Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment] Re: a rebel in the camp!

Expand Messages
  • CashG79@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/31/2008 10:54:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Cash, Shouldn t that be the other way around? Just as the Confederacy is a subset of the
    Message 1 of 103 , Jun 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/31/2008 10:54:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, readingnewsgroups@... writes:
      --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com,
      CashG79@... wrote:
      >

      > In a message dated 5/30/2008 1:02:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
      > bdsimpson7@... writes:
      >
      > The  Confederacy's a subset of "the South."
      >
      >
      > ----------
      > And "The North" is a subset of "the Union" side.

      > Regards,
      > Cash

      Cash,

      Shouldn't that be the other way around? Just as the "Confederacy" is a
      subset of the "South" shouldn't your statement read that the "Union"
      is a subset of the "North"?

      Jack
      ------------------
      No.  Have you ever heard of the West?
       
      Regards,
      Cash




      Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
    • Margaret
      Pardon the lateness of my reply! I ve been out of town and am catching up. My great-grandfather Underwood fought for the Union with the 13th Kentucky
      Message 103 of 103 , Jun 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Pardon the lateness of my reply! I've been out of town and am
        catching up.
        My great-grandfather Underwood fought for the Union with the 13th
        Kentucky infantry--evidently the rest of his family sided with the
        Confederacy and it caused quite a problem. It's reported that his
        first battle was Shiloh--quite an introduction to war. It may have
        been the 11th at that time--I've read different accounts. But his
        discharge papers say 13th.
        Margaret

        --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com,
        "konfederatka" <konfederatka@...> wrote:
        >
        > There might be an easy explanation, I guess. There were both unionists
        > and separatists in the North and in the South. Southern separatists
        > fought for the Confederacy, while Southern unionists joined the Union
        > forces. Northern unionists fought for the Union, while Northern
        > separatists didn't fight at all. This is why there were more
        > Southerners in Federal Forces than Yankees in the CS Army. Well, could
        > it be the case?
        >
        >
        > --- In 20th_Massachusetts_Infantry_Regiment@yahoogroups.com, "john"
        > <okiejoetex@> wrote:
        > >
        > > yes, there were more northern units from border states, which i, in
        > > essence, alluded to in a previous post, but it was more than "a few"
        > > that side with the south, including kentucky and missouri units. ---
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.