Victor Davis Hanson: Military Solutions? Myths About the US Military; what we need in Iraq ...

pajamasmedia.com ^ | January 3, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[stainlessbanner]

I think you disagree with VDH on Sherman right there. I have found he make generalizations about the period without including details, or he leaves them out.

[4CJ]

As for corruption, Reconstruction was no different than antebellum Alabama or Arkansas or Mississippi. The corruption there was epidemic, all by Democrats.

Please! Bribery and grant was epidemic under reconstruction, the legislatures appropriated (stole) millions from states that previously been solvent, and burdened them with debts that would take decades to repay. In the 6 years after the war, the southern states were saddled with 132,000,000 in debt - just for railroad bonds forced upon them by 'Republican' legislatures. In Alabama, both inside and out of the state house, 'bribes were offered and accepted at noonday, and without hesitation or shame.' The same as the antebellum period??? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

[4CJ]

And why the Southern situation wasn't 'fixed' had more to do with the obstinance of the Radical Republicans than a few roving bands of Klansmen.

For the reconstructionists, it was a case of 'Too much plunder, too little time.'

[LS]

I have actually done primary source research in this, and yes, it was comparable. The state bank of Arkansas, which ALL of the legislators (all Dems) were involved in, was beyond corrupt, as were the two big government banks in Mississippi. The state Bank of Alabama was as corrupt as you get.

If you look at the size of the government budgets and the level of graft at the time, it was absolutely comparable . . . and all going to Dems.

[LS]

Look at his sources. He's read everything there is to read. He's really quite good. The Civil War is such a big topic, someone can be dead on and still have 20 scholars say you are "wrong."

[stainlessbanner]

Perhaps he is well read, it doesn't come through in his writing on this subject.

I agree with some things VDH says, but I take exception to his putting Grant and Sherman on a pedastal. His view of Sherman is inconsistent with my views and many other historians/authors I have read.

He would have more credibility if he left the WBTS out of his writing, IMO.