Posts Tagged ‘civil war’

My reviews of Bloody Crimes: The Chase for Jefferson Davis and the Death Pageant for Lincoln’s Corpse by James L. Swanson are now available at Amazon.com here (via Amazon vine) and Lunch.com here

It’s a great taste of the last days of the Civil war and its aftermath.

In 1864 the incorruptible but unqualified general Nathanael P. Banks led his army up the Red river to what would become an inglorious (or glorious depending on what side you were on) flogging by forces under Richard Taylor.

One of the things that complicated his retreat was that the annual rise of the Red River didn’t materialize. Banks was unlucky in that he hadn’t realized that in 1855 and 1846 (every 9 years) the river failed to rise. Now Banks had no idea about said cycle so perhaps he can be excused for this mistake, but whatever his deficiencies as a general his experience as both Governor of Massachusetts and Speaker of the House of Representatives provided him with the sense to listen to Major Joseph Bailey a person with practical experience in dams, but no formal education. Bailey was not only able to save the fleet by his exertions but provide a dry-shod crossing at a second point in the retreat saving the army.

What does this have to do with the economy? Just this: An economy like the Red River had a regular cycle and during those cycles you can usually tinker a bit without a lot of issue, but the best solution is to wait things out and let the business cycle take it course.

Once in a while however the cycle is extreme, just like the 9 year cycle of the Red. During those times it is very hard to convince people to wait it out. Particularly if previous tinkering have made things worse. When this happens you need people with actual practical, rather than theoretical experience to make a difference.

Right now we are in an extreme business cycle. Like any cycle the best move is to hunker down, not panic, and wait for the cycle to finish.

The problem if you are a political animal is that there is no credit to be had for the business cycle, and when times are bad the people demand action. The trick it to attempt to tweak the cycle so that you are able to take credit when the cycle is in your favor and divert blame to your foes when the cycle is against them.

Now president Obama is not a man with practical business experience. He is surrounded by and has emerged himself with people who’s experience is not in the business cycle, the creation of jobs or the stimulation of an economy and frankly his goals and priorities are in the direction of government control not the free market.

If president Obama had a Joseph Bailey to advise him, he could make tweaks to actually stimulate businesses to hire. He would decrease regulation, drop taxes and make transactions for small business and manufacturers more fluid.

But president Obama decided instead that his statist agenda was the way to go and convinced democrats that his tinkering with the business cycle and allocation of stimulus money would mean a better economy come election day, just in time to keep them in office, and they believed it, the more fool them.

Will the president change course after the election? I don’t think think so, he doesn’t have a Joe Bailey and he wouldn’t listen to one if he had. The republican party will have to do it for him, if they are willing that is.

Over at Ace’s place the Purple Avenger is comparing the situation in November to Trafalgar:

The Democrats are much like the French and Spanish, their tactics are predictable as the tides, and old as Methuselah. Their responses to attacks are scripted and rote, its the same responses you would have heard 30 years ago.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine, Whenever I hear about the brilliance of Nelson at Trafalgar I’m reminded of what American hero Steven Decatur said about the British at Trafalgar:

The French should have never lost at Trafalgar if their gunnery was what it should have been.

The British tried such tactics against Thomas MacDonough at Plattsburg on Sept 11th 1814 and it remains one of the most significant American victories that for some reason is never remembered.

More correct an analogy is Sayler’s Creek. The Democrats have been under siege (ala Petersburg) defending unpopular policies that republicans have been nailing them on, first slowly then finally breaking through their flanks on both left and right. They are fleeing this president in the same way as the Confederates were fleeing Grant. This Mosque is one issue that the President has decided to stop and fight on as did the Confederates at Sayler’s Creek. Sheridan had the right answer saying: “Go Right through them, they are demoralized as hell.”

The majority of the people who have been arguing restraint the loudest are those who wish republican gains to be the smallest.

This is what is needed to win the battle, later today I’ll talk about winning the war.

On Morning Joe again today Joe Scarborough brought out his favorite number “50 Al qaeda” when talking about Afghanistan and if we should be there. (it was not the most ridiculous statement of the show as a guest talked how it costs $1 mil per GI there saying we should spend it on their people instead as if a ten man medical team was not just slaughtered there two days ago) Every time the subject of Afghanistan is brought up the 50 al-Qaeda number is trumpeted by Joe in his argument that we should cut and run withdraw.

By an odd coincidence I was re-reading about the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House this weekend. It was a seminal moment in the war because Grant after being defeated soundly at the Wilderness instead of retreating as other Union generals did raced for Spotsylvania to get around Lee by the left. Grant’s troops raced for the courthouse in the hope of getting there first.

James Longstreet had been badly wounded and his division was now under the command of the unexciting Richard Anderson. Anderson’s division, not renowned for speed, raced for the same point on a road that was being cleared even as he marched

At Spotsylvania the Cavalry of course got there first. There was a clash at a rail pile where Confederates defended against the Union Cavalry trying to dislodge them but the infantry was just behind them. When the first Union elements arrived General Warren (one of the heroes of Gettysburg told his Brigadier John Robinson to attack informing him that there was nothing but dismounted cavalry ahead of him.
It was true at the time he said it but between that moment and the time of attack, the first infantry brigades made it to the line, beating the union troops there by less than a minutes and insuring that the massive bloodshed that the country had gone through for 3 years would be prolonged for at least one more.

Under the Joe Scarborough theory of warfare there will never be anything more than Fitz Lee’s dismounted cavalry in front of the rail piles and all decisions to be made should be on that basis. There will always be just 50 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban are not our business.

I like Joe but lucky for us the tactical and strategic decisions in Afghanistan are not his.