Inquiring Minds Want to Know II
If Obama is not elected will there be riots?
If Obama is elected, will there be riots?
Are Americans capable of recognising and electing good leaders? (We can't know because it has been so long since they have seen one.)
What would happen if a real issue were brought up and debated in the presidential campaign?
Some 39 per cent of people still approve of George Bush. Who can these people possibly be?
According to one study, American children play outside 30 per cent less than they formerly did. Why?
A free market puzzle. Why do prices always rise faster than they fall?
What would happen to American life and discourse if enough people learned that Abraham Lincoln was not a saint?
What would America be like today if the immigration act of 1965 had not been passed?
How many dead Americans would be alive today if the immigration laws were actually enforced?
What would happen if a majority of people learned what really goes on in public schools?
What would be the reaction if a majority of people really understood that almost half the price of gasoline is taxes?
What if people really understood that Social Security taxes are highly regressive?
When will the politicians and pundits notice that America's most critical problem is the ongoing disinheritance of middle and working class natives?
What if Longstreet had...?
Entries(RSS)
"According to one study, American children play outside 30 per cent less than they formerly did. Why?"
I don't know about the stats, but what I see is: more computer playing, including PC and hand-held video games, text messaging everyone they know, and internet surfing. Also there may be more organized activities for the kiddies now than before, sending them and into big buildings outside the neighborhood .
It's just not safe to leave your children alone outside for very long anymore, sicko predators are everywhere and increasingly bold. The neighbors are all indoors, watching TV I guess, and unconcerned with their neighbors, so they are no help in community policing. Any good parent is on his own, basically.
"A free market puzzle. Why do prices always rise faster than they fall?"
Inflation is often more powerful than innovation and efficiency. And inflation is certain, commulative, and equal for everyone. Better pass it onto the consumer before you get stuck with the loss yourself.
"What would happen if a real issue were brought up and debated in the presidential campaign?"
Neil Postman answered this question in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, about the death of thinking in the TV-watching realm. What would happen? Here's my illustration of what would the typical male viewer would do: zzzzz >click< -- awright! Girls Gone Wild, superbowl edition! ...
"According to one study, American children play outside 30 per cent less than they formerly did. Why?"
My generation is often referred to as the "Peter Pan Generation." The social rot which I begun well before we came on the scene was beginning to show with us; that rot and decay accelerated exponentially in the 1960's.
However, there were still a good number of us in my generation, particularly but not exclusively those of us in rural settings, who had chores and actually worked as kids. When we got time to play, we took full advantage of it. In my home, there was no sleeping late or goofing off, even in the summer. After we had worked hard all day -outside, Daddy would usually say, while there was still daylight, "Why don't you and your friends go do something?" That usually meant go to the creek and swim; go to the pond and shoot turtles; go to Koin's Bluff and shoot gar with a .22 from the bluff, go fishing; go ride our bikes; go build a raft and get it to float in Little River; go play marbles and fight a little; go climb a thin pine sappling by threes, ride it down, let two jump off and one ride it up; go get a big tire, climb in it and let your buddies roll you down the hill - got really sick every time; go fight wasps with a rubber-band gun, a sling shot and the top of a pine spout - laughing when one of you got stung and claiming it as a badge of honor when a wasp do-popped you, i.e. stung two in rapid succession; go have a green pecan or China berry fight; have a dirt-clod fight; or heaven forbid, shoot each other with BB guns. Homeland security would have sent the black helicopters because we used to make gun powder and gasoline bombs. As we got older, we hunted together. I am not too sure what girls did. My female cousins built houses outside using pine cones to form the outline of the walls and played a lot on chain swings in trees and on seesaws (a board over a sawhorse) and sometimes came to pester us until we threw dirt clods at them. Actually, when we were quite little, girls and boys did things outside, one of the primary things being to make mudpies and attempt to eat them. I fondly recall being at my grandmother's in the hot summer and sitting in my diapers on the ground outside at the edge of the yard by the dirt street making mudpies with my cousins. Usually, the mosquito truck would come by and spray us with a dose of DDT. That is probably why modern mudpies don't taste the same; they've got no DDT in them.
Air conditioning has done a lot to keep kids inside.
Television, videos and computers have contributed.
Malls have created the illusion of being "outside."
We have been feminized.
Parents are afraid to let kids out lest social services take the kids away and put the parents in prison.
People, with no faith, are so afraid of getting injured or dying, that they are afraid to live, including letting the kids "live."
In my church, the younger parents pushed for playground equipment - expensive plastic equipment. After it was installed, one of the young moms who had pushed for it exclaimed that the kids needed to be allowed to play on it quickly for it would soon be too hot to play outside. I nearly croaked when the words came out of her mouth! Here in the deep and rural South it is too hot for kids to play outside?!?
I count as one of God's graces that He allowed me to live in the last and waning days of that time when kids could and wanted to play outside.
"Some 39 per cent of people still approve of George Bush. Who can these people possibly be?"
Here in Texas and Oklahoma, anyway, it's Reagan-Republican, Christian fundamentalist "conservatives." They still imagine we live in a world like it was in the 1950's, when 90% of Americans were of European descent, honest, hard-wroking, and truly patriotic and God-fearing. They want to tinker with the system because they have no idea how huge and broken it is.
What's most weird about them is that they although they hated the 1960's commie revolution, they have unthinkingly absorbed most of those liberal assumptions anyway. They imagine they are conservatives living in Old America, when in fact they are 1960's liberals living in the new multicultural capital of the world, a land with no nationhood or no historic culture, only atomized, individual consumer units with no loyalty to anything except money and self.
They still love Bush, like a little retarded boy who loves his one-eyed, three-legged, mangy, worm-infested dog who bites his hand every feeding time. They are the ones who shout, "Go Red Team!" They feel, "Red=Good; Blue=Bad." They are intellectual midgets, thanks largely to our commie school system and commie-controlled media. Though they say differently, they will believe most anything that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Levin, or O'Reilly tell them to.
But if you think they are stupid, just wait till these last two or three generations come into power. Have you seen the movie, Idiocracy? Well, it ain't gonna take 500 years to get to that state at our pace, that's plain to see. God help us, I hope our first real American Caesar (Lincoln's godhood was in wide dispute) is at least as wise as Julius.
The TV and computer are big problems as the provide ready passive entertainment. My kids are zombies when the boob tube is one so it's not on much.
As for predators, I think that's a bit overblown, although Virginia's predator system notes two living a few streets over from my cul-de-sac. Still, I'm not worried enough to keep my kids inside when they should be playing. That's what the 9 mm is for.
But it's true that the neighbors are inside. In our neighborhood I get home from work after everyone else (usually between 7-7:30) and my kids come outside with me but everyone else is already in.
I guess it's just another symptom of the passivity that has allowed Bush & Co. to abuse our liberties and launch their illegal war.
If Obama is not elected will there be riots?
No.
If Obama is elected, will there be riots?
No.
Are Americans capable of recognising and electing good leaders? (We can’t know because it has been so long since they have seen one.)
Not at the national level.
What would happen if a real issue were brought up and debated in the presidential campaign?
The media would have no idea what to do with it and promptly bury it.
Some 39 per cent of people still approve of George Bush. Who can these people possibly be?
If 45% of the voters can back Michael Dukakis, I can't be suprised that 39% approve of W who at least makes efforts to act like he's a heartland American. But let's not fool ourselves. The same 39% of the people would back Hitler, Stalin or Mao as long as they were a Republican.
According to one study, American children play outside 30 per cent less than they formerly did. Why?
Crime; television; video games; the complete collapse of neighborhoods and communities; way too much busywork assigned as homework. I'm stunned that it's not more than 30% to be honest.
A free market puzzle. Why do prices always rise faster than they fall?
Prices fall?
What would happen to American life and discourse if enough people learned that Abraham Lincoln was not a saint?
About the same thing that happened when they found out FDR was not one; nothing would change except for the 2% of us who care about the past.
What would America be like today if the immigration act of 1965 had not been passed?
It would simply have passed later on in a much worse version-perhaps even signed by President Nixon.
How many dead Americans would be alive today if the immigration laws were actually enforced?
Not as many as would be alive if the war laws set up by the Founding Fathers were actually be enforced.
What would happen if a majority of people learned what really goes on in public schools?
They would simply throw more money at the public schools in an futile attempt to improve them.
What would be the reaction if a majority of people really understood that almost half the price of gasoline is taxes?
There would be a lot of complaining for a few days....and then nothing.
What if people really understood that Social Security taxes are highly regressive?
They would throw more money at Social Security in an attempt to save it.
When will the politicians and pundits notice that America’s most critical problem is the ongoing disinheritance of middle and working class natives?
When most politicians and pundits give a darn about the middle working class natives...which is to say never.
What if Longstreet had…?
Grant would have come East a few months earlier. The real question should be what if a bunch of Confederate pickets on May 2, 1863 had......cause Ewell, A.P.Hill and Jeb Stuart bungled Gettysburg a lot worse than Longstreet did. Corse they were not Republicans like Old Pete was.
Media-induced moral panic about child molestation.
Two-career families, and the resulting day care. Thus, not enough children in the neighborhood.
Safe places for children to play outside are increasingly rare. The local park always seems to have a bum or wino lurking about. The emptying of mental asylums, urban renewal, illegal immigration and the failure to enforce vagrancy laws have made unsupervised child play increasingly dangerous. As for Gen. Longstreet, his postwar conversion to the Republican party made him a target for Confederate historical revisionists. From being one of the Confederacy's most skillful and reliable generals, he became the bum who lost the Battle of Gettysburg. Of course, the decisions which facilitated the union victory were made by Gen. Robert E. Lee, not Longstreet. Ultimately, the battle was won by the dogged fighting men of The Army of the Potomac, whose hard fighting overcame the blunders of their own generals ( a view endorsed by none other than Gen. George Pickett).
I believe Mr. Foote in a gentle way put Gettysburg at Lee's feet, where it belonged. Its about time liberals answered some questions for a change, from Limbaugh to Obama.
Dr. Wilson, this sure presents a dismal and depressing situation. How can we win back what we have lost? How can we reach people with the truth and motivate them to positive action? How do we overcome the mass media, public education, and other propaganda/bran-washing devices? My mother and aunt merely shrug, depressed, and reply that God is coming as the scriptures promise. But I wonder: Isn't this faith that results in only complacency? I have one to add to your list: What if the Dixiecrats had....
Actually, it is propaganda and vaingloriousness to say that the Yankees won Gettysburg. General Lee moved freely on enemy territory though facing much larger forces. He spent three days attacking a vastly superior army that was afraid to move, almost succeeded, then stopped attacking and went home. His army traveled home with a 50-mile long wagon train with wounded, prisoners, vast herds of livestock, in knee-deep mud without any serious interference by the "victorious" army, and remained an unbeatable fighting force for another year. The bad actions of other Confederate commanders were mistakes, Longstreet's seems to have been deliberate. Besides, as readers of this column might know, "If only Longstreet had ...." is not my statement but a quotation from O. Henry, which reflects Southern opinion in the early 20th century.
I fail to see how we can call Gettsburg anything but a Yankee victory. We would not call Gen. Burnside's attack on Lee's position south of Fredericksburg anything but a Southern victory. Burnside marched into enemy territory, attacked the enemy and then stopped attacking and went home with no follow up. As for the ANV beating an unbeatable fighting force for a year, I'd remind Dr. Wilson of the brave men of the Old North State at Bristoe Station where G.K. Warren and the Second Corps (Hancock was still injured) thrashed A.P. Hill and the hapless Heth. "Well let us bury these poor men and say no more about it." I'd also remind Dr. Wilson that the First Corps of the ANV did not exactly cover themselves in glory at Campbell's Station and Knoxville. No, there is a reason that Gettysburg is considered the high water mark.
You are just a BRILLIANT, inquisitive and inquiring mind, Dr. Wilson!!!
Just wondering, how is it that with a presence of such A highly regaded thinking, a MEDIOCRITY, boring and delusive, rules???
And not just rules, but thrives???!!! Is it because he/she (mediocre persona) applies wholeheartedly, CONTINUOSLY, a DEMAGOGUERY?!
What if Longstreet had done what?
I suggest you read up on the Battle of Gettysburg. All of the commanders made mistakes, including before the battle began (Lee held back from a full attack, not knowing that he had only two brigades of Buford's Cavalry in front of him. Jeb Stuart, his "eyes and ears" was absent and thus unable to give him any intel on what he faced). General Ewell failed to take possession of the Round Tops, Hood's Alabamians didn't have water and were too overcome with heat to continue pressing Chamberlain's troops (if they'd only known he was out of ammo....), Lee should never have ordered Pickett's Charge....the list goes on.
I suspect you've read too much of Jubal Early's many-times-discredited story of Longstreet's failure to mount a "Sunrise Attack" that (might) have defeated the Union forces. Early had a longterm feud with Longstreet that predated the war, and didn't make this allegation until after Lee's death. Lee's staff, however, including his personal aide Colonel Walter Taylor, all said they knew of no such order.
"General Ewell failed to take possession of the Round Tops"
Wrong side of the fish-hook. I think you mean Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill.
'if the 65 immigration act hadnt passed?'
A sobering question to think about. I was born that year and I dont think there's any doubt America would be a much more livable place. I dont think you can understate that. I'm not opposed to immigration but what we've gotten is an insane transformation.
I suggest all the Longstreet apologist read the Books by Bevin Alexander.
Longstreet's slowness at many battles, and his irrational behavior at Knoxville.
He was a fair corp commander, but never was capable of leading a army.
I don't see how anyone who knows the battle and the fluid nature of tactics, could say anything else but that Longstreet failed his commander. He wanted a defensive strategy when Lee needed initiative. Longstreet hesitated at Gettysburg and failed to exploit the opportunity. A thousand details will not abscure this fact. Lee was fighting as if he still had Jackson and in this regard, perhaps Shelby Foote is correct to suggest Lee failed to account for what a huge loss Jackson was to the CSA. Jeb Stuart was another real absence. It just wasn't meant to be. But as Dr. Wilson correctly states , The Yankees got as good as they gave and were in no mood for more as the southern wagon trains moved away from the blood through the mud and tears of that diminished thing.
"Will there be riots if he loses?"
Some people don't seem to need much of an excuse to riot, but I had thought of that also, and I expect it.
Bush's approval rating is way below 39%, it's more like 30%. To answer Dr. Wilson's question concerning who the approvers are, I think it's a combination of Reagan Democrats from the South who still haven't thrown off their Republican Party shackles, and the neocons. Don't think the ideology of neoconservatism hasn't captured a handful of middle-class Americans outside the Beltway. As for the remaining Reagan Dems, it will take a while for that spell to be completely broken. The GOP worked for two decades to get them into their camp, it will probably take that long for Democrats or some other third party to pull the South out of that camp.
As for riots, I don't think the result of an election will cause a riot, no matter who wins or loses. There is one thing that will cause riots: enforcement of immigration laws. Look what happened almost two years ago when H.R. 4437 was passed. The illegal immigrant masses proudly and defiantly took to the streets. Imagine what would happen if that bill were passed by both houses, signed by the president, and enforced.
The police forces of our major cities would long for an easier job like L.A. in '92.
Children, where are they? American society is matriarchal. Matriarchal societies are not progressive, they are regressive and barbaric. Matriarchy is disorder, in direct conflict with God's order and his "plan" for family government. When the courts of this nation took it upon themselves to destroy the status of "father" as the sole, head of household, the person in charge of the care and custody of children, the instituition of marriage was abolished. This occured at the turn of the century in and around 1900. The welfare state exacerbated and accelerated the destruction of "family government". No-fault divorce, an invention of lenin and marx pretty much ended it. In the vacuum of family government comes tyranny, where all property and children are State owned. It is a "darwinian" religionist doctrine that claims parents are equal. When there are two "equalists" in charge of the family, this form of government is called anarchy. Anarchy's characteristics forment conflict, violence and death. THe darwinian view of family, where husband and wife are mere state designated guardians of children, the arbitrator, the "judicial branch", becomes their "natural guardians". This is how "family law" has evolved. Existing outside of most State constitutional prohibitions of courts inferior to District (Constitutional) courts in civil actions, Family law courts are administrative law courts, in general, where the presumption of "child custody" is assumed by Statute, and void ab nitio in truth. No administrative court, or District Court has "subject matter jurisdiction of children" simply because one "equal" party to a "civil contract" can obtain super-duper status to walk the property of their "partner" and children into the arms of a unloving judicial tyrannt dressed in black robe. Courts, under colour of law simply "dissolve" the civil contract, wherein no party must prove a breach of that contract. A divorce action is commenced, and a child kidnapping begins, and a vermin of the bar will tell you "we have always done this".
When Caesar claimed himself "parens patriea" over the entire empire, the Senate of Rome had enough sense and killed him.
In American jurispudence, the Judicial branch, without legislative authority, declared themselves "Caesar" (Flint v Flint, Mn 1885).
Welfare finances the matriarchy and judicial tyranny. And children, not seen or heard, are becoming extinct. Don't blame the death of civil society and lack of children playing outside on computers, television and other wasteful past times. The death of family government, God's order for civil society is viewed as progressive egaltarianism, and it came from the learned men of the gilded age, the enlightenment. They are to blame for the silence in public parks where children are rarely playing and having fun. Single mothers and two parent working families have no time for kids. Unsupervised, they'll be glued to technology, purchased by their absent parents.
First they came for them in Waco to burn them alive, and the people cried, THEY DESERVED IT. Then they came for polygamists, our good courts seized all the children and sold them to the highest bidder, and the people cried, "they deserved it". Due process of law in "juvenile courts"? Are you mad? The media of the free world is dead silent, too busy extholing the virtues of Chappaquidic Ted, the drunken killer on 4 wheels.
Then they'll come for the pastors and deacons of believers of Christ who refuse to grant marriage ceremonies in sanctuaries for homosexuals, and the people cried, "they deserved it".
When a women kidnaps the children of her husband, runs to a priest in a black robe at the court house, she demands payments, property, domicile and maintenance. This is extortion, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry. The judge, her willing executioner of "family government", imposes obligations she wouldn't nor couldn't impose on herself.
When muslims are told this is "democracy", they scream "death to America", "not in my back yard", "yankee go home", and other untoward things. They'll cut off your head if they catch you. Tribal people tend to protect their families. In America, the matriarchal tribe runs to the police state for protection and welfare. They demand "rights" and run from responsibility. It takes a very powerful police state to restore order from disorder. Tyranny increases exponantially just to keep order. Saddam did not imprison as many as America does, and that doesn't include the tens of millions on probation or those men under the jack-boot-high heel of "family court" orders.
Children without fathers learn many things. They learn irresponsibility, blame others, the non-work ethic and brutal punishment for anyone who doesn't give them what they want. When there is no family government, people will not reproduce little parasites (government owned creatures). That is why there are so few of them, and why so many are not very pleasant to be around. Many of them are confused about everything, even their gender. They want to cross-dress and put their penis in anything and everything, mocking their father, Uncle Sam.
The death of western civilization is irrefutable. Demographically and under brutal, tyrannical government, the family cannot survive in sufficient numbers to keep order, pay it's socialist welfare bills, or assemble an army sufficient to defend itself. But the political class has an answer. Overwhelming immigration.
Immigrants have always been the source of the supply side in labor. They are also a great source of government revenue and votes for the neo-fascists in Congress. And when all else fails, you can blame them for all of America's problems and give more police state power to government to save us.
"A free market puzzle. Why do prices always rise faster than they fall?"
Government injection of money supply/credit = devalued currency = rising prices = hidden taxation
It's an easier way to fund the Eternal War to Spread Democracy and Freedom abroad, and the Eternal War on Racism and All Otherwise Bad Thoughts at home.
Oh no denying Longstreet acted peevishly at both Gettysburg and later on under Bragg. He was a good corps commander but certainly not well at handling independent command (I'd also point to his time at Suffolk in spring 1863). Having said that, I don't see many other Confederate commanders as being suited for it either by that time. Joe Johnston? PGT Beauregard? Bragg? Kirby-Smith? John Bell Hood? Hardee? Bishop Polk? Jubal Early? While they all had moments (Old Bory bottling up Beastie Spoons by the James comes to mind), I can't say any of them were world beaters.
None of the Confederate high command did well in June-July 1863. Nor did the South give as much as it got that ill fated summer for the simple reason that they could not afford to lose as many men as the North. The ANV gave as good as it got in the Overland campaign too and, while heroic, it was no victory.
"People, with no faith, are so afraid of getting injured or dying, that they are afraid to live, including letting the kids “live.”
Again, Mr. Peters cuts to the core of the issue. It is a lack of faith, or a shift from faith in God to faith in government or anti-Christs. "Mr. Roosevelt is gonna save us all..."
Prof. Wilson may choose to deceive himself but the people of the time did not have that luxury. Nobody had any doubts that the Army of the Potomac suffered a serious reverse at Fredericksburg although they were not driven from the field. The 28,000 casualties suffered by the Army of Northern Virginia during the Gettysburg campaign were a serious blow similar to that suffered by their opponents at Fredericksburg (with the difference that the Federal losses could be easily replaced).
"Are Americans capable of recognising and electing good leaders? (We can’t know because it has been so long since they have seen one.)"
When discussing the term "leader" as it relates to the President of these United States, I have to go back to the Constitution to see what a man who holds that office is to do. He is to fulfill his duties under the Constitution by faithfully executing such laws as the Congress, representing the states and the people, might pass, to receive ambassadors, to make appointments with the consent of the Senate and to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces and in that capacity executing such wars as the Congress might declare under the terms of those declarations. The last such "leader" within the penumbra of the Constitution was likely Grover Cleveland. Such a one we have not since had as I see it.
Now, however, if one embraces the Führerprinzip, we have had no shortage of that sort, including the current one.
Gettysburg was a Confederate reverse because of the losses and the failure to force the Yankees to negotiation. However, it was not a Yankee victory. The ANV remained high in morale and effectiveness until the brilliant Grant figured out he could sacrifice four men to our one and still win. It is interesting in the film "Gettysburg" there are many interesting Confederate characters, but the only attractive Union officer that could be found was a colonel (who gives a phony speech about being against slavery).
Anyway, I did not intend to provoke an argument about Longstreet and Gettysburg. In the context, "If only Longstreet had..." is a short-hand way of asking "what would it be like if we had won?"
Gettysburg was not a Union victory? I did not realize that Dr. Wilson was an expert on the collected fictional works of Newt Gingrich.
Returning from cloud cuckoo land, it's also interesting that the only soldier who gets shown in a sympathetic light in the movie is an Irish soldier in the 20th Maine. It's also interesting that J.L. Chamberlain is the only Union officer used as a chapter focus in "The Killer Angels" on which the film was based on besides John Buford. There were a number of interesting Union officers at the battle-some scoundrels like Dan Sickles and Judson Kilpatrick; some engineers and explorers like the morose G.K. Warren; some religous zealots like O.O.Howard.
I'll say one thing about Grant. He could be a butcher when need be; he could also show some brilliance as a commander as well. Even taking Champion Hill into account, Grant was excellent once he decided to ignore the order to join Banks at Port Hudson. While the likes of Richard Taylor can fume that Pemberton came South for the express purpose of betraying the South, I think the simple heart of the matter is that Grant totally out generalled both Pemberton and Joe Johnston.
“what would it be like if we had won?”
Muffler shops with big white columns.
If I may open a fresh can of off-topic; I've never heard a convincing argument as to why we went to G'burg in the first place - new boots is the best I heard. My hypothesis is that Lee was a secret Whig or he hadn't been reading enough William Lind. He surrendered with honor and still got scorched-earth and reconstruction. 100,000 guerillas on their own home turf are more effective than 100,000 corpses on Yankee land, 'seems to me.
Mr. Albertson, you're on to something. N.B. Forrest, John Mosby, John Morgan, William Holland Thomas -- in my view these commanders had the right philosophy for fighting the war: proto-3rd & 4th generation. And I believe one of Davis' worst mistakes was pulling Johnston out of from in front of Sherman. Johnston's strategy was the best-suited to the situation -- making Sherman pay for every inch with. But Jeff put Hood in and lost the Army of Tennesse. If only Davis had......
Jeff Albertson @ 30
I claim to be an expert on very little, and I am certainly no expert on General Robert Edward Lee; yet, based on the words of Lee himself and based on what those who knew him best have written about him, I long ago concluded that he was first and foremost a Christian and flowing out of that a gentleman balanced against the cunning, training and skill of a soldier who was audacious and who was willing to ask and get the supreme sacrifice of his army when the mission called for it.
Lee, I hold, knew his enemy well: an enemy willing to use means far beyond those of the Confederacy against civilians - women and children, slave and free - in acts of state terrorism and total war, including the scorched-earth which you mention. Lee knew that all 100,000 guerrillas would do, in the long run, would be to bring the focus of a enemy with overwhelming power with even greater ire onto the innocent people of the South. Lee had too much faith in a just God over the long term to call for, in arrogant hubris, such sacrifice that would not be Christian but more in tune with pagan barditus in which women and children are called upon to make the "ultimate sacrifice," i.e. to die in a final battle with the enemy. Such a call would befit Nazis as they played the Götterdämmerung in the "final battle" for Berlin.
Ultimately, American Indians used just such tactics; and in the end, they were liquidated, and their remnant was placed in large camps where they have become warped shadows of themselves.
Lee was correct to do what he did, for we are still here; and although I numbers appear to be small, we have not forgotten who we are.
What if the French and Maximilian won the battle of Puebla, remained in power, became a cotton broker for all Europe, embraced the Confederacy, and sent their navy to assist?
What if?..........I don't drink to "Cinco De Mayo".
Rob @ 29,
Dr. Wilson's post is not even a faint echo of the Newt's fiction. Based on my understanding, Lee had three objectives in moving into Pennsylvania: to draw the Union army out of Virginia so that the harvest could be brought in and the people of his state could have a period of relative peace; to acquire the supplies which would keep his army in the field over the coming fall and winter, and to get between the Union army and Washington in the hope of gaining leverage for a negotiated peace. If my understandings are correct, and those with better knowledge can certainly correct me, then Lee succeeded in two of those three goals: he got the Union army out of Virginia, and he got his supplies. Certainly, Lee would have liked to break the Union army at Gettysburg and did not. But the Union army did not break him, despite his losses; and he got south with his precious supplies. One can give the Union army a tactical victory at Gettysburg, but no strategic victory: they got neither Lee's army nor his supplies.
Roho at 33,
In the late 1980's, I was asked along with some other linguists to speak with a group of French-speaking people on the Cane River near Natchitoches, Louisiana. As a child, I was aware that there were French-speaking folks along that old arm of the Red River. As an adult, who had studied the region and who was personally acquainted with a number of people on the river, I knew that those folks were Créoles, descendants of Frenchmen who had come into and settled the region in the early 18th century. In our group, was a native Frenchman with an excellent ear for dialect. As we spoke to those assembled, he immediately ascertained their French was out of the 19th century and not the 18th century. After further questioning, we learned that the ancestors of these people had come into the Cane River Country at some time in the mid-1860's from Mexico and had stopped and settled in the Cane River Country where they had encountered the first vestige of French culture in Louisiana. The question we posed then and which remains unanswered today: Where they descendants of a remnant of Maximilian's legion who had made their way up the El Camino Real? All of those people with whom we spoke are now dead, and their children no longer speak French. The records in Natchitoches Parish reveal nothing about them beyond their marriages after their arrival. The "ifs" of history remain interesting!
Clyde Wilson writes:
Some 39 per cent of people still approve of George Bush. Who can these people possibly be?
Let me argue the absurd: The American people do not exist!
If we have foreigners picking our crops, staffing our armies and making our movies who is left? These same foreigners buy the produce of other aliens in our territory keeping the economy afloat.
With mass abortion and mass immigration is it possible the very idea of the existence of Americans is wrong.
And to think we can blame both abortion and immigration on Ted Kennedy, and ourselves.
As for the Gettysburg arguments about Lee, it is somewhat harsh to place the blame for the fall of the South on a single field commander. Rather, it seems as if the entire strategy worked out by Jeff Davis to create an independent Dixie failed.
Dr Wilson, would it be OK for me to copy these ponderances and spam them among my clients, friends and family? Any answers I might have cannot outdo the questions themselves!
#37. It is fine with me, as long as credit is given to Chronicles. Thanks for your interest.
Thanks. This post is an island of sanity in a sea of self-importance.
Rusty @ 2
Actually, inflation is a supply/demand driven issue...What we have is profiteering. Totally different. The big corporations know Americans will pay their last red cent for anything that celebrities tell them is cool...ETC....
In other words, prices are up because the slave-masters want them to be up...Not for any other reason...
"What would it been like if we had won" I suspect we would be living under a republican form of governance as invisoned by the Founding fathers rather than the tyranny that we find ourselves in. Perhaps the theory of concurrents majorties as espoused by Calhoun would be in play
Rusty & Flavius,
The big corporations owe their welfare (pun intended) to Big Government privilege. John Taylor of Caroline saw this from the beginning. The John Marshall National Bank (the Fed) is the main culprit behind inflation as I allude in post #23. It's too easy to blame Big Business profiteering -- makes you sound like liberals. The banking system and fiat currency is the root of the economic problem -- one, I might add, that over time tends to make all other issues pale in comparison.
The results at Gettysburg are irrelevant, because the Union was bound to be victorious. The Lincoln administration's determination to win at any cost was similar to that of Stalin's Soviet Union, in World War II. The Union proved that the losses, especially under general Grant, were subordinate to that of the final outcome. It was a ghastly arithmetic that the south, despite any amount of courage or heroism, could ever overcome. any notions to the contrary are fanciful romanticism at best.
Dr. Wilson,
If Gerneral McClellan had won the 1864 election and had offered peace terms to the South, would the Union Army have revolted?
#44. The history of the North before and during The War is the great untold story of American history. The opposition to the war was much more widespread, respectable, and articulate than has been allowed. Why all the warrantless arrests, supression of newspapers, plans to arrest the Chief Justice and former President Pierce, 300,000 Northern men evading the draft and an equal number of foreigners imported? The Republicans were never sure of the Northern people and looked for ghosts under their beds every night. No, I think the Union army would have for the most part welcomed the disappearance of Lincoln and the possibility of a new approach. Lincoln received more negative votes in 1864 than in 1860 in the North. A good argument can be made that Lincoln would have lost the election if it had not been conducted at bayonet point or mob intimidation in the Border States, New York City, and many other places.