The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 11)

/p>

Our brother RET notes some similarity between our current President and our penultimate (exceeded in my view only by the near saintly, Washington) one: A. Lincoln. He could have noted more: Lincoln had his nasty, corrosive press opponents, like the slanderous Brick Pomeroy([from Wisconsin no less) Bush has the Times of Los Angeles and New York. Lincoln had the despicable Ohio congressman: Clem Vallandingham, Bush has all sorts of yippies, trippies, and assorted fruitcakes: Pelosi, Murtha,Waxman and on and on and.

p>Lincoln had the Copperheads -- so does Bush, they carry the same political moniker now as they were carrying then: Democrats. Lincoln also had the affection, respect, and loyalty of the country's best citizens: its soldiers. Lincoln ultimately saved the nation and became a legend in the process. Perhaps one day the same will be said of the incumbent. br> -- J. C. Eaton br> Chetek, Wisconsin /p>

The only bone I have to pick with an otherwise fine article is what has become a commonplace comparison with the ordeal and times of Lincoln and U.S. Grant. It is said that the Devil is in the details and I think it would be better served to use someone else as a role model for success (both men). While I don't lionize Lincoln as many do, I do respect his convictions and in that he and "W" share a common heritage. But there are some small details that make the luster both Lincoln and Grant share that leaves a lot to be desired in the context of today.

First, the Northern Union forces were not only the best equipped army of the time but over three times the manpower and material for war that the South had. Nevertheless, the North lost almost 100,000 more men than the South. Grant was the last of how many appointed Supreme commanders of the Northern forces between 1861 and 1864? Grant's 1864 campaign against Lee in Virginia cost the North 40,000 more losses than the South. Grant's tactics at Cold Harbor in 1864 make Lee's blunder at Gettysburg look trivial by comparison. Grant's army refused to repeat the exercise when ordered. Hardly something we can afford today. The South fought against forces typically larger, better equipped and often times more than twice their size for 4 years. That does not speak well to Lincoln's ability to pick battlefield commanders that could utilize the enormous material advantages the North had from day one.

p>Second, materially speaking the outcome was never in question but to suggest that Grant was the right General (and tactics) given the overwhelming advantages the North had at every level is a bit of a stretch. I think our current efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq would more accurately be compared to the exploits of a certain Confederate Cavalry general whose name shall not be spoken but certainly knew how to use economy of force to achieve results well beyond his force levels. We certainly don't want another Grant commanding our tiny all volunteer forces. Grant wasn't the right man for the job, he was just the last of a long list of Lincoln appointee's for the job and willing to push his 3x superior forces into one frontal assault after another regardless of losses until the South had no army left. Any drunk could achieve those results given enough time. Enough said. br> -- Thom Bateman br> Newport News, Virginia /p>

If W. was really resolute, my blood pressure wouldn't be off the charts. To name a few areas where he has abandoned his base and failed the country:

topics:
Taxes, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Business, Religion, Abortion, Global Warming, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, Immigration, Nuclear Weapons, Energy