sparky1

Members
  • Content count

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About sparky1

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Gender
    male
  1. Greeley was the CNN of the time. The reach of the New York tribune and the status that it held in the midwest and rural areas outside NYC made it nearly as authoritative as the Bible. Appearing moderate and reasoned never hurt a candidate, while the true believers could always read between the lines. I will defer to your count on the number of military engagements and who won most of them in the Civil War. The US kept the same stats I believe in Vietnam, and despite winning every engagement still lost the war. Plenty of finely trained generals and country boys on the American side in that one too.
  2. Yes, I believe that Lincoln would have taken what ever means necessary to end a moral outrage--- even if at the time it was legal. Public opinion and morays usually change before the laws that enshrine them do. Were there an overwhelming number of military victories by the south. Maybe if you just consider the Army of Northern Virginia only, but even then counting from the battle of Cheat Mountain in 1861 to Appomattox Court House I have it Union 5, Confederates 5, and 8 inconclusive battles. Everywhere else and at sea the number of victories was not lopsided? All of the trained officers were trained at West Point. Did the south get all the valedictorians? As a Scots Irish myself, I will not argue that they are great fighters, though they have lost nearly every war they waged, and will not say they are better than the Scandanavian, British, Germanic races. Horace Greeley was the great newspaperman of his time. He controlled the biggest paper in the biggest city in North America, even then a politician would recognize a presser when he saw one.
  3. It is possible to believe that the war was fought because the south succeeded but let's not kid ourselves they seceded because slavery was going to be abolished. If not then later. Population was rising in the north, as new states were admitted their political clout would continue to fall, despite the temporary Missouri compromise. It was a moral blight that simple could not be allowed to persist. The Southern states simply could not exist. Everyone likes the underdog, I get it. I root for Navy football, but they are never going to win the national championship. But it is dangerous to start to believe that the South would ever have won the war. To believe that they had better soldiers and generals implies that somehow the skills of leadership and soldiery are not distributed equally thoughout a population. Why would a majority of them have happened to be located in the south? If the South had won at Gettysburg, when would they have given up slavery? It was inevitable that the south would lose and a reliance on slavery was the reason. It depressed wages for all the poor whites, locked in an agricultural base that could not compete with the rise of industrialism, sapped the need for innovation and economic progress. Even today, the south is economically behind the industrial north, the roots of that deficit were sewn when slavery was permitted, and then allowed to perserve for the 70 years since the founding of the republic. Lincoln was the greatest president this country has ever produced. He was also a canny politician, and knew exactly what he was saying to the south, and I think it is a mistake to confuse the political expediency of saying what you need to get elected and a matter of morality.
  4. It is hard to say what you believe of the "Lost Cause" never having met you, but here is a stab: That the war was fought over states' rights (to own slaves). That slavery was a largely benevolent act that civilized and christianized essentially an inferior race. That the Confederate defeat was due to overwhelming quantitative superiority of the Union forces. That when they did lose it was due to betrayal or dirty tricks or overwhelming odds. That there was something more chivalrous and noble about the agrarian south, as opposed to the greed of the industrial north. That patriotism was a countervailing weight to treason. The antebellum plantation South was an idealized society crushed by the forces of Yankee modernization, and the genteel southern white gentleman farmer was displaced at the top of the social, economic and political food chain. Every speaker is biased. That is almost history 101. They may write to make themselves look better or braver than they really were. Do you think Caesar accomplished in fact all he said he did in his commentaries? If a subordinate writes to his superior, or commanding officer, do you believe it is not occasionally slanted to increase his shine or minimize his blame?
  5. What makes you think a primary resource is always or even usually objective any record produced by a person is shaded by a person's conscious or unconscious bias. It is interesting to see people who still believe in the lost cause. I am a history buff as well, and I love to play the alternate history fantasy game as well.
  6. Why, don't you wonder why they didn't simply release or emancipate their slaves and live happily ever after? There are no objective history books.
  7. You assume that at that point there will never be another "bad guy". Every bad guy commits his first crime. . . .
  8. If someone is generally afraid for their life, then carry, in the hopes that it will allieve their fears. Don't hide behind the law for a matter that you already judge a matter of life and death. I would be able to post a bond though, or carry some kind of insurance in case I misuse, or even use appropriately a gun and injure someone who was not a mortal threat to me.
  9. The range of solutions to solving the problem with gun violence seems to be either arm everyone or take the guns from everyone. I think fewer guns is the answer. I understand but disagree with the proposition that more guns will make more people safer.
  10. I like the way the descendents of Confederate soldiers stopped history and cherry pick a distant relatives most er, glorious moment. Those descendents were more than likely also British soldiers, or members of the inquisition or Roman or Barbarians or this or that. Who cares what position a person's relative may have held for 4 years 150 years ago. A guiding principal of America is that we have no inherited titles or privileges . . . . or at least we are not supposed to. Just as the sins of the father are not visited upon the son, the accomplishments are not either. It is somewhat ironic as well that the defenders of a murderous rebellion against the government, leading to the most bloody conflict in the nation's history, find objectionable a peaceful demonstration against an art object, one whose elected representatives decided to remove. . . I wonder who is closer to ISIS and the Nazis.
  11. I do not know how people think that CCW is a possible solution to the crime problem, (or how it is related to this thread). The idea of criminals checking their behavior because they may think the victim is armed is . . . well a fantasy. The shooters now are by and large shooting at other armed people, and these people are already secreting their guns on their body. If a citizen is already fearful for his life and thinks a gun is the only way to defend theirself, go ahead and get the gun and deal with the consequences. Surely your life is more important.
  12. Loyola is proud of their tradition of competing in the A division of every sport. The overall sports program is cracking bit as the changes in youth sports creep in. The issue really isn't if Loyola stays in A or B division, it is is SFA stays in the MIAA at all. They really are not bringing much to the table, as outside of basketball and football they are providing games or matches for the other league members. . . And the way they have been operating is not in line with other member schools. One of the goals of the sports programs at all private schools, besides generating good press and fostering alumni involvement, is to try and attract more full-pays to the school. They will only come if there is some opportunity for them to have the chance to compete, and have a good sports/extracurricular experience.
  13. Have to agree with jbmad here. The Dons will be better but it will not be quick. It probably is a given that they will not be given the latitude of SFA to give athletic aid. On an athlete per athlete comparison they can not compete with the numbers and entrance requirements of MSJ or CHC. Gilman and McD they should be competitive with, but both of those schools can decide at any year to pay for a championship and make it happen. Spalding is probably the best comparison for them now and their head coach is very good and has his system humming. As it stands now, the only way the Dons will compete is on scheme and heart. It will take a while for this years boys to show they have that part down.