« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Left thinks this is Antietam. It’s Sherman’s March.

By: Dave_in_Fla (Diary)  |  September 16th, 2010 at 01:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As I walked out of my hotel room this morning, I was greeted by the blaring headline in USA Today: “Tea Party’s wins fuel a ‘civil war’ within GOP”. This headline set my blood to boiling more than any of the arguments over Castle vs. O’Donnell in the last week. I’m just your average rube, so my first impression was “what a clueless reporter!” But after a little bit of reflection, I recalled Jim Geraghty’s September 2nd report from his old political mentor, Obi-wan. The key point that he made is that the Democrats will use their control of the Media at every turn to try and change the narrative.

Remember that Politico piece about the daily phone call of Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, Begala, and George Stephanopoulos on the White House line of the day? ABC News has been tracking pretty accurately on the White House various pitches this spring and summer — the Tea partiers are haters or Timothy McVeigh types — then the whole setup for the NAACP convention launched the “they’re all racist” theme, etc. So keep an eye on ABC, especially Stephanopoulos and also First Read and Politico — they’re usually the first-wave transmitters of the White House line. Believe me, they’ve already got a pollster or two who’s ready to bend some numbers and journalists ready to write about the “sudden Democratic surge.” I’d love to know which week they have picked for the “Democrats are back in business” story. They have tried it twice this summer, but neither polls nor events carried the storyline any further. They will badly need the networks’ news departments to come through if there is a real domestic terrorist incident or some ugly display by someone on the right.

The bolding above shows where the narrative predicted fits exactly with the focus of the USA Today article. The Tea Party represents a bunch of extremists who are taking control from the sensible Republican establishment.

*deep breath to keep from breaking out in an uncontrolled stream of obscenities*

We have been here before. In Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech of the Republican nomination, he offered this famous line: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” The first line is what we all remember, but equally important is the second line. Moderation is not a virtue and does not lead to the pursuit and defense of liberty. It only encourages creeping acceptance of the status quo, with no memory of the incremental poor choices that led to the current morass.

I apologize, I can’t recall if I read this here or on Ace in the last few days, but someone had a very good analogy for the Tea Party. Looking back at the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland, it became an unstoppable political force when the people took to the street and suddenly realized there are more of us than them. This is where the Tea Party is today, it has captured a populist mood that is saying “enough is enough, I have to be fiscally responsible in my personal life and damn it, the Government is going to have to also, or we will replace them”.

The media lapdogs are falling into line, having been given their talking points. The Tea Party is a bunch of extremists, and is bringing Civil War to the Republican Party. Oh noes! Suddenly a bunch of leftists, who 99% of the time would love nothing more than to drink their Starbuck’s lattes which watching the Republican Party self destruct, helpfully rushes to the rescue to save “those hardworking public servants who are being unfairly kicked out for the sin of being moderate”. We are all supposed to shed tears and punish these mean meanies in November.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party strategists and the professional whiners over at the Huffington Post, rub their hands together hoping that the GOP will self destruct through internecine warfare. They hope for a GOP version of the Battle of Antietam.

At a crucial moment, Confederate Maj. Gen. A.P. Hill’s division arrived from Harpers Ferry and launched a surprise counterattack, driving back Burnside and ending the battle. Although outnumbered two-to-one, Lee committed his entire force, while McClellan sent in less than three-quarters of his army, enabling Lee to fight the Federals to a standstill. During the night, both armies consolidated their lines. In spite of crippling casualties, Lee continued to skirmish with McClellan throughout September 18, while removing his battered army south of the river.

They hope that we will fight among ourselves, fight to a standstill, allowing the Democrats to minimize their losses in November and retain control of Congress.

Well, I offer an alternate view of the Civil War that they will experience, Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Sherman’s March to the Sea is the name commonly given to the Savannah Campaign conducted across Georgia during November-December 1864 by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army in the American Civil War. The campaign began with Sherman’s troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia on November 15 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. It inflicted significant damage, particularly to industry and infrastructure (as per the doctrine of total war), and also to civilian property. A military historian wrote that Sherman “defied military principles by operating deep within enemy territory and without lines of supply or communication. He destroyed much of the South’s potential and psychology to wage war.

This is not bravado or swagger. This is the true reading of the mood of the electorate and the forces that led to the defeat of establishment candidates.

The USA Today article tries to justify its assertion by going to some of the usual suspects.

It’s official: There is now a civil war within the Republican Party,” said Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. “The good news for Republicans is the Tea Party is capturing the anti-establishment energy in America. The bad news is that includes the Republican establishment.

Well now there is an astute piece of analysis from a former advisor to both Bush AND McCain! But wait, what was the context for our last discussion of Mark McKinnon? Oh, yes it was here.

I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama,” said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR’s “All Things Considered.” “I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.

How did that bit of advice turn out for us?

*another deep breath to keep from breaking out in an uncontrolled stream of obscenities*

There have been several good post mortems written after the Delaware primary. One of my favorite “balanced” analyses is from Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics.

4. No, this doesn’t mark the end of the GOP … Republicans are currently positioned to win the most House seats that they’ve won in an election since 1946. Republican candidates for the House are running away with races in evenly-matched swing districts. They are competitive in House districts in Maine that are typically 3-8 points more Democratic than the country, and in a Central Valley district that is five points more Democratic than the country. And if Republicans are competitive in CA-20, what does the polling look like in the 116 districts Democrats occupy that are as or more conservative than that district? There is also a chance for the GOP to win the most Governorships in 130 years – numbers that don’t support the view of a party in decline.

I think this is a very important point. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the same energy and Tea Party activism that has brought us Mike Lee, Ken Buck, Marco Rubio, and Joe Miller has also brought us O’Donnell. Sweeping political forces are not going to moderate (there is that word again) themselves for the benefit of one race where a better tactical choice might have been made. It is the classic discussion of strategy versus tactics. Political consultants are focused on the tactics of the immediate, trying to squeeze every last victory available for the party that hires them. The Tea Party is focused on a long range strategic imperative, trying to permanently change the culture of Washington, even if it means forgoing a Senate majority this year. They view it as perfectly acceptable to wait another election cycle if it means increased fidelity to the Constitution and smaller government in the future.

I think that John Podhoretz captured the essence of the Tea Party influence over the GOP pretty well the other day.

The presumption among delighted people on the left-liberal side is that all this roiling on the right suggests a party in disarray and a movement intent on cannibalizing itself. That’s one way to look at it. The other is that the GOP is actually expanding and seizing the populist mood that seems to be the national direction — even though the GOP leadership, especially in the Senate, is finding the whole business unnerving and destructive.

I invite the Left to enjoy their momentary euphoria. They fundamentally do not understand the Tea party. Heck, even the GOP leadership is having a hard time understanding, it would be insane to expect the Statists to get it. Meanwhile, November 2nd inches closer, when the Left will find themselves in the cross hairs of a political tsunami that has been practicing their political power, fund raising ability, and ground game on their political allies. What do you think they are going to do to their political enemies?

P.S. One of the most fascinating facts regarding Sherman’s March for me is, “Sherman’s personal escort on the march was the 1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, a unit made up entirely of Southerners who remained loyal to the Union.”

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikerazar

    His victims were not enemies. They were fellow Americans who thought they had the right to self-determination.

    It is an uncomfortable analogy.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      You mean the ones who enslaved millions, started the shooting at Fort Sumter, and were all around pouty brats because a man who loved libertry was elected President?

      • Doc Holliday

        but he broke a lot of liberty rules to win the war. He was probably right to do it, because victory was essential. Now if the implication is that Lincoln had planned to free the slaves prior to the hot war, or at any time in his administration if there were no war, that implication is unfounded and Lincoln said exactly the opposite many times.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          There is no right to treason.

          • smagar

            …or WWF Raw?

            :)

          • Doc Holliday

            without Congressional approval and military tribunals for civilians. Lincoln was willing to do ANYTHING too keep Maryland in the Union. It would have been difficult to fight the war with his capital located in enemy territory :)

            He also did these things in Kentucky, Missouri, and other border states, for the same purposes. The goal was to keep those who supported secession in check.

            I don’t question his ethics and principles, victory was essential. I just wouldn’t say liberty is the single best word to define the man.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      Here are the ACTUAL orders that Sherman gave in Special Field Orders, no 120…

      ” IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day’s provisions for the command and three days’ forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

      V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less apples.

      VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

      VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms”

      Please note that item V specifically forbade the destruction of infrastructure or killing individuals unless his troops were fired upon or otherwise molested. I am sorry you are uncomfortable with the analogy, however you are uninformed about history in this case.

      • mikerazar

        I won ‘t defend the leaders of the Confederacy, but it took almost a million dead and another million wounded to show that love for liberty. Fewer than 4 million slaves were freed. That was the one and only good thing to come from that horrible war whose aftermath plagued us for a century. Sherman’s march to the sea is one of the most sordid occurrences in American history. But for that, Reconstruction might have been a lot easier.

        “Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. ”

        I don’t mourn the dead slaveholders but few of the dead men and raped women of Georgia ever owned a slave or benefited from that horrible institution.

        Indeed, war is hell, and Sherman did what he thought was right, but I will not celebrate him or his troops. No matter what orders he gave, the result was disgusting.

        Yeah Dave, my personal bias is that the political leaders of America let us all down by failing to resolve the disputes peacefully. If you think Sherman’s orders were followed or were even given in good faith, you are the one who is ignorant of history.

        Today’s leaders would do well to study the history of those horrible years and the years preceding and following them.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          …because Dred Scott would disagree.

          • Robert Allen Leeper

            “the preservation of the union” was about slavery of a different and no less contemptible variety.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            That’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen on the site all day.

            Seriously.

            I suggest you research the horrors of slavery before you say something so idiotic again. These people were raped, tortured, killed, on the whims of horrible, hateful, sick men who enslaved them.

          • Robert Allen Leeper

            the neutral or benevolent. And this is not the place or time for that debate. I certainly don’t condone the Confederacy.

          • Doc Holliday

            But most historians will say one has to judge people of the past by their values and the societies they were raised in. One could just as easily dismiss citizens of Rome as tyrants, slave holders, and debauched pagans.

            If there is any chance of studying historical figures, you have to judge them by their place and time and not just assume we enlightened people are just inherently superior, when the reality is we just live in another time and are products of our history, just as the people in the past were products of their history.

            Of course we can say slavery was an evil. But how many people such as Lee and Lincoln said the same thing when it was much harder to say? Lee fought to preserve slavery, and Lincoln had no intention of ending it until late in the war.

            I know a few here are very anti-Confederate. I even here people worry about “neo-Confederates, whoever they are. But those who speak most intelligently on the war are those who have studied it. And those people usually understand the context of history and know that in the Civil War there was good and bad on both sides. Some did good with bad intentions, some did bad with good intentions, they were people, just as complex as we are today.

            If you asked the average Northern soldier or officer if he was fighting to free the slaves, he would say no. The people of that time did not split up over racial tolerance, they split up over economic systems. Heck, even West Virginia left their own state simply because slavery was not viable in those mountains.

            I guess I could go on forever but will not lol. Slavery was and evil, and it is good the South lost, it helped our nation progress. However, we can freely study the war without permanent scowls and dripping disdain. The Civil War was one of the most important times in our nations history, it is worth study and it is worth understanding why it happened. The good part is it could not happen like that again, the North and South are no longer based on different economic systems.

          • Doc Holliday

            I respect Grant as well as Lee. I respect Jackson and Sheridan. I do hold a fondness for Lee above all others, warts and all, and for that I will never apologize. You know, he is the most popular historical figure at West Point, by cadets from the North and South. Character, dignity, charisma, in the form of a bedeviling underdog? who else had a chance?

          • mikerazar

            gave a damn about Dred Scott or freeing the slaves.

            I’m sure you have read accounts of the draft riots in NY and other northern cities.

        • Dave_in_Fla

          You called him a murderer and now can vouch for what was in the mind and heart of a man who has been dead for 100 years?

          And you call me ignorant of history?

          Ok, I’m done, this is beyond a stupid discussion.

          • renny

            but he was the general who won the war, because he never gave up and he never retreated.
            The war was probably worsened and lengthened by the “more” ethical McClellan who never found a battle he couldn’t avoid or even Meade who refused to destroy Lee’s Army of Virginia when it retreated from Gettysburg, because Meade considered himself a cavalier and gentleman first. Unfortunately, while preserving Meade’s honor, the South fought almost another two years.
            Sherman’s march to the sea was meant to divide the eastern South as Vicksburg had severed its west on the Mississippi. The idea was to make the civilian population so beggared it would demand an end to the war. The fighting in the Shenandoah Valley was no picnic either.
            Regardless of the quarrels over military maneuvers a 150 years ago, wars are only won by defeating the enemy. The problem with our hot wars today is that we have forgotten how to win wars and settle for inconclusive muddling and then have to live with the political fallout.
            The Reps. should defeat the Dems. No quarter taken.

          • Doc Holliday

            Grant and Sherman were much more ethical by the standards of flag officers. McClellan disobeyed his civilian and military leaders. He bad mouthed everyone from Winfield Scott to Lincoln. He even tried to run against Lincoln politically.

            Meade did not “refuse to destroy” the ANV, he simply was slow and was outmaneuvered by a superior field general, Robert E. Lee. In fact, Lee’s escape back into Virginia was one of his greatest military achievements. Meade sent Halleck and Lincoln into a tizzy for his failure.

            Just some info, not meant as a rebuke .

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • smagar

            but you’re right in either case.

          • Doc Holliday
          • Doc Holliday

            “Regardless of the quarrels over military maneuvers a 150 years ago, wars are only won by defeating the enemy. The problem with our hot wars today is that we have forgotten how to win wars and settle for inconclusive muddling and then have to live with the political fallout”

          • mikerazar

            I had no intention of hijacking your thread, and I have no idea how well versed you are in history, anymore than you do of my knowledge.

            Millions of words were written contemporaneously about the Civil War and the complex reasons and emotions motivating the various participants. Many of those accounts were not friendly to Sherman and many were. Did you recognize the quote in my earlier comment?

            There is little doubt that Sherman’s army killed more civilians—white and black— than any other commander’s troops in that war. From most accounts it appears that the soldiers raped more black women than whites. Those women were AMERICANS and may God bless their memory. How many of those racist rapists and murderers were brought to justice by their commanding general? Lee would never have tolerated such behavior by his troops.

            Nobody defends slavery. It remains a stain on soul of America. That does not excuse atrocities committed by anyone in that war

      • Doc Holliday

        meaning civilians. He did make them homeless and caused a diaspora, of mostly women, old men, and children. He DID wage war on the infrastructure of the South. As Grant kept pounding Lee, Sherman tore through the South’s underbelly eradicating the homeland’s ability to help the army.

        I do know history sir, and what I just wrote is historical fact.

        • mikerazar

          Do you think there is no disagreement about the facts?

          http://www.amazon.com/When-Sherman-Marched-North-Sea/dp/0807828092/sr=1-4/qid=1160939550/ref=sr_1_4/102-2896625-6191339?ie=UTF8&s=books#reader_0807828092

          • Doc Holliday

            I was saying I did not agree that a simple post of Sherman’s orders explained the whole thing. Make sure you know to whom you are speaking. I credit Sherman as a war maker for winning the war, I never defended his kindness. But the thing about war is there really are few rules. Or to put it another way, there is only one rule, win.

          • mikerazar

            my point was that the Civil War involved Americans killing Americans. It was Cain and Abel writ large.

            The ordinary rules should not have applied. Many historians believe that a peaceful end to the conflict would have been possible to negotiate had the Union been prepared to make any meaningful concession. Even the abolition of slavery might have been done peacefully.

            A century and a half after the fact I still weep at the graves of the brave boys on both sides. By contrast, I would deposit other bodily fluids on the graves of the SS. Reagan’s visit to Bitburg was the lowest point of an otherwise stellar presidency.

  • ntrepid

    I simply must recommend this since I have had such a hard time not referencing or alluding to Victor Davis Hanson?s ?The Soul of Battle? (1) as often as possible over the last year and a half ? see a few Restate links below. This part of the subtitle seems quite appropriate these days: ?How…Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny?.

    Also, a little hopeful adaptation from Hanson?s closing paragraph:

    ?The tradition of democracy?s mustering quickly huge armies [of citizens], to be led by eccentric [leaders], on a moral trek into the heart of [tyranny], is not the stuff of romance and it is not the fantasy from our past, but rather a rare and hallowed tradition as old as the beginning of [western civilization] itself. In the West epic marches for freedom across time and space [and safely gerrymandered congressional districts] have liberated us from our own worst enemies [both foreign and domestic]. Armies of liberation are the precious dividends of democracy, and [Modern Liberals as well as their even more radical Progressive cousins] abandon the memory of Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton and what their hoplites, Westerners, and GIs did only at our great peril.?

    Let?s party?

    Ntrepid
    Proud Redstate Member since April 2006??

    (1) http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Battle-Ancient-Liberators-Vanquished/dp/0385720599/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284664983&sr=1-1

    (2) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2009/04/18/sophomoric-wilsonianism-and-the-soul-of-growing-discontent/

    (3) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2010/01/17/rebellious-momentum-and-the-strengthening-soul-of-discontent/

    • Dave_in_Fla

      Been meaning to read it for a long time.

      • ntrepid

        I also highly recommend:

        Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson (1)

        Grant and Sherman: The Friendship that Won the Civil War by Charles Bracelen Flood (2)

        Grant by Jean Edward Smith (3)

        This is an interesting diary and conversation on many levels. In a very general sense it is fascinating to me how a Hollywood movie clip about a hero and a coming reckoning ignites near unanimous, adrenaline pumping praise on this very bandwidth but a historical reference to that very reality on the grandest and most serious of scales results in quick divisions among ?friends?.

        Doc Holiday has it right (below): ?People are complex. History is complex.?

        Ntrepid
        Proud Redstate Member since April 2006??

        (1) http://www.amazon.com/Carnage-Culture-Landmark-Battles-Western/dp/0385720386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284687060&sr=8-1

        (2) http://www.amazon.com/Grant-Sherman-Friendship-That-Civil/dp/0061148717/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284687147&sr=1-1

        (3) http://www.amazon.com/Grant-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/0684849275/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284687171&sr=1-1

    • cactusjack

      had one true Modern Warrior, who understood technology and who understood destruction of the enemy’s army in the field was how the future would be decided, not crocquet matches in the field with umpires a la European warfare. For the South it was Stonewall Jackson, had he lived to Gettysburg, I do believe the North would have lost the war in 1863. For the North it was Sherman. He was a complex character. Two statements reliably attributed and documented to him: “War is Hell. War is Cruelty, You Cannot Refine It.” and “I Can Make this March. I Can Make Georgia Howl.” Counterbalanced with, Sherman on many occasions said he loved the South and Southerners – he was living in the South, superintendent of LSU when the war broke out. Reconcile all that if you can.

      • Doc Holliday

        and even better when acting in independent command. It is possible that if Jackson was at Gettysburg he would have gained the heights of Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill on the first day. If he accomplished this, the battle could have gone to the South. However, Jackson would have had to do EVERYTHING right, and EVERYTHING immediately for this to have occurred. That is something few men accomplished on any battlefield.

        While Jackson had tremendous talents and did many amazing things, he was not any more modern of a General than R.E. Lee. It was Lee who changed tactics as the reality of modern war became apparent. It was Lee who attacked when he thought it right, defended when he thought it right, and maneuvered when he that is right.

        I know you did not say this, but some think Jackson was better than Lee. This idea is completely untrue. Only Lee could have led that army and kept the confidence of the Confederate Nation. Only Lee had the acumen and audacity to come out ahead when others would have lost and to keep the army intact and viable after defeats.

        Only Lee could deal with a hard headed president, and hard-headed feuding Generals like Jackson, Longstreet, Ewell, and A.P. Hill. Jackson was very hot tempered and he spent as much time challenging other leaders and subordinates as he did fighting.

        If anyone wants to blame the South for the carnage of the Civil War, they should blame R.E. Lee. He was the man that always did his duty, and the result was death and destruction like never seen before.

        • cactusjack

          this I do know. On the second day of Gettysburg, Jackson would have *seen* the opportunity at Culp’s Hill, and wouuld not have waited for orders from above or pleading from brigade level below. And he was not afraid of fighting at dusk or night if need be. There would have been no debate attack v defend going into the third day , Lee v Longstreet, because the eve of the second day Jackson would have been courier-ing to Lee: the Union right flank is broken, I am rolling it up, have the main body ready in the morning to make the march towards D.C. This is one of the surest might have been’s in history. Lincoln could not have continued the war even if he wanted to, with Army of Potomac broken and falling back on the forts in DC, one of which is Fort Marcy of Vince Foster (in)fame(y). Of course Jackson was fated to die at Chancellorsville the month before Gettysburg.

          • Doc Holliday

            the opportunity I spoke about was on the evening of the first day, after Ewell came down on the Union flank and Hill, Early, and Ewell chased the Yanks through the town. At that point there was hesitation on Ewells part, there was a short window in which he ‘might” have been able to take the heights.

            On the Second day some of Ewell’s men occupied Yankee works that were abandoned when they needed more troops to defend their left. But those ANV troops were later repulsed when the Yankees came back.

            There are a lot of what if for sure. There is no question things would have been different if Jackson was there, if Longstreet was on board, and Stuart had not gone off the grid.

            And one thing we have to remember is that Ewell had done nothing but win before he replaced Jackson. The worst corps commander on the field at Gettysburg was Hill. But not a single one of the three there did their best to help Lee and his army win.

      • Doc Holliday

        fought to win. BTW, Sherman was also extremely racist. People are complex, history is complex.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Where’s the love? *grin*

    Next time I’ll just write a diary on the Civil War. I really intended the reference to be allegory, and thought the other points were a bit more important.

    • Doc Holliday

      without knowing what will breakout, it happens every single time :)

      BTW, McClellan had Lee’s plans, that helped him quite a bit I would say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_191 Even then he could only fight to a draw.

      btw, I like your diary, I agree the press will be sending out whatever talking points The One wants sent out. And I agree we need to crush the Dems this time. If people do not see and take part in a complete repudiation of socialism, we as a nation will be tacitly endorsing it.

      • Dave_in_Fla

        It’s been a fascinating and enlightening discussion. I was just laughing at how it turned out. Up to 39 comments now, with 1 being on the topic of the diary *grin*

        I should probably take another look and rephrase my points. I think there is some importance in understanding the nature of the Tea Party, but that all got lost in the Civil War discussion.

        • http://liberty2076.squarespace.com Liberty2076

          and setting aside my opinons on the analogy (which I definitely have and dutifully supress as redundant)…

          The difference in perspective between a single important battle and a systematic, long-term plan to dismantle the underpinnings of the opposition at the root is the difference I’ll buy into here.

          That’s why it’s not about 2010 in Delaware (which in the long scope of things is a minor lost battle IF COD loses, or a larger one in the case of a failure to grab the Senate majority).

          At the strategic level, with the hand light on the tiller and the eyes on the horizon (to use another analogy), we are dealing with one-third of the Senate here, and the primary wins and current polling against progressives is very impressive.

          The risk here for Republicans is not losing the good opinion of the left, the media, or Progressive Republicans. The risk for Republicans is losing the ability to do THIS, AGAIN in 2012 and 2014 to the US Senate.

          I actually believe that it is going to be done whether the current Republican leaders are on board or not. the question is will they be in the way of it or will they join it.

          I can imagine Jim DeMint bringing in a powerful swing coalition of highly committed conservatives ready to be hated by their fellow Senators R and D (like he is) in order to save this Republic. I can also easily imagine that the R establishment will ‘punish’ him (as the anonymous staffer threatened yesterday) for it rather than putting him in a leadership position.

          It gets harder to imagine that if DeMint and SCF do this AGAIN two more times and he has a block of 20 Conservative Senators and all of the young, energetic leadership in the Senate on his side.

          That is when a permanent disruption has occurred, and that is our goal.

          Jim DeMint said yesterday that he had been in the majority with Republicans who didn’t do the right thing and he had no interest in doing that again.

          That’s because he’s a principled guy, a real man who is willing to take abuse, but also because he is a good STRATEGIST.

          The energy that is moving the Senate now is principled Conservatism, and that energy is going to cut deep into filibuster territory in 2012 and may lock the Progressives out of Senate control for a decade in 2014.

    • qixlqatl

      to any U.S. war reference. Conservatives tend to know and have strong opinions about U.S. history, especially the civil war.