Victor Davis Hanson Comments on Abraham Lincoln

VDH Private Papers ^ | March 31, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[stainlessbanner]

Sadly, the Sherman worship and Confederate "traitor" thing are part of the schtick.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I say let's run the Stars and Bars up the flag poles of the schools.

Every school in Georgia flies this flag.

[PzLdr]

What's best for me is that he broke the South's will to wage war, and won the war.

And as for atrocities, do the words "Fort Pillow", "Lawrence, Kansas", and "Centralia, Missouri" ring a bell? The first was of course, committed by that paragon of Southern generalship, N.B Forrest. The latter two were committed by bushwhackers under Confederate authority, and never disowned by the Confederacy. It's funny how we're supposed to admire Forrest's generalship, but not Sherman's.

[PzLdr]

Actually, I prefer his subordinate, Sabotai, the greatest general in history, IMHO, but Chinngis will do, considering his troops set march speed records unequalled until Erwin Rommel in 1940, and he created the military hyperpower of his time.

[PzLdr]

That's not Attila, it's Chinngis Quan.

[Bubbatuck]

Of course. You defend that????

Yes, I do. The war had to be won.

[Clemenza]

Interesting. I'm more used to the depictions from the Metropolitan Museam.

[PzLdr]

Really? Quantrill murdered some 162 male civilians over the age of 12 and burned the town of Lawrence to the ground. Anderson took all the passengers off a train in Centralia, robbed them, and then put 24 unarmed Union soldiers, going home on leave, on their knees on the railroad tracks, and murdered them. Forrest's boys murdered a bunch of troops trying to suurender, or after they did so, many because they happened to be black.

[AlexandriaDuke]

"Yes, I do. The war had to be won."

Why?

Because Stalin said so.

If those half million refugees hadn't been incinerated, we'd all be speaking German now. /sarc

[magellan]

Lincoln didn't free any slaves. He couldn't free those in the North because they were free already ... "

Uh, slavery existed in the Union slave states Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri (that would be "the North", for those in Rio Linda) until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865, six months after the end of the war, and almost three years after the Emancipation proclamation.

[PzLdr]

When Quantrill rode into Texas to winter in 1863, one of the military commanders wrote to Richmond about Lawrence, and about allowing Quantrill to serve under the Ranger Partisan Act. The Confederate government neither withdrew their sanction of Quantrill operating under that act, nor issued a condemnation of his action.

And considering that except for two "invasions" of Missouri by Confederate regulars, the entire Confederate war effort in the state was conducted by Quantrill, Anderson, Todd, Poole, et al.I would say that four years of silence from Richmond as to the goings on constituted authorization from the government.Remember, al Lawrence, Quantrill led a force of 450 men on the raid. It wasn't a small scale action.

[billbears]

Whatever Sherman was, he was certainly a great General. He may have saved the Union

The d*mned union was quite alright and would have continued. Just with a few less states. He didn't save anything. He oversaw the deaths, literally murders, of innocent civilians, women and children.

If he had not taken Atlanta, Lincoln might well have lost the 1864 election to McLellan, who would have likely made peace with the South.

Would have worked for me.

Slavery and an unspeakably immoral South would have survived until who knows when

Was becoming unviable even before the War and was fading in the northern part of the South. Eventually it would have faded in the deep South. However I would suggest you read the tyrant's first inaugural address. Slavery had nothing to do with it. It was his tariff money needed to resurrect Clay's American System

and both the North and the South would have been much weaker than the two combined

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, contrary to Harry Turtledove's what if scenario, they wouldn't have gotten involved in the European family feud of the early 20th century and very likely Hitler would not have come to power.

Sherman simply believed in all-out war, like Nathan Bedford Forrest and many others

Nathan Bedford Forrest didn't oversee the deaths of literally thousands of civilians.

ar, like Nathan Bedford Forrest and many others. Were they all war criminals? Was Curtis LeMay a war criminal for wanting to bomb North Vietnam "back to the stone age," assuming he wanted to do that. Was Truman a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb? Were Nixon and Johnson war criminals for unleashing B-52's on North Vietnam? Was George Patton a War criminal for driving as hard and fast as he could across Europe without stopping every 15 minutes and giving the Germans some time to change their minds and surrender?

None of my concern. Wars started in a different era and caused in part by Wilson's first 'spreading democracy' campaign.

[Bubbatuck]

Why did WWII need to be won?

To prevent the greater atrocity of a worldwide Third Reich.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is an irony of war that the most ruthless and merciless operations are frequently the most merciful and humane. Just as the ruthless elimination of a 100,000 Japanese saved the lives of millions of others so Sherman's cutting out the heart of the RAT Rebellion was in objective fact a life-saving feat worthy of our highest praise.

Thank God that American once had leaders like Grant, Sherman and Lincoln and thank God that we have a President now who follows in the footsteps of these great men who protected our glorious Union. The greatest Nation in History. Love many its beautiful flag stand for Freedom and Liberty.

[Bubbatuck]

Sherman made war on civilians. I understand his reason for that, but the two aren't really all that comparable.

And the US made war on Civilians in every war we've ever fought, with notable examples being Dresden, Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq. In Iraq alone, we have killed tens of thousands of civilians, some estimates putting the number over a hundred thousand. Does that mean our cause is unjust, or that we should not have done it?