Oh, please, not the Hitler Argument!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Last Refuge of the Debater. Yes, Lincoln locked up the MD legislature.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Yes, he suspended habeas corpus (permitted by Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 2 of the Constitution in "Cases of Rebellion," though I'll grant that it's Congress' prerogative, not POTUS').ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Yes, he led the Union in an "invasion" of the Confederacy (don't forget Lee's two invasions of Federal territory -- three if you count Jubal Early's run into MD in 1864!).ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š But for heaven's sake don't compare that to Hitler's genocidal war of conquest in the name of an allegedly superior "race" that nearly wiped out Western Civ at the cost of 50 million lives!!!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The comparison doesn't wash.
The difference is that when I make the hitler comparison I don't always mean it in a negative manner. First of all, WWII was over territorial expansion, not over genocide, the genocide was a side show. Quite comprable to the War Between the States, Lincoln was fighting for territorial expansion; this isn't a bad thing per se
many, dare I way most, wars throughout history were fought for this very reason; perhaps it isn't as noble as 'honour, liberty, and self-determination,' but it's still a valid reason to fight a war. While I despise Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Pope, Butler, etc. as people; I wouldn't go so far as to say war criminals, I don't really believe that there are crimes in war, only victory and defeat. The North won the war, true they started out with superior resources in an era where wars were won by attrition, but some credit must go to those who knew how to at least not lose (which is all a country with superior resources needed to do in Napoleonic war). I will give credit where credit is due (which is not to Pope or Butler no matter how you analyze the situation), I dont care how bad of a person you are, if you're a competent military commander, you diserve credit for that. Thus I give Hitler praise for his Economic reforms of the 30's, I give Lincoln credit for winning the war, I give Stalin credit for turning Russia into a Superpower.
Now where I disagree with Hitler, Lincoln, and Stalin is on issues of values, I tend to support liberty and self-determination thus I believe them to be competent men who put their talents towards evil rather than good, but that's only my personal opinion, a subjective assessment. Thus, while my personal values will never allow me to side with the causes of these three men, to compare one to them is not always an insult. An excellent example is though I disagree with the personal values of Joseph GÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¶bbels, as a rhetorician is is the equal of Cicero, yet more relevant to our society and culture; thus I have been known to read him religiously and offer him the praise that is due to such great talent.
Oh, and it should be noted that considering the way the elected government of Maryland was treated, any movement into Maryland can not be regarded as an invasion, but rather as an attempt to liberate an occupied state. The only true invasion was in '63, which was both conducted within the guidelines of the traditional rules of war (which protect civilians and their property) and more than justified by the attrocities that had been committed by Union Armies in Northern Virginia the previous year.
I lived in Maryland for 36 years, but I'm now happily ensconced in California.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Golden State has its own problems, God knows, but at least re-fighting the Civil War isn't one of them!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
I'm a born and raised native of California