From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It is perhaps the greatest irony (among many) of the Civil War that perhaps the single most important reason for the South's defeat - the genius of Abraham Lincoln - could _only_ be utilized in the meritocratic North, where a dirt-poor farm boy had the chance to rise to the Presidency, something that would have been inconceivable in Southern society.
I've never seen Lincoln credited as being so critical to defeating the South before (though admittedly I'm no history buff). I'd always gotten the impression that the North's defeat of the South was more or less inevitable in the long run, as long as the North didn't lose the political will to pursue it.
Is that will what you mean, or was Lincoln critical on a strategic/tactical level?
-bryon
_________________________________________________________________
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide. http://special.msn.com/home/firsthome.armx
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
