[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'm not entriely sure that qualifies as irony, but if you don't believe that peaceful reconciliation was a possibility then you likely won't believe anything I say to try to change your mind.

Well I have never read anything from either side which indicates that war was not inevitable once the southern states seceded. Why are you so quick to claim I won't believe anything you say to the contrary? Is that because you think i'm too stubborn to seriously consider the possibility or is your argument on that subject just too weak to sway anyone, let alone a Yankee like me?

The ends justify the means? I expect a little more from our nation's highest office, especially when it comes to resolving matters of state. We're both conservatives, albeit of different grains, but as such I would think you would handily percieve Lincoln's moral folly in immediately resorting to military force to control a rebellious populace. To put it another way, if B.O. responded to a popular upheaval concerning states' rights with military force, I'd expect to see you on the same side as me, not siding with the Feds for the sole purpose of preserving what they consider to be the union.

But dude declaring independence rather than accepting the valid election of a president who personally didn't believe that American states should have the right to keep human slaves is not the same thing as some modern day undefined military response to some equally undefined "popular upheaval concerning states' rights".

If the issues and characters are the same as they were in 1861 then sorry but, fellow political traveller or not, i'm going to side with the Union over a bunch of rebel slave holders every time.

Admittedly, I'm not including an affront to human dignity like slavery in the case because I can't think of a comparable example, but I think I've provided ample evidence that slavery wasn't exactly high on the union's list of priorities, anyway.

Preserving the union and defeating the rebellion were of course higher priorities but you can't not include slavery in any discussion about the civil war whether it be about the causes, the conduct or the aftermath. It is just too central to all aspects of the conflict to be ignored. Had the institution of slavery not existed then the south would not have rebelled. Most of them even specifically mention slavery as the reason they were declaring independence. You just can dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your argument.

If nothing else, you can't make a case for the number of Union lives simply thrown away in a grinding war of attrition. Lincoln endorsed Grant, who was also known as "The Butcher" by his own troops for his willingness to simply throw them into a meat grinder. He was like a Zhukov of the 19th century. I think Lincoln's defense of Grant alone speaks volumes about what kind of leader he was.

You may look down your nose at Grants tactics but face it, a war of attrition is what it ultimately took to beat the Confederacy. Grant might have been considered a butcher to some but but at least he got results for the lives he expended. Something his equally bloody handed predecessors were unable to achieve.

And while you consider that, consider this. US Grant, in spite of what you say about him, in spite of his Zhukov like tactics, even in spite of his scandal ridden administration still remained popular enough for voters, most of them Union veterans, to elect him by landslide margins not once, but twice. Apparently they had a higher opinion of him than you do.