if abraham lincoln had a drone (i don't know with a time machine or whatever)

[arely staircase]

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

would he have been justified in using it on confederate military or political leadership?

7 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes to both military and political leaders of the confederacy
	3 (43%)
	only military leaders like lee, but not politicians like confederate senators, cabinet members, etc.
	2 (29%)
	no to either
	0 (0%)
	the time machine alone would make the war avoidable and drones a moot point
	2 (29%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BainsBane]

1. How do you bomb military leaders?

Without taking out soldiers? War doesn't work that way.

[arely staircase]

2. oh say a well placed drone fired missile into the south carolina capitol bldg

while they are in session in 1863 that might kill a few soldiers but the target would be the decapitation of the confederate political apparratus, thus stopping its war fighting power..just fly that sucker down the coast, pausing briefly over richmond, charleston, atlanta, etc. with only a few hundred people as your target, not the hundreds of thousands who did die.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

14. Why the South Carolina capitol?

The Confederate capital in 1863 was Richmond, Virginia. South Carolina may have started it, but Virginia was front and center.

By 1863, the war had been going for two years already, with many bloody battles already having been fought-- including Antietam, the bloodiest of them all.

[arely staircase]

15. i think the individual state governments that were in a state of rebellion retained

a good deal of control over military units like state militias did they not? the confederacy was a much more loose affiliation than the united states government from which they assumed they had left, wrongly since they lost.

but of course richmond and the national confederate government would be the highest priority target if one had and chose the drone option in 1863.

[MotherPetrie]

3. Would you have posed this question if Bush and not Obama was making the same claims re drones?

[arely staircase]

5. that isn't an option in my scenario

but since you asked i not only would have, but thought at the time bush's use of them was too timid and his willingness to invade entire nation states and engage in wars of agression like invading iraq too eager. the current major enemy is a semi-afilliated band of muslim fundamentalist extremists who have declared war on and engaged the united states in acts of war. that they are basically stateless in loyalty should provide them no comfort or security. if they are camped out and plotting and preparing to blow up airliners in some place that lacks a will or ability to capture or kill them, i have no problems with george w. bush, president obama or anyone constitutionaly sworn to that office to blow those people up first.

[MotherPetrie]

32. I wasn't referring to drones outside the U.S.

[arely staircase]

33. then in what context has president obama suggested using them other than that?

outside the united states. my op is about a theoretical use of them within the us, in the 1860s. but when you say 'if gwb had suggeted the same', would i approve? what are you talking about?and a paraphrase your comment.

[On the Road]

4. I Believe He Had a Right to Target Political Leaders

but it might have been unwise to do so -- not only for retaliation, but to encourage surrender and cooperation.

[arely staircase]

6. would you limit political leaders to the executive branch?

or would taking out the north carolina supreme court be ok? the state senate? i ask because i assume the executive was commander in chief under the (illegal and insurrectionist) confederate constitution and technically military leadership. but you could make the case that a confederate congress or state legislature was funding the rebellion and therefore fair game.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. I wouldn't. nt

[Prism]

8. He probably wouldn't have used it against political leaders

There was a sense of honor at the time that assassination was beyond the pale among the aristocracy and political class. Lincoln was famously indifferent towards his own safety and often went about without guards during the early years of the war. While rogue elements took a shot at him now and then, Jefferson Davis never (as far as we know) instigated any plots to take Lincoln's life. Southerners were actually appalled at Booth when it happened. Certain Confederate elements had considered kidnapping in exchange for PoW's, but assassination was fairly off the table.

It just wasn't cricket at the time.

[arely staircase]

11. but with lee, jackson, etc.

the united states military was directly and indirectly trying to kill them anyway, as they were literally armed combatants on a battlefield.

i bet lincoln would have taken re lee off the battlefield with a drone if he could have. if the decision were left to his commanders like sherman, you can pretty well bet they would have deployed the drones if they had them. and i bet sherman would have been willing to use them not only on political leaders but arguably civilian targets like the living quaters of a slavemaster on a large plantation, the economic backbone of the rebellion. he certainly used what he had on such institutions.

[Prism]

18. That's fair comment

Grant and Sherman certainly went pretty mercenary towards the end as they embraced Total War. But I can't help but think back on Lincoln's thoughts that he didn't want retribution and wouldn't particularly mind if rebel leaders somehow slipped away and left the country. He had a certain respect for his opposition (they were, of a fashion, all friends).

But yeah, I can totally see Sherman bombing the hell out of anything that moved. That's where his head was at.

[BainsBane]

16. War is war

This is what I find a bit perplexing about the drone discussion. Drones are a tool of war, a weapon. It seems to me a key issue is whether the strikes (or war) is justified.
If it is not justified, no method of attack is acceptable. If it is justified, then the question arises as to whether drones are worse than other forms of attack. One of my concerns is that because drone attacks are seen as cowardly and unjust, they make be creating more enemies against the US than they take out.

The Civil War was the bloodiest in US history. I'm not sure if it matters how they died as much as the fact they died. Certainly poor whites born the overwhelming burden of defending the confederacy, and I don't see much honor in that.

[Prism]

20. I think our current drone discussion is quite peripheral

I think what's really happening is a post-9/11 weariness towards our security state and the trend towards untrammeled war-making power resting with the Executive. At some point, people will look at executive prerogatives and declare enough is enough. Everyone has their motives. I have no doubt many Republicans would not find fault with the current policy under Bush, just as many Democrats would object were it Bush.

It's a reaction to a minor question with a much larger concept in mind. Paul's problem is pretty academic. I don't think an Obama presidency would ever use drones on American soil to kill American citizens. It's simply a touchstone for the larger question that has been percolating in many peoples' minds for some time - Where does executive power end? For the past thirty or so years, we've seen increasing unilateral war-making power concentrated within the presidency. Congress has almost entirely checked out on its co-equal responsibilities as representatives increasingly shirk tough decisions and policy-making for fear of having something on the record that could threaten their re-election chances.

Drones are just an opportunity to have that discussion. "When and where do we rein a President in?" A lot of people have chosen this particular hill, even if it does seem a small, unlikely one.

I just like that the question's being asked at all.

[BainsBane]

21. one thing is sure

Once the executive obtains power, it is very difficult to wrench it from its hands. People comfortable with Obama's handling of drones will have to watch as another president continues to use them.

I think your analysis putting drones in the broader context of presidential power is useful.

[Prism]

22. I'm surprised more Democrats don't heed the obvious question

"Would you want a Republican president to have this power?"

Because he or she will. And given our current trajectory, he or she will have this power and more.

[NightWatcher]

9. If Lincoln had a time machine and a drone? Check please

He did have a time machine, it looked like a phone booth. He used it and landed in San Dimas, CA where he helped Bill and Ted pass their history final.

Hello, read much?

[arely staircase]

12. well in real life, sure

but i'm just making up imaginary, but kinda topical, scenarios.

[OldDem2012]

13. Okay...I laughed out loud at that one! nt.

[WilliamPitt]

30. SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!

[sofa king]

10. He did have a drone: Ulric Dhalgren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_Affair

Oh, back then they were called "assassins."

[octothorpe]

17. I think you mean moot point...

[arely staircase]

23. indeed i do

thanks, correcting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. John Wilkes Booth was a drone and knocked off a political leader.

Was he justified to do so?

[arely staircase]

24. depends on which side you are on

but his case gets pretty weak once you consider that the war was over.

[DevonRex]

35. The war was over. End of combat, end of story. nt

[treestar]

25. Of course

Far fewer people would have died.

The Civil War was the deadliest war we had.

[redgreenandblue]

26. Pointless poll. Wars are fought within the current technological premises.

If Lincoln had drones, then the confederates would have had them as well. None of this however is of any relevance to the current situation.

Ironically, Lincoln was the political leader who eventually ended up being assassinated.

[arely staircase]

36. well yes it is a completely theoretical discussion

but only pointless if you find engaging in that theoretical discussion to hold no value, even for entertainment's sake. and that is certainly cool too. you don't have to.

now the irony of lincoln being assassinated needs to be looked upon in this context (as per the op, lincoln with drones.) when booth killed lincoln hostilities had ceased and the long road of Reconstruction, occupation and the eventual writing of new state constitutions were under way. in other words, lincoln was not the commander of a belligerent fighting force in the field. booth was a criminal in virginia, to where he fled, just as much as he was in the northern states that didn't try to secede. lincoln killing jefferson davis with a drone would arguably be the taking out of the commander in chief of the opposing forces. that, i believe is even under today's international law a perfectly rational and permissible thing.

edited to say no the south doesn't have drones in my scenario. jut the federal government with a couple to use putting down an insurrection in the 1860s, which lincoln got with a time machine.

[redgreenandblue]

27. Assassination of leaders has existed as long as wars. It has always been of limited strategic value.

Sometimes it changes something. Sometimes it doesn't. Taking out a general who is at the head of an otherwise intact and successful army which is rolling usually has little effect aside from opening up a career opportunity for someone else.

[arely staircase]

37. good point, aside from any ethical debate on the subject

i doubt killing jefferson davis with a drone would have changed anything. the confederacy was an attempt at fighting a war with a limitted central government (one of its many weaknesses.) but if drones were taking able commanders like re lee off the battlefield. or even killing confederate politicl leaders with such furocity that it made it impossible for the so-called confederacy to continue the business of government required to field an army - feed it, arm it, pay it, etc. then i think no more than a couple of today's drones could have crippled the so-called confederacy to the point of surrender, with much less loss of life - though probably the killing of several hundred or even a couple of thousand specific people.

[redgreenandblue]

40. I'm guessing you are trying to derive from this an argument in favor of

the current policy of targeted assassinations of "suspected militants". Like it saves lives or something like that. "Had there be drones there wouldn't have been a Hitler."

There isn't such an argument because this would be comparing apples to oranges.

For one, it is an a-historical argument which sets up the premises in exactly such a way which is tailored to lead to the desired conclusion. It completely ignores how the real world works.

The civil war (and WWII) was a war which was waged between parties which had armies of roughly the same proportion and effectiveness. If you postulate a huge technological advantage on one side of the war then yes, it would have played out differently. That doesn't mean it would have been less deadly. It might have descended into the form of "asymmetric warfare" and taken an even larger civilian toll.

You are assuming a lot of things, such as that the "enemy commanders" are not aware of the drone threat and are not taking precautionary measures such as blending in with the civilian population. If Lincoln had drones then the civil war would perhaps have been more like the Vietnam war and less like the revolutionary war. Maybe the use of drones would have lead to the secessionists achieving their political goals, due to the collateral damage making it impossible to reconcile both halves of the country.

Second, it is not obvious that the warfare paradigm should apply to the current situation, despite what some sophists on this board like to argue using a lot of bloomy language and hot air. There were many unsuccessful attempts on Hitlers life. Had they been successful then maybe the war would have been shorter. But the Taliban are not Hitler or "the confederate states". Apples and oranges. There isn't really a good historical analogy.

Maybe pirates works. Would the British crown have been justified in sending ninja assassins into the colonies to kill people of whom the King "simply knows" they are pirates?

[arely staircase]

43. then you guess wrong

i am not trying to derive anything other than a hypothetical discussion - based on a topical issue.

[graham4anything]

28. Si.

[JHB]

29. Funny you should put it that way...

From Driftglass' blog
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-guns-of-north.html

[One_Life_To_Give]

31. We'd argue over the Ethics of using Whale Oil to power it. nt

[arely staircase]

38. no need. i'm assuming lincoln having drones means

full ability to use them. so he got the fuel and the maintenance crews and the remote control pilot person with the time machine.

[Capt. Obvious]

34. He could use it on vampires

but only if they weren't American citizens.

[arely staircase]

39. not really

is a missile a legit way to kill a vampire? wouldn't everything just blow up aroud them? unless the drone could fire a woooden stake through their hearts?

[redgreenandblue]

41. Since we are playing "a-historical what-if", here is how I think it would have played out:

Lincoln would have droned one or two confederate leaders. After that, the rest of those leaders would have started hiding amongst civilians. Lincoln, under political pressure to be "tough on the south" would have ordered strikes anyway, based on spy reports which would have sometimes been reliable, sometimes not. As a result, there would have been a large number of non-combatants dead.

This would have done a number of things: Northerners with family members in the south would have stopped supporting the war effort. A large number of southerners would have been hell-bent on retaliation independent of any political goals. There would have been retaliation bombings in the north, done by unknown people, targeting civilians and political leaders. These would have not been done with drones but with traditional dynamite. As a result, security would have had to been tightened in the north, a climate of suspicion emerging. Perhaps people with family in the south would have been pre-emptively locked up in camps for security reasons.

Northern forces may have then eventually won the war, but the hatred of them by southerners would have been so strong at that point that attacks on them and their representatives would not have ceased, even long after the formal surrender. The north would have to had occupied the south and kept it under "martial law" for an indefinite time. Likewise, martial law would have been extended to the north due to the fear of "collaborators". Lincoln would have eventually been assassinated, a more "hard-line" person taking his place.

Then say a decade or two later, after countless numbers of drones strikes and "retaliation bombings", civil liberties and the constitution no longer existing in any shape or form, the north would have decided that it can no longer sustain the occupation of the south and allowed secession. The country would have split and both halves would not have recovered from the war for over a century. The USA would as a result today be somewhere in the ballpark of Somalia in terms of development, the balkans in the best case scenario. It would never have been in the shape of contributing to WWII in any meaningful way. All of Europe and Asia would be communist, Hitler having been defeated by the Soviets alone.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. ...it would be cool if they put a big fuckin' hat on it.

[MineralMan]

44. I voted just as you were editing to remove the poll.

I voted not to vote. Here's why: Clearly, the possibility can't be really entertained. However, since a war was fought, and all weapons available at the time were in use during the Civil War, I am sure President Lincoln would have used whatever was available to him. Questioning who he might have used those weapons against can be answered by looking at who were targets during the actual war.

Weapons do not change targets, generally. They allow different targets to be assigned.