And I had this bitchhin' beard.
Posted on 03/31/2006 6:24:26 PM PST by quidnunc
Question: What is your view of the book "The Real Lincoln"? It has been said the Civil War was unnecessary and the South would have reunited with the north eventually. I read a column by Mark Alexander at townhall.com and was surprised that he agreed with much of what the book has to say. There seems to be a split on the view of Lincoln, at least among conservatives. He was either the great emancipator or a sort of dictator.
Hanson: Many paleo-conservatives hate Lincoln, blaming him for the rise of big government and claiming that "states' rights," not slavery, was the real issue of the war. I get a lot of such venom from these types for articles and book chapters I wrote about William Tecumseh Sherman, who, in this weird rightwing view, was a "terrorist" and nothing more.
But thank goodness, this is a minority view to be charitable. Most accept Lincoln's genius and understand that only his rhetoric and innate intelligence saved the Union when most others would have lost it. The final grand strategy that won the war was sanctioned by Lincoln when others doubted it: have Grant hold Lee down; let Sherman run wild to the rear; and blockade the ports of the South while cutting the Confederacy off from the West.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
And I had this bitchhin' beard.
"It has been said the Civil War was unnecessary and the South would have reunited with the north eventually."
We're still waiting...
US OUT OF THE CONFEDERACY
But the interview with Hanson is very interesting.
It sickens me that some of those who rightfully condemn the pendejos who are flying the Mexican flag over the American flag, would actually fly the flag of the confederacy over the Stars and Stripes (see the South Carolina state house controversy a few years back).
He gave a speech on a Aircraft Carrier?
I wrote about William Tecumseh Sherman, who, in this weird rightwing view, was a "terrorist" and nothing more.
No Vic, he was much more. He was a war criminal, a leader of thugs, an arsonist, and a racist. Need we go on? I do wish Vic would stick to something he believes he knows something about. Spartan and Greek history
I see Mexican citizens running the Mexican flag up the flagpole at government schools here it Houston. Not very many people seem to care. If we are talking about sovereignty then I say let's run the Stars and Bars up the flag poles of the schools. That at least would be in the American tradition.
Forget raising the Stars and Bars.
Let's return the colonies to Great Britain so they can have Tony Blair defend the war instead of Bush. (He's much more articulate.)
We'd also get the queen on our money.
But don't you see - it' racist for Americans to display a Confederate flag on our soil but racist if we DON'T allow illegal aliens to display the Mexican flag on our soil.
Hey, maybe someone can explain it to me...
What's best for you, his wholesale arson or the random execution of civilians?
The arson and destruction of the railroads was essential to end supply lines to the west/interior and cut off access to the port of Savannah. It was brutal, but necessary.
So I guess you support politically correct warfare. If thats the case, you wouldn't love the south (see Andersonville, Antietam, Fort Pillow).
The GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC, was triumphant in fact and in principle.
bttt
""It has been said the Civil War was unnecessary and the South would have reunited with the north eventually."
We're still waiting..."
It's odd, the passions run so deep, the war was so bloody, yet no anger, sometimes I think we were a German, Celtic people with an English culture, and that was a good thing.
I agree with Stephen A. Douglas, that if we had only waited long enough, the West would have grown populous enough to become a factor, and would have outweighed the other two sections of the country (and could have then put enough pressure on the South to eradicate the last of a non-profitable institution, slavery).
But there were probably also powers in Europe that wanted to see the USA broken up (including hints at making the West independent, under Fremont). Bismark said the greatest mistake Europe made was in letting the USA get back together. And France wanted to grab Mexico in the bargain.
So, instead of the USA getting back together peaceably after the war, we might have been divided into THREE sections--all in perpetual war with one another, and with European interventionist forces in Mexico and Canada.
bttt
Hey, maybe someone can explain it to me... "
Very simple. Orwell was right.
Sorry... the South lost. That's what happens to losers in war - they get hurt. It can't be any other way.
Was Shock and Awe immoral in Iraq because innocent people were killed? Was the bombing of Dresden (a case of arson far worse than anything Sherman did) immoral?
No... there should be no expectation that a war will be fought gently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.