Subject: Potatoe



        Well, Girl Potato and Boy Potato

        had eyes for each other,

        and finally they got married,

        and had a little sweet potato,

        which they called 'Yam.'



       Of course, they wanted the best for Yam.

       When it was time,

        they told her about the facts of life.

       They warned her about going out

       and getting half-baked,

      so she wouldn't get accidentally mashed,

      and get a bad name for herself like

      'Hot Potato,' and end up with a bunch of Tater Tots.



      Yam said not to worry,

      no Spud would get her into

     the sack and make a rotten potato out of her!



     But on the other hand

     she wouldn't stay home

     and become a Couch Potato either.

     She would get plenty of exercise

     so as not to be skinny

     like her Shoestring cousins.



    When she went off to Europe,

    Mr. and Mrs. Potato told Yam

    to watch out for the hard-boiled guys from Ireland.

   And the greasy guys from France

   called the French Fries.

    And when she went out west,

   to watch out for the Indians

   so she wouldn't get scalloped.



   Yam said she would stay on

   the straight and narrow and wouldn't associate

   with those high class Yukon Golds,

  or the ones from the other side of the tracks

   who advertise their trade

   on all the trucks that say,

   'Frito Lay.'



   Mr. and Mrs. Potato sent Yam to Idaho P.U.

  (that's Potato University)

   so that when she graduated

  she'd really be in the Chips.



  But in spite of all they did for her,

  one-day Yam came home and announced

she was going to marry

Tom Brokaw.



  Tom Brokaw!

  Mr. and Mrs. Potato were very upset.

  They told Yam she couldn't

  possibly marry Tom Brokaw

because he's just.......

    Are you ready for this?


       Are you sure?

       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *

       OK! Here it is!

       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *
       *

       A COMMON TATER


                   I realize things got a lil onery lately. Hope this
can put a smile on a few faces; even for those who dislike me.....
            My apologies if I've offended anyone.....
              Respectfully Your Humble Servant,
               Capt. McCracken / Mo. Partisan

Very good Cap - LOL
----- Original Message -----
From: "tristan4th" <tristan4th@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:25 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Break the Tension??


>
>
>         Subject: Potatoe
>
>
>
>       Well, Girl Potato and Boy Potato
>
>       had eyes for each other,
>
>       and finally they got married,
>
>       and had a little sweet potato,
>
>       which they called 'Yam.'
>
>
>
>      Of course, they wanted the best for Yam.
>
>      When it was time,
>
>       they told her about the facts of life.
>
>      They warned her about going out
>
>      and getting half-baked,
>
>     so she wouldn't get accidentally mashed,
>
>     and get a bad name for herself like
>
>     'Hot Potato,' and end up with a bunch of Tater Tots.
>
>
>
>     Yam said not to worry,
>
>     no Spud would get her into
>
>    the sack and make a rotten potato out of her!
>
>
>
>    But on the other hand
>
>    she wouldn't stay home
>
>    and become a Couch Potato either.
>
>    She would get plenty of exercise
>
>    so as not to be skinny
>
>    like her Shoestring cousins.
>
>
>
>   When she went off to Europe,
>
>   Mr. and Mrs. Potato told Yam
>
>   to watch out for the hard-boiled guys from Ireland.
>
>  And the greasy guys from France
>
>  called the French Fries.
>
>   And when she went out west,
>
>  to watch out for the Indians
>
>  so she wouldn't get scalloped.
>
>
>
>  Yam said she would stay on
>
>  the straight and narrow and wouldn't associate
>
>  with those high class Yukon Golds,
>
> or the ones from the other side of the tracks
>
>  who advertise their trade
>
>  on all the trucks that say,
>
>  'Frito Lay.'
>
>
>
>  Mr. and Mrs. Potato sent Yam to Idaho P.U.
>
> (that's Potato University)
>
>  so that when she graduated
>
> she'd really be in the Chips.
>
>
>
> But in spite of all they did for her,
>
> one-day Yam came home and announced
>
> she was going to marry
>
> Tom Brokaw.
>
>
>
> Tom Brokaw!
>
> Mr. and Mrs. Potato were very upset.
>
> They told Yam she couldn't
>
> possibly marry Tom Brokaw
>
> because he's just.......
>
>   Are you ready for this?
>
>
>      Are you sure?
>
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>
>      OK! Here it is!
>
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>      *
>
>      A COMMON TATER
>
>
>                  I realize things got a lil onery lately. Hope this
> can put a smile on a few faces; even for those who dislike me.....
>           My apologies if I've offended anyone.....
>             Respectfully Your Humble Servant,
>              Capt. McCracken / Mo. Partisan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 9/30/2005
>
>

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> Mine just arrived yesterday but I have not looked at Raymond yet. That
> does mot make me feel good about the investment ( cash or time ).

Well, I flipped directly to the Raymond section to see another version
of the battle, and it was horrible.  However, I moved back to the front
of the book, and it's fairly interesting with tidbits about Logan's
father, and his upbringing.  So suffice it to say that Ecelbarger is a
biographer who slipped a little on the battlefield pieces (Raymond
analysis is completely wrong, and he somehow avoids even expending a
full paragraph on the battle of Jackson).

Just curious, Tony.

Does anybody get it right?  I mean, get any of the actions surrounding
Vicksburg right?  It seems that no recently published author gets any of
this stuff right.

Harry

-----Original Message-----
From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Tony Gunter
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 1:04 PM
To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Ecelbarger's "Black Jack Logan"

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> Mine just arrived yesterday but I have not looked at Raymond yet. That
> does mot make me feel good about the investment ( cash or time ).

Well, I flipped directly to the Raymond section to see another version
of the battle, and it was horrible.  However, I moved back to the front
of the book, and it's fairly interesting with tidbits about Logan's
father, and his upbringing.  So suffice it to say that Ecelbarger is a
biographer who slipped a little on the battlefield pieces (Raymond
analysis is completely wrong, and he somehow avoids even expending a
full paragraph on the battle of Jackson).








Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, that makes me feel better. It is a large book so I'm glad it is an
interesting read.
I'm beginning if Raymond really took place or was just a made up event
on both sides. They just met one night over coffee and game of spades
and decided "Lets create a battle totally from imagination just to
confuse future historians. That way no one will get it right because it
never happened."
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Gunter
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 1:04 PM
To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Ecelbarger's "Black Jack Logan"

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> Mine just arrived yesterday but I have not looked at Raymond yet. That
> does mot make me feel good about the investment ( cash or time ).

Well, I flipped directly to the Raymond section to see another version
of the battle, and it was horrible.  However, I moved back to the front
of the book, and it's fairly interesting with tidbits about Logan's
father, and his upbringing.  So suffice it to say that Ecelbarger is a
biographer who slipped a little on the battlefield pieces (Raymond
analysis is completely wrong, and he somehow avoids even expending a
full paragraph on the battle of Jackson).








Yahoo! Groups Links

At 6:04 PM +0000 10/1/05, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>  > James2044 <JWD2044@h...> wrote:
>>  Are
>>  we "proving" something that could not be "proven" at the time?  It
>>  seems that many are trying to do that.
>
>--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Steve Saultz <tristan4th@y...>
>wrote:
>>
>>                     Very well stated James,.,..Thankyou
>>                                         Respectfully Capt.McCracken
>
>
>You are welcome, I feel we need to defend history from those that wish
>to rewrite it to suit "current thinking".
>
>James2044


James - in a sense you are right and in a sense you are very wrong.
We certainly do need to work against those who redefine history to
suit their own political purposes ('current thinking').Political
correctness whether from the left or the right (and believe me it
exists quite strongly in both quarters) should be resisted. However,
that said, just because a certain interpretation of historical events
has been mainstream for some time absolutely does not mean we should
stop studying these events and looking for evidence that may change
our interpretations - no matter how uncomfortable that might be for
some folks. That is not PC, as is often charged, but valid historical
method. History is always being revised. That is what historians do.
There is no absolute truth in history. For example, for a long time
in this country the purveyors of the 'lost cause' were mainstream.
Lee was the God and Grant the butcher, etc. Over the past 30 years,
much of what was then mainstream has been shown to be simply wrong
because historians have looked at more documents and gathered more
data. The fact is that we have more data, such as eyewitness letters
and accounts now about Ft. Pillow than they did when they were
looking at it in the 19th century. Why can't we 'prove' something
that couldn't be proven at the time? Just because they couldn't
doesn't mean we don't have the means now. Many documents come to
light only after the protagonists are dead - decades after the
events. Are you suggesting we shouldn't look at these and form new
opinions if warranted? This is what I meant by embracing all of the
evidence. If you think NBF was not responsible for Ft. Pillow or
whatever, then you can't just disregard these other documents or
accuse those who examine them and come up with other interpretations
as 'evil revisionists' - something I have heard applied to historians
quite often by those who don't want to deal with realities that
disturb their happy take on things. Nor is it valid to dismiss them
with comments such as 'the writer must have been lying or had a weak
stomach' without some pretty good evaluation as to why that might be
so. An extremely important part of correct historical method is to
evaluate your data - but you actually have to evaluate it, not just
dismiss it. There are a lot of very complex issues in this War of
ours we like to study and there are going to be opposing points of
view. If you want to have your view taken seriously, deal with the
flaws, if any, in the other fellow's view and his evidence and show
why your interpretation is better - based on the evidence. Decrying
'revisionism' does nothing to advance your point of view. I say this
to everyone on both sides of this issue, whatever your opinion of NBF
is. He is a significant and interesting character in our theatre of
the war and ought to be properly evaluated, not mythologized or
demonized.

Best,

Laurie Schiller


--
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller

At 6:04 PM +0000 10/1/05, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>I was hoping I would not have to do this but it looks as if some of the
>emails are reaching a tone that will not be tolerated in this group.  No
>more discussions on Fort Pillow or Nathan Bedford Forrest as he relates to
>blacks.  If you want to discuss some of the battles that Forrest was in feel
>free to do so.  If you want to discuss how he related to the Black issue,
>find another group. I had thought that we might have overcome the Fort
>Pillow problem that is why I let it continue but I was wrong.  AGAIN, Fort
>Pillow is to be discussed no more in this group.  Anyone that has a problem
>with this is welcome to contact me via private email.  An email to the group
>about it is going to cause the sender a real problem.
>
>I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
>Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
>http://www.civilwarhome.com


Sorry Shotgun - of course, in following the digest, I just posted
about Ft Pillow - although it was of a methodological cast and not on
the subject itself. Hope that doesn't get me hooked.

Best,

Laurie Schiller
--
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller

At 6:04 PM +0000 10/1/05, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>NBF is now a full-fledged cult figure, with about as much nonsense spouted
>about him as there has been about Joshua Chamberlain on LRT.
>
>Dave Powell

WHAT?  Dave are you telling me that JLC DIDNT save the whole union
army on LRT???

Aahh,Ha,Ha,ha,ha,ha,...... you know I'm kiddin'

Best,

Laurie Schiller
--
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@c...>
wrote:
> Just curious, Tony.
>
> Does anybody get it right?  I mean, get any of the actions
> surrounding Vicksburg right?

Some authors absolutely nail certain portions of the campaign, but I
haven't seen any author yet nail the entire campaign.  The Battle of
Raymond, however, is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted battle
I have ever run across, hands down.

I haven't yet run across an author who correctly attributes the first
shots of the engagement to DeGolyer, nor an author who correctly
pinpoints the start of the battle (everyone says 10 o'clock, but it
was closer to noon), nor why the 23rd Indiana ended up alone on the
other side of Fourteen Mile Creek, nor why the 20th Ohio ended up in
the creek bed unsupported on either the right or left.

These are pretty key points to understanding the battle.

Ecelbarger is particularly bad, however.  Logan's division
(remember... the *entire* division) had time to deploy, stack arms,
rest, redeploy, and break for lunch between the time that DeGolyer
was called forward to disperse the "bait" that Gregg had planted on
the bridge, and the time that McPherson ordered Logan to attack.
Ecelbarger's take on this is:

"3,000 Confederates caught Dennis' brigade by suprise... Hearing the
artillery, but not knowing that Dennis' brigade was engaged, ...
Smith's regiments deployed expecting to find the enemy well in front
of them, closer to Raymond... Exiting the woods and entering a field
in front of the creek, the Union infantry was clearly caught off
guard... all was confusion as Logan's leading brigades struggled to
deploy in the woods and open areas to return fire... Logan wheeled to
Stevenson's men and spurred them [towards the battle] by
bellowing 'Go in boys, and lift them out of that with cold steel.'"

This makes it sound like Logan allowed Dennis to be attacked, then
fed the remainder of this division into the battle brigade-by-
brigade.  That is the single most horrible misrepresentation of the
battle imaginable.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> Well, that makes me feel better. It is a large book so I'm
> glad it is an interesting read. I'm beginning if Raymond really
> took place or was just a made up event on both sides.

Well, if you're expecting a book heavy with information on Logan's ACW
exploits, this book is a bit of a disappointment.  Given that Logan's
division carried the day at both Raymond and Champion Hill, I would
have expected a detailed chapter on each.  However, the entire
Vicksburg campaign is lumped into a single chapter that concludes on
May 5, 1864 with Logan writing to his wife about preparations for the
Atlanta campaign.

Another point that I question in Ecelbarger's book: he claims that
Dennis brigade had been marching since 3:00 a.m. without breakfast.

In the O.R., and I don't have the attribution immediately at hand,
McPherson's corps was roused from sleep at 3:30 a.m. with almost no
visible moon (24% waning crescent).  Twilight broke at 4:39 a.m.

I could see pulling off a night march in friendly terrain.  I could
see maybe pulling a night march in enemy terrain with a full moon to
light the way.  But a night march in enemy terrain in almost total
darkness?

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I am going to assume that
the Union troops used the hour between 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. to eat
breakfast and fall into formation, and were on the way to Raymond at
4:39 a.m.

(and deployed into line of battle with skirmishers thrown forward at
7:30 a.m., so they had moved about 9 miles in three hours)

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

Please try to understand this. It's not an easy thing to hear, but please listen. There is no morality in warfare. You kill children. You kill women. You kill old men. You don't seek them out, but they die. That's what happens in war. — Paul Tibbets

I believe the topic was the spelling of potato. It's certainly off topic, but it ain't politics.

Ken