From the Kirkus review of the novel, The Secret Trial of Robert E. Lee by Thomas Fleming (the book, not the review):
“Suppose, just suppose, the Radical Republicans decided that the amnesty Ulysses S. Grant offered to Johnny Reb didn’t have a sicificiently punitive sting. What might have happened had they put Robert E. Lee–Saddam Hussein in gray–on trial for treason.”
“Saddam Hussein in gray”? WTF does that mean? Is it a slam against the current “Radical Republicans” who have indeed put Hussien on trial? Or…no. There’s no sense to be had from it. One was a general fighting for a flawed by understandable cause (the right of succession, not slavery). Hussein was purely an evil thug. No matter how seriously you remain about the Civil War, comparing Lee to Hussein is insane. Hell, even comparing Sherman, a far more controversial figure than Lee, to Hussein is well beyond the mark.
So…what? Did the reviewer just think that commment somehow sounded clever? Seriously, I am quite bewildered.
Hmm, I was trying to give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps he is just a jackass rather and a partisan jackass, but then dig this: ” And whether intentional or not, it’s all quite timely, as latter-day politicos debate states’ rights and the legality of the Dredd Scott decision.”
Yes, well, Federalism is a big constitutional issue, no doubt, although casting it as ‘states’ rights’ is an attempt to make it sound all ominous, since that term has been tarished since the Civil Rights movement. But who the hell is ‘debating’ the Dredd Scott decision?! I mean, what the hell does that even mean?
