[Peace-discuss] the stinkin' lincoln legacy

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm sure it's nice that you "go along with Foner" (tho' you don't say how), but
what 1858 quotation are you referring to?


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 
> 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? 
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>