Posted on 04/12/2010 12:12:09 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Grant was the aggressor, he had to attack to win. The attacker all most always is going to suffer much higher casualties. Hood job was merely to hang on. To keep Sherman out of Atlanta and give the "Peace Party" in the North a chance to win the 1864 elections.
If you consider the tactics the two used in light of their missions, Grant is one of the greatest generals of his time and Hood is a dismal failure.
Grant is about the only Northern general who fully understood what Lincoln called the "Terrible Arithmetic of War". To win he had to wear down and break Lee's army. He did it. Hood, on the other hand, never was going to have any chance to beat Sherman's army. At best any victory Hood won outside Atlanta was merely going to be a Pyrrhic victory. It would of been won at too high a cost in casualties without fundamentally altering the campaign at all.
“Politicians started that war as they will the next. Shame they don’t have to fight it.”
So true! Power and money. Some things just never change.
“Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln’s detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.”
This statement goes right to my point:)
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
— Thomas Jefferson
I’ll say it again......”No More Mule Tit Republicans”!!!! You do put it succinctly, VA:)
On another thread in the last week or two, Jim Robinson stated we have 2 election cycles to turn it around. Let me see if I can find that thread.
-------------------------------------------------------
The truth about the founding father of big government in America
Being Honest about Abe:
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-truth-about-the-founding-father-of-big-government-in-america/Content?oid=1144395
“Saying Lincoln was a great president is like saying Ike Turner was a great husband. Many contend that Lincoln did what was necessary to save the marriage between North and South, and if he had to resort to immoral, illegal, and gruesome tactics, the ends justified the means. Like Ike to Tina, Lincoln beat a nation into submission.”
------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S AMERICA
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin492.htm
“I invite all those pro-Lincoln apologists out there to seriously answer this question: Does an abusive husband who beats and batters his wife have the right to force her (at the point of gun) to remain married to him? (Even the God of the Bible, Who cast marriage in the most sacred terms, recognizes the right of lawful separation.) If you answer no, how can you continue to justify Abraham Lincoln's actions? In a political and governmental sense, that is exactly what Lincoln did. Forced union, of any kind, is slavery. In the name of emancipating slaves, Lincoln enslaved an entire nation.”
SIX BIG LIES ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
THE SLAVES AND THE WAR
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/08/080815-2.htm
“Abraham Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator: he was the Great Warmonger and Imperialist, the Great Racist, the Great Taxer-and-Spender, the Great Corruptionist, the Great Incarcerator and the Great Vandal of the Constitution”
Malvern Hill. D.H. Hill said afterward, "It was not war--it was murder."
Which country were you living in 40 years ago?
In the original Nullification Crisis, South Carolina was upset about the tariff. Was the power to tariff not delegated to the federal government? And what undelegated power had been exercised when the south seceded in 1860-61?
Pennies bearing < gasp > Lincoln's likeness? Oh, the horror!
The Nullification Crisis was over the collection of tariffs. It is clear that the Constitution grants the power to levy and collect tariffs. South Carolina had no power to nullify them. In fact, it would have been unconstitutional to collect them in other states, but not SC.
Art I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
If the South was all so hep up on states being able to nullify whatever Fed legislation they desired, why were they so against the attempts in the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act?
--------------------------------------------------------
More like Robbery.
John Calhoun:
The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed in the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue but for protection--that is, intended to put money, not in the Treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course of sixty years has been transferred from South to North.
--------------------------------------------------------
When In the Course of Human Events:
The high tariff in the North compelled the Southern states to pay tribute to the North, either in taxes to fatten Republican coffers or in the inflated prices that had to be paid for Northern goods. Besides being unfair, this violated the uniformity command of the Constitution by having the South pay an undue proportion of the national revenue, which was expended more in the North than in the South ( p26 emphasis added)
Do you really believe that Massachusetts was Conservative?
-----------------------------------------------------
For decades, the Soviet Regime and its agents celebrated Lincoln as a precursor to Lenin, and for very good reason: Both Lincoln and Lenin displayed nearly limitless tactical flexibility in pursuit of the power they exercised ruthlessly in the effort to create a vast, centralized Union (or Soyuz). -- William Norman Grigg, "The Lincoln Gambit"
Found y'all a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republicans-Lincolns-Marxists-Marxism/dp/0595446981
What the Constitution says on the subject is that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" And they were. The same tariff was paid in New York that was paid in Charleston. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the money expended by the government has to be evenly distributed.
That voting map looks very similar, doesn't it? You and your clown posse are liberals indeed.
Mule Tit Republicans
----------------------------------------------------
The federal government was never meant to be the full arbiter of its own power.
Federalist #41
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Of course, somebody's going to say that the country being divided 50-50 between left and right with left and right moving further apart means that we are more divided than we were in the 1960s and 1970s, but most people are far from the extremes and are pretty quiet.
That doesn't mean things won't get worse, but right now a lot of the apocalyptic rhetoric is just playing into Obama's hands.
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.