Trump may be what Grant was for Lincoln's America

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...colns-america/

that is a very interesting comparison between candidate Trump & General Grant.

one thing about them is that they're not pretty, they get job done and they win ugly.

"At this point in the Civil War, President Lincoln was at the very end of his patience with generals who had such big and beautiful armies but who were apprehensive about sending them into battle. After Union Gen. George Meade repulsed Gen. Lee’s attack at Gettysburg, he failed to aggressively go on the offense and destroy Gen. Lee’s army once and for all before he could escape back into Virginia.


The war would grind on for another year and nine horrific months.
It all changed when President Lincoln finally found General Ulysses S. Grant, who was a coarse, brash and impolitic general. But he was aggressive, and that is what President Lincoln wanted.


All his other generals and his entire war cabinet — the media and political elite of that day — gasped in horror that Mr. Lincoln would hand such a prestigious position over to such a brute and unsophisticated man.


“But he is a drunkard!” they declared. To which Mr. Lincoln responded: “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a barrel to every one of my commanders.”


Gen. Grant may not have been pretty, and he would go on to helm one of the most corrupt presidencies in U.S. history.


But he saved the Union."


that he did, Grant as president was different story tho.

The same traits that make a person succeed at one task often make them fail at another.

The same traits that make a person succeed at one task often make them fail at another. Originally Posted by Old-T

+1

The same traits that make a person succeed at one task often make them fail at another. Originally Posted by Old-T

Grant's "strategy" to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men cannot be commended. Lincoln also bears responsibility for all the massacres. The South's enmity, and possibly even the festering anger in the West, might well trace their anger to his brutal scorch the earth policy which caused tragic loss of life.

However, anyone who talks about white privilege should acknowledge the 600,000 white men who died to free the slaves, which was the main purpose of the war.

I don't think IBMassa would agree with you.

And, JL, are you suggesting the African Americans owe white people a debt of gratitude for ending slavery?

Sure sounds like you are.

However, anyone who talks about white privilege should acknowledge the 600,000 white men who died to free the slaves, which was the main purpose of the war. Originally Posted by DSK

this is wrong. 600,000 white men did not fight to free slaves.

Half of them certainly, but to save the union. Freeing slaves came later.

this is wrong. 600,000 white men did not fight to free slaves.

Half of them certainly, but to save the union. Freeing slaves came later. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Saving the union is a poor reason to die - especially now. Fuck the union and the slavery the government imposes on us. I call for peaceful change.

The only reason I can see to fight a civil war is to stop slavery, a detestable practice. However, at that point, we should have either given them 50 acres and a mule, or sent them all to Liberia.

Now, we have a bunch of whiners that constantly want more and more, speaking of them as a political group. Some of those people individually are quite hardworking and likable, and some of them are a bunch of fucking assholes. The worst of them, the super predators, are still less of a disaster for America than Assup.

P.S. I support reparations, as everyone knows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...colns-america/

that is a very interesting comparison between candidate Trump & General Grant.

one thing about them is that they're not pretty, they get job done and they win ugly.

"At this point in the Civil War, President Lincoln was at the very end of his patience with generals who had such big and beautiful armies but who were apprehensive about sending them into battle. After Union Gen. George Meade repulsed Gen. Lee’s attack at Gettysburg, he failed to aggressively go on the offense and destroy Gen. Lee’s army once and for all before he could escape back into Virginia.


The war would grind on for another year and nine horrific months.
It all changed when President Lincoln finally found General Ulysses S. Grant, who was a coarse, brash and impolitic general. But he was aggressive, and that is what President Lincoln wanted.


All his other generals and his entire war cabinet — the media and political elite of that day — gasped in horror that Mr. Lincoln would hand such a prestigious position over to such a brute and unsophisticated man.


“But he is a drunkard!” they declared. To which Mr. Lincoln responded: “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a barrel to every one of my commanders.”


Gen. Grant may not have been pretty, and he would go on to helm one of the most corrupt presidencies in U.S. history.


But he saved the Union."


that he did, Grant as president was different story tho. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Meade's army was mauled at Gettysburg, and it's debatable whether he could have mustered an effective pursuit of Lee's army.

Similarly, it is commonly believed that if Lee had had the same resources as Grant, he would have promulgated the war much in the same manner as Grant. Grant made some serious tactical errors, with Cold Harbor being the most serious, but his ruse at Ft Donelson allowed him to capture that rebel stronghold with minimal casualties.

New research shows that certain Union generals, e.g., Butler, were engaged in inter-belligerent trade with Lee's entrenched army at Petersburg: supplying it with war materiel in exchange for cotton for the domestic and foreign market. This inter-belligerent trade is detailed in Trading With The Enemy: The Covert Economy During the American Civil War, by Philip Leigh and Cotton and Race in the Making of America The Human Costs of Economic Power, by Gene Dattel. That inter-belligerent trade added months to the war and contributed to thousands of more deaths than would have occured without the prolonged war.

Saving the union is a poor reason to die - especially now. Fuck the union and the slavery the government imposes on us. I call for peaceful change.

The only reason I can see to fight a civil war is to stop slavery, a detestable practice. However, at that point, we should have either given them 50 acres and a mule, or sent them all to Liberia.

Now, we have a bunch of whiners that constantly want more and more, speaking of them as a political group. Some of those people individually are quite hardworking and likable, and some of them are a bunch of fucking assholes. The worst of them, the super predators, are still less of a disaster for America than Assup.

P.S. I support reparations, as everyone knows. Originally Posted by DSK

Half of the whites sent to this continent during the colonial period arrived as veritable slaves who had to do the bidding of their masters. Britain sold inmates to reduce the burdensome costs on incarcerating inmates. The Irish were also enslaved and sold into bondage essentially for being Catholic. Fuck reparations for anyone. Every ethnic group and nationality has borne the brunt of some cultural inequity since the dawn of man. All we can do is work to insure that such inequities are not repeated.

Grant's "strategy" to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men cannot be commended. Lincoln also bears responsibility for all the massacres. The South's enmity, and possibly even the festering anger in the West, might well trace their anger to his brutal scorch the earth policy which caused tragic loss of life.

However, anyone who talks about white privilege should acknowledge the 600,000 white men who died to free the slaves, which was the main purpose of the war. Originally Posted by DSK

The main purpose of the war was "union" and that war aim was announced in the Congress's declaration of war where slavery isn't even mentioned. Read the Crittendon Resolution --Congress's Declaration of War. In the words of those who promulgated the war: "... to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ..."

The Crittenden Johnson Resolutions on the Objects of the War July 22 1861

"Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." Congress, 22 July 1861: "The Congressional Globe," Friday, July 26, 1861.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...colns-america/

that is a very interesting comparison between candidate Trump & General Grant.

one thing about them is that they're not pretty, they get job done and they win ugly.

"At this point in the Civil War, President Lincoln was at the very end of his patience with generals who had such big and beautiful armies but who were apprehensive about sending them into battle. After Union Gen. George Meade repulsed Gen. Lee’s attack at Gettysburg, he failed to aggressively go on the offense and destroy Gen. Lee’s army once and for all before he could escape back into Virginia.


The war would grind on for another year and nine horrific months.
It all changed when President Lincoln finally found General Ulysses S. Grant, who was a coarse, brash and impolitic general. But he was aggressive, and that is what President Lincoln wanted.


All his other generals and his entire war cabinet — the media and political elite of that day — gasped in horror that Mr. Lincoln would hand such a prestigious position over to such a brute and unsophisticated man.


“But he is a drunkard!” they declared. To which Mr. Lincoln responded: “Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks and send a barrel to every one of my commanders.”


Gen. Grant may not have been pretty, and he would go on to helm one of the most corrupt presidencies in U.S. history.


But he saved the Union."


that he did, Grant as president was different story tho. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Grants corruption will look like child's play compared to what the Clinton's have in store for looting this country. Just remember, she famously said in an interview how " broke " they were when leaving the White House that last time ( of course, without mentioning how many lawyers they'd had to hire to defend Slick Willy form all of the law suits he had filed against him for his sexual predation ). And how those thieving SOB's carried off items from THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE thinking they could just STEAL them, only to have to begrudgingly return them once they were outed as thieves.
And ,most recently, we have the " pay-for=play " scam that those POS Clinton's hatched with shrilLIARy occupying the S.O.S position.

Meade's army was mauled at Gettysburg, and it's debatable whether he could have mustered an effective pursuit of Lee's army.

Similarly, it is commonly believed that if Lee had had the same resources as Grant, he would have promulgated the war much in the same manner as Grant. Grant made some serious tactical errors, with Cold Harbor being the most serious, but his ruse at Ft Donelson allowed him to capture that rebel stronghold with minimal casualties.

New research shows that certain Union generals, e.g., Butler, was engaged in inter-belligerent trade with Lee's entrenched army at Petersburg: supplying it with war materiel in exchange for cotton for the domestic and foreign market. This inter-belligerent trade is detailed in Trading With The Enemy: The Covert Economy During the American Civil War, by Philip Leigh and Cotton and Race in the Making of America The Human Costs of Economic Power, by Gene Dattel. That inter-belligerent trade added months to the war and contributed to thousands of more deaths than would have occured without the prolonged war.



Half of the whites sent to this continent during the colonial period arrived as veritable slaves who had to do the bidding of their masters. Britain sold inmates to reduce the burdensome costs on incarcerating inmates. The Irish were also enslaved and sold into bondage essentially for being Catholic. Fuck reparations for anyone. Every ethnic group and nationality has borne the brunt of some cultural inequity since the dawn of man. All we can do is work to insure that such inequities are not repeated.



The main purpose of the war was "union" and that war aim was announced in the Congress's declaration of war where slavery isn't even mentioned. Read the Crittendon Resolution --Congress's Declaration of War. In the words of those who promulgated the war: "... to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ..."



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

OK - that is a good response but I can't say the states right's have been unimpaired.

Unlike hildebeest, Grant was not personally "corrupt". But he was a bad judge of character and did surround himself with people who were corrupt. He too was financially bilked by his so-called friends, and if it hadn't have been for Mark Twain helping him with his auto-biography -- which sold quite well -- Grant would have died destitute and left his family impoverished.

New research shows that certain Union generals, e.g., Butler, were engaged in inter-belligerent trade with Lee's entrenched army at Petersburg: supplying it with war materiel in exchange for cotton for the domestic and foreign market. This inter-belligerent trade is detailed in Trading With The Enemy: The Covert Economy During the American Civil War, by Philip Leigh and Cotton and Race in the Making of America The Human Costs of Economic Power, by Gene Dattel. That inter-belligerent trade added months to the war and contributed to thousands of more deaths than would have occured without the prolonged war.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

didn't know about the inter-belligerent trade. always something interesting to come out of that war.

Saving the union is a poor reason to die - especially now. Fuck the union and the slavery the government imposes on us. I call for peaceful change.

The only reason I can see to fight a civil war is to stop slavery, a detestable practice. However, at that point, we should have either given them 50 acres and a mule, or sent them all to Liberia. Originally Posted by DSK

that is why there were several reports of riots in a number of cities over this. the war was not popular in the north. they did not give a 2 bits about the south.


It was the Northern Elites who wanted to keep the south in the union by any means.

I don't think IBMassa would agree with you.

And, JL, are you suggesting the African Americans owe white people a debt of gratitude for ending slavery?

Sure sounds like you are. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It could be suggested that any group of people who were enslaved could be grateful to the people who freed them regardless of color.

America was not the birthplace of slavery. Slavery was not invented by white people. Black people were not the only slaves. Most, in fact almost all, African slaves were captured by other Africans.
Slavery was the norm for all of recorded history, and probably long before. Almost all civilizations made slaves of other people. Although it it officially illegal, slavery still exists. This is not to condone it. This is to contextualize it. It was an atrocity. Some people in America realized this and ended it. How many centuries should it take for these wounds to hèal?

It could be suggested that any group of people who were enslaved could be grateful to the people who freed them regardless of color.

America was not the birthplace of slavery. Slavery was not invented by white people. Black people were not the only slaves. Most, in fact almost all, African slaves were captured by other Africans.
Slavery was the norm for all of recorded history, and probably long before. Almost all civilizations made slaves of other people. Although it it officially illegal, slavery still exists. This is not to condone it. This is to contextualize it. It was an atrocity. Some people in America realized this and ended it. How many centuries should it take for these wounds to hèal? Originally Posted by goodman0422

That depends a lot on how they were treated during those centuries. Separate but equal. KKK. Jim Crow. Yes, people will be grateful to the people who freed them--but when the same skin color was beating and lynching them, it is often difficult to tell who is who. And when things like this:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/loc..._report_a_hoax

happen, again it makes it hard. That is no different than the Duke lacrosse situation. Black and white both have a majority of good people, but both have some vocal, angry bigots. And each side tends to see the bigots of the opposite color more readily, precisely because the bigots are louder and more obnoxious.