Prince Harry

[Peter Waller]

Attitude mostly. I'm a strong "State's rights" advocate and think the Federal government should restrict itself to only those matters that need national rules and control. Otherwise, I'd like them to leave matters of local interest to local government.

 

Be wary, Newt. We have supposedly local government, and it is generally managed by people who aren't local, and who have no idea whatsoever about local issues.

[Newt]

We almost always have a residency requirement for elected officials so they must live within the area they represent and at least on the State or smaller (county, city, district) level, if they don't perform they are replaced.

 

I say 'almost always' because while I'm not aware of them, some places may not have such a requirement.

[Emma two]

Attitude mostly. I'm a strong "State's rights" advocate and think the Federal government should restrict itself to only those matters that need national rules and control. Otherwise, I'd like them to leave matters of local interest to local government.

 

 

That attitude was one of the problems faced by Jefferson Davies post secession, his vision of a 'one nation' (of southern states) was contested strongly by those who argued for state (local) autonomy over a united confederacy. While that wasn't the only, and perhaps not the most significant variable which led to the military and political defeat of 'Johnny Reb' however it is one which contributed.

[Newt]

Industry / manufacturing - North, Yankee territory

Farming - South, Rebel territory

 

Basically a forgone conclusion from the outset.

[Peter Waller]

In the UK, Newt, residency is not normally a requirement, but is considered desirable. One of the problems we have in the Eastern Counties of England is when outsiders, normally retired and often from Essex or London, move in, becoming residents and take over. Our local public servants tend to be relocated folk seeking an escape from the cities. You might be able to take the man out of the city, but it is not so easy to take the city out of the man.

 

As for being a Johny Reb, from this side of the pond the requirements appear to be the 24/7 consumption of Schlitz and ZZ Tops! Despite the slavery issue I suspect that very many English people sympathised with your Southern States during the war, and prefer what they see today. Some of the folk music that you Southern guys have is intriguing! And that funny way you guys talk!!

Edited January 17, 2009 by Peter Waller

[Emma two]

Industry / manufacturing - North, Yankee territory

Farming - South, Rebel territory

 

Basically a forgone conclusion from the outset.

 

 

Perhaps, however I believe that you must know that there is a deeper analysis, and that the lack of unity within the southern states is one of main 6 reasons historians offer to explain why the south was defeated. At the first Bull (July 1861) run the confederates could have pressed home their advantage, of a union army in rout and collapse and taken Washington, before the north's advantage of industrialisation had time to take it's ultimate effect.

 

The confederate 'Stonewall' (earned his nickname that day) Jackson, is reported to have remarked that with 10.000 more men he could have advanced upon and taken the union capital. The south had sufficient men uner arms at that early stage, however states were reluctant to release thier militias to central army control, imagining them vital to defending each states own territory.

It is true that the north was always likely to have the logistical advantage, however the south's problems in distributing supplies was confounded by their states use of different guage railways.

Although Jefferson claimed inspiration from Washington, he failed to follow the strategy which allowed the revolutionary continental army to defeat the superior British one, that is to say, 'give up ground if need be, but preserve the army' in contrast the confederates seemed to be unwilling to give an inch of 'Dixie' to the Yankies (the state psyche thing again)unless desperately driven back, sustaining sometimes unnecessary losses of men and resources.

It seems that unity of intent and resources is effective, and perhaps helps explain the present power of the United States.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Emma two

[Hew Jampton]

Molehills have become mountains!!!!

 

Don't you DARE call your mate by his nickname!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We had several coloured boys in the same class in the 50's.

Lots of G.I.'s were stationed here, prior to D-Day.

One was named Raymond, after Sugar Ray Robinson, and is still known as Sugar to this day.

One was called Sooty and is still know by that name now, but then he is a chimney sweep by profession.