Tennessee Small Group: Fill & Download for Free

The answers here are all to the point, but the obvious reasons, in sum, are that the Confederate Army in the West was poorly organized, poorly led, and ill-equipped and significantly undermanned to handle the vast amount of territory that it would have had to control and dominate. Moreover, huge swaths of terrain, particularly on the Texas plains, was poorly mapped, much of it really terra incongnito, and was populated by a variety of hostile tribes—principally Comanche, but also Kiowa, Kiowa Apache, Lipan Apache, as well as eastern reaches of Navajo and other tribes, none of which were particularly tolerant of white encroachment at all but especially west of the 100th Meridian. These reaches of the Confederacy, so-claimed, were sparsely settled, had uncertain water, and offered very slow and poor communications. It could take two weeks or more for a written missive (there was no telegraph line or railroad line) from San Antonio, the main military headquarters in Texas, to an outpost such as Franklin, in the El Paseo del Norte (El Paso). The area was rife with Comancheros, bandits, roving bands of various criminals, as well as wild animals and treacherous weather conditions.The best of the Confederate soldiers in this area were part of the Frontier Battalion, Texas Rangers, that operated best in small groups that could move quickly in tight numbers, either in pursuit of raiders or to run down specific problems and deal with them. The New Mexico expedition led by Harold Sibley, was a disaster in the making from the start. The main wonder is that they went as far as they did, given Sibley’s drunkenness and the independent-minded subordinates he had under him.The Army in the West also consisted of Kirby Smith’s command that was most prominent in Arkansas and Missouri, but here again, terrain and a lack of resources conspired against any significant success against a much better organized and entrenched Union force. Confederate victories, of sorts, as places like Pea Ridge were overshadowed by the more brutal guerrilla actions led by such men as Bloody Bill Anderson, that ranged into Kansas and lay a swath of violence and destruction, often, that seemed less like warfare and more like banditry and marauding maniacs, sometimes like a blood feud, which, in some instances, it was.Actions in Tennessee (Shiloh, Nashville, etc.) offered a better showing of the western commanders, particularly Hood and Beauregard, Johnston and Forrest, but the lack of resources, much of which was being drained off to support the Army of Northern Virginia, took a toll, as well. The loss of New Orleans and much of Louisiana didn’t help, either.Confederates fared some better in other locations. The Battle of Mansfield, for example, kept supply lines open through the Red River ports, at least until the Fall of Vicksburg in 1863 stymied Confederate control of the Mississippi. The Battle of Sabine Pass, a small skirmish, really, also kept open the ports of Galveston and Beaumont, for continuing supply of the eastern theater. The Battle of Boca Chica or Palmito Ranch, in southernmost Texas, maintained Confederate control of the Texas/Mexican border even after Lee’s surrender.But fundamentally, it came down to a combination of logistics, numbers, and terrain.

I don’t understand how anyone can answer such a vague question. It’s kind of like asking “what should I wear today”?So, here’s what you will get:The GM & Ford bashers will tell you they are all junk.The Chrysler/Jeep bashers will tell you they are all junk.The “buy American” crowd will tell you it’s damned near treasonous to by anything but a Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler.The Toyota/Honda/Subaru bunch will go on and on about how they drove their car 2.4 million miles and only had to replace one wiper blade.The Toyota/Honda/Subaru bunch will tell you how the Korean cars are all below par and are just trying to copycat their beloved brands.Soccer moms will extol all the virtues of SUV’s.People living East of the Mississippi & North of Tennessee will swear you must have AWD or you just can’t go anywhere.There’s a small group of Mazda lovers out there who keep wondering why the only one they see on the road is theirs.You won’t hear much from the Mercedes/BMW/Audi/ crowd…they don’t care because they can afford the $2500 tune-ups.Then you will get the “never buy new, only buy used” folks.The “never lease” people may chime in.You will hear from the guy who bought a Chevy once back in 72. He will tell you it’s the worst car he ever had, that Chevrolet makes the worst vehicles ever to hit the road and don’t ever buy one.The young gal who bought a Nissan and couldn’t figure out how to pair her Ipod with Bluetooth (never opened the manual) will go on and on about how badly Nissan treated her.In conclusion, determine what you want, what suits your lifestyle & needs, do your research online, find a dealer, make you best deal…don’t look back. Have confidence in your decision and enjoy your new car.

I worked for a political campaign in 2010, and 99 percent of the campaign's time and resources went towards raising money. By focusing so much on raising money, the campaign catered more towards the small group of political donors, as opposed to its constituency as a whole. My favorite solution to the campaign-finance problem comes from the book "Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance." In it, they describe a system in which each voter is allocated a $50 voucher to donate to campaigns as they wish. In this way, political donations are no longer limited to a small group of people.Another reform I would make is changing the Senate. As currently constructed, small states are overrepresented. In fact, small state senators even seem to have an advantage in getting elected to party leadership. The last twenty years has seen party leaders from Nevada, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, Mississippi, Maine, and Kansas. As opposed to electing senators by state, the senate could turn to a proportional representation system. Such a system would better represent the national interests of the country (while the House would remain locally-elected), while giving people of all ideologies a voice by allowing for more third parties a chance at being elected.The one common idea for reform I would vote against would be term limits. While a good idea in theory, I think such a law would simply give lobbyists and other political groups more power than the elected officials.