Would Lincoln have used nukes?

[Origanalist]

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.

Well, I started this thread for the purpose of discussion and enlightenment, but thanks for the insults.

[PierzStyx]

Well, I started this thread for the purpose of discussion and enlightenment, but thanks for the insults.

If you want enlightenment on Lincoln, the place to come for it isn't here. Go read a book. David Donald's "Lincoln" is a good place to start. Its not completely unbiased, but Donald does his best to suppress his biases and present Lincoln as honestly and truthfully as possible. Its great for hard facts on which you can base your judgment if nothing else.

[Origanalist]

If you want enlightenment on Lincoln, the place to come for it isn't here. Go read a book. David Donald's "Lincoln" is a good place to start. Its not completely unbiased, but Donald does his best to suppress his biases and present Lincoln as honestly and truthfully as possible. Its great for hard facts on which you can base your judgment if nothing else.

From Library Journal
Winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, most recently for Homeward: A Life of Thomas Wolfe (LJ 12/86), Donald proves himself the superb biographer of Lincoln, though two recent biographies, Michael Burlingame's The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln (LJ 4/1/94) and Merrill Peterson's Lincoln in American Memory (LJ 10/1/94), are both important studies. Donald's profile of the 16th president focuses entirely on Lincoln, seldom straying from the subject. It looks primarily at what Lincoln "knew, when he knew it, and why he made his decisions." Donald's Lincoln emerges as ambitious, often defeated, tormented by his married life, but with a remarkable capacity for growth?and the nation's greatest president. What really stands out in a lively narrative are Lincoln's abilities to hold together a nation of vastly diverse regional interests during the turmoil and tragedy of the Civil War. Donald's biography will appeal to all readers and will undoubtedly corral its share of book awards. Highly recommended for all libraries.?Boyd Childress, Auburn Univ. Lib., Ala.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
-----------------------------------------

The nations greatest President? Are you $#@!ing joking? 3/4 of a million dead, God only knows how many maimed. And all for his hard on for central authority. We seem to be on different pages here.

[Aratus]

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.

this is WHY there was a big long senate trial!
its not until after the bi-election of 1866 that
we see potus Andrew Johnson actually doing
things that were his own idea most totally...

[Aratus]

this thread has its WILD WILD WEST REMAKE moments where
the 20th century intrudes into the quaint charm of the 1800s

[Anti Federalist]

this thread has its WILD WILD WEST REMAKE moments where
the 20th century intrudes into the quaint charm of the 1800s

SteamPunk FTW?

[oyarde]

Well, I started this thread for the purpose of discussion and enlightenment, but thanks for the insults.

I wish I had some nukes

[MelissaWV]

It's doubtful he would have used nukes, because the South was the nation's breadbasket.

[TheTexan]

It's doubtful he would have used nukes, because the South was the nation's breadbasket.

Which is also a reason why he would have used nukes

[MelissaWV]

Which is also a reason why he would have used nukes

All things being equal (and this is a difficult scenario to argue, since having nukes would also carry with it a lot of other technology), food was slow to ship and certain crops were quite popular up north. Using enough nukes to effectively take out the South would likely demolish a lot of prime growing areas and damage an important food source.

To put it briefly, the land is far more valuable than the people on it. Lincoln was fighting his war with a lot of Irish fresh off the ships, a lot of poor, a lot of people he didn't really mind losing. The South was fighting with its people, particularly since so many battles wound up on their soil, on their farms, at their homes.

*shrugs* I think both points of view have merit, but it's kind of a silly scenario. This is like asking if Jesus would have watched YouTube.

[oyarde]

I do not think Jesus would watch you tube

[oyarde]

The march to the Sea was 64,000 soldiers , two columns , and five weeks .the South was doomed , could only muster 13,000 .

[oyarde]

So , if you think about it , the march was five weeks , the Confederacy could not defend Atlanta.....

[CaptainAmerica]

no. He needed to maintain his image somewhat...thats why he wrote a letter to Sherman basically wiping his own hands of everything by telling sherman to do whatever sherman felt was necessary.

[PierzStyx]

From Library Journal
Winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, most recently for Homeward: A Life of Thomas Wolfe (LJ 12/86), Donald proves himself the superb biographer of Lincoln, though two recent biographies, Michael Burlingame's The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln (LJ 4/1/94) and Merrill Peterson's Lincoln in American Memory (LJ 10/1/94), are both important studies. Donald's profile of the 16th president focuses entirely on Lincoln, seldom straying from the subject. It looks primarily at what Lincoln "knew, when he knew it, and why he made his decisions." Donald's Lincoln emerges as ambitious, often defeated, tormented by his married life, but with a remarkable capacity for growth?and the nation's greatest president. What really stands out in a lively narrative are Lincoln's abilities to hold together a nation of vastly diverse regional interests during the turmoil and tragedy of the Civil War. Donald's biography will appeal to all readers and will undoubtedly corral its share of book awards. Highly recommended for all libraries.?Boyd Childress, Auburn Univ. Lib., Ala.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
-----------------------------------------

The nations greatest President? Are you $#@!ing joking? 3/4 of a million dead, God only knows how many maimed. And all for his hard on for central authority. We seem to be on different pages here.

You DO realize the part you quote is the reviewer not Donald's quote, right?

[oyarde]

The Confederacy never had any chance of winning . The only reason it lasted so long was , basically , over all , the Confederacy had the best marksmen , foragers , Officers , Cav . etc They never , though , had the resources ...

[Aratus]

this thread has its WILD WILD WEST REMAKE moments where
the 20th century intrudes into the quaint charm of the 1800s

SteamPunk FTW?

i liked the 1960s tv show. its the big mechanized boilerplate serious
spiders that got me in the movie. i think the question is... can our
madisonian balance survive a nuclear presidency or presidencies. if
the South was often techie and warrior caste ahead of the north, i
then had to postulate a scenario where henry fonda's young abe lincoln
meets up with 1962's FAILSAFE in that Cold War scenarios transact out
between richmond and the district of columbia. gerogie patton's quote
on WWII and honor presupposes only gen'l butler could live with discarging
a nuke, and that our west point trained military guys were of their time.

[jmdrake]

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?

Nukes don't kill vampires.

[Aratus]

harry S. truman in 1944 was better informed than jefferson davis or abe lincoln would have been
if a timetraveler took some suitcase nukes back into the politics of 1864. we cannot bring the many
assumptions or the intelligencia consensus of 1947 back to 1865. i think the reluctanse to utilize
the superweapon of the future would outweigh the desire for a small tactical advantage. they need
to be explained, and as an ecosphere poisonous mystery box device, fear overrides confidence.
if it is decribed as a poisoner of land and a destroyer of regiments, and akin to a volcanic fury then
they might hold back. if it is hyped as the superweapon of the age, they might buy into the hype.

this thread has its WILD WILD WEST REMAKE moments where
the 20th century intrudes into the quaint charm of the 1800s

It's doubtful he would have used nukes, because the South was the nation's breadbasket.

All things being equal (and this is a difficult scenario to argue, since having nukes would also carry with it a lot of other technology), food was slow to ship and certain crops were quite popular up north. Using enough nukes to effectively take out the South would likely demolish a lot of prime growing areas and damage an important food source.

To put it briefly, the land is far more valuable than the people on it. Lincoln was fighting his war with a lot of Irish fresh off the ships, a lot of poor, a lot of people he didn't really mind losing. The South was fighting with its people, particularly since so many battles wound up on their soil, on their farms, at their homes.

*shrugs* I think both points of view have merit, but it's kind of a silly scenario. This is like asking if Jesus would have watched YouTube.

[Aratus]

No. Abe Lincoln was not liking the carnage of the war.
In 1864 he deliberately put the war governor of TENN
on his ticket, and all the pardons done in Dec' of 1865
were done in that manner because the 17th POTUS did
assume that is what Honest Abe would have done. There
is a quote by Ole Andy Johnson where he wanted to have
a great many leading Confederates be hanged, but there
a big difference between hanging or shooting a person and
nuking an army or city. Even though HST did what he did in '45.

[Aratus]

AF has a posting...here.

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?

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.

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.

I still do not think so , once you do that , how would you reunite the states ?

Every once in a while I still get that 'santa clause isnt real' shock to the system.

[Origanalist]

AF has a posting...here.

Thanks for coming back Aratus, this place was a lot more interesting back when I posted it. Full of characters, in fact there was only one bore in the whole thread @PierzStyx .

[brushfire]

Lincoln practically did just that...

There was a lot of carnage in the civil war as it was old world tactics with modern weaponry.

I'm honestly not sure that a nuke would have been any worse.

Lots of maimed people, and towards the end there were many dead confederate boys and gray haired men. Not even mentioning sherman's scorched earth...

[Aratus]

The generals who fought WW1 had studied our great Civil War, our mutual War Between the States,
perhaps a million Americans, civilian & military, both... died due to that war between 1861 and 1865.

[Origanalist]

The generals who fought WW1 had studied our great Civil War, our mutual War Between the States,
perhaps a million Americans, civilian & military, both... died due to that war between 1861 and 1865.

It certainly was admired, studied and emulated by future tyrants and planners of death and destruction.

[Swordsmyth]

AF was right.

[Raginfridus]

AF was right.

AF's alt confirmed lol

What happened to the True Scotsman?

[RonZeplin]

AF's alt confirmed lol

What happened to the True Scotsman?

Hacked by the ruskies?

[Raginfridus]

Hacked by the ruskies?

Its Good Friday, is he bar hopping?

[Aratus]

harry S. truman in 1944 was better informed than jefferson davis or abe lincoln would have been
if a timetraveler took some suitcase nukes back into the politics of 1864. we cannot bring the many
assumptions or the intelligencia consensus of 1947 back to 1865. i think the reluctanse to utilize
the superweapon of the future would outweigh the desire for a small tactical advantage. they need
to be explained, and as an ecosphere poisonous mystery box device, fear overrides confidence.
if it is decribed as a poisoner of land and a destroyer of regiments, and akin to a volcanic fury then
they might hold back. if it is hyped as the superweapon of the age, they might buy into the hype.

Worst of it is, my paragraph up above sounds like something ole Eugene would have said in
season 3 or 4 of AMC's THE WALKING DEAD. A good scriptwriter could rewrite my prose to
have the posting sounding like a jargon happy scifi buff speculating on the apocalypse and
its time travel multiverses, and what might have been! I still think one can utilize his veep
to glimpse how Lincoln made decisions. If there was only just one nuke in 1863, imoho it is
never lobbed. I have an easier time thinking Lincoln would have held back but the same can
be said about Jefferson Davis, especially if the nature and degree of the weapon is understood.