Skip to main content

View Diary: My GOP friend summed up why Biden won debate (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not as defense of anything, but it could also be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    downsouth, ozsea1, DruidQueen

    viewed that Sherman was denying the Confederacy of the resources to keep fighting an unwinnable war at the same time they were deliberately starving the Union prisoners at the Andersonville prison camp where thousands were dying from exposure and malnutrition.

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:21:47 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. (6+ / 0-)

      It not only could, but has been viewed that way by most people for 150 years.  It's even taught that way at West Point.  And I don't doubt that this was the strategy in the back of Gen. Sherman's mind when he initiated his march to the sea.  However, things got way out of hand, and he failed to rein in his own troops.  As Harry Truman would say 80 years later, 'the buck stops here', meaning ultimate responsibility for the actions of his troops rest squarely on the shoulders of General Sherman.

      As for Andersonville, that was an atrocity and a war crime in itself.  I excuse no Confederate leader for the conditions of that hell, and believe they all should have hung for it.  That said, I've never been a believer in the "two wrongs make a right" theory of human interaction.  The war crimes committed by the Confederates in no way excuse the atrocities committed by Gen. Sherman's troops.

      Terror has no religion.
      لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الل

      by downsouth on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:45:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just a clarification. . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny Century

      there is no evidence that the starvation found at Andersonville was deliberate. In fact the prisoners and the guards at the POW camp were issued the same ration. The problem was that there was very little food available and very little infrastructure left to transport it (partly thanks to Sherman). Now for deliberate abuse what about the conditions at the POW camp in Elmira NY?

    •  MrJersey: unwinnable war, eh? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DruidQueen, downsouth, zett

      Insurgents, rightly denied resources, too, according to that tripe-mouthed runaway upthread.

      The burning of civilian homes? "Collateral damage"? Had to destroy the village to save the Union, kind of like My Lai?

      The slaughtering of children? "oopsie"?

      War in and of itself is a crime, but downsouth's onto something saying that the public "spirit" to "let the South secede" or "give Texas back to Mexico" is ... cowardly.

      It also denies honor to the supposed victors of the war between the free states and the slave states, which is how that conflict nowadays is viewed -- a one-trick pony, when in fact that was not the reality.

      The North felt unfairly discriminated against because in the South a slave counted as 2/3 of a person for purposes of representation in the Congress. The slaves couldn't vote, but the North saw themselves (and their interests) as outnumbered and besieged and belittled anyway ... and they got afraid ... and they determined that they "must fight them over there lest we need to fight them over here."

      What did the South have?
      Cotton.
      Tobacco.
      Rivers - both for water and for transportation.
      Sunshine.
      (Oil, later, but nobody knew what that really meant in the 1840s-60s; whales still had to be hunted to keep machines lubed and lamps lit, back then.)
      Good weather for long-season crops.
      Access to year-round ports.
      Fertile lands for farming.
      Poverty.
      Rotten roads.
      Killer mosquitoes -- did you know DC used to be a hardship posting, for diplomats?
      Jefferson (a Virginian, remember.)

      What did the North have?
      Bankers.
      Industrialists.
      Preachers.
      Child labor.
      Factories.
      Brutal climate.
      Poverty.
      Hostile Indians (from the Mohegan valley west and south to
      Kentucky, Illinois, wherever the white man saw and wanted the land the red man lived so much more lightly upon).
      Virulent distrust of their neighbors.
      Waves of immigrants from Ireland and Italy and other "white" countries.
      Xenophobia out the wazoo -- still true today in much of that vaunted land of enlightenment.
      Crowds in cities starving because of a lack of land for farming and a short growing season in the lands within shipping distance.
      Lincoln.

      Yeah, I can stereotype with the best of y'all.
      But what it comes down to is this:

       The North is still afraid it didn't really win a victory it can keep.
      That's why the North (blue) wants to demonize the South (red) as a land of bigotry, hatred, poverty, prejudice, ignorance, gullibility, etc. and so on and so forth.

      When what the truth is, unlike the claims of self-styled "reformers" like FrY10cK, is that both North and South, like both coasts and flyover country, are filled with people. Americans. Immigrants all. (OK, the First Nations came over on foot a lot longer ahead of the rest of us, but still: there's never been any find in the CONUS / North America / Central America/ South America along the lines of Lucy, now has there?)

      Isn't it time we started working together for everybody's benefit, instead of carping / sniping / hating each other like the GOP wants?

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 12:50:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site