And that's what separates us - you favor trashing the Constitution and the protections it contains - I agree with the justice cited in my #1348, and with the decision in ex parte Milligan, that the Constitution applies at ALL times - EQUALLY in war and peace.
Regarding the "victory" being a butt-whipping - that might be true if it were decided on the field of battle against MILITARY tagets and combatants. Considering the South was starved into submission, her women and children left destitute, take pride is your "victory" - it is fitting evidence of the complete lack of morals and honour that you possess.
And the court said this was so because it wouldn't always be the case that the government would be administered by men like Washington and Lincoln, whom they were very careful to praise.
I've taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Of course it is easy to defend it against people like you.
Walt
It wasn't 1740.
Perhaps you'd prefer what Hood did at Franklin. That attack included what has been called the most deadly hour in the whole war. Hood wrecked his army to no purpose.
Sherman obtained his objectives after capturing Atlanta without facing any important opposition at all.
It was Sun Tzu who said that the acme of skill was not to fight and win 100 battles; the acme of skill is to obtain your objectives without fighting.
You just don't like the result.
I'll take Sherman over Hood any day; in fact, I'll take Sherman over any rebel general. Hood -was- especially clueless - he sent his men forward after having been present the third day at Gettysburg.
Walt