“You people of the South don’t know what you are doing,” William Tecumseh Sherman told David F. Boyd in 1860. “This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing!”

Nine years later, Sherman re-emphasized that sentiment in an address to the Michigan Military Academy’s graduating class of 1879: “You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!”

In between, Sherman became one of the most famous — and, in the south, infamous — fighting generals of The Late Unpleasantness, aka the Civil War. Every time I quote him in a column, I receive an outraged comment or two from fellow southerners. His “March to the Sea,” culminating in his presentation of Savannah, Georgia to US president Abraham Lincoln as a “Christmas gift” 159 years ago this month, remains a sore spot down here.

I’m not going to stop quoting him, though. He’s someone I’d like American soldiers and policymakers to listen to.

When it comes to speaking knowledgeably about war, few can boast the credentials he amassed on the subject — two wars, one as a junior officer and one as a general, rounding out his career with command of the entire US Army.

As for politics: “I hereby state, and mean all I say,” he told Harper’s Weekly in 1871, “that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve.” He reaffirmed that in 1884 when approached about seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

These days, most American generals seem to have one foot in the armed forces, one in politics, and both racing toward the revolving door that leads to big lobbying salaries from “defense” contractors.

While “civilian control of the military” strikes me as a good thing, there’s something to be said for emphasizing Sherman in America’s service academies and boot camps. To the extent that they advise politicians, officers should be recommending against, not encouraging, perpetual and deadly foreign military adventurism.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

When it comes to bizarre demands for government intervention in trivial matters, US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the gift that keeps on giving. Try as I may to tear myself away from watchng the slow motion train wrecks of her ideas and cast my gaze on similar weirdness from other politicians, she just tops everyone else on a regular basis and I can’t resist the temptation to talk about her again.

This time, it’s sandwiches.

Yes, really.

And not in the vein of the misogynous “make me a sandwich” meme. In point of fact, she just might be the last person on the planet I’d delegate sandwich-making duty to. Not because I assume she wouldn’t be good at it — she contributed several supposedly Cherokee-related family recipes to a cookbook in the 1990s, after all! — but because I know that no matter what I asked for, I’d end up with whatever Elizabeth Warren thought I should eat.

“We don’t need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers,” Warren tweeted (or whatever) on November 26. “The @FTC is right to investigate whether the purchase of @SUBWAY by the same firm that owns @jimmyjohns and @McAlistersDeli creates a sandwich shop monopoly.”

Such an FTC investigation would presumably take about half a minute to discover the existence of Jersey Mike’s, Firehouse Subs, Quiznos, Blimpie, and a gazillion other sandwich shops of both the chain and small business variety. Not to mention the existence of stores where bread, meat, cheese, etc. can be purchased, and homes with refrigerators, counters, etc. where the ingredients can be stored and assembled at the diner’s leisure.

It’s not so much that Warren seeks solutions to non-problems as that she considers it a problem — or at least an oversight — whenever she happens across something, anything, anywhere, that she’s not been put in charge of supervising.

And it’s not that she’s different from other politicians in that respect. Generally speaking, all politicians have a lot in common with the rest of us — we want to run our own lives, and they want to run our lives too.

But the areas she picks to address make one wonder just what the hell she’s doing to earn her $174,000 US Senate salary. She clearly has plenty of spare time and energy to spend worrying about American sandwich consumption, and no time or energy at all to spend on actually looking into whether that worry is warranted.

There is no “sandwich shop monopoly.” There’s not GOING to be any “sandwich shop monopoly” even if Roark Capital adds Subway to its portfolio.

In fact, the only truly dangerous monopoly in America is the one Elizabeth Warren affiliates herself with: Government.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

I like mass transit. When I’m living in or visiting a substantial city, there’s simply no better way to get around than the local bus or (if I’m lucky) train system. Why battle heavy traffic when I can relax, crack a book, and let someone else drive me  to within easy walking distance of almost any local destination … probably for less money and time than I’d waste on gasoline and parking?

That may sound like an odd confession coming from a libertarian. And, these days, it is. “Mass transit” these days usually refers to government-operated enterprises which run at operating losses and tap taxpayers to make up their deficits.

That, however, was not always the case.

New York’s subway system was operated by private companies until 1940. Chicago’s elevated trains were privately owned and operated until 1947. It wasn’t until 1963 that a bi-state compact purchased 15 private transit operators to make “mass transit” in St. Louis area a wholly government-operated enterprise.

The telling of the story of  private mass transit’s death usually starts with Los Angeles, where National City Lines, a company owned by General Motors and other automobile-centric companies, bought up the private streetcar lines, replacing them with buses. At the same time, the same players lobbied heavily for automobile-friendly streets and “freeways,”  making it more convenient for city dwellers to move to the suburbs … if they bought cars.

So, it’s complicated. Yes, mass transit is heavily subsidized. But so is “car culture.” Those interstate highways and wide city boulevards didn’t build themselves.

At its founding, less than 10% of America’s population lived in the urban areas that make mass transit practical.  That number today: 80%.

But according to a 2020 report published by Railway Age, only one in five Americans report “access to” mass transit, and of that 20%, 40% never use it at all, while only about 11% use it daily.

Look, I get it: Owning a car, motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle makes getting around more convenient in that you can travel on your schedule and per your chosen route, not someone else’s.

On the other hand, riding mass transit means no car payments, insurance premiums, parking worries, etc. In or near an urban core, it just makes sense … assuming systems built to serve their markets rather than to tick items off lists of government transportation planners’ priorities.

Re-“privatizing” mass transit might save its life by making it more attractive to its supposed constituency, the public.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY