ShermanPosting

I suppose my problem with Lincoln stems from the fact that there were prominent and high ranking figures around Lincoln that were saying this at the time. That were pushing radical reconstruction. It makes me wonder what would’ve happened if they were president - and if Lincoln wasn’t more a hindrance.

The issue in choosing who to listen to is always who is correct, factually, and who is just headstrong?

Shooting too high will ruin all your plans - including the pared-back ones you were keeping in your pocket for an emergency. Shooting too low will also ruin all your plans, including the pared-back ones you thought you could implement.

I don't envy people with an actual conscience who have to make decisions like that. Man was also exhausted and tormented by the unending stream of casualties by mid-1864.

... that being said, I'm generally with you on the subject - if I was operating within the constraints of the time, I still think I would fall on "The South needs to be treated seriously, to preserve the gains of this war" with the Radicals over "The South needs to know it will not be occupied forever, to prevent another war which will erase all our gains" of Lincoln. I just think it is a legitimate issue of strategy, rather than a question of values.

But I suppose perhaps it’s just me pushing back against the two dimensional view and education that most get on Lincoln.

Of course, I agree entirely. Lincoln as a saint is not real history. Hagiography has no place in studies of the past.