Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

[Steve_of_sandspoultry]

Quote:
Infection control didn't come until much later and for that matter it was studied as an offensive weapon

The cival war did have great advances, welcome the Gatling gun.... in that war... 150 rounds per minute......now 3000+ rounds- welcome the mini gun
Mines, torpedoes, submarines. Just getting started there
Mini balls, the lever action rifle.... Great new ways and better to kill your fellow man
.
Not goverments nor ideas just better, quicker ways to kill each other. Move forward a few years to today and our new "toys" .... I for one find it just a little scary.

Steve

 

[Steve_of_sandspoultry]

Quote:
What is the point of this post? and why does q9 need to help you out?

Steve

 

[Spookwriter]

Point to the post? Just as it said, that let none of us be the
teacher, one better than the other. But in sharing our ideals,
our thoughts and our views equally we all learn.

We may not always agree. But we will learn from each other.
And yes, Q9's thoughts do matter, and I welcome them. We may
not agree, but that does not lessen his knowledge or his right to
be in this discussion.

Other than that, no real point.

Dunkopf, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as 16th president on March 4th,
1861. Fort Sumter was fired upon on April 12th, 1861 starting the civil war.
Cut and dried fact.

That there were issues pertaining to this matter at the end of James Buchanan's
term is also true. But Buchanan was clearly not president at any point during the
actual civil war. I don't think that was what Steve was implying. There was a build
up, and abandoning forts going on.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
i did not suggest we can't learn from q9. he is quite intelligent and very knowledgeable about the war but his extreme one sidedness makes it hard for me to read through his posts at times. Still I respect Q9, and his ability to self educate and learn. that is impressive for someone so young

 

[Spookwriter]

Buchanan is credited in history as being pretty much a do-nothing
president who wasn't about to fight the south. He was happy to
let the South ride until his end of term.

Had Buchanan of fought back, I would think history would of rewritten
the opening date of the civil war.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
really? see they never taught us that in school... or maybe they did, i ignored the sections on the wars.

 

[chickened]

You may have made a typo but the Alaskan purchase was known as Sewards Folly named after William H. Seward then Secretary of State. 2 cents an acre.
Quote:

 

[chickened]

I would agree with this.

Alexander the Great had conquered the known world by 30 years old.

It would seem more impressive for someone who is older to actually learn something from someone much younger. Don't under estimate the young man.
Quote:

 

[mom'sfolly]

Alaska was bought immediately following the Civil War. Russia wanted to sell it sooner, but could not. Johnson was president and Seward was Secretary of State under both Johnson and Lincoln. The Russians were mainly in Alaska for the fur trade, which by the mid-1800s was largely played out. They were also concerned about a British land grab, so they approached the US for the sale.

I would say the purchase of Alaska would never have happened if the Union had not won the war.

 

[KristyHall]

anyone notice Q9 has gotten quiet?