Lincoln should have never attacked the South

[Muddleoftheroad]

In full recognition of the revisionist history going on here today in another thread, I thought it a good time to discuss the American Civil War.

As a conflict, the Civil War was the second most bloody in American history. Between the two sides, there were nearly 1 million casualties, including over 550,000 dead. Only WWII surpassed this overall total, but even then, fell much shorter in number of dead.

In addition, the war was a blight on an entire nation, caused widespread devastation throughout the South and border states. It also escalated a regional division that exists today.

OK, sure, millions of African-Americans were freed (including my ancestors), but couldn't Lincoln just have waited a few more years to watch the South come to its senses? After all, war is always bad isn't it? And besides, the war wasn't fought to free the slaves, that was just an aside, so why worry about THEM?

(Sarcasm and frustration off.) Have at it.

[mitchtv]

1. Don't you think Lincoln big mistake

was not Hanging Davis and Lee?

[maha]

6. NO

Remember, Davis wasn't apprehended until after Lincoln was dead.

But in any event, it was wise to let them go. Retribution would have just touched off another civil war.

Lee in particular was a role model for Southern men. By abiding by the terms of his parole, it let it be known that it was OK to rejoin the Union.

President Andrew Johnson tried to have Lee tried for treason, btw. Ulysses S. Grant refused to arrest him.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

81. I disagree

Take a closer look at what happened throughout the South after 1865. You'll find that Congress passed acts to suppress the Klu Klux Klan. They didn't do it on a whim. White Southerners continued armed rebellion long after Appomatox. And Lee, Davis and the rest of the Confederate leadership should have been tried and hanged for treason.

[Yupster]

84. What if ...

Lee, Davis and the rest of them were found not guilty?

[maha]

99. Get real. n/t

[maha]

98. Yes, I know

I'm a five-alarm Civil War history buff, one of those nerds who can discuss the details of the Vicksberg campaign without looking it up first.

For several years after the Civil War, emotions were hot and raw on both sides. You don't go through something like that and then suddenly kiss and make up.

A great many Southerners wanted to continue the war against the Union guerrilla style. The primary reason they didn't is that Massa Robert E. Lee told 'em not to. Had Lee been tried and convicted, and probably hanged, all bets would have been off.

Imagine endless war without resolution -- think Israel and Palestine; think Northern Ireland. That's what would have happened here.

[Walt Starr]

105. IMO, Johnson was correct

Any Southerner who had been an officer in the military and joined in the rebellion was a traitor. There is no way to change that fact.

They violated their officer's oath and took up arms against the nation they made their oath to. That is treason. Anybody who would say different is simply dissembling.

Lee was the worst traitor in American history. That is fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. No

You could make a better case for Davis, but he caused no later harm. Lee, actually did a lot for the nation after the war, most notably by serving as an ideal example of Southerners who had made peace with the defeat and worked together as one nation with the north.

[damnraddem]

26. No, it was going to the theater.

Lincoln's concern was 'to bind up the nation's wounds'; and he didn't yet have the good example of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process.

[Yupster]

41. Both Lee and Davis were indicted for treason

Davis begged for a trial. He had a high powered group of northern lawyers and his defense was that secession was legal.

His lawyers thought they had a solid case. The government refused to try him, or drop the charges either. They just left him under indictment.

The risk of trying him was too great. What if the Supreme Court ruled secession was constitutional in 1867? What then?

Better to just let the issue die with Davis.

[maha]

2. South Carolina started the war.

Fort Sumter was federal territory, a military reservation, and not part of the state of South Carolina. So even if you buy into the notion that South Carolina was a separate nation (which, of course, Lincoln did not), when General Beauregard ordered artillery fired on Fort Sumter it was an act of war.

And South Carolina started it.

[dback]

30. I agree--South Carolina was the inciting incident, not Lincoln.

America had already been wrestling with the slavery issue for some 100+ years, if you're just measuring the years circa 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. (Listen to the musical "1776" or read the new bio of Ben Franklin.) The issue could have dragged out another 100 years--and, as we know, segregation did.

It was tragic, it was unfortunate, and it was completely necessary on Lincoln's part.

[rasputin1952]

73. An awful lot happened before Ft Sumter...

but it was the moment of true insurrection. At that point all bets were off.

The Civil War was a war of economics. The South was sure that they could remain secure in their major source of income; unfortunately, at that point, the Southern economy was dependent on slavery.

Let me point out, I do not believe that any human has the right to own another human being; in the past, presently or in the future. Slavery is abhorant, and we should root it out wherever it exists.

With that said, The Confederacy attacked a Federal site, the war was then inevitable.

As time, and soldiers, marched on, the grisly work of war took its toll. Men died for many reasons, most of them valid. But once war was the state of things, it was fought with one goal in mind for both sides, to win. It was inevitable that the North would win, there were few resources in the South to keep the war going on indefinately. The invasion of the South was a necessity part of the Northern strategy. There were no other options if the nation was to stay under Federal control.

With Lincoln's death, the entire Reconstruction plan of the Lincoln administration fell into ruins. Revenge was the emotion that made it so horrible for the South. Lincoln's Second Inaugural was explicit in its aims, "With charity for all, and Malice towards none".

Booth dashed all hopes of reconcilliation on decent terms. I often wonder what would have happened, if Booth missed or lost his nerve. The country would be a different place today.

[Vitruvius]

77. Also, Booth murdered a kindly genius and put a drunken incompetent

-- Andrew Johnson -- in charge.

[CMT]

3. The South forced our hand

by seceding and firing the first shots at Fort Sumtner. I hate to say it but I think a war was the only way to eventually free the slaves even though they really didn't win their full civil rights for another hundred years.

[sabbat hunter]

55. interesting novel

there is a series of very interesting novels by harry turtledove.
the first starts off with the north LOSING the civil war (that is just to set up the rest of the book).
it is called How Few Remain. it mainly deals with a second war between the US and the confederate states.

there are two trilogys that follow that novel
the great war trilogy
and the American Empire Trilogy.

very good reading.

in these books the south finally frees the slaves after the second war with the US, only becaused they were forced to by England and France in exchange for aid. But they kept them second class citizens (passbooks, working papers, no last names, no civil rights whatsoever)



peace
david

[Yupster]

60. Big Harry Turtledove fan here

I think "The Guns of the South," is his best work. I urge it for anyone interested in the Civil War.

The rest of the series starting with "How Few Remain," I found to be among his weakest. I think he wrote the history to fit his social commentary rather than the other way around. I think he wanted to play around with the ideas of Lincoln the socialist and the communist revolution, and later rise of Hitler in the CSA rather than really thnik through a reasonable alternative history.

For a better series, I'd recmmend the World War II series.

[sabbat hunter]

90. guns of the south

was more sci fi than alternate history, with bigots going back in time to help the south win the war with more modern weapons (machine guns, ak-47s) than the north even thought possible at the time.

with turtledoves great war trilogy, and his just released finality to the American Empire trilogy out, i personally cant wait for his WWII trilogy to find out how the hitler of the south (jake featherstone) is finally and his 'freedom party 'are defeated.

peace
david
:hippie:

[Stuckinthebush]

107. You were there?!

Cool!

;)

(Just funnin' with ya)

[On the Road]

4. I Have to Agree

Preserving the Union was not worth the cost. Slavery may have been abolished, but the aftereffects on blacks lasted for a century or more. The South would have grown out of slavery like every other country on earth. If that change had come from within rather than being imposed by the military, racist terrorism and violence would have been much, much less.

[maha]

9. Disagree

First, there was more at stake than slavery.

The Civil War was a test of democracy. Remember, at the time the United States was just about the only representative government in the world. The monarchs of Europe were certain the U.S. would fall into chaos sooner or later, and the Civil War seemed to prove that this government of the people thing was all hooey. By saving the Union, Lincoln proved that a democratic republic could be a strong, stable, viable government.

And, I personally think freeing the slaves was worth it.

[Sick of Bullshit]

96. About the only representative government at the time?

In 1861, Argentina had fewer restrictions on voting for president than the US. Colombia had restored its democracy in 1858 after a short-lived military coup. Switzerland had had elected assemblies for hundreds of years, as had Iceland, where the Allthing had already been going strong for 800 years. In Great Britain, the power of state rested in the prime minister and his elected party, rather than in the queen. Many German states also had elected assemblies, although, voting was generally limited to men of social standing.

And the Confederacy itself had elections in 1861 and 1863, so it wasn't really a struggle between "democracy" and some other form of government.

[maha]

100. But who were the heads of state?

The heads of state in Europe were still monarchs. In the mid 19th century Europeans did not believe that self-government was viable.

Re the Confederacy: Of course. Not the point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Exactly

Who cares about those pesky blacks? How many more years of slavery would they have endured? That's THEIR business. Forget that, as one nation, the U.S. stopped the German juggernaut not once but twice. Forget that, as a result of four years of war, millions were freed and the blight of slavery was banned from America.

[Uzybone]

40. your kidding right

did you ever hear of South Africa??? They sure grew out of slavery well. The only way blacks would have gotten full rights in the south was via blood. You really think the white upper class who for the most part held thier wealth through slave labour would have let blacks go free for nothing? It would have been a battle...we would probably be talking about black "terrorist" groups today if that war was not fought. Is there any example in history that a slave society has ever let its slaves go free without major upheaval? I dont think so.

[shrike]

5. sorry to say this

But we should have let the South go. They've been more trouble than they're worth.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Again

What about those black Americans that would have remained enslaved under your scenario?

[damnraddem]

28. And how much trouble would they have been had they been 'let go'?

How long would have been before they have been at war with the U.S.? With Mexico? With Spain, since they coveted parts of the Caribbean? Don't forget that there was a lot of land in the West that the U.S. had stolen from Mexico that was still not resettled by Americans.

Does anyone on here read Harry Turtledove's alternate histories, particularly those in which the South successfully broke off from the U.S.?

[wellstone_democrat]

7. where to start

well, let's start (and end for the moment) with the firing on Sumpter. I guess Lincoln should have let the newly formed Confederate government take over a federal fort by arms. Why the hell not! Yess, you are right! And, when the militia in eastern Idaho marches out and takes Boise or an AFB in the region, let's just sit back and "wait a few more years to watch the supremacists come to their senses!" (to paraphrase your odd history).

This was such a simplistic version of history that its too hard to respond to under the amount of pain killer I have on board right now. but, where you get the idea that the South was "coming around" (again, the quotes are only to highlight a big paraphrase of your text on my part) is a mystery. Start with:

Debow's Review---the unofficial periodical of record of the South from the 1840s through the 1860s to see the direction and intensity of southern thought. There is no "waning" of slavery support---no talk of "states rights" either except in the broadest constitutional sense in ref to the 10th Amendment.

on edit: also look at the Cotton production figures both before and after the war---cotton cultivation needed large scale labor that was not available elsewhere. When the slaves were freed, sharecropping came into existence as did Black Codes that required all adult blacks be under labor contracts----that kept the tonnage up on cotton monoculture. The need did not diminish and so the argument that slavery would have become obsolete can only be made in the second decade of the 20th century when cotton cultivation drops as synthetic fibers just start coming into production. Even then, it took WWII for cotton to drop down to levels that did not require semi-forced labor.


The Richmond Inquirer---look at thier editorials and content in the decade before the war.

Read the records of the CSA formation convention in early 1860 before Lincoln lifed a finger and while he was still making nice with the proslavery proponents telling them that he would leave slavery alone where it existed.

Start with those on the issue of "watch the South come to its senses" (I assume on abolition) but answer first what was Lincoln as President to do when Ft. Sumpter was fired upon in April?

I'll check later, drugs are driving me back to the couch for a rest...

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. I agree completely

I was making a point. Thanks for adding to it.

War, alas, IS sometimes necessary and great good can come out of it.

[Brian Sweat]

8. What revisionist history going on here today in another thread?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Those defending

Japan and criticizing the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the war.

[bpilgrim]

20. thats not 'revisionist history' that is debunking the propaganda

fyi

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

Forgetting THAT thread for a second

Care to comment on this one? Where do you stand? Was the result of the war worth the pain? Or do you condemn millions to slavery, rape and murder to satisfy your need for "peace?"

[bpilgrim]

24. nope i am out the door... and i will never forget that thread

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Nor will I

Your departure is kind of convenient however.

[Sick of Bullshit]

97. His departure is to visit a dying relative in Philly

So stick a sock in it

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. And I was to know that, how?

I try HARD not to let animosity from a previous thread follow me to another, but I received a great deal of abuse from that poster that is, at best, questionable under the rules.

I am always sorry when anyone has to deal with problems among those they care about, however.

[Generic Other]

52. If Lincoln had the atomic bomb

would he drop it on Atlanta, muddlehead?

The real reason you opened this thread was to mock those who believe it was wrong to use nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So you set up this ridiculous analogy. Well, maybe Lincoln did order the burning of Atlanta. Maybe he would have nuked the entire South. I don't really know.

The point is not what people might have done, it's about what they did do. Lincoln did not choose to annihilate the citizens of two cities. Maybe if this option had been open to him, we could have saved a lot of Union soldiers' lives. ended the war two days after Ft. Sumpter.

Not likely. We all know, Americans generally reserve the annihilation impulse for non-Euros.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. That's A Good Question

There is a difference between a Civil War and A World War.

Lincoln didn't want to destroy the South which was part of our nation he just wanted to bring it to heed.

Your point about dropping the bomb on non-caucasians is a good one but one looks at the firebombing of Dresden which was pretty horrific.

I would like to think if Japan was Italy or Germany Truman would have made the same decision.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Not exactly correct

I posted this thread because I was sick of people who second guess history and because the last time the stupid Hiroshima/Nagasaki debate occurred I WAS told that war is ALWAYS bad, even in the case of the Civil War.

As for nukes during the Civil War, if Lincoln had them, he would have used them if necessary. Either the Army of Northern Virginia or Vicksburg would have been likely targets. (The siege of Vicksburg broke the Confederacy in the West and divided the South in two, but it took a long time and diverted a great deal of union manpower.)

As for annihilation, Lincoln's actions killed an awful lot of people. We didn't need non-Americans. We did a pretty good job on our own.

[Generic Other]

66. One thing to keep in mind

Yesterdays battles are over. The present is what I'd rather focus on where we face dire choices.

We have chosen to engage in premptive strikes rather than diplomacy, of being an aggressor nation rather than a liberator, imposing our will on weaker nations with our superior weaponry.

Do you believe other nations have the right to attack us with nuclear weapons in order to contain the threat we pose to them? Our embracing this premptive strike doctrine has put us all in as much danger as any citizen of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Nukes

No. I believe nuclear weapons were weapons of last resort -- not first.

[Yupster]

67. The A-Bomb

Richmond more likely. I think he would have dropped it if he had it. He certainly had no problems with razing Atlanta or the Shenandoah Valley.

[nofurylike]

74. yes yes yes!

that is the real point!

excellent post, Generic Other.

[U4ikLefty]

87. I think you are right Generic Other.

The more they mock the truth, the more foolish they appear to those who seek truth.

[damnraddem]

29. Well, there are different issues there.

One can appreciate that Japan was the aggressor who not only attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor but had also invaded and oppressed much of Asia; but one need not feel that the A-bombings were necessary. One can accept the logic of dropping the bombs but still have objections about the targeting -- especially of Nagasaki. And whatever one feels about WWII, the Civil War, or any other war, they are different wars, with different causes, different needs to be fought, and different issues involved in how they are fought.

If one wants to quibble about the Civil War, one can argue about the burnt-earth policy adopted by both sides -- the South more in retreat from territory, the North in its capture.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. I believe Japan would have surrendurred without attacking civilians

so sue me. I don't think civilians should be attacked. Isn't that why Palestinian terrorist are wrong.

[nofurylike]

72. we were not discussing Japan's military actions.

we were discussing u.s. atrocities against a half million innocent women, children and elderly men.

some seem to think that demonstrating to the world the ruthlessness of white u.s. men - the only 'purpose' intended by that act - to further an agenda of global domination (see pentagon papers) justifies anything, regardless how unbearably disgusting and disgraceful.

and, Muddleoftheroad, you better believe that those same white ruling men who profited from the civil war would just as quickly have murdered all slaves if it had been as profitable as enfranchising them as labor paid less than the value of room and board. that is, slavery was more expensive than 'employing' a labor force on which they'd gotten grotesquely wealthy. employing at subpoverty so-called wages.

white ruling men did not free anyone but themselves. African Americans have worked valiantly and courageously to forge their own still-emerging freedom - not stooping to the mass murdering mentality of ice-age-evolved men. it is evidence of the real (though aggressively suppressed) economic power they have - the same reason nazi's in southern africa finally had to face reality and surrender minority rule: the boycotts and strikes there, the courage to civil disobey in face of murder and shocking torture.

you don't think a not-that-long-ago millions-to-one majority of africans could easily have overthrown 'sud afrika' had they had the philosophical bent and worldview of those who perpetrated the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

it was not violent warfare that accomplished revolution. it was social, political, cultural and economic revolution.

the same would have happened here.

those ruling white men's worst fear was the unification of africans and white womyn abolishonists.

almost just like now, except there are tens of millions more people of color to join together.

and we must.

[nofurylike]

75. the great power fascism relies on:

the belief that one must become a fascist to fight fascism. that way, fascism wins anyway.

[roughsatori]

13. You should include a link to the other thread you are referring to

That way we could decide for our selves what is "revisionist."

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Good idea

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=174804

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. LOL! Heck, there would be 100 nations on the ground we share today

had he not waged the Civil War. Once a nation divides economically it gets easier to further and further divide...who knows who would have conquered us by now?...good idea ;-)

[Walt Starr]

17. The War of Southern Treason was a righteous war

Hey, if the South can call it the War of Northern Aggression, I can call it the War of Southern Treason.

:evilgrin:

After all, this IS Fair & Balanced Friday.

[tom_paine]

18. Completely disagree!

First off, look at the Busheviks, many of whom are the spiritual if not the direct descendants of the Confederates.

Look at their arrogance, bullying, "take no prisoners" attitudes and ask if they would have EVER come to their senses.

Oh, and I believe the Civil Rights movement and Southern reaction to it (not all Southerners, of course, this is NOT an attack on all Southerners and there are MANY WONDERFUL SOUTHERNERS, good people who I am proud to share this country with...just want to be very clear here) certainly reinforces that idea.

Second, imagine a Confederacy siding with Hitler in DubyaDubyaTwo. Not such a stretch of the imagination. The Afrikaner Broederbund did (luckily they hadn't yet organized their Bloodless Coup yet). Afrikaners and Confederates share more than a few VERY similar philosphies.

Even if they had just sat out, I think Hitler wins and Prescott Bush becomes Reichsmarschall of Amerika (the Northern Part of it).

Of course it's all speculation, but I don't really think anything I've said (except the Reichsmarschall Bush comment and even that isn't impossible) is much of a stretch of believability.

There are many other reasons to disagree, but before I get all long winded let me just say I thing you are wrong wrong WRONG.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. You missed my point

I agree with YOU completely. I was making a point about a couple things:

* It's easy to second guess history, but it's a lot harder to do the perfect thing at the time. Lincoln prosecuted a civil war and violated the Constitution all the hell over the place. But he preserved the union and freed millions of slaves. In the end, THAT is what matters.
* War DOES accomplish things sometimes. There ARE evils in the world worth fighting. And there ARE good things worth fighting for as well.

[damnraddem]

31. I was once a pacifist, following Dr. M.L. King's arguments.

I got over the pacifism. I just could not accept that wars of liberation, wars against aggressors, and even wars to preserve nations were all wrong. That's why I not only supported the intervention in Kosovo, I criticized Clinton for waiting so long and not intervening earlier in Bosnia-Herzogovina -- I saw another Hitler in the making. But I strongly opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam, interventions in Grenada and Panama, dirty wars against Nicaragua, support for fascists in El Salvador, and fomenting of fascist coups in many countries, chiefly Chile. and needless to say, I remain totaly opposed to Dubya's invasion of Iraq, and any further intended invasions in the region. It depends on the situation and on the war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I Don't Think Dr. King Was A Pacifist

in the same mode as Gandhi.

I don't think Dr. King would have counseled the Jews of occupied Europe to use passive resistance as Gandhi did.

Dr. King embraced passive or non violent resistance because he knew that was the most practical tactic to achieve his goal.

That's where all the tension between Dr. King and Malcom X came from.
Malcom thought it was foolish to use non violent resistance and Dr. King thought it was suicidal to use violent resistance.

Though both great men I believe history has proven Martin right.

Gandhi in India and MLK in America were successful because they were able to prick the conscience of the elites.

There was no elite conscience to prick in Germany.

[Generic Other]

42. Thank you, Dr. King

You can hand in your Nobel Peace Prize at the door.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Let's Be Fair

Here...

The Bushes are transplanted Yankees.

And Papa Bush when he was a congressman voted for the Fair Housing Act. I believe most of the other civil rights legilation was passed before he arrived.

The Bushes are reactionaries in my book but they get a pass on being racists.

[Bake]

68. TP, although I frequently agree with you, you are full of shit on this one

You are speculating beyond all bounds of reason. The South would have sided with Hitler? Have you totally lost your mind?????

Or have you just let the rest of us know what you really think about a very large part of this nation???

I like to think, silly me, that this IS "one nation . . . indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Bake

[sandnsea]

22. slavery was spreading west

That was the big problem. Well, at the time you know, the actual slaves weren't the real issue. But having a slave economy spread across the country was something non-slave states didn't want to see happen. Some people because they were sincere abolitionists and others as business owners and the farmer who wouldn't be able to compete.

Originally they thought slavery would just die, but then the cotton gin came which really made it economically feasible to mass produce cotton with slaves. Ironic isn't it?

I think Lincoln was right, I think reconstruction was a disaster. Seems we haven't learned anything from that mess either.

[damnraddem]

32. Reconstruction was necessary -- keeping the traitors under the U.S. thumb.

Reconstruction did try attacking the issues of what to do after the freeing of the slaves. Yes, it tried to act through politics and education without addressing the economic issues -- e.g., redistributing plantation lands to the slaves who had labored on them. The disasters were twofold: (1) the triumph of corporate capitalism over all others, particularly starting in the Grant Administration; and (2) the end of reconstruction and triumph of the racist exploiters. Think of the parallels with today: a presidential election (1876) is not settled at the ballot box because there are contested results (in three states, INCLUDING Florida). In 1876, the deal was struck, allowing a presidency in return for the ending of Reconstruction, the triumph of racist exploitation, paving the way for debt-slavery and Jim Crow.

[damnraddem]

23. Yeah, he should have waited for the South to attack a federal installation

Oh wait -- he did. The Confederates attacked Ft. Sumpter in Charleston Bay. In any case, Lincoln's concern was to preserve the Union. That he did is why he is remembered as one of our two greatest presidents. Imagine that: I admire him even though he was a Republican! The end of slavery was not Lincoln's original intention, but it was the major benefit of the War -- I put it ahead of the preservation of the Union itself. So, although my ancestors were Confederates (one deserted twice; and one survived the war and was then murdered by the KKK after the war), I'm glad that Lincoln did fight the war to keep the Union together.

And although I've never lived in New York, for over 45 years, I've been a Yankee fan!

[TreasonousBastard]

27. hmmmmm.....

I always wondered just why it was that important to "preserve the Union." It always seemed like the ability to secede was an unspoken right after all that talk about how government comes from the people. I suppose if Lincoln just let the South take off, however, it would set a precedent for, say, Pennsylvania to take a hike, too, and the whole thing would fall apart.

On the other hand, the South itself would soon have fallen apart under its loose association, just as the Articles of Confederation didn't work. The whole mess could have become unglued, and all the states would have been at war with each other over who should kill the Indians in the western territories.

Who knows...?

Should they both have survived as entities, though, it would be interesting to see how they evolved. The South had severe capital problems and more trouble industrializing, blaming much of that on Northern bankers. No matter whose blame it was, they did have their troubles, and it would difficult to see how their plantation economy could have survived for long. The North was more self-sufficient and better capitalized, and probably could have done just as well without the South.

We could have had two Mexicos down south of us.

[Yupster]

61. Some disagreements

1. When the south met to set up their government, they did not write an Articles of Confederation. They wrote a Constitution remarkably similar to ours. In fact, it gave the president the line item veto, so one of its few changes was to make the presidency stronger. It also gave him one six year term. And in fact, the CSA held together very well during the war. Even when the four western states (they counted Missouri as one of theirs) were physically cut off from the rest of the country, those four states still fought as hard as any others. I don't know why people assume it would have spun apart when it didn't, even faced with enormous pressure to do so.

2. The south was under-industrialized, but it made enormousd strides during the war. I don't see why it couldn't make strides after a war. It had a great banking center in New Orleans, which unfortunately for them was lost early in the war. If the CSA was alive today, I would think it would have a strength similar to France or Italy.

3. If the nation did survive, it might have been like Mexico. In my opinion, it's more likely it would have been like Canada, and the USA would get along just fine. I think the CSA would have become the biggest regional power in the Caribbean, probably would have made states of Cuba and maybe more (Panama? Hispaniola?), and would have had a lucrative trading relationship based on the Caribbean, the Mississippi River with the second best port in the New World to handle it all.

4. The stuff about immediate new wars or fighting with Hitler I see as crazy. If the CSA won its independence, its second president for sure would have been Lee. It's next four presidents would have all been Civil War veterans, as were the presidents of the USA. They all knew each other and had great respect for each other. They would have a great trade symbiosis, and their foreign policy goal would be to keep Europeans from meddling in the New World. I can't imagine the two countries getting involved on different sides of a European War, any more than I could picture Canada and the US fighting on differnet sides of a European War. I think Harry Turtledove spun out of controll with that series.

And that's what I think about that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. What Would Have Happened To Black Folks Under This Scenario?

and wouldn't an overtly racist state such as the Confederacy have been shunned by many of the more enlightened nations of the world.

If I remember my history the U.S. was the last industrialized nation to abolish slavery.

And the U.S. would have never became the hyperpower it is now whether you like that status or not.

[Yupster]

69. Good question Demo

of course we're all just guessing.

I'd guess that President Lee would have set up a gradual manumission with the owners being paid. I think a President Lee would realize how isolated a young CSA was from the rest of the world because of slavery and would set up some process to end it. I think a President Lee would have been strong enough to convince the people of the need for this. My guess would be the major money would have come from abolitionist groups in the USA and in Europe.

How could it work? All kids born after a certain date would be born free. All slaves can buy their freedom and the owner would have to accept the money. Trying to remember whether it was Jamaica or Brazil where slaves would be paid by law one day a week and they could use that money to buy themselves and then their families gradual freedom.

I don't think slavery in the CSA would have lasted past Brazil, which was 1888 or somewhere around there.

If anyone is interested, here's a link to the Confederate Constitution
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html

Kind of interesting as there are often threads here saying how people would like to rewrite the Constitution. Well, it was actually done once through a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, and this is what they canme up with.

[TreasonousBastard]

78. Black folks down South would have been screwed.

But, again, who knows? Dred Scott would have been voided and smuggling slaves out of the South could have become big business. Unless, of course, no one in the North wanted them here.

Slavery seems to have been dying economically, and was more a cultural imperative. In many cases it was cheaper to just pay free field hands than buy and keep slaves. There were, of course, vast numbers of household "servants" that kept the slave farms working.

Possibly even worse than domestic slavery, if there could be anything worse, would the South allow the importation of slaves again? Or would the illegal slavers just be ignored and expand their filthy trade?

It's all guesswork...

[Yupster]

85. The reinstatement of the foreign slave trade

was banned by the Confederate Constitution.

[TreasonousBastard]

76. OK, but...

1. I'd have to look up stuff, but I do remember the states' rights aspects of the Confederacy and their dismissal of a Hamiltonian federal government. They weren't stupid, but they still had that states' right thing. And, one of Lee's major problems was that there was no unified command of Confederate troops-- he only commanded Virginia's army, and had to beg the other states for any support. Again, I don't know enough off the top of my head, but I seem to remember it as more of an organization than a government. Closer to what the EEU is now.

2. They were forced in to industrializing because of the war, but if there were no war, what would they have done? I also don't know that they had the natural resources of the North. Coal and iron in particular. At any rate, that part is serious guesswork-- if they were independant, what incentives would they have had to change from a plantation economy to an industrial one? Note the plantation economies of Central and South America that remain pretty much the same today.

3. They'd also have those Virginia ports. Tough to say they'd go to war with Spain, France, and Britain to get all those islands, though. I'm also not sure how deeply the plantation "mentality" went. The Spanish territories were virtually feudal in nature, and I don't know if the South would evolve closer to feudalism or that would crab the population that still talked about freedom ringing.

4. What's that all about? Is that from the other thread I didn't see? If someone is speculating on a successful Confederacy, anything's game. Europe still carried on vast amounts of trade with the rest of the New World,and who knows what the split up country would have done to keep their fingers in the pie. There could have been attempts to annex some countries and territories, maybe even Canada. Fighting over the West... Who gets the Pacific? Anything's possible, and there are too many random possibilities to sensibly argue over how it would all play out.

Did someone mention Hitler? sheesh. You could probably put together a scenario where Europe realigned itself to deal with the new trade rules and the two world wars never happened.

[Yupster]

86. Lee was just the top General

of the CSA's largest and most important army, the Army of Northern Virginia. It was not an army of Virginians. The troops from the ANV came from every state in the Confederacy. In fact, there were probably more North Carolinians than Virginians.

It was Cobb's Georgians who held the stone wall at Fredricksburg, Law's Alabamans who charged Little Round Top while Hood's Texans advanced in Devil's Den, Barksdale's Mississipians who held Fredricksburg while the pontoons were being built, Rode's North Carolinians who charged the flank at Chancellorsville, Archer's Tennesseans who made first contact at Gettysburg, and of course Pickett's Virginians who ended that battle.

The President was the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces of the country.

Since President Davis had been a Secretary of War in the USA, he took his job seriously and moved units from theater to theater. Sometimes that meant taking large groups of soldiers (one of ANV's three corps in one case) from Lee and moving it west. Lee of course disagreed with this, and any other suggestion to take troops from him, but then what general doesn't.

At the very end of the war, Lee was also named general of all Confederate troops, but it ws pretty much symbolic as Davis was still commander in chief, and Lee had no way or desire of influencing events elsewhere in the country.

[starroute]

34. Why was the Civil War so bloody?

I do genealogy, and on my husband's mother's side (the only branch of our family tree that was here at the time of the Civil War), three out of his four great-grandparents lost either a brother or an uncle in the war. That's an appallingly high number. The Revolution didn't have anywhere near that casualty rate.

So what was it about the Civil War? Why did they feel a need to collect such overwhelmingly large armies and then throw them headlong against one another? Why were they still fighting on formal 18th-century style battlefields when the new artillery of the time left the soldiers so exposed and defenseless?

I've always seen it claimed that the North won primarily because of its technological superiority, especially its railroads. Couldn't that superiority have been used to squeeze the South slowly, enforce the naval blockade more effectively, perhaps buy off some of the more marginal Southern states that did not have slave-based economies, or even ferment slave rebellions?

Was there any good reason why the Civil War had to be as awful as it was?

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Blood

I will take a shot at this:

In general, military technology and engineering had evolved big time -- improved guns, improved bullets (large .58 caliber bullets), grapeshot, etc. They coupled these advances with old-fashioned strategy in many cases. In addition, health problems took an enormous toll on the troops.

Anyone who had half a brain and should have realized that the next major industrialized conflict AFTER the Civil War (WWI) would be horribly bloody with the advent of the machine gun.

[VOX]

51. A sad mix of Napoleonic tactics and advanced weaponry...

In the 1860s, the military model for the world was still Napoleon (even the uniforms had his influence). For example, it was still believed that it was necessary to mass your fire for it to have any effect. So you had great numbers of men having at it only a few yards apart in some cases, or charging fortified positions with tragic frontal assaults.

Sadly, these tactics were badly outdated with the technology involved. The rifled musket was deadly accurate at 1000 yards or more. Artillery had improved, too -- it was lighter and more accurate.

What's mind boggling is that the men on both sides would actually go into a fight knowing full well what would happen -- yet they went anyway. They had a sense of duty and an abiding faith that we can only imagine today.

Later in the war, Lee began to understand that maneuvers such as frontal assaults were terribly costly -- so you have the siege of Petersburg, with its network of trenches and tunnels -- a preview of WWI.

[Yupster]

63. At the beginning of the Civil War

there were about 1 million adult white men healthy enough to fight.

About 750,000 of them or 75 % of the total available population put on Confederate Gray (or Butternut).

At Gettysburg, General Lee had the incredible burden of having 1 of every 12 adult white men in the whole south under his command.

By the end of the war, 250,000 of them were dead, or 1/4 of the adult white male population. Another 250,000 were injured. The south lost half their adult white men to death or wounds during the war.

No group of Americans ever fought harder under more difficult conditions and took such horrendous losses of life, and property as the people of the south during the Civil War, yet they fought on for four years under enormous odds and hardships.

[Uzybone]

65. Too bad they were fighting for pure evil n/t

n/t

[Lars39]

79. Most were fighting for their homes. Most did not own slaves.

Most saw it as an issue of state's rights. When people in the south talk about their heritage, they mean their relatives' that were killed.

[maha]

101. Disease

Most of the soldiers who died were killed by disease, not battle. It was a fact of 19th century life that whenever you brought a lot of people together to live in close quarters, epidemics would follow.

[Yupster]

109. Diseases

Very true that more lost to diseases. That's why you have the odd stat that as many men were wounded as died. You would expect to see far more wounded than killed, and there were, but when you add the number died of diseases, it's about the same number.

[wildmanj]

35. Civil War

The North won the battle---the South WON THE WAR---don't believe me--who occupies the Whitehouse and who may stay there forever as KING GEORGE I. :nopity: :hurts: :nopity:

[Iris]

36. yeah! Then everyone in the South would be slaves to corporate America

since the South would be a foreign country and they could come down here an pay everyone $0.50 an hour!

[Skittles]

37. YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG

AMERICA WOULD BE DIVIDED IN TWO like Korea were it not for President Lincoln. And all the revisionist history in the WORLD will not make the SOUTH WIN THE CIVIL WAR.

[AlinPA]

48. We are very divided now with this Red States-Blue States thing now

If a Dem wins the WH, would we see some secessions from the Red states? I sense great hatred by Red state repukes for Blue sates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I Think This Is Overblown

I don't think Red Staters hate Blue Staters and vice versa.

I also don't think they will secede if a Dem is elected.

After all we have a federal system that allows states a great deal of autonomy.

[Darranar]

58. It was sarcasm...

MuddleoftheRoad agrees with you, as do I.

[carolinayellowdog]

39. Could VA, NC, and TN been kept in the Union?

Just heard a piece on the radio about how VA had most of the industrial capacity of the Confederacy and how crucial it was to the viability of the Confederacy. Given how bitterly divided local sentiment was, and how reluctantly VA seceded, I wonder if there was any way VA could have been kept in the Union and thus also NC which was even more reluctant. Don't know the ins and outs but it's clear that the Deep South was more gung ho to secede than the Upper South and that the latter blamed Lincoln for "leaving them no alternative" by demanding they fight. Any truth to that?

CYD

[Yupster]

70. Virginia, Tennessee, N Carolina and Arkansas

had not seceeded when the seven cotton states did.

Lincoln blundered when he issued a quota to each state of militia to call out after Fort Sumpter.

The people of Tennessee had voted barely by referrendum "no" to the calling of a secession convention. Once Lincoln demanded troops to invade the south, Tennessee had another referrendum and voted to leave the union overwhelmingly.

If you want a funny read, look up the telegrams the governors of those states sent to Lincoln to answer his call for troops. The governor of N Carolina (I think) sent back a reply that basically warned Lincoln that some fool must be issuing telegrams in his name because certainly no one in his lofty position would issue such an unconstitutional and foolish call. The Constitution of course clearly gives congress alone the power to call forth the militia.

If you saw the movie "Gods and Generals" ( for rent now at Blockbuster), there's a scene where Stonewall Jackson where Jackson tells the troops, "President Lincoln called for three regiments of troops. Tell him we've raised those regiments."

Anyway, Lincoln's calling for troops from the undecided slave states caused them to choose sides, and Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and N Carolina chose the CSA. Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware chose the USA. Maryland called a legislative session to deal with secession, and Lincoln had the legislators who favored secession arrested, so that ended that.

[izzie]

44. Did the US gov shoot at Fort Sumter? Did the North leave the Union?

Please.

[tjdee]

45. He/she was being sarcastic.

I think some folks are missing that, LOL. The original poster was being sarcastic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Thanks

And I'm a he, but I appreciate the help.

[Bandit]

46. The South come to it's senses ~Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ~A good one

You make me laugh.

[ianbruce]

53. The South shot first... My uncle returned the compliment.

My great-great-great-great uncle, Capt. Abner Doubleday fired the first shot in return.

His words:

"As soon as the outline of our fort could be distinguished, the enemy carried out their program. It had been arraigned, as a special compliment to the venerable Edmund Ruflin, who might also be called the father of Secession, that he should fire the first shot against us, from the Stevens battery on Cummings Point, and I think in all the histories it is stated that he did so; but it is attested by Dr. Crawford and others who were on the parapet at the time, that the first shot really came from the mortar battery at Fort Johnson (I have since learned that the shell from Fort Johnson was not a hostile shot, but was simply intended as a signal for the firing to commence).

"Almost immediately afterward a ball from Cummings Point lodged in the magazine wall, and by the sound seemed to bury it self in the masonry about a foot from my head, in very unpleasant proximity to my right ear. This is the one that probably came with Mr. Ruflin's compliments. In a moment the firing burst forth in one continuous roar, and large patches of both the exterior and interior masonry began to crumble and fall in all directions. The place where I was had been used for the manufacture of cartridges, and there was still a good deal of powder there, some packed and some loose. A shell soon struck near the ventilator, and a puff of dense smoke entered the room, giving me a strong impression that there would be an immediate explosion. Fortunately, no sparks had penetrated inside.

"Nineteen batteries were now hammering at us, and the balls and shells from the ten-inch columbiads, accompanied by shells from the thirteen-inch mortars which constantly bombarded us, made us feel as if the war had commenced in earnest.

"In aiming the first gun fired against the rebellion I had no feeling of self-reproach, for I fully believed that the contest was inevitable, and was not of our seeking. The United States was called upon not only to defend its sovereignty, but its right to exist as a nation.

"The only alternative was to submit to a powerful oligarchy who were determined to make freedom forever subordinate to slavery. To me it was simply a contest, politically speaking, as to whether virtue or vice should rule..."

The morning of April 12th 1861, Ft. Sumter, South Carolina

[Yupster]

71. Doubleday

did great work at Gettysburg after Reybolds fell.

It looks like he doesn't deserve the credit for baseball though.

[ianbruce]

94. We know.

It was something of a gentlemen's agreement to award him the honor after his passing. He was, however, granted the first charter for cablecars in San Francisco.

[VoteClark]

102. I am related the General Taylor and the Wife of the President of the

Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and the Wife of Zachary Taylor. My Great, Great, Great, Great, Great aunt, Margaret Mackall Smith, married Lt. Zachary Taylor, who became President of the United States. They gave birth to a son who became a Major General in the Confederacy. They also had a daughter, Sarah Knox Taylor, that married Jefferson Davis, who became President of the Confederacy.

I am also related to wife of King Louis XIIV. Her sister married my Greatx7 Grandfather, who was the Governor of Province France. His youngest son, Micheal Garouette came over here in 1776 to fight with Layfette, who was his best friend, in the American Revolutionary War.
His decendents settled in much of what is now the Southern part of the United States, mainly Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee.

So under the order of the King of France, the President of United States, President of Confederacy, and the Major General Taylor, I order Captain Doubleday to stand down. :)


:kick:
J4Clark

[LeftofU]

54. The South attacked the North

Fort Sumter(sic) I think

[ianbruce]

56. Exactly... see above post.

n/t

[VOX]

59. The American Civil War was a tragedy that had to happen...

And I say that as one whose ancestors fought on both sides.

It hadn't even been 100 years since the Revolutionary War, and our nation was in its adolescence. We were, in a way, still quite unformed. On the issues of slavery, states' rights, tariffs, etc., there had been an utter failure to compromise. If not Ft. Sumter, some other incident would have occurred to spark the conflict -- Lincoln was waiting for the South to fire the first shot, and they obliged him.

Author Shelby Foote articulates it best, when he says that our nation's biggest sin was slavery (for reasons that should be obvious); the second was the way Reconstruction was carried out. An entire people were effectively told: "You're free, now hit the road." No attempt was made to educate, train, or to weave African Americans into the fabric of society after the conflict.

One of the biggest tragedies was the assassination of Lincoln, as he would have been quite forgiving and all-embracing to the thoroughly beaten Southern states. With his death, those in government who "waved the bloody shirt" had their way with the South, and sowed the seeds of a bitterness that lingers today.

Foote also comments that, prior to the Civil War, the United States was always referred to in a sentence as "are." (The United States are...etc.) After the war, the United States was referred to as "is." The war made us an "is," and all that that signifies.

[roguevalley]

82. there's a great three part on PBS about Abraham and

Mary Todd Lincoln.

Slavery was going to be spreading. He was against it but he
wasn't ready to abolish it. States rights, don't you know.
They had their 'peculiar institution' but no one else must
have it. Eventually he would have risen to the moment and
figured an end, such was his loathing of it.

The south was seceeding and he believed in the union. The war
was fought for unity, for the continuation of the country as
a whole, with the abolition of slavery a by-product of this act.

Abraham spent a lot of time willing himself to relax so that his
hand would not be shaky, but firm with conviction when he signed
the Emancipation Proclamation, one of our greatest documents.

HE was a man of his time, ahead of the curve in many ways and
if he had lived, the reunification of the country would have
been different: with malice for none and compassion for all. He
was a gigantic man, a real man with foibles and confusions but
he was the man for his time and he rose like a giant to meet
the challenges facing us, challenges that were unprecedented in
our history.

The south said prior to the election that if Lincoln were
elected, they would seceede and they did. That was why the
war happened. All the rest is details. Thank goodness. Slavery
is one of the blackest marks on our collective honor.

My g.grandpas each faced each other at the battle of cowpens
on separate sides. 7000 died in 20 minutes there. If they had
been more accurate, someone else would be sitting here typing
this.

RV

[roguevalley]

83. I agree:

"One of the biggest tragedies was the assassination of Lincoln, as he would have been quite forgiving and all-embracing to the thoroughly beaten Southern states. With his death, those in government who "waved the bloody shirt" had their way with the South, and sowed the seeds of a bitterness that lingers today."

I think in some ways he died for all our sins.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

80. Lincoln didn't attack the South

Hi, Muddle. I'm a white Southerner (North Carolinian). I come from families that supplied soldiers to both the Confederate and Union armies. From my perspective, the right folks won the war. In fact, they probably should have made Reconstruction much stricter. But that's my perspective. The facts show that the first shots fired in the Civil War were fired by traitors manning the battery in Charleston. Those traitors were shooting at a fort in Charleston Harbor held by United States Army troops. Notice I do not say "Union." United States Army.

As for freeing the slaves, if that doesn't make for a morally just war, then nothing does. Yes, it was bloody. It was also necessary. By the way, if you do a little digging in your local college library, you'll find that the Confederate leadership fully intended to expand its geographical boundaries once it succeeded in secession from the U.S. It planned to seize most of the Caribbean and turn it into a Confederate lake. Slavery would be re-introduced into those places where it had been banned decades earlier.

I understand your frustration and share it to a great degree. But one bullshit flamebait thread doesn't deserve a bunch of others in response. Unless, of course, you're trying to get attention like the author of the thread in question.

[PATRICK]

88. Thank you and more history

After Sumter both sides geared up for the showdown at Bull Run, a winner take all situation that woke up America about real war. The South's best chance was to strike hard and fast. Appeasement only would have rushed them more. Lincoln tried to placate the South after the election, delayed anything about emancipation even with the war going. Minus Ghandhi his hand was called. Full marshalling of Union resources was NOT going to happen without the experience of real war. The South was itching for a real fight with its limited resources. Itching for decades. Instead it turned into brutal attrition competition with victory coming when the North finally got that point and realized it had the numbers and the resources.

This armchair quarterbacking apply at all to DLC strategy?

[Yupster]

89. Lincoln tried to placate the south?

How did he do that?

While the Crittenden Committee was in Washington trying to keep the south from seceeding, Lincoln stayed out of Washington and refused to give his men on the committee any instructions.

During his three month pre-inauguration time as president-elect, he never set foot in the south, even the states like Virginia and Tennessee which had not seceeded.

He didn't free the slaves because he promised he wouldn't during the election campaign, not that he had the authority to change the constitution by himself anyway.

I think there's a lot of blame to be put onto Lincoln. He ran as a regional candidate and that was not the norm back then. It was traditional back then that every northern presidential candidate regardless of the party would run with a running mate from the south and vice-versa. Lincoln broke that tradition. Even Breckinridge, who ran as a southern Democrat in 1860, found a VP candidate from Oregon to run with him. Stephen Douglas found Senator Johnson from Georgia.

Then when Senators Davis, Cobb, Benjamin, Seward were meeting to try to reach a last minute compromise to keep the south in the union, Lincoln refused to meet or even send correspondence to them.

I think secessions, at least of the last four states, and the CSA was not a viable nation without Virginia, N Carolina and Tennessee could have been avoided if Lincoln would have lifted a finger to try.

[9215]

91. You know what I like about the Civil War?

It ended slavery and also ended, for those who want to give it honest consideration, the whole idea put forth today of reparations for blacks due to slavery. Blacks have already been paid: "each drop of blood shed by the lash, shall be repaid by the sword". It was.

I say this to blacks seeking reparations and those claiming the Civil War was somehow unjust: get over it!

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. Thanks

Actually, I really was hoping for (and got) an intelligent discussion of the topic. In my mind, the Civil War and WWII are about the best examples of moral war for America. That, as much as anything, was one of the points I was trying to make.

There are things in this world more horrible than war. When we encounter them, sometimes war is the only solution.

BTW, I disagree with your comment about Reconstruction. I think Marshall taught us that after WWII.

[VoteClark]

92. I think we should have NOT gone to war with the South

To be honest. We were better off without them. And the southern states would have come begging us to re join the Union. Think about this.


The South made its' money off exports of Cotton and Tobacco, mostly to European Nations. They sent them to the North, and then to Europe.
If we would taxed the hell out of them, and allowed slaves freedom if they made it to the Northern states, which were free states, they would soon give in otherwise and abolish slavery.

Lincoln only freed the slaves to win the war. And let us face facts, Blacks were not living in any different conditions from 1865 to 1920 anyway. When they were freed, they were stuck on the same farms, picking the same cotton fields living in the same shacks, eating the same food.

If they had a reason to run to the North, and would not be turned back, their was a chance of real freedom and change in their lives.

All in all, I think with or without the war, we would have been reunited again anyway.

And, if we didn't have the South now, we would not have Bush. :)

:kick:
J4Clark

[fabius]

93. The war was about slavery - period.

As such it was inevitable. I have shelves and shelves of Civil War history books. Don't get me started.

Volume 3 of Shelby Foote's trilogy has a very eloquent discussion of how the nation gradually came to understand what the war meant - that the words "All men are created equal..." were to have real meaning. it was a truly revolutionary, earth shaking idea. The Civil War was a more fundamental revolution than the American Revolution.

Senior Confederate generals like Longstreet ended up admitting later that the nation was much better off without slavery and unified.

The struggle for freedom continued into the 20th century as it does now.

The American Revolution is a continuous process. We are still part of it.

[moondust]

95. The South would have never "come to its senses".

Without the application of force to inflict change I seriously doubt the South would have ever found its way out of slavery. The economic benefits were too great and the incentives to stop too few. It had planted deep roots.

Look at how long substantive change has taken even with the war.

[Deja Q]

108. Given how humans behave, war is inevitable

There are the evolved humans, but all they can do is bitch and gripe when the warmongers and the unevolved do wrongful things.

It's ironic that the peacemakers should wipe the warmongers off the face of this earth and try to begin again. Especially when the credibility of said "peacemakers" comes into question.

Not that I'm calling Bush a peacemaker; not in the slightest. He's as phony as any sugar substitute used in "diet" products.