Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Religious revival is usually in response to a perceived threat to the society. The first was in response to the bonds of authority as the ability to move farther into the frontier, and away from the authority of church and government, seemed to threaten the social order and stability. The second coincided with the political uproar that eventually resulted in the Civil War. The current one has been building since the '60's and parallels the rising strength of neoconservatism. Both see the culture degenerating into a morass that began with the sex-drugs-and-rock'n roll that is the most well-known legacy of my generation. They perceive Roe v Wade as the high-water mark and they have been slowly, and successfully, chipping away at it ever since. It is also the reason for the retreat in the area of civil liberties. Watergate and the Nixon resignation was the high-water mark of the fight against government encroachment on civil liberties and the rights of the individual and the concept that the society and the government had an obligation to take care of all citizens, and that included the environment. We are now on a path back to the Gilded Age and laissez-faire economics whose only rule was “Every man for himself.” There was no economic regulation, the worker was treated like a disposable part, the rich were allowed to pretty much anything they damned well pleased with their money, and their were no rules except make money as fast as you can. This went on until 1929 when the whole damned thing collapsed on itself and the Great Depression followed. Enron, Worldcom, eliminating the so-called death tax, the whole thing about back-dating stock options, drilling for more oil rather than researching alternative energy sources, all of these things are part of the same trend. And I'm not talking about some great conspiracy – it is simply that money and wealth and controlling personal conduct through religion rather than social resposibility has become the guiding light for much of the country. Thus endeth the rant.
If you mean combat movie – Saving Private Ryan is the hands down winner for the infantry while 12 O'Clock High is the best for the air war. Schindler's List is the most effective at conveying what the war was about and for shoot-'em-up-bang-bang fun it's hard to beat Errol Flynn in Burma Road.
I don't think there's much doubt that the Hayes presidency and the end of Reconstruction were a simple case of quid pro quo. The committee set up to determine which of the competing slate of electors consisted of a conservative Republican majority and all the decisions were made along pretty much straight party lines. If I remember correctly, all the disputed slates were from Old South states and were all part of the ongoing struggle between the all-white Democratic party and the predominantly black Republican party. The exchange was really very straightforward – we'll give you the presidency if you allow us to settle our colored problem and voila, twenty years letter segregation was declared constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Of course the meaning has evolved since 9/11. A terrorist is now anybody who opposes the policies of our government. It's also a cheap way to drum up support by keeping the public terrorized. I think those poor schmucks in Miami are a perfect example. I have a sneaking suspiciion that they were strung along for months by the FBI's PAID informant because they were a paycheck until they finally pressured him to show some sort of concrete results so he got them to quit talking and actually do SOMETHING and then he sold them like cheap meat. You may not be old enough to remember (I am) but terrorists and WMD and terrorist plots are now being used the same way that godless Communists and Commie subversives were used back in the 1950's – to keep the public scared and in line with government policies. But I will say that the ads to build your own atom bomb shelter were much more effective than some government schmuck advising us to buy duct tape and plastic.
Unfortunately they would have had to arrest most of the military high command. Too bad they didn't have a Rusty Calley to pin it all on as they did at My Lai. I think that that may have been the perfect example of the old adage that “S–t runs downhill.”
No we didn't, but then we never do. Most large bureaucrocies don't because it is just much easier to keep doing the same things the same way. They also never want to admit they're wrong because their whole career, their whole personna, is built on their virtual infallibility. Westmoreland maintained until the day he died that his tactics in Vietnam were right. Rumsfeld and Bush still deny any culpability in our misguided war against Iraq. I was absolutely shocked when Bush almosted admitted that his “Bring it on” comment was incredibly stupid. The bottom line is that powerful people have a very difficult time admitting when they're wrong and powerful countries are no different.
The Phillipine Insurrection was just part of an ongoing saga of American military abominations against “uncivilized” peoples going back to Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Southeast that culminated in the infamous Trail of Tears. This was followed by the familiar story of the mistreatment and murder of the natives in the rest of the country, the unjustified and expansionist war with Mexico, the takeover of Hawaii after a revolt created by American fruit growers, and the conquest of the Phillipines as our entrepot into the ongoing pillage of China. We did the same thing in the Phillipines that we did to our natives – simple attempted genocide under the guise of “civilizing” the poor unfortunates. In Vietnam we were trying to teach them the joys of democracy by apparently destroying as much as we possibly could (I was there) and we are now doing the same thing in Iraq. The one constant is our trying to impose our particular brand of life on another people regardless of their own wishes. That never works. People have to determine how they are going to run their own lives. The bottom line is that we have to remember that we revolted because Britain wouldn't allow us to determine for ourselves how we would rule ourselves and we need to give the rest of the world that same priviledge.
Custer got his rear kicked at Little Big Horn because he was a glory seeking idiot. He was under orders to more or less escort the natives out of the country but he was trying to recapture the glory that he had deservedly won in the Civil War for his daring cavalry actions. He also had experienced the joy of murdering natives in their bed at the Washita River not too long before so this was his big chance to relive the fun and recapture the glory. He obviosly didn't know what he was getting into since he split his command into two or three sections, which means he didn't reconnoiter. Big mistake!! Instead of a small village of 200-300 mostly women and children he ran into a village of some 1000 units consisting of close to a thousand warriors, if I remember the one native account I read years ago. It also seems that once they found out that the infamous “Yellow Hair” was trapped they went into a frenzy because each warrior wanted to be the one the kill him and take his scalp as the ultimate trophy. Unfortunately, again if I remember correctly, he had cropped his hair because of a scalp infection. Any, Custer died of one of the major examples of military hubris in American history. Simply put, the guy was a moron and paid the price. Unfortunately he took some 276 victims with him.
Terrorism is designed to support a particular political agenda, otherwise it is simple random crime. John Wayne Gacy killing young men was a criminal, John Wayne Gacy killing Jews or Muslims or abortion providers in order to express his opposition to Judaism, Islam, or abortion would have been a terrorist. The KKK was one of our earliest terrorist groups as were Hitler's Brown Shirts. So Quantrill, Anderson, and the rest were terrorists. The James boys were terrorists who morphed into simple criminals. What distinguishes terrorists from criminals is not the victim or the act, but the purpose.
In many ways their relationship was the political history of this country in microcosm. They were allies in the struggle to gain and then secure our independence. Then they were bitter rivals in an election that makes our current spate of negative campaigns look like sissy slapfight. Most people don't realize that the election of 1800, our fourth presidential election and the first with two opposing parties, came very close to ending what was still very much an experiment in self-government. Then in the end they became friends, perhaps even close friends on some levels, proving the truth of the basis of our government – people can disagree, sometimes bitterly, accuse each other of all kinds of nastiness, yet still retain a level of respect for each person's position. In fact, in many ways their relationship epitomized America – you can say almost anything you want, you can call someone else almost anything you want, you can think anything you want, you can hate, you can despise, you can want someone dead, but you can't DO anything you want. Unfortunately that seems to be a lesson that too many on the fringe of both sides of many debates seem to be forgetting.
I think in the end it comes down to the simple fact that Lee was a brilliant tactition while Grant was a brilliant strategist. Each had brilliant subordinates: Lee had Jackson and Longstreet while Grant had Sherman and McPherson. Each also had a coterie of solid but not brilliant subordinates such as Meade. Both were trapped in the training they received that emphasized short-range tactics that was designed to get a large mass of men with bayonets on top of the enemy positions, which worked fine for Napoleon when the firearms had a relatively short accurate range but were horribly ineffectual when faced with the rifled musket, much less the breechloader or repeating rifle. The result was Cold Harbor, Spottsylvania, Fredericksburg, Pickett's Charge, the attempt to take Vicksburg by storm, etc. In the end Grant won because of superior resources, i.e. more men, and a willingness to spend them when necessary. He was also willing to admit when he made mistakes such as those at Vicksburg and the Wilderness. Each man did what he had to do with what he had to work with. Lee kept the Confederacy alive far longer than most other generals would have BUT he is not the God-of-War that he is too often portrayed as while all the rest are several levels below him. He was a great general, so were Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Jackson, and others. All of them deserve equal recognition.
The Battle of the Crater might have been successful except for the fact that the general responsible for attacking after the mine explosion was drunk and his corps commander, Burnside I believe, was never known for being particularly an active take-charge kind of guy. Besides which, Vicksburg was as much a product of a willingness to try new approaches and new tactics and having competent subordinates in Sherman and McPherson whose judgement he was willing to trust as it was to bad decision-making on the part of Pemberton. And let's not forget Joe Johnston's decision to sit on his ass and let Pemberton do all the work.
THE turning point in the Civil War was the Emancipation Proclamation. The South's best hope for victory was always the imposition of peace by the European powers, principally Britain (remember it was in the middle of the period known as Pax Brittania), but only if the war could be portrayed to the British public, and Parliament, as an economic struggle that was damaging, in many ways severely, their domestic economy because of the lack of cotton for their textile industry. The Proclamation ended that hope by converting the war publicly to one against slavery. There was no way that any British government could survivie if it was perceived as trying to save a slave economy. After all, Britain, like the rest of the “civilized” world had already abolished slavery. Even Russia had freed its serfs.
Burnside's decision to attack Fredericksburg after having lost the element of surprise after the pontoon boats failed to arrive on schedule. Instead of attacking the lightly defended Marye's Heights he was sending men to their slaughter against heavily defended positions, and continued to do so even after it became obvious that it was futile. But let's not forget Hooker's parking his butt at Chancellorsville when he was on Lee's open flank or McClellan's using siege tactics at Yorktown, ore Pickett's Charge. There are several others that I could mention but the point is that the Civil War, all warfare throughout history, has more than its share of head-scratchers.
