1 - 10 Next
You are using a sample of 1 to draw a judgment? Does that make you discount experience? Yes or no? Doing budgets, dealing with a legislature, handling the press? C'mon. Yes or no? Are you advocating electing another candidate without governing experience?
I have much respect for Dr. Carson and what he has accomplished. I admire the story of his life and his achievements. I also admire his willingness to speak out in a time of intense partisan polarization when anyone stating clear and controversial ideas is subject to condemnation from the “other side.” In the spirit of civil discourse, I do wish to point the irony of beginning his column with the year 1831, the visit of Alexis de Tocqueville (which is must reading for those interested in the early years of our Republic), and the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” Dr. Carson cites 1831 and that sets the time line. And the most proximate census was that of 1830. With respect to the time line, the year 1831 was momentuous. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. 1831 began the implementation and the removal. Thereafter began the removal – the Choctaw, the Seminole, the Creek, the Chickasaw and the Cherokee . It was called the Trail of Tears. Your home, your land, your family are ordered to move and march. The census of 1830 is relevant as well. While Dr. Carson mentions slavery as an abomination, few appreciate the numbers. According to the 1830 Census, slaves constituted 15% of the total U.S. population. There were 2 million+ slaves in the United States. With respect to population, consider the proportion of slaves in the population: Virginia: 38.8% North Carolina: 33.3% South Carolina: 54.3% Georgia: 42.1% Alabama: 38.0% Mississippi: 48.1% Louisiana: 50.8% Stop and consider those numbers. 1/3 or more of entire state populations were slaves – owned, regarded as property, with no rights or legal recourse. The point. The country was “on the move” and there is much to learn and to celebrate. However, if a person desires to associate “American Exceptionalism” with this time period, be honest. Recognize that many of the fields, the roads, the cash crops, the buildings, the ante-Bellum mansions and the furnishings were products of slave labor on land and locales captured, by force, from the inhabitants. History is both beautiful and ugly. Some people were given freedom ... others ... real people ... were used and discarded in that effort.
The thought that Davis would be competitive in my state was and is fanciful. The greater concern is what is happening internally within the Republican Party. In 2010, there were e-mails circulating in Republican circles that Joe Strauss, of the Jewish faith, was not deserving to be speaker. This year, among internecine quarrels, are claims by the loser in a state legislature race that the incumbent, Stefani Carter (who is in the runoff) is not deserving of office because she is unmarried, has no children, and does not own a home in this relatively high-end district. The runoffs for Lt. Governor and Attorney General are also internecine wars ... beyond contests. What happened to Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment?
In response to:

Lincoln’s Character

PoliticalHistorian Wrote: Apr 14, 2014 8:37 PM
Do remember that a number of states passed ordinances of succession, the Confederacy elected a Congress, a president, and assembled before .... Lincoln took the oath of office. Buchanan was still president. Power of all kinds flows to the executive in a crisis. Unless you argue that secession was not a crisis, what would you expect of a duly elected president?
In response to:

Lincoln’s Character

PoliticalHistorian Wrote: Apr 14, 2014 8:31 PM
Yes, the Hartford Convention if I recall correctly. But, FederalFarmer, the "hot heads" in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas did "bequeath" to us elaborations on their resolutions of secession and those revolved about slavery, no? Mississippi: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
C'mon. Look at the voting results in the last 9 presidential elections (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012). Reps won 5, Dems 4. Pretty evenly divided, no? Same with the control of Congress. The last election (according to the consortium that take exit polls) had the following among voters: Conservative 35%, Liberal 25%, Moderate 40%. Your post dismisses 65% -- sixty-five percent -- of the American voting public as commie-pinkos and ignoramuses. Damn near 2/3 of the voting public. That 65% includes workers, executives, students, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and others. Whites, blacks, browns, Asians. It includes male and female, pro-choice and pro-life. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandchildren. The able- bodied and the disabled. The healthy, the sick. Veterans, doctors, nurses, pilots, air traffic controllers, and those in the military. To dismiss 60% (as you post states) or 65% (of voters) is quite the argument. People who disagree with you get labeled as either commie-pinkos or ignoramuses. Quite the post and quite the characterization of your fellow Americans.
Judging the legitimacy of active Christians who happen to be Democrats is very ... well ... interesting. Where did you get the 5% number?
Southerners, regardless of party, were the adamant defenders of slavery and Jim Crow. Federalists, Jeffersonians, Jacksonians, Whigs, and Democrats. From the Constitutional Convention to the Civil War, from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era. As far as Jim Crow goes, check out the votes of the Republicans who served in the U.S. House when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed. It is instructive.
Exaggerated to say the least. Granted, there is a statistical relationship between religiosity (and religious affiliation) and voting. It is not, however, one-to-one and clearly not as lopsided as this column implies. For example, Protestants are roughly 53% of the electorate, 42% of those voted Democrat in 2012. Among all religious affiliations who attend weekly services, 41% voted Democrat in 2012. Catholics are roughly 25% of the electorate; 50% voted Democrat in 2012 Among white Catholics (18% of the electorate), 40% voted Democrat in 2012 Among Catholics who attend mass weekly, 42% voted Democrat in 2012 On Sundays, the congregations that gather in churches include a solid proportion of Democrat voters. Source; 2012 Exit Polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president and available elsewhere).
Land dispute? There were plenty of those in the late 1800s. Most involved "tossing" native Americans from treaty lands. I disagree with what the Feds did here. Make that clear. Not a really "freaking concept" to understand once one knows the history of westward expansion.
1 - 10 Next