Outstanding Post...!!! for the first time in history the press gave away almost REALTIME military information useful to the opposite side AND helped them decide who to influence and how with sedition.
nothings changed except the battlefield.
Posted on 02/25/2007 7:43:34 AM PST by OrioleFan
About nine months too late. Was going to sue in the Floridah Supreme Court?
Outstanding Post...!!! for the first time in history the press gave away almost REALTIME military information useful to the opposite side AND helped them decide who to influence and how with sedition.
nothings changed except the battlefield.
The Founders brought in Europeans to fight Europeans. The rebs wanted to bring in aliens to fight fellow Americans. A violation of the Monroe Doctrine to say the least and if successful would have resulted in America being the unhappy permanent plaything of European rivalries.
The Confederate government was WAY more centralized and oppressive than the federal government is today. Don't be misled by neo-Confederate lunatics.
The Confederate government first instituted a military draft.
Lee tried to incorporate Maryland into the Confederacy.
That was discussed in the article as well. Longstreet suggested he take Hood's and Pickett's divisions to reinforce Bragg, which Lee strongly opposed. The article states that Lee won over Jefferson Davis and convinced Longstreet. A Longstreet letter stated that Lee assured him they would fight only on the tactical defensive in Pennsylvania. A goal that was not accomplished, was the destruction of rail lines in Harrisburg. Other rail lines were cut, but Harrisburg was a big prize. It didn't happen because the Army of the Potomac was closer than Lee thought.
The purpose of the raid was to influence the fall elections. That was evidenced in the letter to Jefferson Davis.
You are right. He was trying to obtain food and provisions
by going through a prosperous part of the country. This was
an accepted way to increase provisions : by "capturing"
livestock, grain, wagons,horses, etc.
Not true. When the Confederate Army entered Maryland in 1862, they fully believed that the men of Maryland would rise up and join the Southern Confederacy thus seperating Maryland from the rest of the Union and cutting off Washington.
Lee was looking to show potential Europeans backers that the Confederacy could mount a sustained offensive on Union soil and prevail.
Unfortunately for the rebs, they invaded the western [pro-Union] part of Maryland, as opposed to the eastern [pro-Confederacy] part of the state. They even brought along weapons, etc, to issue the new troops they expected to raise.
Lee's soldiers also brought with them several wagonloads of shackles for kidnapping blacks in Maryland and Pennsylvania and dragging them to slavery in the Confederacy.
European support was never mentioned in the article.
In his book "Stars in their Courses" (about the Gettysburg campaign) Shelby Foote explains that the campaign in the north was intended to pressure the Union government to relieve the seige of Vicksburg by making them bring the forces laying seige back to the east in response to the threat. Seems like a long shot, but Foote opens the book with a discussion of the threat of the loss of the trans-Mississippi in the confederate cabinet and the implications for the confederacy. There were other plans afoot, but Lee's move north also had the added advantage of forcing the Union to stop raiding the Shenandoah for at least one summer (which you allude to). Foote was the greatest military historian of our time IMHO.
No it wasn't. The South had no problem at all with oppressive Federal government, when it benefited them. For example, Jackson's Trail of Tears land grab, the Dred Scott decision, and the Fugitive Slave Act.
What they objected to was the inevitability of the population census of the Free Soil states shifting the balance of power permanently away from the Slave states. That meant that the writing was on the wall for their precious "peculiar institution" on which they had chosen to invest their economy.
What expansion of Federal power do you propose the South rose in rebellion from? That they tried to secede merely to prove they had a right to secede? Or did they have a crystal ball to see FDR in the future? What part of the Republican Platform of 1860 do you think triggered the secessionist before Lincoln ever took the oath of office?
Yeah, but they could have put a LOT more pressure on Grant if Lee would have showed up in Tennessee, which he did not want to do - and didn't.
Sounds good to me. Neo-Copperheads Clinton, Murtha, Pelosi
Team of Rivals (Hardcover)
by Doris Kearns Goodwin (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Doris-Kearns-Goodwin/dp/0684824906
Amazon.com
The life and times of Abraham Lincoln have been analyzed and dissected in countless books. Do we need another Lincoln biography? In Team of Rivals, esteemed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin proves that we do. Though she can't help but cover some familiar territory, her perspective is focused enough to offer fresh insights into Lincoln's leadership style and his deep understanding of human behavior and motivation. Goodwin makes the case for Lincoln's political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. These men, all accomplished, nationally known, and presidential, originally disdained Lincoln for his backwoods upbringing and lack of experience, and were shocked and humiliated at losing to this relatively obscure Illinois lawyer. Yet Lincoln not only convinced them to join his administration--Seward as secretary of state, Chase as secretary of the treasury, and Bates as attorney general--he ultimately gained their admiration and respect as well. How he soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good, is largely what Goodwin's fine book is about. Had he not possessed the wisdom and confidence to select and work with the best people, she argues, he could not have led the nation through one of its darkest periods.
Ten years in the making, this engaging work reveals why "Lincoln's road to success was longer, more tortuous, and far less likely" than the other men, and why, when opportunity beckoned, Lincoln was "the best prepared to answer the call." This multiple biography further provides valuable background and insights into the contributions and talents of Seward, Chase, and Bates. Lincoln may have been "the indispensable ingredient of the Civil War," but these three men were invaluable to Lincoln and they played key roles in keeping the nation intact. --Shawn Carkonen
The Team of Rivals Team of Rivals doesn't just tell the story of Abraham Lincoln. It is a multiple biography of the entire team of personal and political competitors that he put together to lead the country through its greatest crisis. Here, Doris Kearns Goodwin profiles five of the key players in her book, four of whom contended for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination and all of whom later worked together in Lincoln's cabinet.
(snip)
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.