> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:48 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Peaceful regime change (was Re: History lessons not learned?) > > Dan wrote: > > > I'm not interested in the Civil War in the way my brother-in-law is. > > He's interested in the battles, what-if situations in those battles, and > > so > > forth. I'm more interested in the politics of the Civil War. For > > example, I'm amazed by Lincoln's understanding of the inherent political > > nature of > > the problem. This is illustrated by his appointment of popular > > incompetent generals, which allowed him to keep the North together as > > the Civil War was> fought. > > Which appointments are you referring to?
Well, McClellan was the first one to come to mind to me. But, there are also a number of generals who had little or no military experience before being appointed. Among them are Butler, Banks, McClernand, Fremont, and Sigel. I obtained the latter list from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/21.1/simpson.html which argued that the latter were the real political generals. By 1864, generals who could win were selected more often. As the essay points out as a counter to the political general argument, these victorious generals influenced the election...even though the direct political motivation for appointing them was not significant. But, I think this actually proves the point...Lincoln saw the bigger picture and did what was needed to kept the Union. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
