Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DonaldBaker
ParticipantI'm not so sure Reconstruction “failed.” Or at least not completely. The South was rebuilt structurally and politically, and to a lesser extent culturally. Did the South acquiesce to the North's vision? No. Did Lincoln's dream be realized? Again no. What actually happened was the South resisted in other ways while it yielded at the same time. In the end, the South was re-incorporated into the Union and allowed to rebuild in its own way. Yes some instances of revenge were extolled upon the Southern people and her Confederate leadership, but by the end of Reconstruction, the South got its paybacks too. To say that Reconstruction was a total failure may be a bit much. Finally, and most importantly, Reconstruction didn't really “end” until the South desegregated. Just something to chew on there.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantWho was the better leader?
There is no real way to qualify this and do each man justice. They both were great leaders and utilized what they had to the most potential. Grant had more resources at his disposal so his margin for error was greater. Lee ultimately lost, but he new he was fighting a losing battle anyway, yet he managed to outmaneuver the Union Army for four years an accomplishment to say the least. Now had you asked who the better man was, well that would have been easier.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantWriters of History is collecting dust if you want to run it Ken. You can run it and the message board and rearrange it however you like.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantI'm here. I have an RSS feed to this joint. LOL I've been spending most of my time on the University of Louisville message boards lately. Taking a break from the usual spots. No need to fear.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantIt's ironic, Scout, that you argue for Hobbes when the Colonists argued for Locke. 🙂
DonaldBaker
ParticipantThe Declaration of Independence was illegal hence the “Hang together or we shall certainly hang separately” comment. The Founders knew they were skating a thin line in their argument, but they didn't care because their ultimate goal was to be their own masters. They just wanted the best legal argument they could make to get as many people on board with them as possible. Despite their efforts, many remained Loyalists to the bitter end.
October 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm in reply to: How can any thinking person think Ron Paul is stable? #25633DonaldBaker
ParticipantEnd fiat currency. End banker cartels that are not responsible to American citizens. A return to the Constitution as it was originally written. Dismantle the Empire abroad. This is Ron Paul's message and it is the right one. We're broke and need to scale back.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantThe non slave holding population of the South hoped to one day own slaves of their own.
DonaldBaker
ParticipantYour not insane, you just are not thinking straight. Sober analysis of what Paul has to say will convince you of his looniness.
I'm waiting...........
DonaldBaker
ParticipantThe last book of the Bible says there will be a New World Order. I'm on board with it. 🙂
DonaldBaker
ParticipantIt was about state's rights…..the Southern states' rights to have slaves. There are you happy? ;D
DonaldBaker
ParticipantSo am I insane for liking Ron Paul? Do I need to get some help? Come on guys, you're selling the guy short. He is the most pro constitution candidate in the field by far, and it's not even debatable.
October 21, 2011 at 10:11 pm in reply to: How can any thinking person think Ron Paul is stable? #25630DonaldBaker
ParticipantIs this a troll thread? LOL. 🙂
DonaldBaker
ParticipantIt's cheaper to live in Mississippi than in Michigan. That's reason enough.
October 21, 2011 at 12:01 am in reply to: Why was preserving the Union so important to the North? #25612DonaldBaker
ParticipantDon't forget how many Northern soldiers were conscripts and the riots that ensued over conscription in the North. Many didn't want to fight because they didn't see how the South seceding affected them.
-
AuthorPosts