--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan, just to be fair, not fortuitous, but not > > inevitable either. I think most (but not all) > > historians think that Northern victory was likely, > > given its resource advantage. > > I included the fact that someone as talented as > Lincoln being elected as > part of the fortune, not simply a given.
Yeah but some historians (Richard Hofstadter, for example) think that Lincoln's leadership wasn't that crucial to the victory - there are fewer of those than there were a generation ago, but they do exist. > Let me inquire about your indefinate specific. I'd > guess that the view > that the North was favored to win would be more > common if you focused on > the military and less common if you focused on the > social and diplomatic > dynamics. > > Dan M. Oddly enough, no, I don't think so. Historians who focus on the military stuff understand military affairs better and understand that wars are not _just_ decided by who has the bigger economy. Those who don't look at military stuff tend, in my opinion (Damon, for example, may disagree) to vastly underrate the role of contingency in military outcomes. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
