Posted on 08/09/2002 3:38:13 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
"...he believed their actions to be wrong..."
There is no doubt that Hitler believed the Jews to be a threat to the possibility of the 1000 year Reich that he invisioned. We don't forgive him on that account. Neither should we forgive Lincoln for the enormous loss of life and destruction that he wreaked because he believed that it was wrong for states that had voluntarily joined a union in the belief that they would always be free to leave it to exercise the option of doing so. As for the sincerity of their beliefs, there is no great reason to believe that Hitler was insincere in his belief, however misguided it may have been. As for Lincoln, he may have been more guided by the threat that secession presented to the implementation of the "American Systen" of Henry Clay which seems to have been the guiding force and light of his political career.
In short? Recognized the error of his ways and let the South go free! Error is no excuse!
"So wide his erudition's mighty span, he knew creation's origin and plan, and only came by accident to grief, he thought, poor man, 'twas right to be a thief."
Ambrose Bierce
Sure he did. Milroy was an underling of the attachment Sherman sent to guard his supply lines by Thomas. You said Sherman's orders and his men.
I think most people know there were no radios in 1864.
Sherman did not control Milroy's operations. Nor does Milroy fall under any but the most tenous definition of "Sherman and his men." Sherman's men on the march through Georgia and the Carolinas were very well behavd.
Further, I find very little mention of this Milroy person on the 'net, and no corroboration for your story,and further, this supposed order of Sherman's is mentioned neither in "Battle Cry of Freedom" or in "Sherman's march" by Burke Davis.
Walt
I need sources I can check.
Walt
Probably the easiest one for you to look in is the issue of North & South magazine from November 1999. Most libraries carry it in their magazine sections and good ones normally have back issues for a couple if not several years.
Other than that you can wait on the national archives to send me copies, but I don't know exactly when to expect them and you know how long the government takes.
You don't have Catton's book? Any used book store will have several of these "The Army of the Potomac" books. The three volume set is very well known. They are "Mr. Lincoln's Army", "Glory Road" and "A Stillness at Appomatox."
Walt
Irrelevant. Sherman gave the order to patrol his supply lines. He is therefore ultimately responsible as a commanding officer for what his men did while patrolling his supply lines.
Sherman did not control Milroy's operations.
Sure he did. Milroy's operations were being conducted as a direct result of Sherman's orders to patrol his supply lines. Had Sherman not ordered his supply lines patrolled, Milroy would not have been there and would not have committed the murders that happened.
Nor does Milroy fall under any but the most tenous definition of "Sherman and his men."
Sure he does. He was acting under Sherman's orders as a part of a dispatch sent by Sherman himself to patrol Sherman's supply lines that were very much a part of Sherman's operations throughout the south.
Sherman's men on the march through Georgia and the Carolinas were very well behavd.
The documented incidents of city burning, looting, and raping suggest otherwise, as does the conduct of Sherman's men on his supply lines.
Further, I find very little mention of this Milroy person on the 'net
Brig. Gen. Robert H. Milroy - fought at McDowell, VA, and 2nd Manassas. He was overrun with heavy casualties at Winchester and removed from his command in the east. By 1864 he was reassigned to Sherman's supply lines under Sherman's dispatch of Thomas and engaged in confederates along the lines in various battles and skirmishes through December 1864. He spent the next few months operating along Sherman's lines in southern Tennessee and northern Alabama and Georgia, which is where the murders of the civilians took place.
A brief web search pulled up a photo and short bio of Milroy online at http://stonewall.hut.ru/leaders/milroy.htm
and no corroboration for your story
As I previously noted you should not expect to find it online. The murders have been neglected by history and only recently appeared in published record beyond the original military records themselves. One of the published accounts is easily accessable in a widely circulated magazine about the war. You may find it documented in the issue of North & South magazine from November 1999.
this supposed order of Sherman's is mentioned neither in "Battle Cry of Freedom" or in "Sherman's march" by Burke Davis.
Then either you are not looking hard enough or both authors ignored a major event in the western campaign. You may find it on the October 26, 1864 at the chronology here where it mentions Sherman dispatching a chunk of his army under Thomas to deal with Hood along the supply lines: http://americancivilwar.com/authors/bobredmond/cumberland_chronology.htm
"The North had a potential manpower superiority of more than three to one (counting only white men) and Union armed forces had an actual superiority of two to one during most of the war. In economic resources and logistical capacity the northern advantage was even greater. Thus, in this explanation, the Confederacy fought against overwhelming odds; its defeat was inevitable. But this explanation has not satisfied a good many analysts. History is replete with examples of peoples who have won or defended their independence against greater odds: the Netherlands against the Spain of Philip II; Switzerland against the Hapsburg empire; the American rebels of 1776 against mighty Britain; North Vietnam against the United States of 1970. Given the advantages of fighting on the defensive in its own territory with interior lines in which stalemate would be victory against a foe who must invade, conquer, occupy, and destroy the capacity to resist, the odds faced by the South were not formidable.
Rather, as another category of interpretations has it, internal divisions fatally weakened the Confederacy: the state-rights conflict between certain govern on and the Richmond government; the disaffection of non-slaveholders from a rich man's war and poor man's fight; libertarian opposition to necessary measures such as conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus; the lukewarm commitment to the Confederacy by quondam Whigs and unionists; the disloyalty of slaves who defected to the enemy whenever they had a chance; growing doubts among slaveowners themselves about the justice of their peculiar institution and their cause. "So the Confederacy succumbed to internal rather than external causes," according to numerous historians. The South suffered from a "weakness in morale," a "loss of the will to fight." The Confederacy did not lack "the means to continue the struggle," but "the will to do so." --BCF, P. 855
His sources:
Richard E. Beringer, Herman Hattaway, Archer Jones, and William N. Stilll jr., Why the South Lost the Civil War (Athens, Ga., 1986), 439, 5S; Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War (New York, 1980),255 Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (Collier Books ed., New York, 1961), 250
My emphasis throughout.
Walt
Of course not. Objectivity and fairness are not your goals.
Walt
Sure he did. According to his OWN DEFINITIONS the "marching of an army into" a region "without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them" constituted invasion, and forcing them to submit once they got there constituted coercion.
Lincoln marched an army into the south without the consent of the southern people. He marched that army there in hostility against them as is evidenced by bloody battlefields and plundered cities alike. And when he got there he forced them to submit to the union. Therefore he both invaded and coerced.
There is no coercion in moving troops from the United States Army from one part of the country to another.
But there is in moving troops there against the wishes of the people and in hostility against them for the purpose of making them submit. Lincoln did all of that, therefore he coerced.
Or applying tariffs in all the ports of the United States.
As I have noted before, ensuring those taxes were collected was a frequently referenced priority of Lincoln in his military orders.
Or collecting and distributing the mail.
Actually Lincoln cut off the mail, especially to the west. That is one of the main reasons why Arizona territory seceded.
The neo-rebs conveniently forget that U.S. troops were never completely -out- of the so-called CSA. Fortress Monroe in Virginia was held throughout the war.
Hradly an invasion, is it?
Walt
As if either of those words meant a thing to you?
BTW, care demonstrating exactly where I have been "unfair" in this debate?
No he did not. Look at the quote in it's entirity:
What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit. But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists on holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion? Do the lovers of the Union contend that they will resist coercion or invasion of any state, understanding that any or all of these would be coercing or invading a state? If they do, then it occurs to me that the means for the preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a very thin and airy character."
Lincoln clearly did not consider his actions as invasion, he believed the second half of the quote, merely moving troops from one part of the United States to another. He did not view it as coercion, you did. He did not believe it was invasion, you do. He was not sending an army to make them submit, he was sending a few hundred men to make a point, that Sumter was and would remain a federal fort.
You continue to make an issue of tariffs as if they were the sole purpose behind Lincoln's actions. The federal government realized fraction of one percent of its total revenue from Charleston's imports, less that 5% or 6% from the entire south. It wasn't the money, it was the message. Outside of federal courts and the military, tariff collection and the mail were about all the federal government did. If the tariff was collected and the mail went through and the forts were maintained then it proved to the world that the United States was in control of all its territory, regardless of what the mob in Montgomery claimed.
Here's another partof BCF you'll want to discount:
"The North had a potential manpower superiority of more than three to one (counting only white men) and Union armed forces had an actual superiority of two to one during most of the war...blah blah blah blah"
Uh, Walt - why would I want to discount that? I have no problem with the fact that the north had superior sizes in population and in fact this was a critical factor to their victory.
In economic resources and logistical capacity the northern advantage was even greater. Thus, in this explanation, the Confederacy fought against overwhelming odds; its defeat was inevitable. But this explanation has not satisfied a good many analysts. History is replete with examples of peoples who have won or defended their independence against greater odds: the Netherlands against the Spain of Philip II; Switzerland against the Hapsburg empire; the American rebels of 1776 against mighty Britain; North Vietnam against the United States of 1970.
That's nice and all, but whether or not the Netherlands was successful against the odds in a fight with Spain bears no relevance to the confederate fight. I might also add that while McPherson cites a number of against the odds victories, more often than not they are simply not the case. Normally the big and powerful army wins, or advances at least temporarily. In the course of world history far more peoples have been conquered than have survived as underdog challengers to a more powerful force, though often the underdogs do put up valiant, honorable, and temporarily successful efforts before the inevitable happens.
Given the advantages of fighting on the defensive in its own territory with interior lines in which stalemate would be victory against a foe who must invade, conquer, occupy, and destroy the capacity to resist, the odds faced by the South were not formidable.
Nonsense. Every conquered people in history has had those same advantages when fighting to preserve their homes from invaders. If those advantages were as great as McPherson purports them to be, every invaded nation in history should have won. But that is simply not the case of reality - most invaded places fighting off a bigger and more powerful enemy are overrrun. Kuwait had the advantage of home territory to defend simply to a stalemate, did it not? But that didn't stop Iraq. Chaing Kai-shek had the advantage of home territory to defend in China, but that didn't stop first Japan and then the communists. South Vietnam had the home territory to defend but that didn't stop Ho Chi Minh. The same goes for the bad guys as well as the good guys - Germany had home territory to defend but that didn't stop America and Russia. Do you believe otherwise and maintain that it should have, Walt? McPherson seems to think so. Rather, as another category of interpretations has it, internal divisions fatally weakened the Confederacy: the state-rights conflict between certain govern on and the Richmond government; the disaffection of non-slaveholders from a rich man's war and poor man's fight; libertarian opposition...blah blah blah"
That's nice and all, but similarly flawed reasoning. Every country has its own internal struggles. They were there in the south, but to suggest as McPherson does that they somehow turned the tide of the war from a sure victory to a lose is silly and unfounded. The fact of the matter is that southerners fought to the bitter end at the cost of 250,000 lives and for the course of four long bloody years. In the process they killed 350,000 yankees before being overrun. If the confederacy were compromised by McPherson suggestions the north could have overrun them with ease as was the original plan. Before first Mannassas the northerners were convinced it would be a quick march to Richmond and then it would all be over. This belief was largely shared by the northern leaders. Seward remarked back in February of that year that the secessionists would self destruct before summer and everything would be back to normal. Lincoln thought that anti-secessionist sympathies would emerge at the sight of the union flag and shortly thereafter the southern states would come back. But all of this was simply not so with no surer proof of the error in those suggestions being the war itself.
As usual it appears that McPherson's editorializing is much like the rest of his beliefs on the war including those I exposed at the beginning of this thread. He pushes a heavily slanted and historically fraudulent brand of 100% yankee produced pure unadulterated bullsh*t, slaps the label "history" on the can, and markets it to suckers such as yourself for consumption. Sadly his loyal clientel lines up begging for more without a clue in the world as to what they are actually eating, and this even though those who have picked up on the McPherson scam attempt to warn the rest with readily available evidence.
It isn't my fault if the man fibs about his actions as according to his own definition what he did was coercion and invasion.
He did not view it as coercion, you did. He did not believe it was invasion, you do.
Tell me - do the actions of the yankees during the war constitute invasion as specifically defined by Lincoln? His definition was "marching of an army into" an area "without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them." In that light the war was a clear cut case of invasion.
Whether Lincoln purports it to be something else or not does not change this and at most only demonstrates sophistry and dishonesty on Lincoln's part.
You continue to make an issue of tariffs as if they were the sole purpose behind Lincoln's actions.
Nonsense. I have long recognized them as an issue but never the sole issue as to do so would be as ignorant as persons such as McPherson who purport slavery to be the sole issue. My contention with tariffs is simply that they were a prominent and major issue occupying a central place among the controversies that led to the war.
The federal government realized fraction of one percent of its total revenue from Charleston's imports, less that 5% or 6% from the entire south.
Even if your stats were right you are missing the entire point of protectionist tariffs. Raising money is only a side benefit of tariffs. The real issue, as any person with even the slightest background in economics will tell you, is controlling competition. The north made their products competitive on the market by forcing the prices of european substitutes higher. Hence it is called "protectionism," as in protecting the home industry from being undercut by the competition from abroad. Outside of federal courts and the military, tariff collection and the mail were about all the federal government did.
Nonsense. Though it is nothing like today, the federal government at the time was becoming increasingly meddlesome in industry by way of subside and economic intervention. A few of the biggies included the railroad and steamship industries. I'll dig up specifics on both if you are interested.
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.