Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42433#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buchanan on Libya again.

Check out the analogy at the end of the article.

"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

native wrote:"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

You make good points, ttbf. I was not passing judgement one way or the other on Buchanan's piece, just quoting the conclusion for the entertainment value.

FYI, I rate Buchanan's intellectual contributions higher than Michelle Bachmann's but lower than, shall we say, Winston Churchill's.

What is a "git?"

Good article.

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

You make good points, ttbf. I was not passing judgement one way or the other on Buchanan's piece, just quoting the conclusion for the entertainment value.

FYI, I rate Buchanan's intellectual contributions higher than Michelle Bachmann's but lower than, shall we say, Winston Churchhill's.

What is a "git?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:

You make good points, ttbf. I was not passing judgement one way or the other on Buchanan's piece, just quoting the conclusion for the entertainment value.

FYI, I rate Buchanan's intellectual contributions higher than Michelle Bachmann's but lower than, shall we say, Winston Churchhill's.

What is a "git?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git

Hey, ttbf, I threw you a softball on Bachmann and Churchill. Not going to take a swing? I am sure you know that Buchanan also blames Churchill for WWII?

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git

Hey, ttbf, I threw you a softball on Bachmann and Churchill. Not going to take a swing?

nope.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

Eh, Antietam and then the Emancipation Proclamation ended any thoughts that Europe would intercede, even from a peace commission standpoint. Once Lincoln made it more vocal that the war was about slavery there was no way Europe, who was very anti-slavery, was going to get involved. Besides, the South thought Europe couldn't live without cotton - they failed to realize you can't eat cotton and that Europe, especially England, greatly relied on grain exports from the Union. When it came down to food or cotton, England chose the former.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

Yeah, let's argue about French intervention from centuries ago. It provides a nice diversion to the war monger Obama who is killing civlians with bombs.

You must have missed the part about Obama turning his back on the murder of civilians in Bahrain and other countries. Blinded by loyalty.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:"... when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America."

what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

What you do not know would fill volumes. If the Trent Affair didn't bring England into the war on the side of the right nothing would have. The French were tied up in Mexico. Most people knew that we would have to depend only on ourselves and what little help we could get through channels in Europe. There were no English Officers "embedded" with Confederate Army units. Most of Europe sent observers to observe the operations and what they saw scared the shit out of them. The Confederate Army was the best on the planet and could have whipped any force in Europe.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

Eh, Antietam and then the Emancipation Proclamation ended any thoughts that Europe would intercede, even from a peace commission standpoint. Once Lincoln made it more vocal that the war was about slavery there was no way Europe, who was very anti-slavery, was going to get involved. Besides, the South thought Europe couldn't live without cotton - they failed to realize you can't eat cotton and that Europe, especially England, greatly relied on grain exports from the Union. When it came down to food or cotton, England chose the former.

In addition, as I recall, the market for cotton dropped through the floor after an initial speculative run up in the early months of the war.

citdog wrote: Most of Europe sent observers to observe the operations and what they saw scared the **** out of them. The Confederate Army was the best on the planet and could have whipped any force in Europe.

Well, as it turned out, the CSA army was only second best. Just can't go with RPI ratings, the head to head matchup with the Union can't be ignored (and you can't go by the halftime score, the scoreboard at the end of the game is what really mattered).

Besides, the CSA would never be able to play any road games against the European powers - couldn't get through the blockade.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Eh, Antietam and then the Emancipation Proclamation ended any thoughts that Europe would intercede, even from a peace commission standpoint. Once Lincoln made it more vocal that the war was about slavery there was no way Europe, who was very anti-slavery, was going to get involved. Besides, the South thought Europe couldn't live without cotton - they failed to realize you can't eat cotton and that Europe, especially England, greatly relied on grain exports from the Union. When it came down to food or cotton, England chose the former.

In addition, as I recall, the market for cotton dropped through the floor after an initial speculative run up in the early months of the war.

again twintown......WRONG. All saw the great tyrants proclamation for exactly what it was...........a last desperate cry for help of a dictator who was getting his ass handed to him. it was nothing more than a war measure. the market for cotton didn't drop enough to keep yankee generals (butler, et al) from stealing all of it they could for sale.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
what an ignorant git.

the specter of the British and the French intervening was real from the first moment of secession - in fact, many in the south were banking on it. there were British officers embedded with rebel units. it was only their twin failures at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that finally ended that prospect...

Eh, Antietam and then the Emancipation Proclamation ended any thoughts that Europe would intercede, even from a peace commission standpoint. Once Lincoln made it more vocal that the war was about slavery there was no way Europe, who was very anti-slavery, was going to get involved. Besides, the South thought Europe couldn't live without cotton - they failed to realize you can't eat cotton and that Europe, especially England, greatly relied on grain exports from the Union. When it came down to food or cotton, England chose the former.

The South overproduced cotton before the war so the British didn't need it as badly as they thought.

The idea of a United Nations/League of Nations was not in effect around the Civil War so I would guess that the metaphor is accurate.

citdog wrote:

native wrote:
In addition, as I recall, the market for cotton dropped through the floor after an initial speculative run up in the early months of the war.

again twintown......WRONG. All saw the great tyrants proclamation for exactly what it was...........a last desperate cry for help of a dictator who was getting his ass handed to him. it was nothing more than a war measure. the market for cotton didn't drop enough to keep yankee generals (butler, et al) from stealing all of it they could for sale.

uhh - read again - that was native who posted that... native...

For the love of Jehovah, who got him started

Dog, I am going to the place that used to be Riley's. I'll have a Crown for you

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

citdog wrote:
again twintown......WRONG. All saw the great tyrants proclamation for exactly what it was...........a last desperate cry for help of a dictator who was getting his ass handed to him. it was nothing more than a war measure. the market for cotton didn't drop enough to keep yankee generals (butler, et al) from stealing all of it they could for sale.

uhh - read again - that was native who posted that... native...

Well, I did not do my usually "thorough" job of "wiki" research before posting about the cotton... but if I am wrong and Ol' Citdog wants to take me to the woodshed on this one, well that's quite alright with me... ...and my Confederate ancestors...

But I still like Abe despite his flaws and no matter how many times you take that switch to may back, Citdog.

Nice diversion on France and Britain, but inaccurate.

French and British intervention was a hope of the Confederacy but it was never more than a very remote possibility.

Although I think the analogy is apt, I also think Buchanan made it to tweak people.

Good to see that the author realizes that Lincoln was a tyrant.

JohnStOnge wrote:Good to see that the author realizes that Lincoln was a tyrant.