Subj : WWIII To : Bill McGarrity From : Roy Witt Date : Mon Aug 18 2014 07:05 pm Greetings Bill! BK>>> The better question would be, should a country not kill thousand BK>>> of their own people as the price for freeing millions from BK>>> slavery? RW>>> As long as they're Yankees, no. BM>> Last I heard it was Yankees: 1 the South: 0 RW>> Ask yourself, how many more Yanks died than Rebels? RW>> Dead Yanks 596,670: South 490,309 RW>> Served: Yanks 1,532,278, South 591,810 i.e. a little under 3:1 RW>> Eligible, but ran off to Canada: Yanks: 2,430,294, South: none BM> All your #'s can be compared to the game of baseball where one BM> pitcher gives up 15 hits in a game yet still walks away with the BM> victory. It's the final score that counts. I concur with the former, but the final score has no meaning when the 'battle' had so many shining moments. Take the battles fought in the north before the tide of turned when the North put more people on the battlefield than the South. RW>> Even with close to total conscription, the South could not match the RW>> North's numerical strength. Southerners also stood a significantly RW>> greater chance of being killed, wounded, or captured, especially if RW>> they were old men, women and teenage civilians. BM> Shit happens... Yanks die. RW>>> PS - The Civil War wasn't about slavery...but it sure turned out to RW>>> be a crutch for y'all. BM>> Don't you mean "totally" about slavery? ay withRW>> Get yer historicathe l facts straight: The Northern and ay withRW>> Southern BM> sections Weren't sections like a railroad construction crew. RW>> of the United States developed along different lines. The South RW>> remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became RW>> more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and RW>> political beliefs developed. RW>> All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs RW>> and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal RW>> rights. RW>> Slavery was an excuse to make war by the Yanks 'after the war RW>> started'... BM>> The basis behind all southern contention was how the slave trade BM>> centered around states rights, economic freedoms and slavery itself. RW>> Wrong, see above. BM> Did I not explain all that in my original post (the one where you BM> edited out the economic reasoning). Economics was the reason for the war, not slavery, Moot point. BM> You play the game like FauxEntertainment... It's a wonder you havn't broken that mirror with all of your faux claims to victory. BM> edit the shit out of a story to make them seem intelligent. Like you do, not likely. BM>> Slavery. Now unless you feel men can be owned by another, this is BM>> fairly self explainatory. RW>> Moron. BM> So you own slaves Roy? Why would I, I don't own any cotton plantations. But owning slaves wouldn't be out of the question if I did, in 1860. BM>> The good old boys RW>> aka Democrats, no Southerun Democrats, who are now against all that RW>> preaching they did back then. BM> And the baton was passed to the southern Republicans of today. Not really. They had to overcome the morons who led them down this path. BM> Actually, ALL republicans fit that image. The Republacans that will be sitting in the Senate next year and the other one who will be living in the WH in 2016. Have a day! PS - I'm not a Republican...FYI R\%/itt - K5RXT --- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012 --- D'Bridge 3.99 * Origin: The Master Baiter Playground for Morons (1:387/22) .