Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

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?

I think you miss my point, boss. I said that if you accepted the conflict as an inevitability then you would not likely consider my opinion, as most of it is based upon the war not being inevitable.

Now, suggesting that my argument is too weak to be considered is just uncalled-for. I've spent a lot of time studying history and both sides of the US political fence, and I think I have a valid case for at least casting doubt upon the generally accepted view of the American Civil War. I'm not just some troll, August, I actually put quite a bit of thought into these positions, you damnyankee

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".

OK, let's start over. I already eliminated slavery as a primary motivation for the North's war against the South. Maybe you buy that argument, and maybe you don't, but even then you have to put yourself into the shoes of early 19th-century America and ask yourself how this issue of slavery should be resolved. It isn't as if the issue was resolved peacefully (Thanks, Lincoln) and it isn't as if African Americans enjoyed a markedly better existence for the next hundred years. Even if you really believe that the Civil war was fought for the interests of African-Americans and that Lincoln really was sincere in his efforts, you have to admit that they were a failure.

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.

And I'd likely side with you if that were the case, but that isn't the case, and we don't live in the times when slave labor was an economic "neccesity" (not my view, just the popular view at the time).

Originally Posted by August

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't dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your argument.

I can dismiss slavery and I will, in the same way that I dismiss the justification for American involvement in WW2 being that the Axis was going to take over the world. It's complete nonsense developed for public consumption. The US supposedly intended to rectify the war in Europe, and ended up leaving, what, 13 European states in Soviet hands? That may not be a big deal to many people, but just talk to the people who had to live under that regime. Similarly, the North fought a war to preserve the Union and free the slaves, supposedly, and the first thing they did when they won was rape to the South and make absolutely no significant advances in preserving the rights of blacks until.......even today? All in the name of Federalism? C'mon, man.

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.

1) There was no Union general that cost as many lives as Grant did, so while they may have been just as incompetent, they were not as bloody-handed
2) Are you seriously going to make an argument in defense of Grant? As a military man? I mean, really? Do you have any WW1 French or British generals you'd like to nominate while you're at it?

I hate to be so direct, August, especially with you, but think about it, boss.

Originally Posted by August

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.

People have a higher opinion of many Presidents and Generals than I do, but then again, most of those people are not economists, or philosophers, or soldiers, or even working middle-class Americans. Don't tell me that you suddenly believe that the electorate knows what is best for the country, not after everything our constitution stands for. Not after decades of special interests marching under the Democratic banner.