These Are Historic Times; Is it to be Lincoln or Sisyphus? by Victor Davis Hanson

National Review Online ^

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Here, too.

[snopercod]

Meanwhile, we are fast going broke.

We produced our way out of the cold war.

Apparenly we intend to import our way of of this one...

[Gritty]

BTTT

[GOPcapitalist]

And where were the Confederate armies? Hood decided not to face Sherman and headed north, to be destroyed by Thomas. Joe Johnston was brought back from the ranks of the "living dead" to command an force that tried to outmaneuver Sherman but couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't face Shermans until after Charleston had been taken and Sherman turned north to join Grant. Who left the civilians to face the wrath of Sherman's Bummers? The elite and the military of the Confederacy.

All of that in other words, "We can't be blamed for all the crimes we committed against civilians. The confederates made us do it by failing to stop us."

I suppose you also blame rape victims for not being able to hold off their attackers during the crime.

[GOPcapitalist]

Victor Hanson never fails to be brilliant.

It is brilliant sophistry. Hanson uses the tool of analogy to argue his case and does a decent job of appealing to the selectively stimulated recollective memories of his readers. Though it makes for a nice little story, it is also an argument without intellectual merit. So in that sense it is not a matter of brilliance but rather cheap trickery. Hanson's argument only works so long as we accept his presentation of the historical events, his own assignment of analogous roles to historical persons, and his own underlying assumption that Lincoln's reelection was a good thing. If any of these items contain flaws - and IMHO they do - his entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

[knews_hound]

If you have a VDH ping list, please by all means put me on it.

Thanks,

knews hound

[ppaul]

Lincoln or Sisyphus?

How about Sissyfag?

Luke Sissyfag

Luke Montgomery, the organizer of this "consumer choice" action, is an animal rights activist and a one-time D mayoral candidate. Montgomery, who legally changed his name to Luke Sissyfag, achieved U.S. notoriety for heckling President Clinton during a Georgetown University speech on World AIDS Day. While working as a program staffer for Last Chance for Animals, Montgomery/Sissyfag hypocritically promoted the philosophy of animal rights in a world which requires animal research to find a cure for AIDS. According to their website, Last Chance for Animals (LCA) "does not accept a difference in species as justification for wanton exploitation or oppression for any purpose. LCA opposes the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, and scientific curiosity. In addition, LCA recognizes the use of non-human animals in experimentation designed to cure human disease as both immoral and of questionable scientific validity." http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC.htm

[BlueLancer]

I don't adhere to the belief that atrocities were committed against the civilian population as a whole (at least, in anything in excess of that which was normal for the times when large armies moved through populated areas). The plantations provided food and raw materials for the Confederacy, the towns and cities .. with their factories .. provided finished products and armaments for the Confederacy. In many instances, factories were making uniforms, arms, and equipment for the Confederate Army right up until the time Sherman's forces entered them. In one .. Columbia, I think .. they continued to make uniforms right up until the time that Sherman told the workers to take whatever cloth they wanted before the factory was destroyed.

"I suppose you also blame rape victims for not being able to hold off their attackers during the crime."

So, I suppose, by that line of thought, you also would have opposed to bombings of Germany and Japan during WWII as well, right?

[JohnGalt]

Supporting attacks on civilians is really your own choice.

Most Christian conservatives disagree.

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't adhere to the belief that atrocities were committed against the civilian population as a whole (at least, in anything in excess of that which was normal for the times when large armies moved through populated areas).

That is an historically incorrect view. The northern armies far exceeded the ammount of destruction that is usual or tolerable for a large army to move through. In the more famous cases, they torched entire towns and cities - a wholly needless act of destruction intended solely to inflict harm upon the civilians there. Even if they had simply wanted to stop war productions they did not need to torch homes - rather simply dismantle the armaments factory. But they did not and instead levelled the entire town. Far more appalling were the little known executions they committeed on confederate civilians behind enemy lines. In Tennessee one union general drafted multiple "murder lists" of local civilians and sent firing squads out to execute them in bizarre and tortuous ways without trial and for "crimes" such as having a son in the confederate army. That kind of stuff may have been normal for large armies in the time of Rome but not in nineteenth century America.

[BlueLancer]

"That is an historically incorrect view."

Historically incorrect or politically/ideologically incorrect?
Sources?

"Far more appalling were the little known executions they committeed on confederate civilians behind enemy lines."

Sources?
So little-known that they are unwritten about in the general literature of the war?

[GOPcapitalist]

Historically incorrect or politically/ideologically incorrect?

Historically incorrect.

Sources?

One of the more recent books on it is "With Blood and Fire: Life Behind the Union Lines" by Michael R. Bradley. If you desire though I can direct you to the location of the original orders complete with 50+ name murder lists on file at the National Archives.

[Gianni]

So, was the second half of the article worth reading?