- This topic has 133 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I will add he freed the slaves- but only in the confederate states …
He was attempting to stir up something along the lines of Nat Turner x 1,000,000. Memories were long in the South concerning that matter since it had been a yankee play from the 1840s onward.
What else can be side for applying power where you have none yet refusing to do so where you have power?
The myths and deification of Lincoln has not slowed remotely. Any historian not filled with ideology would call him for what he was: an economic nationalist with strong ties to railroads (Illinois Central lead attorney on retainer) and industry who usurped dictatorial powers.
His getting blasted was a true measure of justice.
McCallum
I don’t think I would go quite so far however there are some pretty common myths. I have read that that his plan for reconstruction was less onerous than the one put in place after his death.
I’ve never read that Lincoln had a plan for Reconsruction. There are notions, myths, that somehow this guy that starved women and children, burned cities, crops, etc would have somehow become a mild and benevolent victor.
Nobody can seriously consider that option when weighed against the body of his work. His policies resulted in the political(roughly 15-20 years) and economic exploitation of the South to reward those business patrons on the northern war industry.
McCallum
His policies resulted in the political(roughly 15-20 years) and economic exploitation of the South
I’m thinking that was more like 40-50 years… due in part to Sherman’s successful plan to literally destroy two generations of Southern leaders….
The election of Wilson in 1914 began to restore some strength to Southern politics and Mr.Wilson’s War pumped up a struggling Southern Industrial base consisting mostly of Textiles…
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!I was watching a history show last night that spent a lot of time on Sherman. He actually asked for more generous surrender terms than DC wanted. That said he did lay waste to a lot of the south.
Sherman would not destroy the property of fellow Masons.
Read the Slave Narratives if you get a chance. The perspective of those interviewed is interesting when the subject of Union troops comes up.
McCallum
^For those so inclined, there is a fantastic Civil War history by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel titled Emanicipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which presents one of the more unique interpretations of the Civil War and its effect. Hummel is a Friedmanite, trained as an economist and historian I think, and he taught history and economics for years. It’s unique in many ways, but most notably in than it lacks the nationalistic, moralistic bias inherent in most narrative accounts from academia or popular historians. Basically, his argument is that the Civil War was a net loss. He argues that slavery’s enforcement costs were beginning to render slavery unprofitable in the South (a controversial position), and that it would have eventually died out without expansion, or war. Again, this is highly controversial. Hence, it was the North’s refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws that really drove the South out (not the gradual depiction of conflict and decay of the 2nd party system that most argue). And the constitutional violations of Lincoln, economic costs of war, enlargement of the federal government, were net losses given what his premise…
I haven’t read it in years, and I’m not sure how much research has been done on the enforcement cost element to his argument, but if you like Civil War history, and want a unique perspective, it’s a must read.
I’m not so much in line with the Mason conspiracies. Maybe true but the Masons I have known are pretty normal – that includes my ex-fil and many former coworkers. I am not one however I was invited just before I moved from there. Maybe my view is biased but I have found nothing out of the way.
He [Jeffrey Rogers Hummel] argues that slavery’s enforcement costs were beginning to render slavery unprofitable in the South (a controversial position), and that it would have eventually died out without expansion, or war.
NOT an original thought by any measure…
sic… C.Van Woodward, “Origins of the New South” 1951,
Robert K. Beale, ” The Critical Year” 1930,
and Charles and Mary Beard, “The Rise of American Civilization ” 1927—————–
Sherman was the only General Lincoln had who knew how to win a military war…
that said…
He did what he said he could do, no more, no less, just like all the Masons I’ve known…Otherwise I’m sure the War Between the States would have ended differently… which is not suggesting in any ways that the South would have been victorious….
my 2cents on that by just another poor Southern Farmer…
#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
