"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
what i heard on this race was the ind. came into the race about 3 weeks before election day and was out spent about 3 to 1 by the dems. not bad considering the rep. got 6% and wasn't even running.
the tea baggers and others you mentioned should be applauded for their effort. i think it should scare the republican party, they are losing because they aren't conservative. they are going to lose more if they don't change. most americans are conservative and not party affiliated. you might have well elected the dem. to that seat compared to the rep. candidate.
In the 23rd, the only reason the Dem won was because the Republicans who dominate the area decided to piss on each other rather than win. If there is any national significance, it is strictly for Republicans as the conservative wing tries to "purify" itself ideologically by chasing out moderates.
Every indication is that Republicans will win big in mid-term elections in 2010. The most likely challenge that could change victory to defeat comes from those in the party who would rather lose than be in the same party with what they like to call RINO's when they are being polite. I cannot imagine any scenario where the Democrat who won will hold the job for more than a year unless the Republicans decide once again to see just how far to the right of their supporters the can go without losing.
I'll add that the war was originally about States Rights. The CSA could have never raised the amount of troops it did had it been about slavery because less than 1% on the CSA owned slaves. The South fought to protect its rights and freedoms. Not for the plantation owners as today's Liberals would have us beleive.
We need to keep our history factual and not let the New Socialist revise it!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us to no end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C S Lewis
how many blacks fought FOR the confederacy?-Paul
there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.
As for the causes of the Civil War (I will refrain from calling it the "war of southern rebellion" if you don't call it the "war of northern aggression") to quote Abraham Lincoln:
The institution of slavery "created a powerful interest in the states where it existed. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the objective for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war...Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
Maybe since he was President of the United States, his view was biased you say? Here is a quote from Alexander Stephens, vice president of the CSA:
that slavery was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution of Southern independence
And that the confederacy in contrast, is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundation are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This Mighty Scourge, Perspective on the Civil War, McPhereson 2007 p. 3
To say the war was about economics, not slavery is like saying our dogs are about fetching, not retrieving. The entire economy of the south relied on slavery, and they faced economic collapse if slavery was abolished! The two issues were so closely intertwined, they were inseparable.
Last edited by dnf777; 11-04-2009 at 07:59 PM.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Although there were blacks in the Confederate Army almost from the beginning, originally, most did not fight. The Confederacy began by forcing slaves into service as servants. They later began using slaves and free blacks as laborers — chaplains, cooks, teamsters, blacksmiths, etc. It was not until 1865 that the Confederacy authorized the enlistment of Black soldiers. Although some black soldiers enlisted to fight for the south out of some warped sense of loyalty (some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, I guess), most enlisted for more practical reasons. They were offered pay equal to white enlisted men, they were promised their freedom, and they were promised bounty land in exchange for their service.
Unfortunately for the south, the north had been enlisting blacks since 1862, which gave them an advantage in troop strength. However, blacks in the union army were put in segregated units and were paid less than white soldiers until 1864, when their pay was equalized and made retroactive. In an effort to dissuade blacks from joining the Union Army, the Confederate Congress threatened to enslave or kill any black soldiers captured. There are some recorded incidents where they did exactly that.