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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Bob Taubman
    Really, is there anything new?   We have heard this same story/claim, over, and over, and over again.  There was no right to secede, there was no country
    Message 1 of 63 , Jan 15, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Really, is there anything new?   We have heard this same story/claim, over, and over, and over again.  There was no right to secede, there was no "country" to be invaded by "foreigners".  The only "foreigners" in the south, were those serving in both North and Southern armies.
       

       


      From: shaun c <shaunchattey@...>
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:05:21 PM
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)



      As i said 'restoring the union'.
      If you look intthe states had a right to secede, the Union refused to accept this, however you look at it its Union soldiers used to repress southern rights to govern.
      To restore a union with a country which does not want that union, is in fact an invasion by a foreigner. Whether the Union wanted to paint it that way or not.


      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      From: wilber6150@...
      Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:00:17 +0000
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)

       


      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > Personally I see little merit in 'restoring the union', it is little more than the invasion of a foreign nation in order to annex it, a belligerent and offensive war if I've ever seen one.
      > I'm British, so i hold no cultural tie to the Confederacy either.
      > Formal education will instill current political ideals into the person, self education will allow the person/child to understand in their own way both sides of the story and make their own mind up.
      >
      >The Northern men who faught the war didnt see it as a foreign nation invading another one, they saw it as a battle to hold the country they held dear together and not let it be split apart..




      Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®.

    • Stanley Balsky
      Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States ? SB ... From: shaun c Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown) To:
      Message 63 of 63 , Jan 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States ?
        SB

        --- On Fri, 1/15/10, shaun c <shaunchattey@...> wrote:

        From: shaun c <shaunchattey@...>
        Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 6:14 PM

         
        'There was no right to secede, there was no "country"'

        Wow what an amazingly ignorant statement. The right to secede was one of the primary tenants of the revolution, and the 'country' was the individual states that people were in, north and south, until the consolidation by war of the union.


        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
        From: rtaubman@rogers. com
        Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:12:39 -0800
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)

         

        Really, is there anything new?   We have heard this same story/claim, over, and over, and over again.  There was no right to secede, there was no "country" to be invaded by "foreigners" .  The only "foreigners" in the south, were those serving in both North and Southern armies.
         

         


        From: shaun c <shaunchattey@ hotmail.com>
        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:05:21 PM
        Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)



        As i said 'restoring the union'.
        If you look intthe states had a right to secede, the Union refused to accept this, however you look at it its Union soldiers used to repress southern rights to govern.
        To restore a union with a country which does not want that union, is in fact an invasion by a foreigner. Whether the Union wanted to paint it that way or not.


        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
        From: wilber6150@aol. com
        Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:00:17 +0000
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: (unknown)

         


        --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > > Personally I see little merit in 'restoring the union', it is little more than the invasion of a foreign nation in order to annex it, a belligerent and offensive war if I've ever seen one.
        > I'm British, so i hold no cultural tie to the Confederacy either.
        > Formal education will instill current political ideals into the person, self education will allow the person/child to understand in their own way both sides of the story and make their own mind up.
        >
        >The Northern men who faught the war didnt see it as a foreign nation invading another one, they saw it as a battle to hold the country they held dear together and not let it be split apart..




        Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®.




        Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.