PDA

View Full Version : Is Obama our Gorbachev?



jpatter666
10-20-09, 01:11 PM
Was talking with a friend today who was asking how Paulson, Geither would be thought of ten years from now. I said they'd be remembered for trying to reboot a failed system.

Then I casually said "Obama is our Gorbachev"

And the more I thought about it, the more it made a weird kind of sense. Younger guy from a new generation trying to take a failed system and right it. But the he grew up as part of the system and can't recognize that it is a failure at this point (which needs revamping to a level that it wouldn't be recognizable anymore as the old system) or the bureaucracy and entrenched interests won't *let* the required changes happen (or fight it so long both sides are exhausted and die on the battlefield)

jk
10-20-09, 09:18 PM
i'd like to think you're right. but i'm beginning to think that obama is our brezhnev. brezhnev displaced the erratic krushchev and made the soviet union safe for entrenched elites.

jpatter666
10-20-09, 09:31 PM
i'd like to think you're right. but i'm beginning to think that obama is our brezhnev. brezhnev displaced the erratic krushchev and made the soviet union safe for entrenched elites.

Yeesh....horrible thought.

GRG55
04-16-10, 11:06 PM
i'd like to think you're right. but i'm beginning to think that obama is our brezhnev. brezhnev displaced the erratic krushchev and made the soviet union safe for entrenched elites.

The difference is that unlike Brezhnev, Obama eventually has to go to the polls...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/april_2010/obama_total_approval_april_16_2010/305379-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_april_16_2010.jpg

jk
04-16-10, 11:11 PM
The difference is that unlike Brezhnev, Obama eventually has to go to the polls...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/april_2010/obama_total_approval_april_16_2010/305379-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_april_16_2010.jpg
yes, he'll be running against a republican chernenko. [if we're lucky, and it's not a republican stalin.]

jtabeb
04-16-10, 11:16 PM
Was talking with a friend today who was asking how Paulson, Geither would be thought of ten years from now. I said they'd be remembered for trying to reboot a failed system.

Then I casually said "Obama is our Gorbachev"

And the more I thought about it, the more it made a weird kind of sense. Younger guy from a new generation trying to take a failed system and right it. But the he grew up as part of the system and can't recognize that it is a failure at this point (which needs revamping to a level that it wouldn't be recognizable anymore as the old system) or the bureaucracy and entrenched interests won't *let* the required changes happen (or fight it so long both sides are exhausted and die on the battlefield)

I just now caught this post. I said essentially the same thing in a post just a while back.

Confirming Parallel (near) simultaneous independent conclusions are not to be trifled with.:(

jtabeb
04-16-10, 11:18 PM
yes, he'll be running against a republican chernenko. [if we're lucky, and it's not a republican stalin.]

Did you mean Palin?:eek:

jk
04-16-10, 11:21 PM
Did you mean Palin?:eek:
somewhere recently i read a quote of upton sinclair, that when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

GRG55
04-17-10, 11:52 AM
Well that leaves out "biker leather" Palin then...[insert sound of sigh of relief here]...

http://www.styleite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0-SarahSideBySide.jpg (http://www.styleite.com/styleitis/sarah-palin-dominatrix/attachment/0-sarahsidebyside/)

Ghent12
04-18-10, 07:17 PM
I just now caught this post. I said essentially the same thing in a post just a while back.

Confirming Parallel (near) simultaneous independent conclusions are not to be trifled with.:(
I just caught this post as well. If President Obama is our Gorbachev, does that make Ahmadinejad the world's Reagan?
I can hear it now: "Mr. Obama, tear down this wall! Also, the Jews did 9/11."

Serge_Tomiko
04-18-10, 07:40 PM
somewhere recently i read a quote of upton sinclair, that when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

That's the kind of nonsense that the elites have been using to destroy the traditional culture of Western Civilization now for sometime. Mostly, it's a variation of the "black legend" and is equally fallacious as 1) the conviction rate even at the height of the inquisition, or even with the Star Chamber, never has approached what is in the US today (well over 99%) 2) everything that defines civilization originated in countries that a) were highly nationalistic and b) Christian and 3) the leadership of the most oppressive regimes have at all times been primarily associated with atheists and/or non-Christian monotheists.

Regardless, fascism is at this point an epithet and has no meaning.

*T*
04-19-10, 04:00 AM
2) everything that defines civilization originated in countries that a) were highly nationalistic and b) Christian and 3) the leadership of the most oppressive regimes have at all times been primarily associated with atheists and/or non-Christian monotheists.

And THAT's the kind of nonsense that put you on my ignore list. Dude are you trolling or are you serious?

BiscayneSunrise
04-19-10, 06:21 AM
I don't think Gorby is the right analogy. Yes, there are some parallels such as the new generation trying to right a failing model but the BIG difference is that Gorbachev was a hapless sad sack sort of like Carter who let himself get overwhelmed by events and when faced with a more forceful opponent (Reagan), let the system collapse.

Obama is no Gorbachev or Carter. He may be going down the wrong path but he is in no way letting events control his destiny. He is highly adept politically and more than willing to ignore dissent and crack heads when necessary to get his way.

Perhaps a better historical analogy would be a Napoleon. Very driven with a stunning amount of short term successes but headed to disaster due to hubris.

ThePythonicCow
04-19-10, 11:50 AM
... but headed to disaster due to hubris.hubris, or psychopathology?

Serge_Tomiko
04-22-10, 02:07 PM
And THAT's the kind of nonsense that put you on my ignore list. Dude are you trolling or are you serious?

The sentence I wrote should be rewritten to say "modern civilization".

Anyway, I'm terribly sorry to offend your politically correct notions. You can go back to practicing usury and living off whatever fat is left in that shell of the British Empire.

don
04-22-10, 03:52 PM
Gorbachev?

No.


http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080723/conspiracy/manchurian-candidate_l.jpg
Raymond Shaw

Everyone loved Raymond....

c1ue
04-22-10, 04:20 PM
I don't think Gorby is the right analogy. Yes, there are some parallels such as the new generation trying to right a failing model but the BIG difference is that Gorbachev was a hapless sad sack sort of like Carter who let himself get overwhelmed by events and when faced with a more forceful opponent (Reagan), let the system collapse.

This is incorrect. Gorbachev was visionary in seeing that the Soviet system would have to change. His mistake was trusting both that the West would meet his efforts halfway and that the West knew anything better - economically or otherwise.



Obama is no Gorbachev or Carter. He may be going down the wrong path but he is in no way letting events control his destiny. He is highly adept politically and more than willing to ignore dissent and crack heads when necessary to get his way.

Really? I agree Obama isn't as hapless as Carter, but then again what exactly has Obama accomplished with his historic charter as well as his party controlling Congress?

By any stretch of imagination, it has not been impressive thus far.


Perhaps a better historical analogy would be a Napoleon. Very driven with a stunning amount of short term successes but headed to disaster due to hubris.

Napoleon wasn't backed by the FIRE oligarchs.

Napoleon wasn't a 'compromise'r.

Napoleon was a brilliant general.

Sorry, I don't see any resemblence whatsoever.

don
04-22-10, 06:14 PM
what exactly has Obama accomplished with his historic charter as well as his party controlling Congress?

By any stretch of imagination, it has not been impressive thus far.

The largest transfer of wealth in our history.

Not impressive?

Obama magic

grapejelly
04-22-10, 06:51 PM
...Bushama?

Finster
04-22-10, 08:48 PM
... Regardless, fascism is at this point an epithet and has no meaning.

It does get tossed around pretty casually. Probably 1 in 1000 people would recognize it when they saw it ... or recognize that the US is already, in many ways, firmly in its grip.

Finster
04-22-10, 09:00 PM
somewhere recently i read a quote of upton sinclair, that when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

It's wrapped in whatever it is that says that all will be ruled from Washington, DC. You in Duluth, Minnesota, Butte Montana, Toledo Ohio, or in Rural USA, you will do things as we say you will. We will tell you who you may hire, who you may work for, what you may pay or be paid, what you may eat, what kind of vehicle you may drive, what your schools will teach, and what you may display in your town square. And you will send us lots of money for the privilege.

jpatter666
04-22-10, 09:09 PM
It does get tossed around pretty casually. Probably 1 in 1000 people would recognize it when they saw it ... or recognize that the US is already, in many ways, firmly in its grip.

Snort....name a time in the last 150 years when you could *not* say that about the US.

Finster
04-22-10, 09:47 PM
Snort....name a time in the last 150 years when you could *not* say that about the US.

Excellent choice of time frames. It was right around 1860 when things started to go wrong...

Raz
04-22-10, 11:32 PM
And THAT's the kind of nonsense that put you on my ignore list. Dude are you trolling or are you serious?

Insert the word "Western" right before "civilization" in Serge's post and you will find me in total agreement with him.
If you choose to ignore the history of the Western World for the past 1700 years then add me to your ignore list as well.

*T*
04-23-10, 04:34 AM
I'm not being politically correct, it's a point of fact. Mussolini, Hitler & Franco all were strongly associated with the church in their country; perhaps our perspectives are different.

*T*
04-23-10, 04:35 AM
Insert the word "Western" right before "civilization" in Serge's post and you will find me in total agreement with him.
If you choose to ignore the history of the Western World for the past 1700 years then add me to your ignore list as well.


A word that would also totally change the meaning of the sentence... nonetheless I will do as you suggest.

jpatter666
04-23-10, 08:01 AM
Excellent choice of time frames. It was right around 1860 when things started to go wrong...

Yep, and I had *exactly* that time frame in mind. After all, one of the reasons they called it "The War Between the States" was over who had the ultimate power -- the individual states or the central government.

In the end, even the Northern States got way more than they bargained for....things were never the same afterword.

Raz
04-23-10, 08:58 AM
I'm not being politically correct, it's a point of fact. Mussolini, Hitler & Franco all were strongly associated with the church in their country; perhaps our perspectives are different.

What does "associated" mean? Mussolini told his daughter that he didn't care if she was a lawyer or a prostitute - as long as she didn't become a Christian. Benito Mussolini HATED Christianity and Christians. That is a point of fact.

Hitler used the Lutheran church and spoke often to his inner circle of his contempt for them. He was baptized a Roman Catholic and made use of his sparce attendance through photographic propaganda. In the late 1930s he told Goering that when the time was right they would deal with the Christian churches "with long knives". That's a reference to his mass murder of Rohm and the Brownshirts.

The Nazis infiltrated the Lutheran church hierarchy in the early 1930s and under Ludwig Muller the movement, known as Deutsche Christen came to power in the state church. These "christians" were anti-semitic supporters of Nazi party candidates and this led to the formation of the Confessing church which included clergymen such as Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was hanged by the Nazis).

Perhaps you should read some real history - and excellent place to begin would be Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock. Bullock was a British socialist who researched Adolf Hitler's life to a greater extent than anyone during the 20th Century. Ditto for his work on Stalin.

Should you place me on your ignore list the loss will be yours.

don
04-23-10, 10:08 AM
Before a sold-out crowd of upstanding New Yorkers, including some of the most committed bankers in the world of finance – Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and James Dimon of JP Morgan Chase among them – President Obama asked the audience of 700 to accept his latest obfuscation, financial reform, “not only because it in the interests of your industry, but because it is in the interests of our country." Obama offered that “there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or we fall together as one nation." To grasp this understanding, he explained, would return America to its rightful place as “the envy of the world.”

And nobody’s going to jail. Far from it. Little more than 50 blocks north of Cooper Union, where President Obama spoke of “one nation,” is located Blankfein’s Manhattan residence. The condo tower containing the Blankfein city pad, 15 Central Park West, was completed in 2005 and sold out for a total of $2 billion, making it the most lucrative condo sale in the history of the planet. Now we’re talking “envy of the world”.

Designed by Yale’s Robert A.M. Stern and drawing upon the architecture of Roaring 20s Park Avenue elegance, the facade contains 85,000 slabs of limestone, behind which wine cellars, swimming pool and chauffeur waiting rooms can be found on lower levels. Sandy Weill of Citigroup bought his penthouse there for $45 million. One of the tower residences brought $80 million. Baseball great A Rod is renting a lesser unit for $30,000 a month.

At the building’s entrance a doorman awaited weary Blankfein, back from a yet another grueling day of defending derivatives, promoting risk management and generally feeling misunderstood. This doorman is not alone, as there are other entrances to the large complex, where other doormen attend the residents’ many needs. It is a 24/7 job and there is no room for error, as threats to security are real. Add to these doormen other building workers who keep hallways clean and staff elevators at the highest standards of service.

These building workers, all members of Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union, narrowly averted a strike this week when owners of the city’s residential buildings, like Blankfein’s place, settled on a new contract. Under the terms of the new deal, building workers had to give back some health care benefits, saving owners $70 million, in exchange for which they received a 10 per cent raise over four years. They make on average $35,000 a year, before taxes.

The envy of the world.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ginsburg04232010.html

we_are_toast
04-23-10, 10:32 AM
Excellent choice of time frames. It was right around 1860 when things started to go wrong...


Yep, and I had *exactly* that time frame in mind. After all, one of the reasons they called it "The War Between the States" was over who had the ultimate power -- the individual states or the central government.

In the end, even the Northern States got way more than they bargained for....things were never the same afterword.

You guys really don't want to go down this path!

Finster
04-23-10, 11:43 AM
Yep, and I had *exactly* that time frame in mind. After all, one of the reasons they called it "The War Between the States" was over who had the ultimate power -- the individual states or the central government.

In the end, even the Northern States got way more than they bargained for....things were never the same afterword.

You bet. An awful lot of folks still believe the revisionist propaganda that the war was fought to end slavery. You have it right. It was fought to forcibly establish federal hegemony over the states, overriding the Constitution on the matter. Few folks know that Lincoln even tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court jailed.

The view we were taught in elementary school doesn’t explain why, if it was really about slavery, that the war broke out at duty collection post. Fort Sumter. The southern states were resisting collecting tariffs that the northern industrialists, which controlled the federal government, wanted in order to force the South into buying more of its production as opposed to Europe’s. Nor does it explain why, if it was really about slavery, that Lincoln did not come out with his famous Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war had started. Nor that the Proclamation only freed the slaves in those states that were in rebellion. No, the slavery story was really an after-the-fact bit of war propaganda calculated to deter the Europeans from coming to the aid of the South. The Europeans had reasoned that if independence was so good in 1776, then why not in 1860 (your teacher every explain that one to you?). Also the Europeans were economically sympathetic to the South because of the aforementioned trade.

But the Europeans had just recently rid themselves of slavery, and Lincoln’s tactic was successful, making it politically difficult for the Europeans to come to the aid of the South. Also noteworthy is that that slavery had been abolished peacefully in Europe. It was simply an idea whose time had come. It was not at all necessary to have a war to do away with slavery; the successful European strategy had just not been tried in the US.

Lincoln was a master politician. Even as he proclaimed he was fighting a war to preserve government by the consent of the governed, he was doing away with it. In its place was government by military conquest.

Of course that was hardly the end of the story. The US Constitution suffered further setbacks circa WWI under Wilson and his "fight to make the world safe for democracy". The income tax and the Federal Reserve were established in that dark chapter of American history. And the decline of the erstwhile Land Of The Free continues to this day.

we_are_toast
04-23-10, 02:01 PM
If the civil war was fought over states rights, why wasn't it fought when the articles of confederation were abandoned for a new, highly centralized constitution? Yes, there's revisionist history going on for sure.


John Brown (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was an American abolitionist, who advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to end all slavery. He led the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 in Bleeding Kansas and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859.
President Abraham Lincoln said he was a "misguided fanatic" and Brown has been called "the most controversial of all 19th-century Americans."[1] Brown's actions are often referred to as "patriotic treason", depicting both sides of the argument.
John Brown's attempt in 1859 to start a liberation movement among enslaved African Americans in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) electrified the nation. He was tried for treason against the state of Virginia, the murder of five proslavery Southerners, and inciting a slave insurrection and was subsequently hanged. Southerners alleged that his rebellion was the tip of the abolitionist iceberg and represented the wishes of the Republican Party. Historians agree that the Harpers Ferry raid in 1859 escalated tensions that, a year later, led to secession and the American Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

jpatter666
04-23-10, 02:44 PM
If the civil war was fought over states rights, why wasn't it fought when the articles of confederation were abandoned for a new, highly centralized constitution? Yes, there's revisionist history going on for sure.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

No one is going to claim that slavery wasn't a big factor (probably THE factor) behind the Civil War. The Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak to keep the states together which is why they moved to the Constitution. And you are also correct in stating that a powerful, centralized government began there. But it didn't appear overnight. It gained power over the decades.

In the timespan before the War, while the legislature tended to stay in Northern hands (if for no other reasons than population and number of states), the Presidency stayed in Southern hands. A very tenuous balance of power. When the Presidency also went into Northern hands, the South felt it had nothing to lose.

Also remember that it almost *was* two different countries back then. Most people never left their state and felt highly attached to it. Loyalty to the Union was second to the State -- that was the main reason Robert Lee gave; he could not fight Virginia. And Virginia did not leave the Union at first -- a full third only left after the opening shots were fired.

What is ironic to me in that by the end of the War, the Confederate government had seized far more power than the Federal government had at the beginning of the war.

OK, no need to start a flame war here, I'm done. There's been tons of books written on this for all to pore over....

Ghent12
04-23-10, 03:49 PM
If the civil war was fought over states rights, why wasn't it fought when the articles of confederation were abandoned for a new, highly centralized constitution? Yes, there's revisionist history going on for sure.Because legal recourses from the Anti-Federalists were enough to establish the Bill of Rights as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, and they had the effect of calming the fear of an over-reaching Federal authority.

Yes, the issues of slavery and abolition were substantial, but to say they were the cause for the Civil War is naive and a misread of history. The Simpsons covered it pretty well.

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
-- "Much Apu About Nothing"

As Finster said, slavery ended peacefully in Europe. Why were we the only nation in history to fight a Civil War over slavery? Ans.: we didn't, so no nation in history has fought a civil war for that reason. We fought the American Civil War for similar reasons that all civil wars are fought--power, territory, and structure of government. There's nothing magical or mystical about our Civil War.

c1ue
04-24-10, 11:25 AM
Lincoln was an asshole.

Did you know that Lincoln asked Lee to be his general in the Civil War? Lee, being a Virginian, refused out of conscience.

In revenge Lincoln expropriated Lee's family property and converted it into Arlington National Cemetary so that he could every day look out and see Lee's ancestral home desecrated with Union corpses:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historical_information/arlington_house.html


<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=pageTitle>Arlington House

</TD></TR><TR><TD>On a Virginia hillside rising above the Potomac River and overlooking Washington, D.C., stands Arlington House. The 19th-century mansion seems out of place amid the more than 250,000 military grave sites that stretch out around it. Yet, when construction began in 1802, the estate was not intended to be a national cemetery.


Arlington House "Custis-Lee Mansion"

The mansion, which was intended as a living memorial to George Washington, was owned and constructed by the first president's adopted grandson, George Washington Parke Custis, son of John Parke Custis who himself was a child of Martha Washington by her first marriage and a ward of George Washington. Arlington won out as a name over Mount Washington, which is what George Washington Parke Custis first intended calling the 1,100-acre tract of land that he had inherited at the death of his father when he was 3.

Arlington won out because it was the name of the Custis family ancestral estate in the Virginia tidewater area.

Custis hired George Hadfield, an English architect who came to Washington in 1785 to help construct the U.S. Capitol, to design his estate.The Greek revival structure which Hadfield designed took Custis 16 years to complete.

The north wing was the first structure completed in 1802. It was in this building that Custis made his home, with a significant portion of it used to store George Washington memorabilia Custis was acquiring with regularity. Among the items purchased and stored in the north wing were portraits, Washington's personal papers and clothes, and the command tent which the president had used at Yorktown.

Even after the completion of the south wing in 1804, Arlington House was still only a set of detached buildings. With the completion of the central section in 1818, the house stretched 140 feet from the north to the south wing. The central section contained a formal dining room and sitting room, a large hall and a parlor. One of the most recognizable of the section's features are the eight columns of the exterior portico, each 5 feet in diameter at the base.

George Washington Parke Custis and his wife, Mary Lee Fitzhugh (whom he had married in 1804), lived in Arlington House for the rest of their lives and were buried together on the property after their deaths in 1857 and 1853, respectively. They are buried in their original graves in Section 13, at map grid N-30. On June 30, 1831, Custis' only child, Mary Anna Randolph Custis, married her childhood friend and distant cousin, Robert E. Lee. Lee was the son of former three-term Virginia Governor Henry ("Light Horse Harry") Lee and was himself a graduate of West Point.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

jpatter666
04-24-10, 01:49 PM
Very selective quoting. Suggest you read the REST of it.

And this is coming from a Lee descendant....

c1ue
04-24-10, 04:50 PM
The rest of the page:

Please illuminate how my understanding is wrong:

1) That the property was taken for taxes not paid DURING the Civil War.

2) And that it was judged unlawful confiscation 18 years later.

3) And that it was specifically turned into something uninhabitable.

The only part not explicitly spelled out is Lincoln's role.

Perhaps you can elucidate.



Arlington National Cemetery was established by Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded the garrison at Arlington House, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864, for use as a military cemetery. His intention was to render the house uninhabitable should the Lee family ever attempt to return. A stone and masonry burial vault in the rose garden, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and containing the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties, was among the first monuments to Union dead erected under Meigs' orders. Meigs himself was later buried within 100 yards of Arlington House with his wife, father and son; the final statement to his original order.
The federal government dedicated a model community for freed slaves, Freedman's Village, near the current Memorial Amphitheater, on Dec. 4, 1863. More than 1,100 freed slaves were given land by the government, where they farmed and lived during and after the Civil War.
Neither Robert E. Lee, nor his wife, as title holder, ever attempted to publicly recover control of Arlington House. They were buried at Washington University (later renamed Washington and Lee University) where Lee had served as president. The couple never returned to the home George Washington Parke Custis had built and treasured. After Gen. Lee's death in 1870, George Washington Custis Lee brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (today Arlington) County, Va. Custis Lee, as eldest son of Gen. and Mrs. Lee, claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property to Custis Lee, stating that it had been confiscated without due process

jpatter666
04-24-10, 05:32 PM
Lincoln was not directly responsible as you imply -- please state what document you gather that from. As you state, Lincoln had originally offered supreme command of the Union armies to Lee (this was before Virginia joined the Confederacy as I recall).

And yes, a Union general deliberately took the property and converted it to a military cemetery. It still surprises me they didn't raze the place, especially given the timeframe -- this was during the March to the Sea, the burning of the Shenendoah Valley. Lee was the TOP Confederate general, responsible for well over 100K direct in battle Union deaths by 1864, not including wounded or dead by illness. This particular event was a pimple on a warthog.

The court ruling IMO was not so much based on legality (hey, it was war!) as the following:
1 ) Reconstruction was over
2 ) Lee had passed on, rehabilitating his image over time, the legend was in full bloom by 1882
3 ) Southern politicians were again exhibiting influence (since #1)

c1ue
04-24-10, 08:08 PM
Lincoln was not directly responsible as you imply -- please state what document you gather that from. As you state, Lincoln had originally offered supreme command of the Union armies to Lee (this was before Virginia joined the Confederacy as I recall).

Is there a document where Lincoln states such an intention?

No, of course not. While of course I start to diverge into the conspiracy theory area, I present this instead:

1) Meigs was a captain at the start of the Civil War
2) Meigs and Lincoln worked directly together on at least one documented occasion: the relief of Fort Pickens

http://www.qmfound.com/lincoln.htm



That might have been the end of Montgomery Meigs’ military career, and he might have retired as an obscure officer, but for the coincidence of powerful forces. Abraham Lincoln was elected, South Carolina adopted the Ordinance of Secession, Secretary Floyd resigned to join the Confederacy, Fort Sumter was fired upon, and war suddenly became imminent.
Almost immediately after Floyd resigned, Meigs was restored to his old assignment on the aqueduct project and, two months later, when the siege of Fort Sumter underlined the grave danger to all federal fortifications in the South, Captain Meigs found himself involved in an extraordinary plan to relieve the garrison of Fort Pickens, at Pensacola.
Extraordinary is scarcely an adequate word to describe this operation. Just how extraordinary it was can be appreciated when it is noted that the principal-if not the only-planners were President Lincoln, Captain Meigs, Secretary of State Seward, and a Naval lieutenant, and that neither the Secretaries of War or Navy knew anything about it! Captain Meigs it seems, was destined to operate outside of the regular channels.


Followed by a jump from captain, to colonel, to general in 24 hours



Nevertheless, this unorthodox project paid off. Meigs became a full colonel on May 14, 1861, and-twenty-four hours later-was nominated as Quartermaster General of the Army, with the rank of Brevet Brigadier General.
There probably was no direct connection between the sudden elevation and Meigs’ letter to the Secretary of State a month earlier, but you cannot escape the feeling that these two facts somehow were related. After all, Meigs was a 45-year-old captain with no immediate prospects of going much higher before retirement. Certainly this must have colored his thoughts when on April 7 he wrote to Seward that you will find the Army and Navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.


Thus I think it is quite fair to say that Meigs had a very close relationship with Lincoln, and furthermore it seems odd that the Quartermaster General of the entire Union Army would take charge of a cemetary.

It is also fair to say that Lincoln must have known about General Lee's property as it overlooks Washington DC - and Lee as the ranking member of the US military had direct contact with Lincoln regularly.

The official story says that what happened to Robert E. Lee's estate was due to Meigs' revenge over the death of his son, but that is wrong because General Meigs' son was not killed until after the property was seized by the federal government and also after Meigs assumed command of this otherwise unremarkable land (unremarkable compared to all the OTHER seized property other than its owner.


What the general did not say, however, was that the war became a very personal matter to him after his son, Captain John R. Meigs, was killed at Harrisonburg, Virginia, in October 1864, less than two years after his graduation from West Point.

So why indeed would Montgomery Meigs take personal command of a cemetary? 4 months BEFORE his son was killed?

An individual with a past history of doing 'out of chain of command' tasks for Lincoln?

c1ue
04-25-10, 11:39 AM
A final footnote which may or may not be relevant: after ownership of Arlington was returned to the family, Lincoln's son bought it 6 months later for $150,000

The CPI calculator doesn't go back to the 1880s, but it is probably safe to say that this was an enormous sum: at least $5M in today's terms, in turn even more due to the relative lack of cash in the gold-backed era: 75000 ounces of gold = $8.5M+

Thus Lincoln's association with Arlington/Robert E. Lee's/Custis' ancestral estate is manyfold. Said son is also buried there.