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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Democracy (was: John Bell Hood . . . .)

Expand Messages
  • Robert Taubman
    Someone has been having too much Rush these days. ... From: hartshje To: Sent: Wednesday, December 05,
    Message 1 of 57 , Dec 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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/
    • carlw4514
      One of the functions of cavalry is gathering intelligence on the position of the enemy. McCook must have accomplished this at least. Did this not put the
      Message 57 of 57 , Dec 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        One of the functions of cavalry is gathering intelligence on the
        position of the enemy. McCook must have accomplished this at least.
        Did this not put the attack in jeoparday? (I'm asking, I don't know)
        PS: ngeorgia.com doesnt seem to have much on Cassville, and unless I
        am greatly mistaken you are a contributor there. Of course, it was the
        battle that never happened. Am I missing what they have on it?

        --- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:

        > Carl,
        > That cavalry force that was approaching <there has been some
        discussion that
        > McCook's boys were not even aware of Hood being so close> was a
        small force
        > and if Hood dispatched a small portion of his Corp's to either deal
        with or
        > to lead them away from his planned theater of battle, there is
        > probable cause that JEJ's plan of battle would have been successful.
        > think that Hood got rattled too much when told of a cavalry force
        > approaching. Since when was cavalry going to get the best of
        infantry. <g>
        > Ed Bearrs and others have the same thought as above. At least that
        was my
        > impression when we discussed this at a seminar in January 1999,
        along with
        > McMurray <who took up for Hood>, Wiley Sword, and other notables.
        > Wayne
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.