Re: Big Dogs
- Even though the troops voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln they
represented only 4% of the votes cast...
Before the capture of Atlanta, Lincoln himself calculated he would win
the electoral vote 117-114. In other words, too close to call.
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "kamills" <kamills@i...> wrote:
> I will agree. That is a definate possibility. Even with the
> capture of Atlanta, Lincoln would have lost the election, except
> they allowed the soldiers to vote from the trenches, a political
> move to keep Lincoln in office. Without the troops, I don't think
> Lincoln would have been elected.
> Although I will have to say, using George C. Marshall's quote as
> your basis for the time argument is not really a solid
> foundatation to stand on. The Confederacy itself was also a
> democracy, so both sides would give up after 5 or 6 years.
> Thank you
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> I think it was George C. Marshall who once said that democracies
> can't fight a war longer than 5 or 6 years. If that's the case,
> time was on the side of the Confederates as long as they could
> keep their armies active. For a long time, Lincoln was convinced
> he would lose the 1864 election, and it was Sherman's capture of
> Savannah (well after Hood had replaced Johnston) that sealed the
> deal for him. Imagine Joe Johnston in front of Sherman, delaying
> him all the way, making him take casualties and counterattacking
> at Sherman's weak points. Lincoln loses in 1864, McClellan
> becomes president and the south gains its independence. That's a
> definite possibility.
- I would second Carl. Grandpa's knee is a wonderful place to learn to
love history but often a terrible place to learn accurate history.
I do not recall any mention of anyone telling Scott how to run a war.
And he was an experienced general -- I doubt that anyone needed to give
him ideas about how to run a war.
There were similar claims for a Marylander named Anna Carroll (? I may
have the name wrong) who claimed that she gave Lincoln the idea for the
But some things are so obvious -- John Sherman recalled going to visit
his brother early in the war and finding Cump and Thomas crawling around
on the floor on a huge map of the United States, "talking shop" about
how *they* would defeat the Rebels. As the senator remembered the story,
his brother and Thomas basically outlined the way the war turned out.
The secret was not in figuring out the strategy, but in finding the man
or men who would be able to carry out the plan. It took a while but
Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan and a few others, Lincoln finally found
the men who imposed their will on the armies.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
Hello addison, please do share that. I'll caution you, tho', that
family traditions are a bit touchy, you know, everyone in the family
cherishes them and all; but sometimes they are a bit hard to confirm.
Carl aka Unre, etc
--- In civilwarwest@y..., jaaah@t... wrote:
> Well, if this isn't too late, I want too add something.
> Family history records that we are related to the Scotts, and that
my Great Great Grandmother was the one to actually give General Scott
the idea for the 'Anaconda Plan'. My Grandfather has the full
details, but from what I remember, she was at a dinner party with
him, and he was telling her about the plans for the war against the
Confederacy. She then asked "well why don't you just cut them off
from everything?" When he asked what she meant, she gave him the
basic idea for what became the 'Anaconda Plan.' If you want the full
details, my Grandfather has them all!
> A. Hart
> > ** Original Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] The Anaconda Myth