Posted on 09/25/2010 9:20:33 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Barack Obama is America's second wartime president from Illinois. Depictions of the first are, of course, on every penny and $5 bill. The new book, "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward, offers troubling contrasts between the way Abraham Lincoln learned to handle a war and President Obama's role in overseeing U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
President Lincoln, whose military experience amounted to a brief and undistinguished appearance in a minor battle against Native Americans, learned about wartime leadership on the job. From the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 through the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863, he led mainly by default, thanks to the arrogance and vainglorious incompetence of some of the worst generals ever to wear a U.S. uniform — John Fremont, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Henry Wager Halleck and George McClellan.
Only after the emergence of Ulysses S. Grant in 1863 did Lincoln settle into his proper role of setting overall conditions for victory and providing Grant with the men and materiel needed to win the war.
The greatest test of the Lincoln-Grant partnership was in late summer 1864, with Union forces apparently bogged down in Virginia and Georgia. The presidential election was but a few months away, and Lincoln for a time expected he'd lose. But rather than worry about his popularity, he stuck to his goal of trying to win the war and shielded Grant from those who would have meddled with his plans and strategies.
Then, in a matter of weeks during early September 1864, Sherman took Atlanta and Sheridan began winning battles in the Shenandoah Valley. By October, it was clear a Union victory was inevitable. And the same became true for Lincoln's re-election.
That leads to the key moment in Woodward's book, which, in the words of The Associated Press, "exposes the roots of an Afghanistan exit plan driven more by politics than national security and shows the president worried about losing the support of the public and his party." The book quotes Obama as saying, "I have two years with the public on this."
Therein lies the crucial difference between Obama and Lincoln. When Lincoln found Grant, he backed off and let his general run the war. Throughout the internal debates about Afghanistan strategy, Obama was receiving advice from Gen. David Petraeus, whose successes in Iraq gave him credibility comparable to that acquired by Grant in Vicksburg and Chattanooga.
But unlike Lincoln, Obama didn't like what his generals were telling him about essential troop levels and commitment of materiel. And so, unlike Lincoln, Obama chose to micromanage the war, dictating a six-page, single-spaced "terms sheet" that led inevitably to a dubious, official "exit strategy." Regardless of conditions on the ground, Obama has committed himself to starting a withdrawal of U.S. forces in July 2011. In the AP's words, that's "an arbitrary date that many in the military see as artificial and perhaps premature."
Since Lincoln's time, the U.S. military has had bad experiences with inadequate resources (think Somalia and the early years of the war in Iraq) and ill-defined, open-ended goals (think Lebanon and Vietnam). When his generals told him what would be needed in Afghanistan, what the strategy with the best chance of success was and how long it would take, Obama's duty was to commit himself and this nation's vast resources fully to that course of action, as Lincoln did with Grant in 1864, or decide the war was not in the national interest.
History records that Lincoln's patience and courage paid off. Sadly, Woodward's account of the internal debate over Afghan strategy suggests that last fall in the Obama White House, patience and courage were in short supply.
One crucial difference between Lincoln and Obama is simply that Lincoln was a Leader, Obama isn’t.
Could not have said it better...
Mr. Lincoln The Socialist
by Al Benson Jr.
Over the years I have contended that Abraham Lincoln was a socialist–not that he was a card-carrying member of some socialist group, but rather that his mindset had that bent.
In that contention I have met all manner of reactions, everything from some who agree with me (and many do), to outright ridicule from Lincoln lovers in the North (and some in the South, too). Many seem to feel, although they would not express it in those terms, that Mr. Lincoln should be elevated to the level of Deity. Also, I have run across almost complete apathy in much of the South, and other sections of the country as well. Southern folks at least used to know that Mr. Lincoln had been a less-than-desirable president; they knew he had been responsible for alot of bad things during the “late unpleasantness” and that was about it. Many, no matter what their persuasion, had the thought (planted) in the back of their heads that, for all his faults, Lincoln was, at least, a “good” man. The contention that he was some kind of socialist really shakes them up, and mostly, they just don’t want to hear anymore on the subject. It’s not that they are apathetic–it’s just that they don’t know and they don’t care. Please don’t rattle their chain or rock their boat–just leave them fat and happy with their illusions.
Many years ago now, when I first began reading about the goodly number of socialists and outright Communists in Mr. Lincoln’s armies, I began to have these nagging little doubts that, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Lincoln was not the honest, country hayseed that his promoters tried to make him out to be.
You often find tidbits of interesting history in places you would seldom look for them. For instance, I have never really cared for Carl Sandburg’s six volume story of the life of Lincoln. I felt that much of it was just shameless promotion of the “great emancipator.” Yet there had to be some truth in it.
Often that truth has been sanitized so that we don’t quite grasp all its importance, but it is there. I will cite one small example. In chapter 22 of the first volume, on pages 84-85, Sandburg mentioned one Robert Owen, a “rich English businessman” who bought land in New Harmony, Indiana. He mentioned that Owen gave a speech before Congress telling how “…he and his companions were going to find a new way for people to live their lives together, without fighting, cheating, or exploiting one another…they would share and share alike, each for all and all for each.”
Owen did, indeed, have a “new” way for the people in America to live together–it was and is, called socialism! Then Sandburg informed us that Mr. Lincoln knew about this colony of Owen’s and, according to Sandburg “The scheme lighted up Abe Lincoln’s heart.” It is interesting that Mr. Sandburg didn’t bother to tell his readers that Mr. Owen was a socialist and that his colony in Indiana was a socialist experiment, one that ultimately failed because of its socialism. Surely Sandburg must have been aware of that, given his own background (which will be dealt with in a later article). Why didn’t he bother to inform his readers?
And if Lincoln, even in those early years of his life, was aware of Owen’s undertaking, he must have had some idea of what Owen was all about. Lincoln, even as a young man, was ambitious. He was no country bumpkin.
Later in life, when Mr. Lincoln broke into politics, he was a great admirer of Henry Clay and of Clay’s “vision” for America. For those who may not know alot about Henry Clay, I would recommend a very revelatory article written by Thomas DiLorenzo that appeared in the March, 1998 issue of The Free Market, published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The title of Professor DiLorenzo’s article was Henry Clay–National Socialist. Space will not permit here, but DiLorenzo aptly sets forth a blistering critique of Clay’s socialism.
Lincoln eulogized Clay when he said “During my whole political life, I have loved and revered (Clay) as a leader and teacher.” If Clay was a socialist and Lincoln considered him a great teacher and leader, what does that tell you about where Lincoln was coming from?
We are able to glean even further confirmation of Lincoln’s socialist leanings from establishment “historian” James M. McPherson. In his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution McPherson has noted, on pages 24-25: “Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutions of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘the single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.” Stop and ponder just what Marx was referring to, and the language he used–”reconstruction of a social world.” In actuality, neither Marx nor Lincoln had much use for blacks, but they did make good cannor fodder, and they contained grist for the socialist propaganda mill, and so both Marx and Lincoln exalted their “esteem” for them in their public pronouncements. Privately it was altogether something else. Marx even signed a letter to Lincoln, with others, congratulating him on his re-election in 1864, and Lincoln reportedly responded warmly. It was just enough of this kind of information that led Donnie Kennedy and I to write our new book Red Republicans And Lincoln’s Marxists (www.oldsouthbooks.com) in which we pointed out clearly the socialist origins of the Republican Party and Lincoln’s affinity for socialists and Communists.
In this book we dealt with the fact of a noted socialist and Communist presence in the Union Armies during the War of Northern Aggression. For years this was a studiously ignored fact. No one that wrote about the war talked about it–you weren’t supposed to be aware of it or even dare to think in those terms at all. Were you to become aware of a major socialist presence in the Union Armies, it just might begin to change your perception of what the war was really all about (Marxist revolution). I realise that, for the average Southerner, it was about liberty and repelling the invasion of his homeland; for the Yankee, it was about empire, financial gain, and growing centralized government control over everyone’s lives and control over people’s lives was the elixir of life for the socialists. The fact that Communists and socialists from the failed 1848 revolts in Europe flocked to join Lincoln’s armies is only now beginning to be dealt with, and even now, most authors who do mention it tend to downplay the significance of it and to try to move their readers along to the “more important” things, such as who won which battle where. Don’t dwell too long on Lincoln and his socialist buddies. It might change your perspective and we can’t have too much of that now, can we.
Lincoln’s entire life reveals an ongoing affinity for socialism and for those that practiced and promoted it. Once this is fully grasped, it will enable us to lay hold of the fact that, for the federal government in Washington, D.C. in the 1860s, the Northern victory in the War of Northern Aggression was another giant step in the program of socialist revolution that would, in time, reveal itself as the New World Order.
Other Articles In This Series:
Mr. Lincoln The Racist
Mr. Lincoln The Infidel
Al Benson? Anyone who would call Lincoln a racist but ignore the racism of Robert Lee, or would call Lincoln a socialist but ignore Jefferson Davis’ socialistic policies is either a hypocrite or an idiot. My money is on the later.
True, if you consider illegal seizure by force of arms a "turnover." You also say "turned back over" as if the states had formerly controlled these forts. In fact, with possible minor exceptions, they were financed and built by the federal government and garrisoned from the beginning by federal troops. It was not peaceful turnover, it was armed robbery.
Lincoln would not give Ft. Sumter because he needed the extortionist tariffs he was collecting from the sea port.
Please submit some documentation of the tariffs collected at Ft. Sumter. Going to be tough, since the Fort hadn't even been completed yet and wouldn't have been used for tariff collection then, anyway. It was intended to protect the port against enemy attack, which later in the war it turned out to be quite effective at.
For that matter, I don't think Charleston was ever a major port of entry for imports, but I could be wrong on that. Also, quite literally Lincoln never collected a nickel from Charleston or anywhere else in SC, since the state seceded long before he was elected.
The revolutions of 1848 across Europe were staged against autocracies a great deal more oppressive than King George. People of all stripes of political opinion fought in them, from aristocrats to communists, and notably including a great many people who would have been quite at home in the Constitutional Convention.
Tarring all of them as Communists is just ignorant.
I would also like to point out that in 1848 (or 1860) Communism and socialism were still glittering generalities. They’d never gained power anywhere and revealed their true implications. To a somewhat naive American democrat socialism could easily have seemed merely the next logical step in the march toward equality.
Which indeed it is, adding economic equality to social/political/legal equality. As it turns out, that’s a step too far, but that wasn’t inherently obvious before the drawbacks of the system were revealed by attempts to implement it.
Every form of government (absolute monarchy, dictatorship, anarchy, democracy, republicanism, aristocracy, etc.) works perfectly well in theory. It’s how they work in practice that matters.
Didn’t Lincoln father a few black children?
Exactly.Lincoln was a leader, Obama is not.(for much longer)
Oh I think they have a lot in common. Lincoln destroyed half the country and Obongo is trying to destroy all of it. Don’t believe everything you read about ole Abe. The winners write the history you know.
Here are some good books on ole dishonest Abe.
http://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-Friend-Foe-Freedom/dp/1934791059/ref=pd_luc_sim_01_03_t_lht1
http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Uber-Alles-Dictatorship-America/dp/1589806921/ref=pd_sim_b_4
Ask non-sequitur to show you a pic of his Abe blow up doll. If he’s not using it , I’m sure he will be glad to take a picture for you. :P
Oh boy, now you’ve done it. I imagine non-sequiturs head is exploding about now.
funny you should mention that...
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-five-black-presidents-of-the-united-states-of-america/
Glad to see you’re reading Dr DiLorenzo....
Here’s one of his best....
Stang is right up there too...
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/republican-party-red-from-the-start-by-alan-stang-2/
No.
I'll stack my knowledge of the rebellion up against a boob like you any time you like.
He has in fact, very likely not knowing that he was doing so, admitted as much to me on an earlier thread when he told me that "his ancestors arrived here from Eastern Europe in the early part of the twentieth century".
By all means hunt it up. My paternal grandmother was born in Russia and emigrated to the U.S. prior to the First World War. My paternal grandfather was also Russian but he was also first generation American. My mother's family was German and came over early in the 19th century. Not that it's any of your damned business.
That would also explain his total avoidance of the subject of 48er's who, having fled Europe one step ahead of the hangman after their failed socialist revolutions there, wound up here fighting in Lincoln's army.
And?
He is very like the descendant of such.
Could be, who knows? Let me guess on you. You're the direct descendant of generations of Southern gentry, not a single one of which owned a slave. Am I close?
If you like comedy, yes. Ask non-sequitur to show you a pic of his Abe blow up doll. If he’s not using it , I’m sure he will be glad to take a picture for you.
Why don't you? You're the one who claims to have a picture of me. Go ahead and post it.
Shaking yes, exploding no. Shaking as in shaking with laughter or shaking my head in disbelief how anyone could possibly believe something so stupid could be true. Still, having dealt with you for months now, the depths of stupidity which Lost Causers can sink to should no longer surprise me.
I've read Tommy, too. As well as the Kennedy boys and Charlie Adams. Like I said, I love good comedies.
You have anything remotely resembling evidence of such? Or do you just get a charge out of totally unfounded accusations against dead people? AFAIK, despite the hatred of Lincoln, nobody at the time made any such accusations.
In fact, Lincoln was well known as an utterly faithful husband. There was never the slightest implication of infidelity on his part, with white women or black, despite his having perhaps the most "difficult" of all First Ladies to deal with.
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.