Replies

These questions about the transition from conventional to asymmetrical warfare always have nagged—why did the armies of Sherman and Grant who crushed nearly half-a-million Confederate soldiers in a little over a year from summer 1864 to spring 1865, not secure Reconstruction in 12 miserable years of failure, in the face of a few thousands Klansmen, and assorted night riders?

Just a wild guess but by that time Grant's administration was so crooked it was unbelievable and William "All Indians who are not on reservations are hostile and will remain so until killed off" Sherm was taking his racism out to the Indians? Not to mention the carpetbaggers that had moved in for the quick buck on the backs of Southerners? And why the Southern situation wasn't 'fixed' had more to do with the obstinance of the Radical Republicans than a few roving bands of Klansmen.

And all this somehow equates to military action in another country thousands of miles away and why that situation may not be where some think it should be. You have to hand it to Vic though. At least he's up to the 19th century with his revisionism. I was tiring a bit of his convulted attempts to equate Greek history to Middle Eastern 21st century military tactics.

I agree with you billbears. Federal agents managed to turn every small farmer into a sharecropper during Reconstruction, and the entire South had their forests cut down. I believe it is studied in military colleges as the worst post-war administration in the history of warfare.

Why can't we look at how modern Muslim leaders control their people? It is quite simple. They get rid of clerics who oppose them. After all, it's religion that drives these idiots, and their religion comes in shades from practical to fanatic.

We need to do as Tunisia does; ban the veil in Iraq and this will bring out the fanatics to be eliminated. There is nothing in the Koran about the veil.

Your history needs some updating. Try reading newer works on Grant's administration and you will find that the media did a fine job of spinning lies back then too. Read Scaturro's President Grant Reconsidered. Racism towards the Indian was not limited to Sherman either. But that aside, it does not change the nuts and bolts of VDH's assertion that it is not the numbers put in place to face a situation rather then the artificial handcuffs placed on the numbers that can doom the majority success over the minority. Further, in studying history, if you find it hard to relate the past to the present, and believe that a war in another country or time AND place, have nothing in common with the American Civil War, you ARE doomed to repeat the mistakes as well. Perhaps a 6th grade World History class could help you out here.

Great post, billbears. Grant and Sherman were not interested in equality or freeing slaves. They destroyed the South (and then the Native Americans) and placed puppet regimes in charge of Southern states. Corruption and greed were rampant. One of the biggest blights in American history; hardly "brilliant."

VDH is no WBTS historian. He's out of his league on this period (especially Reconstruction). I wish he would stick to ancient Greek history.

And why the Southern situation wasn't 'fixed' had more to do with the obstinance of the Radical Republicans than a few roving bands of Klansmen.

For the reconstructionists, it was a case of 'Too much plunder, too little time.'