New Civil War postage stamps

Page 5 of 6  
Bill wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Also happens with people taking the side of the rebels in 1776.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:46:30 +0000, Bob Martin 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.
Civil wars, OTOH ...
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snetnospam.net says...

"Taxation without representation" was the issue. I can't see where having representation makes much difference though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't about taxes, rather representation. The FF really *wanted* to be treated as Englishmen rather than property.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a massive murderous civil war. :-)
Luigi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Huh? What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 16, 8:29am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act, effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British empire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Still adds no sense to your post, other than perhaps the 30 years snipe. The Civil war was *not* about slavery. That it ended it was perhaps one of the only worthwhile side effects, however.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 16, 2:49pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Sorry, I forgot and I stand corrected. The South seceded because Dishonest Ape was about to raise import duties and force them to buy shoddy expensive Northern goods.
Luigi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message wrote

Bigotry and paranoia know no borders, and apparently have an infinite shelf life as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/14/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:36:02 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/15/2011 5:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:

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"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.