[Peace-discuss] the stinkin' lincoln legacy

[Morton K. Brussel]

On May 21, 2009, at 7:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> The "tendency to blend blend different situations together" is  
> called history, as distinguished from chronicles. I actually meant  
> to speak up for the "weather man," who "blends" by comparison and  
> contrast.

Silly or not. Where some see similarities, others see important  
differences. There is great arbitrariness in the interpretation of  
historical events, nuances some are not capable of understanding.
>
>
> Perhaps you could make distinctions among the items on my list and  
> tell us which are worth discussing -- and for which ones the  
> discussion is "pointless"?  (And perhaps, how you made the  
> distinctions...)

I did, briefly. Yours is simply a rhetorical question.
>
>
> The Civil War -- or one highly inaccurate interpretation of it -- is  
> a powerful justificatory myth for US foreign policy.  Both Bush and  
> Obama have compared themselves to Lincoln, and they're hardly alone  
> among US presidents. We have to be able to say how and why they're  
> talking nonsense.

Yes, we have to recognize nonsense, such as Bush and Obama comparing  
themselves (if they did) to Lincoln, and with respect to your  
interpretation of the Civil War being a justification for later wars.

Did you read Foner's article?
>
>
> The important passage Wayne quoted says accurately, "It is time that  
> Americans learn the truth about the real reasons behind our wars" --  
> and that there are connections, even among "different situations."   
> Refusing to talk about it means the terrorists win. --CGE

1858 was the date of that quotation. I go along with Foner, who's no  
apologist for war.

--mkb
>
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> You seem unable to make distinctions. I was alluding to the  
>> situation that
>> Lincoln faced. Each example of yours entertains a different  
>> discussion.
>> Hiroshima- Nagasaki was a question of how to end the war, how many  
>> lives to
>> be saved. There are substantive arguments on that question. Terrorism
>> (Reagan) or not is another question quite different from Lincoln's  
>> problems.
>> The number of feasible, rational, actions open in each case  
>> differs. The
>> tendency to blend different situations together makes for an  
>> intellectual
>> mush, and the poetry is of no help.
>> --mkb
>> On May 21, 2009, at 3:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>>> ... I'm curious what you would have done  as President in 1861,  
>>>>>> Wayne.
>>>>>> Simply let the South secede?  
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------