How Lincoln won the Civil War-killer app,the telegraph

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Nov 27 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]354615[/snapback]</div>

It was also Lincoln's ability to stay the course when things got real tough - which they did often.

I wonder how many here would favor a war to free American slaves today if they still existed? They were not being murdered and they were not subjected to being the target of WMD's. I wonder seeing how many here objected to the removal of Saddam who murdered millions, used WMD's, invaded nieghboring countries, etc.

It truly is amazing to see that war does solve problems - like slavery, nazism, etc. It was the right thing to do then and still remains an instrument of correcting wrongs today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Nov 27 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]354615[/snapback]</div>

I think the reason the Union won the Civil War was a bit more complex. The Union Generals had a logistic system that was very good at supplying soldiers in the field. This logistic ability was not an accident, the quartermaster corps was aware that in order to feed and eqiup an army they needed to discard the old way of foraging for supplies. The quartermasters used all of the 'high tech' at thier disposal: Rail, telegraph, steam water transport, and standardization of everything. What gave the Union the ability to afford this: Fiscal Policy: Standardization of the US currency (The Green Back). Until this point there was no standard currency for the United States, so each State, City, County, Bank or compnay had their own money and often this money was not accepted outside the local area. This ment the trade and industry was very regional and trade was in kind not for cash. Having a central money issuing organization kept the gov't from printing just to pay bills, which in turn kept inflation down and enabled industry to plan ahead.

So it was the General's supplies that really won the Civil War.

 

When the going got tough, the North cut-n-run until the South surrendered.

It's not in the childrens text books yet, but give the liberal left a few years and we will find out that was the successful strategy. We should learn from history and use the cut-n-run in Iraq!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 29 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]355173[/snapback]</div>

I'm trying to think of an invasion of another country that succeeded without massive colonization and genocide. Remind me again what you think victory would look like in Iraq again?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Essayons @ Nov 29 2006, 08:25 AM) [snapback]355170[/snapback]</div>

I believe it was the will of the ordinary soldier and their families and friends and fellow citizens and their leaders both elected and not (ie, the media) who did not ever give up. Without that at the core - everything else - even the worlds best supply system would have been useless.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 29 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]355173[/snapback]</div>

True - sad but true.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 29 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]355183[/snapback]</div>

Try France or Japan or Germany or North Aftica or Italy to name a few invasions that worked out pretty well.

Victory in Iraq looks less likely with liberals like you and your ilk redifining victory and defeat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 29 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]355173[/snapback]</div>

Why don't we use the Neocon's History Book and learn about how we utterly smashed North Korea in that war, as well as, of course, our glorious victory in Vietnam?

 

Boy, that didn't take long. Mention a book about technology & the civil war and you get sniping from Iraq supporters & detractors.

At least Essayons was able to reply without pushing an agenda.

I don't know enough about the Civil War to add anything of value to the discussion. But I find the concept of the book interesting. As the article says, "It is by no means an exhaustive historical analysis of the subject". But it looks like a fun read. Especially for technophiles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 29 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]355218[/snapback]</div>

North Korea last I checked was a pretty impressive military victory given the Chinese intervention.

Our "glorious victory in Vietnam" was prevented by the liberals and media (again please name one significant military defeat during our ENTIRE time in Vietnam) - so that "glorius victory" turned into a blood bath for millions of Cambodians who were slaughtered like cattle - another victory for the left/media - that their spinelesness does have consequences --- like if we pull out of Iraq and/or let Iran go nuclear...

 

Remembering something I saw on the History Channel about the oxymoron war (can't bring myself to call war civil). They claimed that much of the north's advantage came from the fact that because the north was more industrialized vs the south being largely agrarin, the north generally had better access to the more advanced tools. This would go hand in hand with the article linked to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 29 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]355229[/snapback]</div>

Shouldn't surprise you! I am somewhat a student of history, at least I try to learn from it and apply it to the present. I have had to change a lot of my "world philosophies" when I put them up against historical issues. So, it is required to bring in Iraq, et al, in order to avoid having to face the reality that things have not changed a whole buch from the civil war (or earlier) to current wars. War is war, has been and will be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 29 2006, 11:32 PM) [snapback]355554[/snapback]</div>

The difference today is that our enemy - islamofascists - target innocent civilians and employ suicide techniques in order to reach them. For better or worse modern warfare has had a set of rules parties follow formalized via the Geneva Conventions - that have been adhered to for the most part. Our enemy today makes no bones about NOT adhering to them.

The future difference in warfare which we are starting to see today is machines doing the killing instead of humans. Technologies will further insulate humans from the risks of warfare more and more making war perhaps easier to tolerate and at the same time redefining victory and defeat in terms of actual numbers of casualties.

 

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com/boatburners/index.htm

While its destruction by a saboteur is still a theroy, if true, the explosion of the Sultana would have been the second greatest loss of life by terrorism on american soil after 9/11. It also happened after the official end of the war.

So, things really haven't changed that much.

 

The North was more industrialized. The South could not maintain a long war. Also, I think Lincoln put a ban on iPods to the South.