort
>>> of eloquence these days is that the recipient no longer has to wait on
>>> the
>>> pony express to receive message. The cost of postage has gone way
>>> down(look at my cost of delivering this message)!
>>>
>>> You still think I am "missing so much" (you are, of course, entitled to
>>> your opinion)?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Bill, if you are advocating not using The American Civil War on stamps,
>> then you should also be advocating not using any detail of the Civil War,
>> nor any mention of any conflicts with the first residents of America in
>> any
>> movie.
>> Hollywood has survived a lot by using stories of battles between our
>> ancestors.
>> How many movies have there been made which depict the American Civil War
>> ?
>
>
>> Frankly Bill, you don't give a damn
>
> That was Scarlett, not me. I don't give a damn about Hollywood. I'll take
> a bird and a tree in a green meadow or a fish in pure water over a movie
> anyday. Are you a movie director, or something--what is this Hollywood
> thing? I care more about nature which evidently is in need of my support
> more than the civil war. Lots of folks act like the Earth is theirs to do
> with as they please when, at least from my point of view, they are only
> guests... Mr. George, what do you stand for?
>
> Bill

You were the one who complained about the Civil War stamp issue Bill
then I said there were movies about the Civil War, so why protest about
stamps without complaining about the movies ?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ain't that the truth!  I remember reading somewhere that most of the
>> > population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won.  That
>> > seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.
>>
>> But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes.   It was worth fighting for NO
>> taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?
>
>But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
>massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?