On the record
He had a genius for war, and in a purely military point of view it would perhaps have been better for the Confederates to lose the battle than to lose the most aggressive officer in their Army.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “He had a genius for war, and in a purely military point of view it would perhaps have been better for the Confederates…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine reflects on the strategic implications of losing a key Confederate general during the Civil War.
Share
More from James Blaine
But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their…
But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme.
Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command.
Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
Other voices in this conversation
