« Space-X has a sense of humor. | Main | CTF-70 and DESRON 15 Relieved »

09/17/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Quartermaster

The blood of those 650,000 souls is on the hands of Lincoln and his handlers in New England. The war was an utter waste of American valor.

ultimaratioregis

Horseshit.

Krag

Great post, URR, thank you.

I find myself in agreement with QM. Twenty year-old me would be shocked by that, but almost 50 year-old me views Lincoln with contempt and disgust. Go figure.

ultimaratioregis

Sorry, Krag, not buying it. The idea that Lincoln had "New England handlers" is disingenuous and preposterous. Lincoln was despised by New England abolitionists, because they believed he wasn't an abolitionist. He was despised by the so-called "Peace Democrats" in New York and Connecticut because they believed that he WAS an abolitionist.

" On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Unlike the vast majority of politicians then or now, Lincoln told the unvarnished truth. Those were rebel guns firing on Sumter, not the other way around.

Quartermaster

Sorry URR, it's a matter of historical fact what Lincoln was. Those weren't rebel guns firing on Sumter, they were Confederate guns. It was a foreign country then.

Lincoln did not tell the unvarnished truth. His lies are a matter of historical record. His inaugural address was, effectively, a declaration of war.

If you don't think New England Industrialists didn't welcome the war, then you are quite naïve. Those men are the people that handled Lincoln quite well. They knew what made him tick, and they pressed the right buttons.

The situation we find ourselves in now is a product of Lincoln's war. Without it, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and the RINOs would not have been in a position to push their unconstitutional trash on the country. If you really like Lincoln, than those in that list are your homies.

Your retort is only horse hockey here.

ultimaratioregis

If such is a matter of historical record, then you would do well to write a guest post citing primary source documentation for all of your claims. All of them. Otherwise, your "historical record" is merely opinion, which is contradicted in many places by many people, contemporary and since. And if they were Confederate guns, then it pays to be a winner. They were conquered by the United States. And should consider themselves damned grateful that they were not treated as traditional beaten enemies were. Lincoln resisted at every turn the angry voices calling for the trials and hangings and firing squads that would have signaled the retribution that so many who despised Lincoln in the North strongly desired.

timactual

I toured the Antietam battlefield a few years ago. I am still amazed at how (relatively) small it is. One sign that said something like "5,000 men of the ? Div. camped here the night of XXXX...?". "Here" was a very small patch of ground. And Burnside's Bridge still turns my stomach when I remember how small it actually is and how they crossed it, shoulder to shoulder with virtually no chance of survival.

"The Greatest Generation" has nothing on the generation that fought the Civil War.

Krag

As preface, one of the few great professors I had in college was both a respected international affairs guy (occasional TV talking head) and a volunteer for battered wives charities.

He would describe many international relationships, especially ones with a strong/weak component like the US and Israel, in terms of spousal relationships. It was metaphor but was still surprisingly illuminating in many situations. Utterly useless in some situations, of course, but still it was another window to view power relationships through in hopes of discerning "truth".

Through that window, the US civil war was a marriage in which one party wanted divorce, the other didn't, and then proceeded to beat the shit out of the first party until they gave up and stayed married.

How the North can claim pride in their victory is still a head scratcher to me. And I find no sadness in Lincoln's early demise other than it leading to a monument of the monster in our nation's capital. That's about the only statue I would favor getting rid of.

RE: "They were conquered by the United States. And should consider themselves damned grateful that they were not treated as traditional beaten enemies were."

Losing does suck, no doubt. I guess we should all be happy the Northern Americans didn't rape and slaughter the Southern Americans too much. Go team! I'm reminded of the Highland regiment that refused a battle streamer for participating in the Revolutionary War because there was no honor in fighting kith and kin. No honor, but great tragedy and loss. Bit of a hollow victory for the North if you ask me.

UltimaRatioRegis

First, this is a post about the fight at the Sunken Road at Antietam. Second, while Lincoln was flawed, and in some cases badly, your characterization of him represents some wildly contentious assumptions, opinions, and almost childlike oversimplifications of the great issues which caused the war. A marriage? Not a terribly useful analogy, despite the temptation to begin to attribute individual motivations to entire populations.

So which is it? are they kith and kin? Or a separate nation? How the north can claim pride? They preserved the union, however imperfect, in a war that nobody in the North wanted, save some marginal abolitionists. The South? THEY fired on Sumter, and seized federal land and property. The war was a cataclysm, and a tragedy. But it was also a catharsis, an awful, bloody event that needed to happen. The rudder commands that got us to Barack Obama and the Progressives certainly cannot be lain at Lincoln's feet. That is an even bigger oversimplification than the marriage analogy.

The only thing more catastrophic than the outcome of a Northern victory would have been a Southern victory.

JoshO

Concur all URR. Also the war was, as is the next one brewing, a creation of the democrats

Esli

Nice to see some comments on a post!

The Civil War stands as testament both to man's courage and stupidity in equal measures. Glad the North won, though.

I had the opportunity to walk Antietam last spring. Crazy. I had to go through the intellectual exercise of how i would either defend or attack to seize that bridge using modern equipment and tactics. Tough proposition.

timactual

"how i would either defend or attack to seize that bridge using modern equipment and tactics."

Would you even bother? It's too narrow for either Bradleys or Abrams, and probably has an insufficient load limit to be otherwise useful.

Krag

RE: "First, this is a post about the fight at the Sunken Road at Antietam."

It is, and it is a great post. Thanks again for writing it.

RE: "Second, while Lincoln was flawed, and in some cases badly, your characterization of him..."

I made no characterization of him, other than referring to him as a "monster" for starting the war. Perhaps you are confusing my comments with QM's?

RE: "So which is it? are they kith and kin? Or a separate nation?"

Both. Just as in the Revolutionary War.

RE: "The only thing more catastrophic than the outcome of a Northern victory would have been a Southern victory."

We will certainly not agree on this statement. Which is of no real consequence as I will continue to look forward to your posts here and wherever else you choose to contribute.

ultimaratioregis

I just checked with ANTIFA, and reasonable disagreement will not be tolerated.

Krag

Damn. Pistols at dawn then?

UltimaRatioRegis

Eww, no. Guns are icky. Hurtful remarks at twenty paces.

SibUnit1

xBradtc's great-great uncle (7th Georgia Infantry, Company D) was wounded by Minié ball fire, at least 5 times, at Antietam; per application for Georgia State Confederate Solider pension, circa 1910. During the war, Uncle John A. was in his early twenties, and would die in 1920; buried with our family at Midway, Lost Mountain, GA.

ultimaratioregis

Wow! Right in the middle of the brawl. On the bright side, it likely kept him from blazing away at my great-grandfather, who was nearly mortally wounded at Chancellorsville serving with the 115th PA Vol Inf. He died in 1885, at 42, of those wounds. About six weeks after my grandfather was born.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan