🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus Spake TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com(John_Johnson):

% In <5k3g8b$u8n@portal.gmu.edu> mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn)
% writes:
%
%[snip]
%
%>: % If we buy into that logic, then a large measure of the
%>: % units today would be flying confederate flags.
%>
%>: There is one on my Batallion crest, but hey, who's counting.  Due
%>: to the fact that the WBTS was a civil war, the regiments on the
%>: loosing side ended up in the same Army.  
%>
%> Aha - so its an army now?  Sure there not in the same militia?
%> (Forget it, you made my point)
%>
%> (WBTS... call it what it was The Civil War... sheesh, maybe the death
%> of deterministic statehood and the birth of grand federalism.. but
%> WBTS?)
%
%   As a transplanted Son of Virginia (Fort Useless <g>), I refer the
% American conflict of the 1860's as "The War of Northern Aggression."

That starts a flamewar every time I use it from the ignorant who are under the
delusion that the War of Yankee Agression was over nothing but slavery, ergo
those who feel the South had something of a point about voluntary compacts and
all must be racist.  And it takes a while to explain the history state's rights,
the tarriff issue, and sectionalism.  Although I recall going over it in some
detail in high school history class. . . 


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle