[GOPcapitalist]

You're saying that if I find a musty old book from 1860 -- the official U.S.Treasury book for -1860-, that it will have entries for "Union" and "Southern"?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to provide a state-by-state listing in 1860. From that it takes only a little simple math to calculate the total in southern banks etc. Thus your post is a nonargument.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You're saying that if I find a musty old book from 1860 -- the official U.S.Treasury book for -1860-, that it will have entries for "Union" and "Southern"?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to provide a state-by-state listing in 1860. From that it takes only a little simple math to calculate the total in southern banks etc. Thus your post is a nonargument.

And you're sticking up for whathisname. What a hoot.

He put CAPS on "Union" and "Southern". The only reasonable interpretation is that somewhere in some musty old nook in the national archives, there's a book titled "U.S. Department of the Treasury (1860)" with the headers:

"Union"

And:

"Southern"

That's what whatshisname said. It's absurd. But you support it.

Walt