Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8884Re: [civilwarwest] Forms of Government (was Democracy)

Expand Messages
  • L. A. Chambliss
    Dec 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I think this could be a terrific line of discussion, but to stay on topic we need to discuss forms of government as they existed 1861-1865 and earlier.

      For instance (and relevant to today WITHOUT having to say so explicitly), how did the limitations placed on civil liberties during and before the war effect actions at the time, and were they adequately removed after wartime was over? This could include anything from the Southern states' limitations on shipping abolitionist literature through the mails, to Lincoln's limitations on the right of habeas corpus in certain areas.

      Or, how did the Confederate constitution and peoples' expectations of their new government affect their prosecution of the war, and its ultimate failure? Does this prove that excessive sovereignty at the state level is inherently flawed and will always fail in competition with a more centralized government, or is it possible that in other circumstances such a system could have survived?

      Just thoughts for contemplation...

      Laurie (Xan) Chambliss

      Robert Taubman wrote:

       Someone has been having too much "Rush" these days.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "hartshje" <hartshje@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 10:45 AM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Democracy (was: John Bell Hood . . . .)


      Not to get off topic too much here, but a "democratic" government
      simply means that the majority can vote to do anything it wants.  In
      other words, 50.1% can vote to enslave the other 49.9% and it would
      be perfectly legal to do so.  The U.S.A. is getting perilously close
      to this now when you consider the fruits of your labor from January
      through May are confiscated by the various levels of government, and
      about half of that goes toward wealth re-distribution (socialistic
      programs).  We are supposed to have a "republic" here, based on a
      constitution which safeguards our "inalienable rights".  Yet so many,
      over the years, have been brainwashed to think it is a democracy,
      that it is actally becoming one; thanks to state-run public school
      systems and universities, and an apathetic public at large.

      Off-the-Soapbox now,
      Joe H.

      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
      > I think a democratic government,that fights for the right
      > to keep a third of its citizens in forced bondage isn't
      > democratic.   The Baron
      > On 5-Dec-01, Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
      > <html><body>
      > <tt>
      > In a message dated 12/5/01 7:10:42 AM Central Standard Time, <BR>
      > dmsmith001@y... writes:<BR>
      > <BR>
      > << One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was <BR>
      >  his reputation. It's just a shame that at times, the latter was
      more <BR>
      >  important than the former. >><BR>
      > <BR>
      > Craig L. Symonds, a Johnston biographer, makes a strong case
      supporting your <BR>
      > conclusion. Symonds argues that Johnston and Davis were far apart
      in <BR>
      > strategic thinking especially in where and how to concentrate
      Confederate <BR>
      > efforts and armies. Johnston's problem, however, was that he
      decided to <BR>
      > fight Davis head-on rather than work with him. Johnston was unable
      to <BR>
      > recognize that right or wrong, Davis was the civilian authority and
      the man <BR>
      > in charge. <BR>
      > <BR>
      > A democratic form of government is dependent on the military being
      submissive <BR>
      > to the civilian authority. In this case it was incumbent on
      Johnston to <BR>
      > adjust both his actions and point of view, as Lee did, to Davis.
      After all <BR>
      > success was the goal, not flexing his prerogatives or gaining
      solace for his <BR>
      > hurt feelings. <BR>
      > <BR>
      > McClellan also refused to communicate effectively with his <BR>
      > commander-in-chief. He allowed the glitter of his own fame and
      inflated ego <BR>
      > to blind him to the reality of who was in charge. Neither Johnston
      nor <BR>
      > McClellan grasped what Lee and Grant did -- the president was
      calling the <BR>
      > shots. For that reason both made poor generals in a democracy and
      neutralized <BR>
      > their own talent on the field because of it. Douglas MacArthur was
      another <BR>
      > who could not sublimate his military ego to the civilian
      > <BR>
      > Connie<BR>
      > <BR>
      > </tt>
      > <br>
      > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
      > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
      > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
      > </tr>
      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
      > <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
      cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial size=-
      s=5085" target=_top><img
      gif" alt="" width="300" height="250"
      > </tr>
      > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
      > </table>
      > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
      > <br>
      > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
      > </br>
      > </body></html>

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    • Show all 2 messages in this topic