4 ms·

I know I'm going to sound like a crank, but I can't get over the fact that Lincoln killed 3% of the population of the United States. Every other Western countr

by tjic 10y ago

I know I'm going to sound like a crank, but I can't get over the fact that Lincoln killed 3% of the population of the United States. Every other Western country was able to end slavery without an insanely devastating civil war. Only Lincoln had to field armies, burn the homes of non combatants, run prison camps, etc. I'm glad slavery ended, but Lincoln isn't remotely a genius in my book.

andars 10y ago
I fail to see how blaming the civil war on Lincoln is justified. Please elaborate. EDIT: The issue of slavery was only the spark. The conflict that escalated into the civil war was multifaceted and at its core reflected two very different views of the American union.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  And began before he even entered the office of the President. How can someone be held responsible for events predating their ability to be involved?
  - andars 10y ago
    This one is a little tricky. The battle of Fort Sumter, which is usually regarded as the start of the war, was actually after he was inaugurated. Secession, however, started well before his inauguration in March. In any case, the conflict was definitely there before he was directly involved.
    - labster 10y ago
      The main battle occurred after Lincoln took office, sure. But the siege? Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.[1] As far as I can see, the war was started by the South almost 3 months before Lincoln took office. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#Civil_War
nine_k 10y ago
Let's notice that the war was as much about preventing the South from secession as it was about slavery.
- travmatt 10y ago
  The South seceded over slavery - the north waged war to preserve the Union.
SamReidHughes 10y ago
The South could have surrendered any time it wanted to.
- travmatt 10y ago
  Indeed it could, and Sherman famously predicted that the only reason the south continued in its fighting was that it was not properly suffering the consequences of the war they chose to instigate - that if he unleashed the terror of war upon them, he could break their will. "This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."
Mz 10y ago
General Lee was a tactical genius. The only advantage the North had was numbers of bodies. The only northern general willing to blithely leverage that fact was Grant. Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll. Then, when Lee finally surrendered, Grant broke with the long standing human tradition of punishing the loser with war reparations. He had only three conditions of surrender, one of which was that the South would accept help from the North to rebuild. His merciful position is credited with being the reason the US has only had one civil war. In most countries, the end of one civil war merely sows the bitter seeds for the start of the next. Grant later became president.
- labster 10y ago
  The Union had other advantages other than people; namely a vastly superior industrial base and a much stronger navy. They were just as critical as the greater numbers of forces. But the showing of mercy to the vanquished foe has proven repeatedly to be great public policy, and should be remembered whenever one hears a politician talk about taking the spoils of war.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  > Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll. Most of the complaints started and ended with the Battle of Shiloh. Grant was, by most accounts, a merely able tactician, but he did see the bigger picture, like Johnston probably did, while Lee did not. If the South had fought a purely defensive war and avoided decisive battles wherever possible, the North would probably have been forced to concede for political reasons. Grant fought so offensively and aggressively because he knew this. Lee really blew it from a strategic perspective, although to be fair, there were political pressures on him. I'm also inclined to give more credit to Grant's tactical abilities than most, because, well, he did beat Lee on the field pretty handily. I would also add that Grant felt the terms he offered Lee were what Lincoln would have wanted.

by tjic 10y ago

andars 10y ago

I fail to see how blaming the civil war on Lincoln is justified. Please elaborate. EDIT: The issue of slavery was only the spark. The conflict that escalated into the civil war was multifaceted and at its core reflected two very different views of the American union.

Jtsummers 10y ago
And began before he even entered the office of the President. How can someone be held responsible for events predating their ability to be involved?
- andars 10y ago
  This one is a little tricky. The battle of Fort Sumter, which is usually regarded as the start of the war, was actually after he was inaugurated. Secession, however, started well before his inauguration in March. In any case, the conflict was definitely there before he was directly involved.
  - labster 10y ago
    The main battle occurred after Lincoln took office, sure. But the siege? Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.[1] As far as I can see, the war was started by the South almost 3 months before Lincoln took office. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#Civil_War

nine_k 10y ago

Let's notice that the war was as much about preventing the South from secession as it was about slavery.

travmatt 10y ago
The South seceded over slavery - the north waged war to preserve the Union.

SamReidHughes 10y ago

The South could have surrendered any time it wanted to.

travmatt 10y ago
Indeed it could, and Sherman famously predicted that the only reason the south continued in its fighting was that it was not properly suffering the consequences of the war they chose to instigate - that if he unleashed the terror of war upon them, he could break their will. "This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."

Mz 10y ago

General Lee was a tactical genius. The only advantage the North had was numbers of bodies. The only northern general willing to blithely leverage that fact was Grant. Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll. Then, when Lee finally surrendered, Grant broke with the long standing human tradition of punishing the loser with war reparations. He had only three conditions of surrender, one of which was that the South would accept help from the North to rebuild. His merciful position is credited with being the reason the US has only had one civil war. In most countries, the end of one civil war merely sows the bitter seeds for the start of the next. Grant later became president.

labster 10y ago
The Union had other advantages other than people; namely a vastly superior industrial base and a much stronger navy. They were just as critical as the greater numbers of forces. But the showing of mercy to the vanquished foe has proven repeatedly to be great public policy, and should be remembered whenever one hears a politician talk about taking the spoils of war.
Amezarak 10y ago
> Lincoln kept him in charge even though civilians were haranguing Lincoln to remove him because they were appalled by the high death toll. Most of the complaints started and ended with the Battle of Shiloh. Grant was, by most accounts, a merely able tactician, but he did see the bigger picture, like Johnston probably did, while Lee did not. If the South had fought a purely defensive war and avoided decisive battles wherever possible, the North would probably have been forced to concede for political reasons. Grant fought so offensively and aggressively because he knew this. Lee really blew it from a strategic perspective, although to be fair, there were political pressures on him. I'm also inclined to give more credit to Grant's tactical abilities than most, because, well, he did beat Lee on the field pretty handily. I would also add that Grant felt the terms he offered Lee were what Lincoln would have wanted.