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)