[Peace-discuss] the stinkin' lincoln legacy

[C. G. Estabrook]

Yeah, it's as pointless as discussing what FDR should have done in 1933, Truman
in 1945, Kennedy in 1962, Reagan in Iran-Contra, Bush in 2003, or Obama last
month.  Don't you see it's time to move on?

Or, as the poet puts it,

	Better stay away from those
	That carry around a fire hose
	Keep a clean nose
	Watch the plain clothes
	You don't need a weather man
	To know which way the wind blows...


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I find all this discussion about what might have been rather silly. No one
> knows what the future might have been, in the short or thelong run, if other
> actions/policies had been taken before or after Fort Sumter. It's what's
> called idle speculation, that leads to nowhere.   --mkb
> 
> On May 21, 2009, at 3:07 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> Options other than war were available to Lincoln, and he was aware of them.
>> 
>> 
>> Advice came from the most distinguished American military figure of the
>> day, Gen. Winfield Scott (1786-1866). He served on active duty as a general
>>  longer than any other man in American history and may have been the ablest
>>  American commander of his time; he devised the Anaconda Plan that would be
>> used to defeat the Confederacy.
>> 
>> In a letter addressed to  Governor Seward (leading Republican and Lincoln's
>> Secretary of State) -- and obviously meant for Lincoln's eyes -- on the day
>> preceding Lincoln's inauguration (March 3, 1861), Scott suggested that the
>> president had four possible courses of action:
>> 
>> [1] adopt the Crittenden Compromise (which restored the Missouri Compromise
>>  line: slavery would be prohibited north of the 36° 30′ parallel and 
>> guaranteed south of it);
>> 
>> [2] collect duties outside the ports of seceding States or blockade them;
>> 
>> [3] conquer those States at the end of a long, expensive, and desolating
>> war, and to no good purpose; or,
>> 
>> [4] say to the seceded States, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!"
>> 
>> Scott clearly preferred the forth.  In retrospect, it probably would have
>> been best.
>> 
>> (For more on why that would have been the case, see the recent book by 
>> William Marvel I mentioned the other day.)  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> John W. wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
>>> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote: Death toll from "Lincoln's War" "The number
>>> that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties
>>> exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution
>>> through Vietnam." Adjusted for today's US population, the number would be
>>> over 6 million. I'm curious what you would have done as President in
>>> 1861, Wayne. Simply let the South secede? 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------