Don, Folks living east of the Mississippi called the War west of the river the "trans-Mississippi War". Folks in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana returned the compliment by calling the part East of the Mississippi the "cis-Mississippi War". That is not a literally correct use of the terms "cis" and "trans", but I am sure it was meant ironically. Arleigh Don Knight <donaldknight1@comcast.net> wrote: Actually, I am not familiar with the phrase cis-Mississippi War. Don Knight Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love

Guys & Gals It seems to me that this war used to the called "The War Between The States". It seems more appropriate to me. There were both good and bad issues on both the north and the south sides. Neither were being particularly aggressive or rebellious; but, they had issues between them for which a compromise could not be negotiated to resolve the issues. Therefore, not seeing other options, they chose to fight for their beliefs. Both sides came to regret the whole war and learned and grew in maturity from the experience. It has been nearly 145 years since the war began. I think it is time for everyone to put their ill-feelings to rest least we start a feud that might grow to the proportions of the Irish or the Far East. Be proud of your ancestors which ever side they fought on or even if they didn't fight at all. They had the courage to fight for their beliefs just as our revolutionary forefathers did and in the process taught us many valuable lessons. Let us take what we learned and make the country a better place for ourselves and our children and it is my opinion that this is not done by "carefully teaching our children to hate the people we hate". Also for those who wish to continue this warring dissertation, may I add my vote to take it off this list and just email each other directly. I've gotten to the point where I am both bored and offended by the constant arguing. Mary

This list is for the discussion of the Civil War and Missouri. If you do not like the subject, or if there are to many postings for your server I suggest you change to the Digest list or unsubscribe yourself or a while. When you have a concern regarding this list and or the postings on it...Please do not send your comments to the list, send them to me personally. KathleenBurnett@earthlink.net I have been watching this conversation, and so far I am not inclined to step in. Kathleen Burnett List Mom

Can we get off this????? Contact the only people who are really interested. Enough already!! ----- Original Message ----- From: Arleigh Birchler<mailto:abirchler16@yahoo.com> To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: [MO-CW] Re: {Civil War} Re: correct attribution jcl, I agree that the Kansas/Missouri War did not reach the level of a full-war until 1861. Prior to that it was civil unrest. It would not be a "civil war" since it was between two different governments, and not within one state. The Ozark Civil War was in fact, a full scale "civil war". It was fought in Missouri, Arkansas, and part of the Indian Nations. In each place there were strong groups with opposing political views. This was a bona fide "civil war". The "cis-Mississippi War" is usually referred to as "The US Civil War". There are endless alternative names for the War, and continual fighting about whether it qualifies as a "civil war". There were, however, local civil wars in the various states in which it was fought. Arleigh jcl*** wrote: Arleigh: I'm the one who said "war is when force replaces law and reason." Don't know if what you call "The Kansas/Missouri War, the Ozark Civil War, and that war in the Cis-Mississippi" constitutes a full-blown civil war, mainly because the "opposition" wasn't organized well enough to overthrow the whole federal govt. Might qualify as civil unrest or local insurrections, like Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. * * * Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> If you are trying to unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change the -L- to a -D- ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx>

Don, My use of those terms was simply in response to the phrase "constitutes a full-blown civil war". What I was trying to express is that the level of violence in Kansas prior to 1859 was fairly small, compared to the violence between 1861 and 1865. A lot of folks object to the name "Civil War", and I was trying to avoid that argument. I do think, however, that the Ozark Civil War was a civil war in every sense of the phrase. I trust that you know what the cis-Mississippi War was. Arleigh Don Knight <donaldknight1@comcast.net> wrote: I am confused with the following terms: "full-war"; "full scale civil war"; "bona fide civil war." I am not certain what is being stated. I am not refuting what is being said, but I would like some clarification. Thanks Don Knight ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arleigh Birchler" To: Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: [MO-CW] Re: {Civil War} Re: correct attribution > jcl, > > I agree that the Kansas/Missouri War did not reach the level of a full-war > until 1861. Prior to that it was civil unrest. It would not be a "civil > war" since it was between two different governments, and not within one > state. The Ozark Civil War was in fact, a full scale "civil war". It was > fought in Missouri, Arkansas, and part of the Indian Nations. In each > place there were strong groups with opposing political views. This was a > bona fide "civil war". > > The "cis-Mississippi War" is usually referred to as "The US Civil War". > There are endless alternative names for the War, and continual fighting > about whether it qualifies as a "civil war". There were, however, local > civil wars in the various states in which it was fought. > > Arleigh > > jcl*** wrote: > Arleigh: > > I'm the one who said "war is when force replaces law and reason." > > Don't know if what you call "The Kansas/Missouri War, the Ozark Civil War, > and that war in the Cis-Mississippi" constitutes a full-blown civil war, > mainly because the "opposition" wasn't organized well enough to overthrow > the whole federal govt. Might qualify as civil unrest or local > insurrections, like Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. > > * * * Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love

Somehow I don't feel it fitting to refer to any war as "civil." Isn't the term an oxymoron? Did the troops in battle address their opponents in a gentlemanly fashion or did they resort to hoots and catcalls? Did they apologize after shooting some poor lad from another state or did they leave him bleeding on the battlefield? It strikes me that War of Northern Aggression and War of Southern Rebellion are much more appropriate terms. It matters only to historians to standardize such terminology but if it must be done I would prefer "the Struggle for Southern Freedom." Bill, in KC =-=-=-=-= Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Re: {Civil War} Re: correct attribution >I am confused with the following terms: "full-war"; "full scale civil >war"; "bona fide civil war." I am not certain what is being stated. I am >not refuting what is being said, but I would like some clarification. > Thanks > Don Knight

I am confused with the following terms: "full-war"; "full scale civil war"; "bona fide civil war." I am not certain what is being stated. I am not refuting what is being said, but I would like some clarification. Thanks Don Knight ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arleigh Birchler" <abirchler16@yahoo.com> To: <MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: [MO-CW] Re: {Civil War} Re: correct attribution > jcl, > > I agree that the Kansas/Missouri War did not reach the level of a full-war > until 1861. Prior to that it was civil unrest. It would not be a "civil > war" since it was between two different governments, and not within one > state. The Ozark Civil War was in fact, a full scale "civil war". It was > fought in Missouri, Arkansas, and part of the Indian Nations. In each > place there were strong groups with opposing political views. This was a > bona fide "civil war". > > The "cis-Mississippi War" is usually referred to as "The US Civil War". > There are endless alternative names for the War, and continual fighting > about whether it qualifies as a "civil war". There were, however, local > civil wars in the various states in which it was fought. > > Arleigh > > jcl*** wrote: > Arleigh: > > I'm the one who said "war is when force replaces law and reason." > > Don't know if what you call "The Kansas/Missouri War, the Ozark Civil War, > and that war in the Cis-Mississippi" constitutes a full-blown civil war, > mainly because the "opposition" wasn't organized well enough to overthrow > the whole federal govt. Might qualify as civil unrest or local > insurrections, like Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. > > * * * > > > Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN > c/o Helaina Hinson Burton > 69 Gray Ghost Lane > Benson NC 27504 > (919) 934-6323 > > (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) > > > Musick/Porter Fan Club > Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the > utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to > unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change > the -L- to a -D- > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

jcl, I agree that the Kansas/Missouri War did not reach the level of a full-war until 1861. Prior to that it was civil unrest. It would not be a "civil war" since it was between two different governments, and not within one state. The Ozark Civil War was in fact, a full scale "civil war". It was fought in Missouri, Arkansas, and part of the Indian Nations. In each place there were strong groups with opposing political views. This was a bona fide "civil war". The "cis-Mississippi War" is usually referred to as "The US Civil War". There are endless alternative names for the War, and continual fighting about whether it qualifies as a "civil war". There were, however, local civil wars in the various states in which it was fought. Arleigh jcl*** wrote: Arleigh: I'm the one who said "war is when force replaces law and reason." Don't know if what you call "The Kansas/Missouri War, the Ozark Civil War, and that war in the Cis-Mississippi" constitutes a full-blown civil war, mainly because the "opposition" wasn't organized well enough to overthrow the whole federal govt. Might qualify as civil unrest or local insurrections, like Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. * * * Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love

I think it just shows that although we all have a common interest, we differ greatly in our opinions of who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys". It is interesting that a war fought over 140 years ago can bring about such emotion, especially when the topic of slavery is discussed. I myself have a very pro-southern way of looking at things, yet this list is no place to be sharing those views. I believe this list should be used as it was intended, which is to learn and share knowledge about troops/units/regiments/battles and our ancestors involvment in such, particularly in Missouri. Kimberly -----Original Message----- From: Arleigh Birchler [mailto:abirchler16@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:43 AM To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism What does this accomplish? "Brady Umfleet (Terr. Newsstand Coord.)" <BUMFLEET@bordersgroupinc.com> wrote: "Hard Core Revisionist Neo Confederate speak" Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

Hi DHF, I know that I have sent a couple of long e-mails recently-but it is out of frustration-I thought it was time to confront some of the attitudes and comments that I read over the past several years-I hope that this mailing gets back to the original purpose-connecting Missourians with each other for the purpose of learning more about our ancestors. So now I will refrain from long diatribes. I would love to hear from Missourians with connections to the 11th MO Infantry Union), 12 Militia Cav,and the 50th MO Infantry (all union). thank you -----Original Message----- From: VandA121@aol.com [mailto:VandA121@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 10:46 AM To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MO-CW] What are we talking about? In a message dated 11/3/2005 12:29:14 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time, dfinke@coin.org writes: I've been reading this list for years, and have found helpful information regarding how the Civil War (which I will call by that name... unless I call it what Congress called it back then, "The War of the Rebellion") affected my family. It does not sit well with me to see the phrase "War of Northern Aggression" lightly tossed out as though that were a self-evident fact. Rather, why not use the old southern euphemism, "The Late Unpleasantness"? Actually, civil wars are notorious in that we can never agree on what to call them: like in the present, one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter." I remember when a fellow Quaker was sent by our mutual employer to organize and administer aid to war victims in west Africa: one side called it "The Nigerian Civil War." The other called it "The Biafran War of Independence." Today, Canadians still refere to what went on here in the 1770-80s as the "American Revolutionary Civil War." By defition, an aremed secession will always be seen as an act of liberation by one side and an act of treason by the other. These things will never be resolved in the debates on this list. However, I do want to appeal to the readers -- and to the Moderator if there is one listening -- to please observe what ground rules there might be, and bring us some if that can be done. As entertaining as it may be (though it's getting tedious) to read various views and theories as to the origins and results of the Civil War, and as much as I want to respect the diversity of opinions expressed here, I'm starting to feel we've gotten beyond what really brings us together. Especially when we're getting long diatribes against public education, in what I feel are thinly-veiled "blaming the victims" attacks on minorities and those living in poverty, I'm ready to have someone say "enough, already!" I have no expectations that we'll ever have consensus, for instance, on whether Bloody Bill Anderson was justified in his depredations (I now live fewer than 20 miles from the Centralia Massacre), or whether Quantrill was a nobel figure upholding a heroic lost cause -- or, in the views of others, simply a psychopath acting under color of a commission. Nor will we have agreement on whether President Lincoln (for whom my great-grandfather gladly enlisted, served, and lost an arm) was a liberator or a despot. In a sense, the Civil War lives on today -- in our families' sense of heritage, and what we take pride in. None of us will change that. Whether 100 years from now the passions are still as intense, I'll not know. In a sense, the Crusades of nearly a millenium ago are still being fought out in the Middle East -- at least in how both sides from that conflict see what were the basic issues at stake. But what I can expect is that (1) the discourse will try to remain civil and mutually respectful, and (2) we will have some effort to stick to a topic. Moderator, can you please tell us again what range of issues are fair game for our contributions? Thank you, -DHF ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change the -L- to a -D- ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

You make some good points however you fall into the trap of neo confederate apologists when you talk of Lincoln's aggression-sorry but you loose me-my ancestors were southern to the bone-some here long before it was a state-they fought against the rebels-not to free the slaves but to put down treason-if you mean Lincoln's aggression was to call up troops to put down a rebellion is in itself is aggression-then historically you are wrong-Lincoln was fairly elected-and perhaps some view this as aggression-then you must also ignore his stand on slavery-which he was certainly not for freeing the slaves if it would jeopardize the union. If by aggression you mean the federal government's right to resupply a federal fort in South Carolina-so be it. You also did not refute the Ruffians who helped to elect an illegal government in Kansas-I am not saying Jayhawkers were innocent- Despotic Northern Traders? Come now-you again absolve the Southern Planter Elite from their own destruction-the Elite were successful not in building up the south-due to their hunger for the easy life of decadence-they showed no desire or drive to accomplish any advancements in technology and industrialization-the south was agrarian out of Folk Ways imported from the South West of England-where most southern came from. The planters did not want to advance-they-and I can't stress this enough-wanted to live the Cavalier life of old England. The Northerners were driven by the education and social Folk Ways of the South East of England-which were anti-royalist. Again the War of Northern Aggression? Hard Core Revisionist Neo Confederate speak-let me see if I get this straight. The Southern Planter Elite: - They dominated the federal government for nearly all of the years leading up to the Civil War-thus gave us the Dred Scott Case, and the Fugitive Slave Law. - They got us involved in a War with Mexico in order to spread slavery west - They plotted to invade Cuba in order to make it a slave state - The South fired upon federal troops who were legally resuppling their Fort Sumter. - They stole arms from Federal Armories - They tried to leave the union when they lost a fair and open election - They terrorized anti-slavery Americans exercising their right to free speech and press. I will not respond to your Reconstruction comment- as this again is a myth of Neo Confederate apologists-and lost causers. Reconstruction was a joke as within a few years the old Southern Planter Elite began to install racists regimes in the old CSA-again terrorizing unionists whites and blacks- with murder, rape, lynching, and pillaging. I feel no sorrow for the south and southerners back then-I too come from a very old and long line of southerners-however, those I descend from were 100% unionists. It would be refreshing to actually not read commentary that I could read in the Magazine Southern Partisan. -----Original Message----- From: joannecole@charter.net [mailto:joannecole@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:26 PM To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism THAT WAS GREAT!!! > > > By the time of Mr. Lincoln's aggression against it in 1861 the entire > Confederacy had a population of less than half that of the Union. > > As for your comment about the end of slavery in Texas, it is ludicrous on > its face. You state that slaves in Texas learned of the Emancipation > Proclamation in June (Juneteenth) but slavery did not end in Delaware until > the 13th Amendment was ratified in DECEMBER, some six months later. > Remember, Texas was one of the original eight Confederate states so Mr. > Lincoln's meaningless proclamation (he lacked the authority to "proclaim" a > law effecting sovereign states of another nation) was aimed at Texas. It > simply had no meaning until circumstances forced General Lee to surrender > his forces. > > As for responsibility--and guilt--for the "Bleeding Kansas" years I must > admit that some Missourians retaliated too strongly and harmed some > innocents, but if the Jayhawkers hadn't crossed into Missouri to rape, rob > and pillage there would have been no need for retaliation by Quantrill, > Anderson and others. For example, Colonel Anderson joined Quantrill only > after a Unionist murdered his father and he turned especially vicious after > Union soldiers murdered one of his sisters and maimed another. > > My own great-grandfather joined the "border ruffians" only after marauding > Jayhawkers burned out several of his friends and neighbors under the thin > guise of their "anti-slavery" views. It didn't matter to them that none of > the homesteads they attacked had slaves. They just wanted to steal horses > and cattle, kill men and rape women and any excuse would do. > > As for Southern failure to industrialize, there was a failure to build ships > of their own for trading in Europe. The wealthy New York and New England > businessmen of the time owned or controlled most U.S. flag vessels and did > their best to prevent shipments of machinery to the South. They also > threatened suppliers in Europe and England with curtailment of their own > purchases if machinery was sold to Southern businesses. They used the > despotic federal government to impose exorbitant import duties on any > industrial equipment brought into the South. They wanted the South to remain > predominantly agrarian and to supply them cheap cotton and tobacco. > > As for the retribution you question, have you never heard of > "Reconstruction" or Yankee carpetbaggers? > > And thanks to the failure of the Confederate States to maintain their > freedom and independence, we now have a gluttonous national government that > strives to absorb all our country's wealth and redistribute much of it to > the northeastern states. Slavery today is a bit more subtle. Workers can > have cars and color TV sets but they still have to give about 40% of their > earned wealth to support politicians, their otherwise unemployable relatives > and the slothful constituents who return them to office every election in > return for a few welfare dollars. > > Now let's get back to more specific study of Missouri's participation in the > War of Northern Aggression. > > Bill, in KC > =-=-=-=-= > > > > Subject: RE: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > > > > Hello, > > > > I am well aware of our history and not some the revisionist bunk below-War > > of Northern Aggression surely you jest-the South ran rough shot over the > > north-until immigration began to turn the tide and the numbers tilted to > > the north-once the south knew they could no longer bully the north they > > decided to cut and run. I find it funny that the North kept the South > > down-when in actuality the south up until the time of the Civil War more > > often than not had the White House, The Congress, and more importantly the > > Supreme Court- > > > > Actually, you are welcome to challenge my grasp-but you better come loaded > > for bear-how interesting that you sit in judgment of a wonderful political > > decision by Lincoln to only emancipate certain slaves. > > > > Federal Despotism-I find this to be a hoot-perhaps you should look into > > the despotism of those in the south who not only railroaded many of their > > people on the issue of Secession-then to further spit in the face of the > > rights of the people decided that counties in their states who wanted no > > part of this could not in turn leave the state-ironic. > > > > The last state to end Slavery was Texas-they forgot to tell the slaves > > they were free-the day of freedom in Texas is still celebrated as > > Juneteenth. > > > > By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a > > bogus election-how do they stand for the rights of the people against > > tyranny? the short answer is they don't. The Ruffians were the instigators > > of the violence-once the Free Staters saw that they were to be governed by > > an illegal government elected by the Ruffians-they indeed began to fight > > back-something the Southern were not familiar with-some would call it > > resistance. > > > > You are correct in that Jayhawkers used many excuses to pillage farms-etc. > > But you are blinded by your revisionism to see that both sides were > > equally guilty. > > > > I disagree with your economic analysis-first, Slavery depresses wages-no > > need to pay white folks a good wage when you can work slaves for free-or > > nearly free-since one does have to feed and cloth them. > > > > Let us keep in mind the planter elite were not interested in progress-they > > wanted to emulate the wealthy land owners of England-you should ask > > yourself why the southerners didn't take it upon themselves to develop > > their industry, railroads, etc.? Oh, mean northerners made life tough on > > the cotton plantation owners-I guess this would excuse them from > > diversifying-investing, etc. > > > > I will agree that there was little interest in many northerners to > > eliminate slavery-however, the Slave Owning elite drove them to this > > position by the attempt of Southerners to not only expand slavery west and > > south but to dictate to northerners the terms by which they would agree to > > stay in the union. > > > > One last note-the rebels got off easy-no mass executions-no mass > > confiscation of rebel property, and no mass expulsion of rebels. Had > > northerners been as the revisionists and the neo-confederates make them > > out to be then were was the retribution? > > > > Face up rebels-you all got hood winked by the wealthy-and paid the > > price-god forbid you all should own up to it. > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change the -L- to a -D- > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

What does this accomplish? "Brady Umfleet (Terr. Newsstand Coord.)" <BUMFLEET@bordersgroupinc.com> wrote: "Hard Core Revisionist Neo Confederate speak" Arleigh Birchler, MDiv, BSN c/o Helaina Hinson Burton 69 Gray Ghost Lane Benson NC 27504 (919) 934-6323 (Ali Sengaree - Allah'ka cli here chaya) Musick/Porter Fan Club Pleasure, Pain, Power, and Love

If the meaningless and uninformed drivel off-topic doesn't stop, I will unsubscribe and report this list to the list-serve. Yes, Bill, this means you. Pat

From my proseptive it was who could and would and had influence. HIstory repeats itself. I live in Pompano Beach, Florida and need I say more. I think history repeating itself is important...we learn very little. Who are the slaves now????who is cheap labor?? Im in a hurricane zone. Im strong, but cry almost everynite from the stories I hear. SAve Smith/Davis Cemetery in Raytown Missouri if you can. Also read the newest of great books, ""Warefare on the Missouri/Kansas Border"", by Donald Gilmore. Claiborne Scholl Nappier Most confusion can begin to be answered by this additilon, very thoughful and informative.

Although I can't speak for him I think what he was saying is that the Indians weren't slaves of Europeans (like Blacks were - on plantations, etc owned as property etc.). I don't think he was addressing whether Indians themselves owned slaves (or trafficed in them - which we all know certain tribes did.) There were many of the Richer Cherokee that had slaves. Also many tribes made slaves (or adopted) Indians from the losing side during wars/raids. --- Don Knight <donaldknight1@comcast.net> wrote: > Just curious. Is Mr. Kramer stating that > enslavement was not practiced by > American Indians? > Don Knight

In a message dated 11/3/2005 12:29:14 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time, dfinke@coin.org writes: I've been reading this list for years, and have found helpful information regarding how the Civil War (which I will call by that name... unless I call it what Congress called it back then, "The War of the Rebellion") affected my family. It does not sit well with me to see the phrase "War of Northern Aggression" lightly tossed out as though that were a self-evident fact. Rather, why not use the old southern euphemism, "The Late Unpleasantness"? Actually, civil wars are notorious in that we can never agree on what to call them: like in the present, one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter." I remember when a fellow Quaker was sent by our mutual employer to organize and administer aid to war victims in west Africa: one side called it "The Nigerian Civil War." The other called it "The Biafran War of Independence." Today, Canadians still refere to what went on here in the 1770-80s as the "American Revolutionary Civil War." By defition, an aremed secession will always be seen as an act of liberation by one side and an act of treason by the other. These things will never be resolved in the debates on this list. However, I do want to appeal to the readers -- and to the Moderator if there is one listening -- to please observe what ground rules there might be, and bring us some if that can be done. As entertaining as it may be (though it's getting tedious) to read various views and theories as to the origins and results of the Civil War, and as much as I want to respect the diversity of opinions expressed here, I'm starting to feel we've gotten beyond what really brings us together. Especially when we're getting long diatribes against public education, in what I feel are thinly-veiled "blaming the victims" attacks on minorities and those living in poverty, I'm ready to have someone say "enough, already!" I have no expectations that we'll ever have consensus, for instance, on whether Bloody Bill Anderson was justified in his depredations (I now live fewer than 20 miles from the Centralia Massacre), or whether Quantrill was a nobel figure upholding a heroic lost cause -- or, in the views of others, simply a psychopath acting under color of a commission. Nor will we have agreement on whether President Lincoln (for whom my great-grandfather gladly enlisted, served, and lost an arm) was a liberator or a despot. In a sense, the Civil War lives on today -- in our families' sense of heritage, and what we take pride in. None of us will change that. Whether 100 years from now the passions are still as intense, I'll not know. In a sense, the Crusades of nearly a millenium ago are still being fought out in the Middle East -- at least in how both sides from that conflict see what were the basic issues at stake. But what I can expect is that (1) the discourse will try to remain civil and mutually respectful, and (2) we will have some effort to stick to a topic. Moderator, can you please tell us again what range of issues are fair game for our contributions? Thank you, -DHF

I've been reading this list for years, and have found helpful information regarding how the Civil War (which I will call by that name... unless I call it what Congress called it back then, "The War of the Rebellion") affected my family. It does not sit well with me to see the phrase "War of Northern Aggression" lightly tossed out as though that were a self-evident fact. Rather, why not use the old southern euphemism, "The Late Unpleasantness"? Actually, civil wars are notorious in that we can never agree on what to call them: like in the present, one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter." I remember when a fellow Quaker was sent by our mutual employer to organize and administer aid to war victims in west Africa: one side called it "The Nigerian Civil War." The other called it "The Biafran War of Independence." Today, Canadians still refere to what went on here in the 1770-80s as the "American Revolutionary Civil War." By defition, an aremed secession will always be seen as an act of liberation by one side and an act of treason by the other. These things will never be resolved in the debates on this list. However, I do want to appeal to the readers -- and to the Moderator if there is one listening -- to please observe what ground rules there might be, and bring us some if that can be done. As entertaining as it may be (though it's getting tedious) to read various views and theories as to the origins and results of the Civil War, and as much as I want to respect the diversity of opinions expressed here, I'm starting to feel we've gotten beyond what really brings us together. Especially when we're getting long diatribes against public education, in what I feel are thinly-veiled "blaming the victims" attacks on minorities and those living in poverty, I'm ready to have someone say "enough, already!" I have no expectations that we'll ever have consensus, for instance, on whether Bloody Bill Anderson was justified in his depredations (I now live fewer than 20 miles from the Centralia Massacre), or whether Quantrill was a nobel figure upholding a heroic lost cause -- or, in the views of others, simply a psychopath acting under color of a commission. Nor will we have agreement on whether President Lincoln (for whom my great-grandfather gladly enlisted, served, and lost an arm) was a liberator or a despot. In a sense, the Civil War lives on today -- in our families' sense of heritage, and what we take pride in. None of us will change that. Whether 100 years from now the passions are still as intense, I'll not know. In a sense, the Crusades of nearly a millenium ago are still being fought out in the Middle East -- at least in how both sides from that conflict see what were the basic issues at stake. But what I can expect is that (1) the discourse will try to remain civil and mutually respectful, and (2) we will have some effort to stick to a topic. Moderator, can you please tell us again what range of issues are fair game for our contributions? Thank you, -DHF ============== David Hadley Finke Quaker: Columbia (Missouri) Friends Meeting "Christ has come to teach his people himself." --Geo. Fox ===============

Although the Missourians didn't have a right to enter Kansas to vote, but the people of Massachuesetts sure didn't have the right. Many from the eastern states moved there in order to vote. I would think that the Missourians had more of a right than the easterners! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Knight" <donaldknight1@comcast.net> To: <MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > That was a good question, "By what right I ask you did border ruffians have > to enter Kansas vote in a bogus election?" > > As I understand it, the requirements for voting in Kansas allowed for the > "migration" from Missouri to Kansas to engage in voting. In hindsight, it > was a terrible oversight to have allowed this. The fact that some took > advantage of this loophole seems to be the American way. You could call it > a technicality that should not have been allowed, but regardless, it was. > Some would say that they were not border ruffians (a term used initially and > exclusively by Kansans), but rather citizens exercising their constitutional > rights. Which, by the way, regardless of how deplorable one might describe > slavery, it was protected by our constitution. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brady Umfleet (Terr. Newsstand Coord.)" > <BUMFLEET@bordersgroupinc.com> > To: <MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:24 PM > Subject: RE: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > > > > Hello, > > > > I am well aware of our history and not some the revisionist bunk below-War > > of Northern Aggression surely you jest-the South ran rough shot over the > > north-until immigration began to turn the tide and the numbers tilted to > > the north-once the south knew they could no longer bully the north they > > decided to cut and run. I find it funny that the North kept the South > > down-when in actuality the south up until the time of the Civil War more > > often than not had the White House, The Congress, and more importantly the > > Supreme Court- > > > > Actually, you are welcome to challenge my grasp-but you better come loaded > > for bear-how interesting that you sit in judgment of a wonderful political > > decision by Lincoln to only emancipate certain slaves. > > > > Federal Despotism-I find this to be a hoot-perhaps you should look into > > the despotism of those in the south who not only railroaded many of their > > people on the issue of Secession-then to further spit in the face of the > > rights of the people decided that counties in their states who wanted no > > part of this could not in turn leave the state-ironic. > > > > The last state to end Slavery was Texas-they forgot to tell the slaves > > they were free-the day of freedom in Texas is still celebrated as > > Juneteenth. > > > > By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a > > bogus election-how do they stand for the rights of the people against > > tyranny? the short answer is they don't. The Ruffians were the instigators > > of the violence-once the Free Staters saw that they were to be governed by > > an illegal government elected by the Ruffians-they indeed began to fight > > back-something the Southern were not familiar with-some would call it > > resistance. > > > > You are correct in that Jayhawkers used many excuses to pillage farms-etc. > > But you are blinded by your revisionism to see that both sides were > > equally guilty. > > > > I disagree with your economic analysis-first, Slavery depresses wages-no > > need to pay white folks a good wage when you can work slaves for free-or > > nearly free-since one does have to feed and cloth them. > > > > Let us keep in mind the planter elite were not interested in progress-they > > wanted to emulate the wealthy land owners of England-you should ask > > yourself why the southerners didn't take it upon themselves to develop > > their industry, railroads, etc.? Oh, mean northerners made life tough on > > the cotton plantation owners-I guess this would excuse them from > > diversifying-investing, etc. > > > > I will agree that there was little interest in many northerners to > > eliminate slavery-however, the Slave Owning elite drove them to this > > position by the attempt of Southerners to not only expand slavery west and > > south but to dictate to northerners the terms by which they would agree to > > stay in the union. > > > > One last note-the rebels got off easy-no mass executions-no mass > > confiscation of rebel property, and no mass expulsion of rebels. Had > > northerners been as the revisionists and the neo-confederates make them > > out to be then were was the retribution? > > > > Face up rebels-you all got hood winked by the wealthy-and paid the > > price-god forbid you all should own up to it. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Morgan [mailto:wmorgan1@kc.rr.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:46 AM > > To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > > > > > > With such a complete grasp of history, surely you know that slavery > > existed > > in the North well after the Confederacy was forced to capitulate. Mr. > > Lincoln's famed "Emancipation Proclamation" specifically limited freeing > > of > > slaves to those states "in rebellion" against the United States. As the > > Confederate states had already declared their independence he was merely > > making another affront to the sovereignty of a people who had voted for > > independence from federal despotism. Mr. Lincoln also suspended the right > > of > > habeas corpus until overruled by the Supreme Court. > > > > His famed proclamation specifically excluded the states of Maryland, > > Tennessee and Delaware and slavery was not officially ended in Kentucky, > > Missouri and Delaware until ratification of the 13th Amendment in > > December, > > 1865. Delaware was, in fact, the last state to end slavery. > > > > Certainly you are also aware that much of the slave traffic came from the > > North, with a booming slave market in Baltimore, for example. Many Yankee > > brokers bought human chattel in the West Indies and brought them into > > northern ports for sale. > > > > The most unique thing about Missouri and Kansas was that the so-called > > "civil war" started here about five years before the assault on Fort > > Sumter. > > Federally instigated bandits and fanatics such as Jim Lane, Jim Montgomery > > and John Brown organized gangs of armed ruffians to launch raids in > > Missouri, ostensibly to combat slavery. The "Jayhawkers" and "border > > ruffians," however, were seldom interested in whether or not a targeted > > family owned slaves. If they had livestock or other valuables they were > > fair > > game no matter how they stood on the issue of slavery. > > > > The War of Northern Aggression, like most wars throughout history, was > > over > > money and wealth. The Yankees wanted cheap cotton for their textile mills > > and they wanted to recover what they paid for that cotton by taxing > > southern > > cotton producers unmercifully. The powerful business interests of the > > Northeast controlled the national government in the city of Washington and > > used it to hold the South in firm control and near-poverty. Those same > > businessmen abused their own workers and held them in what amounted to > > economic slavery. They had no interest in eliminating slavery, just a > > burning desire to insure that they reaped as much as possible of the > > profits > > of that "unholy institution." > > > > Chattel slavery was deplorable but it continues today in many parts of the > > world. > > > > This country was built first upon the backs of indentured servants > > (economic > > slaves) from Europe and then on the labors of chattel slaves, first from > > the > > people indigenous to the West Indies and subsequently the Africans. "Human > > bondage" built the great industrial strength of the northeast United > > States > > just as surely as it did the plantation life of the South. > > > > Bill, in KC > > =-=-=-=-= > > > >> If by resources you mean the ability to traffic in human bondage-then you > >> are correct-and actually you are incorrect regarding Missouri's > >> uniqueness-the only state not to raise White Union troops was South > >> Carolina-where neo-confederates still fight the usage of the term civil > >> war-Slavery allowed a lazy white slave owning population to play upon the > >> racial fears of the middle to lower classes-who had nothing to gain with > >> slavery-slavery of course kept wages down for the middle and poor > >> whites-while allowing the wealthy slave owners to live a life of fancy > >> laziness. Also let us keep in mind the CSA instituted our first > >> draft-however, exempting Slave owners who owned 20 slaves or more (I > >> think > >> this # is accurate)-Rich man's war-poor man's fight. > >> > >> Of course the issue of State's Rights was not important to Southerners > >> who > >> clamored for, and had passed, the Fugitive Slave Law which allowed > >> widespread violations of non Slave States Rights-State's Rights folks > >> tend > >> to forget this little issue-I will not even go into the violent > >> resistance > >> to and repression of free speech and free press for anti-slavery > >> AMERICANS > >> in the south-suffice to say that the Slave Owning elite were able to > >> trample on the rights of the working class, the anti-slavery, and Black > >> Americans. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: SEASNAPPIER@aol.com [mailto:SEASNAPPIER@aol.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:54 AM > >> To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Re: MO-CW-D Digest V05 #134 > >> > >> > >> Remembering that the North benefited the most from it all. They had the > >> textile factories. It appears the North was trying to control the South > >> and it's > >> resources. I believe much of the history to be correct in regards to most > >> the > >> south, but when it came to MIssouri, it was an entirely different issue. > >> State's Rights...is always what is at issue and as typical, it appears > >> to > >> be a > >> repeating trend. Slavery of any kind is wrong and was wrong so please > >> don't > >> misunderstand me. I am not trying to justify slavery. I am trying to > >> introduce > >> the real reasons for the SO CALLED CIVIL WAR, from one Missourian's > >> point > >> of > >> view. My family lost all it had from Order #11 and the Burn Orders. They > >> were > >> just simple God Believing and Hard Working Folks as many were. > >> Check Scholl/Ross/Boone/Muir/Hinde/Key/Wallace/Parr/James/Younger, > >> ect...... > >> > >> > >> > >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > >> NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > >> political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > >> messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > >> grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > >> Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > >> > >> ============================== > >> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > >> marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > >> > >> > >> > >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > >> To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the > >> utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to > >> unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change > >> the -L- to a -D- > >> > >> ============================== > >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > >> New content added every business day. Learn more: > >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >> > > > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > > political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > > messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > > grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > > Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > > > > ============================== > > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > > To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the > > utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to > > unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change > > the -L- to a -D- > > > > ============================== > > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > >

That was a good question, "By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a bogus election?" As I understand it, the requirements for voting in Kansas allowed for the "migration" from Missouri to Kansas to engage in voting. In hindsight, it was a terrible oversight to have allowed this. The fact that some took advantage of this loophole seems to be the American way. You could call it a technicality that should not have been allowed, but regardless, it was. Some would say that they were not border ruffians (a term used initially and exclusively by Kansans), but rather citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Which, by the way, regardless of how deplorable one might describe slavery, it was protected by our constitution. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brady Umfleet (Terr. Newsstand Coord.)" <BUMFLEET@bordersgroupinc.com> To: <MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > Hello, > > I am well aware of our history and not some the revisionist bunk below-War > of Northern Aggression surely you jest-the South ran rough shot over the > north-until immigration began to turn the tide and the numbers tilted to > the north-once the south knew they could no longer bully the north they > decided to cut and run. I find it funny that the North kept the South > down-when in actuality the south up until the time of the Civil War more > often than not had the White House, The Congress, and more importantly the > Supreme Court- > > Actually, you are welcome to challenge my grasp-but you better come loaded > for bear-how interesting that you sit in judgment of a wonderful political > decision by Lincoln to only emancipate certain slaves. > > Federal Despotism-I find this to be a hoot-perhaps you should look into > the despotism of those in the south who not only railroaded many of their > people on the issue of Secession-then to further spit in the face of the > rights of the people decided that counties in their states who wanted no > part of this could not in turn leave the state-ironic. > > The last state to end Slavery was Texas-they forgot to tell the slaves > they were free-the day of freedom in Texas is still celebrated as > Juneteenth. > > By what right I ask you did border ruffians have to enter Kansas vote in a > bogus election-how do they stand for the rights of the people against > tyranny? the short answer is they don't. The Ruffians were the instigators > of the violence-once the Free Staters saw that they were to be governed by > an illegal government elected by the Ruffians-they indeed began to fight > back-something the Southern were not familiar with-some would call it > resistance. > > You are correct in that Jayhawkers used many excuses to pillage farms-etc. > But you are blinded by your revisionism to see that both sides were > equally guilty. > > I disagree with your economic analysis-first, Slavery depresses wages-no > need to pay white folks a good wage when you can work slaves for free-or > nearly free-since one does have to feed and cloth them. > > Let us keep in mind the planter elite were not interested in progress-they > wanted to emulate the wealthy land owners of England-you should ask > yourself why the southerners didn't take it upon themselves to develop > their industry, railroads, etc.? Oh, mean northerners made life tough on > the cotton plantation owners-I guess this would excuse them from > diversifying-investing, etc. > > I will agree that there was little interest in many northerners to > eliminate slavery-however, the Slave Owning elite drove them to this > position by the attempt of Southerners to not only expand slavery west and > south but to dictate to northerners the terms by which they would agree to > stay in the union. > > One last note-the rebels got off easy-no mass executions-no mass > confiscation of rebel property, and no mass expulsion of rebels. Had > northerners been as the revisionists and the neo-confederates make them > out to be then were was the retribution? > > Face up rebels-you all got hood winked by the wealthy-and paid the > price-god forbid you all should own up to it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Morgan [mailto:wmorgan1@kc.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:46 AM > To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Slavery and Mr. Lincoln's despotism > > > With such a complete grasp of history, surely you know that slavery > existed > in the North well after the Confederacy was forced to capitulate. Mr. > Lincoln's famed "Emancipation Proclamation" specifically limited freeing > of > slaves to those states "in rebellion" against the United States. As the > Confederate states had already declared their independence he was merely > making another affront to the sovereignty of a people who had voted for > independence from federal despotism. Mr. Lincoln also suspended the right > of > habeas corpus until overruled by the Supreme Court. > > His famed proclamation specifically excluded the states of Maryland, > Tennessee and Delaware and slavery was not officially ended in Kentucky, > Missouri and Delaware until ratification of the 13th Amendment in > December, > 1865. Delaware was, in fact, the last state to end slavery. > > Certainly you are also aware that much of the slave traffic came from the > North, with a booming slave market in Baltimore, for example. Many Yankee > brokers bought human chattel in the West Indies and brought them into > northern ports for sale. > > The most unique thing about Missouri and Kansas was that the so-called > "civil war" started here about five years before the assault on Fort > Sumter. > Federally instigated bandits and fanatics such as Jim Lane, Jim Montgomery > and John Brown organized gangs of armed ruffians to launch raids in > Missouri, ostensibly to combat slavery. The "Jayhawkers" and "border > ruffians," however, were seldom interested in whether or not a targeted > family owned slaves. If they had livestock or other valuables they were > fair > game no matter how they stood on the issue of slavery. > > The War of Northern Aggression, like most wars throughout history, was > over > money and wealth. The Yankees wanted cheap cotton for their textile mills > and they wanted to recover what they paid for that cotton by taxing > southern > cotton producers unmercifully. The powerful business interests of the > Northeast controlled the national government in the city of Washington and > used it to hold the South in firm control and near-poverty. Those same > businessmen abused their own workers and held them in what amounted to > economic slavery. They had no interest in eliminating slavery, just a > burning desire to insure that they reaped as much as possible of the > profits > of that "unholy institution." > > Chattel slavery was deplorable but it continues today in many parts of the > world. > > This country was built first upon the backs of indentured servants > (economic > slaves) from Europe and then on the labors of chattel slaves, first from > the > people indigenous to the West Indies and subsequently the Africans. "Human > bondage" built the great industrial strength of the northeast United > States > just as surely as it did the plantation life of the South. > > Bill, in KC > =-=-=-=-= > >> If by resources you mean the ability to traffic in human bondage-then you >> are correct-and actually you are incorrect regarding Missouri's >> uniqueness-the only state not to raise White Union troops was South >> Carolina-where neo-confederates still fight the usage of the term civil >> war-Slavery allowed a lazy white slave owning population to play upon the >> racial fears of the middle to lower classes-who had nothing to gain with >> slavery-slavery of course kept wages down for the middle and poor >> whites-while allowing the wealthy slave owners to live a life of fancy >> laziness. Also let us keep in mind the CSA instituted our first >> draft-however, exempting Slave owners who owned 20 slaves or more (I >> think >> this # is accurate)-Rich man's war-poor man's fight. >> >> Of course the issue of State's Rights was not important to Southerners >> who >> clamored for, and had passed, the Fugitive Slave Law which allowed >> widespread violations of non Slave States Rights-State's Rights folks >> tend >> to forget this little issue-I will not even go into the violent >> resistance >> to and repression of free speech and free press for anti-slavery >> AMERICANS >> in the south-suffice to say that the Slave Owning elite were able to >> trample on the rights of the working class, the anti-slavery, and Black >> Americans. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: SEASNAPPIER@aol.com [mailto:SEASNAPPIER@aol.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:54 AM >> To: MO-CW-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [MO-CW] Re: MO-CW-D Digest V05 #134 >> >> >> Remembering that the North benefited the most from it all. They had the >> textile factories. It appears the North was trying to control the South >> and it's >> resources. I believe much of the history to be correct in regards to most >> the >> south, but when it came to MIssouri, it was an entirely different issue. >> State's Rights...is always what is at issue and as typical, it appears >> to >> be a >> repeating trend. Slavery of any kind is wrong and was wrong so please >> don't >> misunderstand me. I am not trying to justify slavery. I am trying to >> introduce >> the real reasons for the SO CALLED CIVIL WAR, from one Missourian's >> point >> of >> view. My family lost all it had from Order #11 and the Burn Orders. They >> were >> just simple God Believing and Hard Working Folks as many were. >> Check Scholl/Ross/Boone/Muir/Hinde/Key/Wallace/Parr/James/Younger, >> ect...... >> >> >> >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== >> NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, >> political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal >> messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be >> grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen >> Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net >> >> ============================== >> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find >> marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >> >> >> >> ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== >> To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the >> utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to >> unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change >> the -L- to a -D- >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > Burnett kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > ==== MO-CW Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the > utility address MO-CW-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM If you are trying to > unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change > the -L- to a -D- > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

Amen! Thanks, Bill! I agree 100%.