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

Re: [Civil War History] Mercenaries

Expand Messages
  • johnnyreb1865
    What McPherson books have you read? None, Bob. While I have read numerous excerpts and magazine articles by him, I don t find him credible. The American
    Message 1 of 157 , Sep 16, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      "What McPherson books have you read?"

      None, Bob. While I have read numerous excerpts and magazine articles
      by him, I don't find him credible.


      The American Civil War, West Point History Series
      Henry L. Abbot, Siege Artillery in the Campaigns Against Richmond
      Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events
      Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield
      Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
      Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah
      M.E.Bradford, Originial Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of
      the United States Constitution
      Broadfoot Publishing Co, Rosters of Union and Confederate Soldiers,
      1861-1865
      Harry Browne, Why Government Doesn't Work
      Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on
      Free Speech and Free Minds
      Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic; Not An Empire
      Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government
      W.J. Cash, The Mind of the South
      The Civil War Book of Lists
      Mark Coburn, Terrible Innocence: General Sherman at War
      Frank Connor, The South Under Siege, 1830-2000: A History of the
      Relations Between North and South
      Avery O. Craven, Reconstruction: The Ending of the Civil War
      George M. Curtis, III & James J. Thompson, Jr, editors, The Southern
      Essays of Richard M. Weaver
      Robert L. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia (and Through Her, of the
      South) in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party
      William C. Davis, A Government of Our Own: The Making of the
      Confederacy
      Marshall L. DeRosa, The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry
      into American Constitutionalism
      Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln
      David Herbert Donald, Lincoln
      Frederick H. Dyer, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, 2 vols
      Will & Ariel Durant, Rouosseau and Revolution
      Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy
      Max Farrand, editor, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
      Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the
      Republican Party Before the Civil War
      Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain [I don't normally read novels, but
      this one I liked]
      Webb Garrison, The Encyclopedia of Civil War Usage
      Sean Hannity, Let Freedom Ring [very disappointing]
      William H. Herndon & Jesse W. Weik, Herdon's Life of Lincoln
      Richard J. Hernstein & Charles Murray, The Bell Curve
      Seymour M. Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot
      Michael Horigan, Elmira: Death Camp of the North
      Tony Horowitz, Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the
      Unfinished Civil War [Not worth the time to read it; buy it at a yard
      sale]
      David Horowitz, Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for
      Slavery
      Philip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating
      America
      Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible
      Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation
      Robert W. Johannsen, Lincoln, The South, and Slavery
      Ludwell H. Johnson, North Against South: The American Illiad 1848-1877
      James Roland Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy, The South Was Right! &
      Was Jefferson Davis Right?
      Nelson Lankford, Richmond Burning: The Last Days of the Confederate
      Capital
      E.B. Long, The Civil War Day by Day; An Almanac, 1861-1865
      John R. Lott, Jr, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun
      Control Laws
      Charles L.C. Minor, The Real Lincoln
      Gerard A. Patterson, Rebels From West Point
      Richard Poe, The Seven Myths of Gun Control
      J.G.Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction
      William Rawle, A View of the Constitution
      Carl T. Rowan, The Coming Race War in America [talk about paranoid]
      Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln [entire series]
      Otto Scott, The Secret Six
      Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Civil War
      Stewart Sifakis, A Compendium of the Confederate Armies, by State
      Brooks D. Simpson & Jean V. Berlin, Sherman's Civil War: Selected
      Correspondence of William T. Sherman
      John Taylor of Caroline, Virginia, New Views of the Constitution of
      the United States
      John Taylor, Arator
      Emory M. Thomas, The Confederate Nation, 1861-1865
      St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with
      Selected Writngs
      The Union Army, 13 vols
      Twelve Southerners, I'll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian
      Tradition
      Balint Vazsonyi, America's 30 Years War: Who is Winning?
      Richard B. Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric
      Richard B. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences
      Richard B. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay
      Richard P. Weinert, Jr, The Confederate Regular Army
      The May I Quote You? Series: Robert E. Lee (2 vols), Stonewall
      Jackson, General Forrest, General Longstreet, General Chamberlain,
      and General Grant.
      Houghton Mifflin, A More Perfect Union
      The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion

      Do you need more, Bob? What me to note down every Book dealing with
      the war or its aftermath in my personal library?


      --- In civilwarhistory2@y..., "Robert\(Bob\) Taubman" <rtaubman@r...>
      wrote:
      > OK, give her your list of books that she might read. Give her your
      list that
      > would include books written by those whose historical perspective
      you agree
      > with, and those you don't. What McPherson books have you read?
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "johnnyreb1865" <no_reply@y...>
      > To: <civilwarhistory2@y...>
      > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 2:21 AM
      > Subject: Re: [Civil War History] Mercenaries
      >
      >
      > | --- In civilwarhistory2@y..., "Robert\(Bob\) Taubman"
      <rtaubman@r...>
      > | wrote:
      > | > Two things you have to be aware of Christi. One is paranoia
      and
      > | the other is
      > | > being patronized;
      > | >
      > | > "darlin'(or that favourite "sweatpea", patronizing), but I have
      no
      > | trouble
      > | > discerning malice directed at me(paranoia)."
      > | >
      > | > So just be aware that if you contradict anyone here on southern
      > | history , it
      > | > becomes a personal attack. Therefore, you can't win.
      > | >
      > | > "There is an undercurrent of animosity in your attitudes and
      > | posting that you
      > | > may not realise you are revealing"
      > | >
      > | > Don't be fooled by this. These are convenient escapes to keep
      your
      > | questions
      > | > from being answered directly. You will never understand,
      according
      > | to some
      > | > here, because you don't think like a southerner. Don't think
      you
      > | have to change
      > | > your opinion just because it doesn't agree with the southern
      > | quartet +1.
      > | >
      > | > Keep reading. Keep reading. Keep reading.
      > |
      > |
      > |
      > | That's the problem, Bob, she doesn't. She doesn't. She doesn't.
      > | >
      > | >
      > | >
      > | >
      > | > ----- Original Message -----
      > | > From: "deo_vindice_2000" <no_reply@y...>
      > | > To: <civilwarhistory2@y...>
      > | > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 3:37 PM
      > | > Subject: Re: [Civil War History] Mercenaries
      > | >
      > | >
      > | > | >>I beg to differ with you. I live in the North, I ought to
      know.
      > | > | You don't. You live in the South, so you don't know what we
      > | think.<<
      > | > |
      > | > | One point: the recipient of hatred and ridicule would have to
      be
      > | > | lacking in mental ability if he didn't recognise that hatred
      and
      > | > | ridicule which is directed at him. I may not know all the
      nuances
      > | of
      > | > | northern thought, darlin', but I have no trouble discerning
      malice
      > | > | directed at me.
      > | > |
      > | > | One other point: are you sure about your own attitudes toward
      > | > | Southerners? Or, do you just tell yourself that you dont have
      ill-
      > | > | feelings toward us? There is an undercurrent of animosity in
      your
      > | > | attitudes and posting that you may not realise you are
      revealing.
      > | > |
      > | > | >>If the North hates the South, than how come we've had so
      many
      > | > | Southern presidents in recent years? Like LBJ, Jimmy Carter,
      > | George
      > | > | Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Seems to me that if
      we
      > | all
      > | > | had an unnatural hatred for all things Southern, we would
      surely
      > | not
      > | > | want a Southern president!<<
      > | > |
      > | > | Darlin', the only kind of Southerner who could garner northern
      > | votes
      > | > | and thereby be elected president is a scalawag Southerner,
      like
      > | Bill
      > | > | Clinton, or a northern carpetbagger living in the South, like
      > | George
      > | > | Bush. A true Southerner could never be elected.
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > | --- In civilwarhistory2@y..., Christi <libertybelle_15@y...>
      > | wrote:
      > | > | > >There was an unnatural hatred at the north for the
      > | > | > South.<
      > | > | >
      > | > | > I'm sure there were Northerners who had an unnatural
      > | > | > hatred for the South. I'm sure there were Southerners
      > | > | > who had an unnatural hatred for the North. The entire
      > | > | > North as a whole did not hate the South. The entire
      > | > | > South as a whole did not hate the North.
      > | > | >
      > | > | > >Yes, Sweet Pea, there was a real malicious and
      > | > | > obsessive hatred for all things Southern, and there
      > | > | > still is.<
      > | > | >
      > | > | > I beg to differ with you. I live in the North, I
      > | > | > ought to know. You don't. You live in the South, so
      > | > | > you don't know what we think.
      > | > | >
      > | > | > If the North hates the South, than how come we've had
      > | > | > so many Southern presidents in recent years? Like
      > | > | > LBJ, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and
      > | > | > George W. Bush. Seems to me that if we all had an
      > | > | > unnatural hatred for all things Southern, we would
      > | > | > surely not want a Southern president!
      > | > | >
      > | > | >
      > | > | >
      > | > | > --- johnnyreb1865 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > | > | > > --- In civilwarhistory2@y..., Christi
      > | > | > > <libertybelle_15@y...> wrote:
      > | > | > > > >Dose'nt mean they were rite though.<
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > > You're right. I don't think they were all right.
      > | > | > > > Like that one about monarchs being stronger than
      > | > | > > > ever....ridiculous. As I already said, I wasn't
      > | > | > > > trying to prove that they were right, I was just
      > | > | > > > showing you that many people felt that way. Y'all
      > | > | > > > seem to think that the whole North was maliciously
      > | > | > > > obsessed with devastating the South.
      > | > | > >
      > | > | > > That is exactly what I am saying: There was an
      > | > | > > unnatural hatred at
      > | > | > > the north for the South. I believe that most of it
      > | > | > > was predicated on
      > | > | > > greed and the 'easy', laid-back life most
      > | > | > > Southerners lived [and
      > | > | > > still do]. The Southern work ethic and way of life
      > | > | > > was totally
      > | > | > > different from the northern work ethic and way of
      > | > | > > life. And it galled
      > | > | > > the north that the South seemed to have it so easy.
      > | > | > >
      > | > | > > Yes, Sweet Pea, there was a real malicious and
      > | > | > > obsessive hatred for
      > | > | > > all things Southern, and there still is.
      > | > | > >
      > | > | > >
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > > >The fact remains that the South wuttin intrested
      > | > | > > in
      > | > | > > > interferin with or destroyin their union<
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > > That's true. I hope I've never implied that they
      > | > | > > > were.
      > | > | > >
      > | > | > > But that IS what the north claimed, even though it
      > | > | > > was patently
      > | > | > > false. The South just wanted to be left alone, and
      > | > | > > still does.
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > >
      > | > | > > > --- dixieman_sc <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > | > | > > > > Nice quotes, all from pro-union men. Not
      > | > | > > suprizin.
      > | > | > > > > Dose'nt mean they
      > | > | > > > > were rite though. The fact remains that the
      > | > | > > South
      > | > | > > > > wuttin intrested in
      > | > | > > > > interferin with or destroyin their union, but
      > | > | > > only
      > | > | > > > > in formmin their
      > | > | > > > > own. Even if it meant cedin all the terrotories
      > | > | > > to
      > | > | > > > > the north. Even if
      > | > | > > > > lincolm promised that the institution of slavery
      > | > | > > > > would be protected
      > | > | > > > > under his watch.
      > | > | > > > >
      > | > | > > > > [><]
      > | > | > > > >
      > | > | > > > >
      > | > | >
      > | > | > __________________________________________________
      > | > | > Do you Yahoo!?
      > | > | > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
      > | > | > http://news.yahoo.com
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > | To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > | > | civilwarhistory2-unsubscribe@y...
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > | > | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > | http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > | > |
      > | > |
      > |
      > |
      > |
      > | To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > | civilwarhistory2-unsubscribe@y...
      > |
      > |
      > |
      > | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > |
      > |
    • Christi
      ... Abraham Lincoln with regards to this?
      Message 157 of 157 , Oct 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        >>Have you ever read Alexander Stephen's letter to
        Abraham Lincoln with regards to this?<<

        I've never read it...is it on the web somewhere?

        --- Lisa <kokoa111@...> wrote:
        > --- In civilwarhistory2@y..., deo_vindice_2000
        > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > lincoln said that he would not interfere with
        > slavery -- that
        > DEFINITELY would have made a difference to people
        > whose only concern
        > was maintaining slavery.
        >
        > The key words in Lincoln's statement which you quite
        > intentionally
        > left out were "where it existed." Lincoln was not
        > budging on
        > allowing slavery in the territories and that
        > (popular sovereignty)
        > is the point on which all compromises failed.
        >
        > Deo: As a matter of fact, the planned thirteenth
        > amendment was to guarantee the right of slave
        > holders to continue
        > slavery perpetually, with a clause written into that
        > amendment that
        > it could never be changed nor rescinded. With
        > guarantees like that,
        > why would the South have left if the sole concern
        > was perpetuating
        > slavery?
        >
        > Because they were already gone. By the time this
        > proposed amendment
        > had passed the house the CSA was already
        > established.
        >
        > Deo: If I had one concern, and if that concern was
        > guaranteed to
        > be protected by an iron-clad contract, I'd stay
        > where that concern
        > would be protected, wouldn't you?
        >
        > I absolutely agree with you on this. After the
        > proposed 13th
        > amendment (which by the way was only ratified by one
        > state), the
        > South could have came back to the U.S. under the
        > guarantees that
        > their beloved institution would be protected, but
        > they knew there
        > were still those hostile to their institutions and
        > thus there was
        > still danger in it's eventual demise. So, they
        > stayed where their
        > Constitution protected it and their people supported
        > it. Have you
        > ever read Alexander Stephen's letter to Abraham
        > Lincoln with regards
        > to this?
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
        http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.