GDG- Re: new Lincoln letter

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Laurie writes:

Jack -  this brings up something that I have commented on before - for this 
war  to be truly settled, the South had to be completely beaten.  If Mac had  
taken Richmond in 1862, something a competent general  would likely have  done, 
I don't believe the war would have ended. Why  
should it?  Instead, Lee would have been free of defending Richmond  and 
might have  been harder to pin down. Lots of things change militarily, but one 
thing  doesn't -the South isn't ready to give up  
and isn't likely  to.>>>>
 
History has a number of examples where "capturing the flag" if you will -  
e.g. the capitol of a belligerent nation, does not end the war.  We lost  
Washington City in 1814 and still stayed around.  Napoleon captured Moscow  in 1812 
- and while not Russia's capitol at the time, the city's symbolism  outweighed 
that of St. Petersburg or Napoleon would have gone there  instead.  Hannibal 
ran up and down the Italian peninsula in the Second  Punic War whipping Roman 
legions left and right, but could never take Rome  itself - and even when Rome 
was sacked at times, the Roman Empire still  stayed around.  Its Eastern 
portion did not fall until the Turkish  muslims took Constantinople in the 1400's. 
 
The Confederates got extremely good at shipping out the war making  
capabilities of their cities before they fell; that was certainly the case with  
Nashville, the bulk of whose capability was sent to Atlanta, and Atlanta itself,  
the bulk of its capability being sent to Macon, Columbus and Augusta.  That  
would have happened with Richmond most likely too.
 
Greg Biggs

 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.