Posted on 12/11/2002 3:15:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Another interesting thing about the Bismarck:
Prinz Eugen and Bismarck had very similar silhouettes. Eugen had 8" guns and Bismarck had 15" guns, but from any distance or the air, they looked very similar.
The show also pointed out that Admiral Tovey had Rodney and King George V close to very close range so he could observe the fall of shot himself. The flat trajectory of the shells probably lessened the effect -- there was no plunging fire. The Bismarck's battle bridge was cleanly holed, but the citadel was not penetrated.
I have this book on U.S. battleships that says something like the optimum range of the big guns was like 18,000- 21,000 yards. Plunging fire was very important. And some important decision President Roosevelt had to sign off on in 1938 had a very important effect on this. It broadened the "band" of effective ranges. I think it was some skullduggery with the 1923 naval treaty. That' when we laid down the Alabama and Washington class battleships.
I don't think the Japs paid enough attention to that.
Walt
The famous Mr. Merryman was burning bridges. He mustered a secessionist calvary unit. He was indicted for treason.
What ultimately happened to him?
The police chief of Baltimore --Kane. He was arrested by the military. What happened to him?
Here's a hint. He was later a serving officer in the rebel army.
Walt
You, Walt...the fruitcake we get every year. Nobody wants it, nobody ordered it, we'll just slap a mailing label on it and send it on down the line. Perhaps Katy Texas this time, Illbay would probably be happy to see you.
I'm always quoting Jefferson Davis the laughable incompetent.
Walt
None. Abraham Lincoln refused to allow it.
Merryman was a citizen of Maryland. Maryland did not secede. He actively aided the enemies of the United States.
He could easily have been hanged based on the standards used to hang loyal Texans in Gainesville, Texas in 1862. In that instance --I just read this recently-- confessions were elicited from slaves -- every slave in the county was whipped according to the one source. And, the "court" stipulated that the convictions could be obtained by a majority vote by the jury. And the majority of the jury members were slave holders.
Forty loyal Texans were hanged even though no overt acts were proved on any of them.
Merryman was released after 49 days in jail.
Walt
Of course we all indulge in arguments that might not be the best. I do it as well. I certainly admit that I have reacted hastily sometimes and made mistakes, but my hope was to get beyond shallow tit for tat, at least sometimes. Scoring ephemeral points against each other or chalking up hollow, rhetorical victories doesn't advance our understanding a whit.
I began by responding to the characterization of Lincoln as a "big government thug." I thought to deal directly with what I took to be the commonest arguments against Lincoln. I maintained that Lincoln's protectionist and developmental policies can't simply be characterized as "thuggery" and aren't very "big government" by 20th century standards and were in consonance with the policies of other, earlier and highly respected political leaders.
There are other reasons why Lincoln wasn't a "big government thug." We have been arguing related questions long enough, that I presumed it to be understood that we all have arguments that, in such an informal discussion, we don't bring forward immediately. The size of government contracted after the war. Lincoln was trying to deal with a rebellion and the chaos it brought. And yes, slavery was the ultimate in thuggery and required a large governmental apparatus to maintain it. That isn't a red herring. And facing it is unavoidable in coming to a balanced assessment of the Civil War era.
You seem to associate discussion of slavery with "relativism." I have to wonder what you mean by "relativism." In truth, that discussion introduces absolute moral concerns into debate. There are of course other moral absolutes, but if slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong. Taking slavery off the table creates an atmosphere of relativism. Just as wholly removing other questions of right and wrong from any historical discussion would.
You seem to be saying that including such a powerful absolute moral issue as slavery in the discussion leads to a "relativistic" acceptance of other evils. But surely the same result is produced if one makes free trade or state sovereignty or racial equality or inequality an absolute value. Perhaps we should take these off the table as well. The fact that an issue weighs heavily against one's side morally certainly doesn't mean that talking about it relativizes dicussion of the matter at hand.
Comparison of the goods and evils brought by any course of action is not relativism. It is inherent in any practical application of morality. Excluding such moral concerns because those on the other side may outweigh those on one's own is true relativism. I don't argue that opposition to slavery justifies everything, but one can't come to a fair assessment of how things stood, practically or morally, without taking slavery into account.
If you read Jaffa, rather than merely abuse him, you would understand the moral importance of the question of slavery and its expansion. While Jaffa may have his faults, he certainly does have a deeper, more comprehensive and more philosophical understanding than DiLorenzo or any other neo-confederate hack of the week. And one can't express moral fervor about tariffs and simply ignore the question of slavery or call it a "red herring."
This eternal "tit for tat," "I'm rubber you're glue" leads nowhere. I do have some respect for your intelligence, or at least cleverness. You have a very quick mind, but your general behavior isn't that of a person I want to talk to, so I will sign off this discussion.
The problem is that by the time this letter had been written, April 25, 1861, the die had been cast and a peaceful solution was no longer possible. The confederates had already bombarded Sumter and declared war. The southern army that had been massing since February was a very real danger. Had Maryland chosen to follow the other southern states into rebellion then the capitol and the administration would have been hundreds of miles behind what had to be considered enemy lines. So Lincoln would have had no choice. Maryand would have to be assumed as hostile as the other southern states and Scott would have been ordered to act accordingly.
Lincoln had sent a personal messenger, Robert Chew, with the letter and instructions to deliver the letter to Governor Pickens. This was done on April 6. Pickens literally knew about the plan before Major Anderson did. Here is the letter and Chew's account.
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter...
The cause of the country was advanced to some extent, the length to which Jefferson Davis wanted war rather than a peaceful solution were exposed. Had the plan gone ahead and Sumter had been peacefully reprovisioned would Lincoln have been disappointed? I don't think so. Lincoln was in a win/win situation here. He truly believed that he could win the peace and outwait the south, ending the southern rebellion without a war. But if a war was to come, then it had to be the south that started it.
Do you think the promotion was a way to say "sorry, ace, but you were just a pawn"?
Nonsense, it was war and regular officers were a rare commodity. With the rapid expansion of the army, officers who had been captains and lieutenants in 1861 ended the war as generals, and that was true on both sides. As it turns out I can think of at least three officers present at Sumter who were generals during the war - Anderson, Doubleday, and (I kid you not) a lieutenant named Jefferson Davis. But there were hundreds of officers not at Sumter who ended the war as generals, too. Were they paid off as well?
Civilians can leave a city. They are not forced to remain, unless they are slaves.
And cities are legal military targets. The British, and to some degree, the Americans bombed cities in WWII with the express view of killing war workers, it being seen that a war worker was just as valuable to the war effort as a soldier on the front line.
But the Germans could and did evacuate all non-essential persons. Your statement is simply not correct.
Walt
There were 60-odd confederate leaders who were indicted for treason or related charges. They were never tried because in the view of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, the passage of the 14th Amendment provided punishment for those who supported the rebellion. Trying and convicting them again on treason charges would have violated their 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy. Absent the 14th Amendment, Jefferson Davis and dozens of others might have spent their remaining years in a jail cell.
Show that in the record.
"I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation. When the people in revolt, with a hundred days of explicit notice, that they could, within those days, resume their allegiance, without the overthrow of their institution, and that they could not so resume it afterwards, elected to stand out, such amendment of the Constitution as now proposed, became a fitting, and necessary conclusion to the final success of the Union cause. Such alone can meet and cover all cavils. Now, the unconditional Union men, North and South, perceive its importance, and embrace it. In the joint names of Liberty and Union, let us labor to give it legal form, and practical effect."
A. Lincoln 6/9/63
Walt
Damn right, too.
Although Lincoln always held out the hand of forgiveness and conciliation to the rebels, he told a delegation from Maryland that if 75,000 Marylanders opposed the passage of Union troops, they might find 75,000 graves.He was not ready to give up the game "until every card is played."
And yet, in February of 1865, he proposed that $400,000,000 in bonds be made available to the rebel states if they would only cease opposition to the national authority.
As you know, he refused to consider treason trials for any rebel, and indicated that the best thing was for the rebel leaders to leave the country. "Lincoln," Henry Grady said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
You criticise President Lincoln because you don't fancy the outcome of the war.
It's just more "mean old Lincoln kicked our rebel butts!"
Walt
Lincoln freed the slaves IN THE SOUTH ONLY and YEARS into the war as a political move. He was a consummate politician, not some great moral leader. If it's a great moral leader you want, look to Washington.
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.