" What were their actions JAKEo? Tell me. Lack of action, , compare that to Lincoln and we have a close time frame. So you are telling me that Lincoln would have just as soon kept the slaves as free them??? Does that time lapse and motive make Lincoln and his government better tan Davis and his government. Double standard is what you are promoting. "

George, choice have consequences. To not act, when strong and worthy recommendations are made by competent military leaders, is to decide. not acting, yes, is a deed.

I have said nothing about "better" than.. I have said more effective. Lincoln acheived his goal and the CSA did not. His leadership was more effective than the political leadership of the CSA.

And yes Lincoln clearly said, i will frree all the slaves, or none if either path proves more effective to reach my goal. Or I will free some but not others if that get me closer to my goal. I will do whatever it takes, whatever hard or dreadfuly painfull decision must be made. Lincoln did not free the slaves for moral reasons, even if he personally felt it was a moral evil, he freed SOME of the slaves for strategic reasons, and for this his is soundly criticised by modern leftist civil rights readers, for not being MORALLY pure enough, and by right wing southern conservatives for being hypocritical about not freeing ALL the slaves, North and South.

He freed whatever slaves he had to for stategic reasons only, putting off further action until later when he hoped to make the political support for universal emancipation a reality, but not until the goal of Union first was reached.

The politicians of the CSA, despite the incredible successes of their mostly brilliant military (some CSA generals were inept of course, most were not) failed the Southern hope for Independence by their political incompetence and inactivity, and their debt to the far right wing, who opposed any compromise on blacks..

As for DADT, I cannot understand why anyone who claims they hate "fags" (to use their term) would not agree that they should be used as much as possible as combat forces, and let married men with children remain with their families where they are most needed. I was raised fatherless for that very reason, missed my sacrificed dad very very very much, and now as an adult, I cannot fathom why an umarried childless gay man who loves his country should not go first before any men with families. They could easily have fought for the country they also love, and perhaps saved our family and others so much deep anguish and frankly, poverty, and a steep hill to climb out of. And it would not have harmed anyone to let them serve, to encouage them serving.

It is just plain bad policy.

And like blacks in the confederacy, they are already there and effective, and in numbers, but hidden in plain sight, so why the political denial of reality, at a time when the numbers of available military personnel really count and the same married fathers are being used up over and over and over in repeated tours, in ten year wars, far from their wives and their own children for long long stretches. Does that policy strengthen our familes? Does it not take a provable terrible toll on our families, and our entire society? For what reason do they maintain such a policy?

It is idiot policy. It is political correctness meant to appease the right wing, same as in the days of the CSA fire-eaters.

If someone hates gays, then the best logical place for them is to put would be put gays on the front lines. More gays in risky jobs would mean more "good straight family men" ( if that is the way one feels about it) would come home alive, or stay home.

Some haters of blacks frequently thought so too in the Civil War, if you really hate blacks let them die first. But if they serve well does it not make us all safer? Union men quicly learned that the blacks lifted the burden and shared the danger and made it more likely the white soldier would make it out alive. That was the lesson of the Civil War in regard to black soldiers. It should be learned now about gays.

But I don't hate gays and think, like you George, anyone who loves their country enough to put themselves on that battleline should be honored for their wiilingness to risk all for others, and accepted for their uncommon bravery regardles of personal issues. The unfit will be weeded out, the fit will serve us all well. Too many of the bashers are stay at homes, with good jobs, very comfortable lives who say they "have better things to do" with their lives instead of join the army. And while others die for low pay, they go to college and make money. And conservatives oppose it because honoring any men who are unquestionaly brave, no matter their personal lives, wouldn't be PC in their political stance against anything that hints of "gaydom".

So George I'll rattle someone else's chain awhile with that one I reckon.