Considering Shermans march to the sea and Lincolns totalitarianism, what do you think the chances are he would have used nuclear weapons on the South if they had been available when the war was still in doubt?
"The Patriarch"
If it would have preserved the economic interests he was trying to protect, absolutely.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
No , I doubt he would have used a weapon that decimated land and civilian population as that would have.
The number of estimated dead from the atomic attacks in Japan maxes out around 250,000, and it got a crazed warrior-ethic driven society (not just the military!) to give up its further war plans fairly immediately.
The number of dead from the actual things Lincoln actually did is around 625,000.
If he had used them, it would probably have resulted in fewer deaths.
Would he have used them? To think that he would have actually ascribes a concern for human life to the man that I'm not seeing much evidence of him possessing.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Absolutely he would have. Without a doubt
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Does that count all the Indians hung in Minnesota ??Originally Posted by fisharmor
Heh, yeah it does also beg the question of whether an immediate and ultimately less scorched-earth conclusion to the war would have resulted in the 40 years of genocide that followed out west.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Good point, he may have waited till the point of Shermans march to the sea and then used them.
"The Patriarch"
No question, in a heartbeat, especially since, in his mind, it would have taken care of two birds with one stone:
1 - Rebellious southerners that dared to question federal authority.
2 - That pesky Negro problem. Incinerating them would have saved the trouble of repatriating them all back to Africa.
Once committed to "scorching the earth" the means become secondary.
Impressed by the answers in this thread.
Of course he would have. He was a monster!
worse, picture north and south with nukes and missles
as richmond and d.c are only 80 miles apart going into
'fail safe' turf like as if its two henry fonda flics morphed.
No, because the Southern States would have had nukes too. But he would have tried to censor the Internet, that's for certain.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
I still do not think so , once you do that , how would you reunite the states ?
Hammer meets nail.
"The Patriarch"
My question was with the assumpion the South didn't have them. You raise a whole different scenario.
"The Patriarch"
And now it becomes clear why our "foreign policy" encourages the production and proliferation of nukes.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-13-2012 at 10:44 PM.
Dam AF. (lights go on)
"The Patriarch"
I manage to connect every so often.
Real eye opener isn't it?
Every once in a while I still get that 'santa clause isnt real' shock to the system.
"The Patriarch"
In the 1850's the Sioux were starving , due to treaty violations by US Fed govt and non payment by the Indian agents of annuities . One Indian killed five settlers who were hunting , then it was on , after more killing of settlers , the Army rounded up and arrested about 1000 Indians , then in one day , largest execution in American History , hung 38 Indians , most of whom were innocent
Total death toll from the Indian uprising in 1862 from a decade of theft and abuse by the Feds , probably about 77 US soldiers , over 190 Indians including those executed , American citizens , nobody knows , possibly as many as 900 , or as few as 300.Two more Indians hung later . Congress took away the land and Reservations , most imprisoned , about four years later released to a different state , after one third died in custody , familes had already been removed from ancestoral lands to Nebraska. Pretty much a lesson to be learned by the Fed Govt , that they have never learned . When you steal enough and starve the people , there will be bad things that happen.....
Last edited by oyarde; 07-14-2012 at 12:45 AM.
Only the only reason all 1000 weren't killed was because Lincoln interceded personally in the matter. The commanding general wanted to kill all 1000.
Hard to do when its an irradiated wasteland. If you think Lincoln was about the land, and the money, and so on the idea that he would use nukes should be logically unacceptable.
Wait, are you saying Lincoln saved some "injuns" out of the goodness of his heart?
"The Patriarch"
I think the point was that he did recolonize? the South.
"The Patriarch"
Well , maybe he should have stopped it all and hung an Indian agent instead .... Mox nix , really , an old man like me thinking of dumb $#@! like Liberty & Freedom , I have NEVER had to worry , I will never be taken alive .
I imagine , he probably did feel he had responsibility and goodness in his heart , quite sure though , that was not for any Indians and, you fill in the blank ....
Exactly. If his point was to recolonize the South (which he actually didn't do) then WHY would he turn large chunks of it into an irradiated wasteland?
To the point about "recolonizing" the South, its bullcrap. Its revisionist history just as bad as saying Lincoln freed the slaves. In fact his reconstruction plan was incredibly lenient punishing no southern outside of Confederate Congress as high military officers of rank of general. And the "punishment" was their loss of citizenship. But by and large the South was to be allowed re-enter the Union when their states had 10% of their 1860 population back into working civil office and had pledged to accept the Emancipation Proclamation. As General Lee noted, those were "very lenient terms." It was after his death, after President Johnson followed Lincoln's reconstruction plan against the wishes of the Radical Republicans but failing because he had no political acumen whatsoever and turned Congress (the moderate, conservative, and radical wings of the Republicans) against him that the idea of recolonizing the South (with military district/occupation, and all) comes into force. But that emerged out of Congress as part of Radical Reconstruction, not Lincoln.
There are plenty of reasons to hate an authoritarian like Lincoln. But at least have your history correct, or you'll just make an ass out of yourself.
Honestly? Not particularly. Actually Lincoln was pretty damn ambivalent to Indian affairs. But factually that is what happened. The commanding general wanted to kill all 1,000 Natives and Lincoln interceded and demanded only the leaders and ringleaders of the uprising me punished by death, and chose the exact ones himself. Am I trying to make him into an Indian Saint? No. But if you're going to judge history, you'd damn well better have your facts straight or you're just going to make an ass of yourself, and an ignorant ass at that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us