Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
My apologies for not getting back to you right away. I've just returned from an extended trip to the east coast and have been without adequate computer access. It will take me awhile to get through all the accumulated messages and postings, but I will respond. In the meantime, have some freshly squeezed mango juice while I slowly emerge from the mountain of messages piled ontop of me.
I thought a silvertipped grizzly had devoured you. Good to see you're back with such enthusiasm! ;-)
Your opinion of the war being solely the South's fault doesn't make the North's total war upon unarmed citizens, black & white, a viable excuse. Revenge never settles anything and never succeeds.
I must admit that I'm having a difficult time understanding how you've come to the conclusion that no civilians were murdered during Sherman's campaign, particularly when one of Sherman's pro-biographers stated that "had the Confederates somehow won, they would have found themselves justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war againstnoncombatants." ("Marching Through Georgia:" Lee Kennett)
Because there is no evidence of civilians being murdered during Sherman's campaign. That quotation, which you probably got from DiLorenzo, is taken quite out of context. Prof. Kennett wasn't talking about civilians being murdered. He was talking about civilian crops and property being destroyed. And the quote isn't complete because he inserts a parenthetical, "as victors generally do" after "justified."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"There was destruction of property." In Sherman's words: "I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simply waste and destruction." In my estimation Cash, this amounts to a little more than your claim that "there was destruction of property."
Sherman was talking about public property and militarily useful stores, which are all legitimate targets for destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"The Confederate Military History," Volume 6, Chapter XVII:
Not a very objective source is it? Ah, well. Let's see what it has to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Under Sherman's orders Capt. O. M. Poe "thoroughly destroyed Atlanta, save its mere dwelling-houses and churches." The destruction was by fire purposely applied to buildings, and permitted to spread, as was expected, from house to house until the defenseless city was almost entirely reduced to ashes. No efforts were made to prevent the spread of the conflagration, and scarcely any structure was designedly spared. Only about 450 buildings escaped this ruthless burning, among them many churches, which in those days generally stood apart from other buildings. The thoroughness of the destruction can be realized, when we consider that by the census of 1860 Atlanta had a population of 10,000, which in 1864 had increased to 14,000. More than 4,000 houses, including dwellings, shops, stores, mills and depots were burned, about eleven-twelfths of the city. Capt. Daniel Oakey, of the Second Massachusetts volunteers, says: "Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the Thirty-third Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections."
And not terribly accurate either.
"Though Sherman had indicated in his correspondence that he would leave Atlanta 'utterly destroyed,' the list of structures his engineers prepared for destruction is an unexceptional one: the railroad and all its appurtenances, of course, and then 'all storehouses, machine shops, mills, factories, &c., within the lines of the enemy's defenses at Atlanta.' Initially Colonel William Cogswell, post commandant, was to have the assignment of destroying the city, or more properly, 'all buildings and works of any military importance.' Cogswell had inspections made, and troops began to undermine walls and chimneys. Powder bags were prepared, and the provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel Morse, 'Tried a perfectly successful experiment on a small house.' But on November 6 came an order suspending these preparations; on the 7th General Slocum sent word that the destruction would be directed by Captain Poe, and that Colonel Cogswell need only furnish the manpower. That same day Sherman told Captain Poe to take charge, and on the 12th he told him he could start the work of demolition, but he added an interesting proviso. He didn't want Poe to use fire, which would endanger other buildings than those set apart for destruction. The Michigan and Missouri regiments of engineers and mechanics had special competence for this sort of work, so details from these two units went to work toppling high smokestacks on several plants. The chimney of the gas house was nearly two hundred feet high; a soldier named Lawson watched them undermine it 'until it fell with a crash, accompanied by the shouts of thousands of soldiers.' The engineers moved on to breaking furnace arches, battering steam machinery to pieces, and knocking holes in boilers. They demolished the rail lines inside the city, tearing up the track, heating it on piles of burning ties--apparently the only eception to the policy of not using fire--and applied the cant hooks. According to Poe no other fires were set with official sanction until the afternoon of the 15th. Men knocked down stone and brick railway facilities, suspending a bar of railroad iron as a battering ram." [Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers & Civilians During Sherman's Campaign, pp. 239-240]
On the 15th, "Captain Poe wrote in his diary: 'much destruction of private property by unauthorized persons, to the great scandal of our army, and marked detriment to its discipline. Months later, in his official report, he would simply attribute the unauthorized fires to 'lawless persons' who were 'sneaking around in blind alleys.'" [Ibid., p. 241]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
And what of the burning of cities such as Jackson, *******n, and Randolph, whose populations consisted of 'non-combatants? Do you believe any of the reports/diaries, for example, that have been included in this thread; or do you consider them as mere embellishment 'of historical fact?'
I consider them as destruction of public property and military stores that got out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"What overshadows that is the kidnapping of black citizens off the streets in Pennsylvania and taking them south in chains to be sold into slavery. What overshadows that is the cold-blooded murder of black soldiers who had surrendered and were unarmed at Fort Pillow, Poison Springs, and Olustee. And let's not forget the diabolical plot to attempt to spread smallpox among Union civilians."
Emory International Law Review, Volume 9, Number 2, Thomas G. Robisch: "The presence of Sherman's army prompted a great number of slaves to leave their homes, often on a moment's notice, to follow the Union soldiers. To these people, Sherman was somewhat of a mythical figure who had come to bring them freedom. Except for a relatively small number of refugees who were employed as pioneers (road construction workers), servants, mistresses or prostitutes, Sherman's army had little use for these people. Sherman considered these refugees to be unwanted responsibilities, and he discouraged slaves from following his men as best he could, Nevertheless, the presence of his army attracted thousands of blacks.
These refugees created problems for the Union army in terms of the army's ability or disposition to provide them with adequate food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, many of the runaway slaves who followed Sherman's soldiers were unable to care sufficiently for themselves, and the federal army provided them with little help.
On one occasion, when one of Sherman's corps commanders believed that the crowd of refugees had become unduly burdensome, he forced the runaway slaves to remain behind at a river-crossing by burning the bridges used by the soldiers to cross the river. By abandoning them in this manner, the Union army tacitly permitted former owners to recapture these former slaves.
I've read the Robisch article. His scholarship is extremely sloppy. For instance, while it's true Jefferson C. Davis took up the pontoon bridges because he was fearful of losing them, the runaway slaves were attacked by Wheeler's Cavalry soon after the bridges were taken up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Panic-stricken, many of the refugees dove into the river and died trying to swim across. Sherman refused to criticize the corps commander, a Union general with the improbable name of Jeff Davis, who was responsible for the decision to burn the bridges. In addition to this incident, the Union army's other acts of desertion of black refugees caused a substantial number of deaths from hunger, exposure, and sickness."
Another example of Robisch's unreliability. The bridges weren't burned. They were taken up because the confederate cavalry under Wheeler were close by, and it was the appearance of Wheeler's cavalry and their shooting at the refugees and slashing them with sabers that caused them to dive into the river. This was witnessed by Colonel Charles D. Kerr of the 126th Illinois Cavalry, who excoriated Davis in letters afterward for leaving the black refugees to the tender mercies of Wheeler and his men.
Yes, it was a betrayal, but the killing of innocents was not done by Union soldiers. It was done by confederate cavalrymen.
I didn't say civilians deserved anything, Dawna. I said that wars are terrible things, and innocents are always hurt in wars. But to claim the confederacy itself was the victim is akin to the Menendez brothers pleading for mercy on the basis that they were orphans. The confederacy started the war, so whatever happened to civilians in either section happened because of what the confederacy did.
Cash, in the past you and others on these Boards have clearly stated that "the South deserved what they got."
I believe I make it a point to distinguish between "the south" and "the confederacy." I believe the confederacy deserved what it got, and I believe that the blame for the unfortunate and tragic things that happened to innocent civilians belongs to the confederacy for starting the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
[/size]I'm afraid in your haste to cast President Lincoln as the Devil incarnate you have gone beyond what the historical record will sustain. President Lincoln did not ignore any restrictions, and neither did Generals Sherman and Sheridan.
Perhaps you could explain to me then in what way the Leiber Code was not jaundiced, when the entire purpose of Sherman's army was to 'demoralize Southern non-combatants?'
Please show me where the Lieber Code prohibited demoralizing civilians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"As I said, wars are terrible things, and it is inevitable that innocent civilians will be hurt. There is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No matter how much one tries to limit the damage to civilians, they will still be hurt. That is one reason why one must take very seriously the decision to go to war. The ultimate blame for what happened to southern states in the Civil War belongs with those who made the decision to start the war."
How can we look at the same issue and view it so differently? There was no attempt made to limit the damage caused to civilians in the South, or to their property - quite the opposite. When the South seceded, President Lincoln did not have to invade Virginia...he could have simply let the States go and thus avoided the carnage and bloodshed that became the direct result of his actions. You invariably avoid the fact that Lincoln had a choice.
Lincoln had no choice if he was going to obey his oath of office and his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Unilateral secession is an unconstitutional act, and Lincoln would have been dishonorably shirking his duty if he had allowed it to stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Why don't you toss your glass of papaya juice against the nearest fireplace and take a walk on the wild side with me, if only for a moment?
Ah, you temptress you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Let's dispense with the impotent rhetoric of 'cause, deserve, constitution etc., and put a more human touch on the plight of the Southern people. I would even ask you to risk it all and consider the major populace as something other than parsimonious and sodden children, who had little more to do then swat fans and polish their dueling pistols.
And if you haven't actually dismantled the fireplace by now, then I only ask you this. Do you believe that there is a moral equivalence between innocent civilians and an army chaperoned by revenge? After all, it's rather difficult to convince a group of people that you have their best interests at heart, when the welcome wagon you send out is stacked with subjugation.
Dawna
As one of my favorite generals once wrote, "War is cruelty. It cannot be refined." Viewing southern civilians as innocent people caught in a maelstrom, it's obvious to me that those who chose to inaugurate the war bear the responsibility for what happens in it.
I've read that up to 50,000 civilians were killed by Shermans army, and possibly more.
That's a completely ridiculous number, Dawna. Whatever source gave you that has definite credibility problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Just as it was difficiult to determine the full extent of the destruction to the South, it would also be a challenge to confirm exactly how many civilians were raped and murdered. But I would be curious to know what your estimate might be?
Joseph Glatthaar looked at the subject of rape and crimes against white southerners and found the number of incidents "so rare that nearly all the troops who wrote on the unjustified abuse of southerners assumed that it occurred but also confessed that they had never seen such acts. Again, as with mistreatment of blacks, most officers and men alike abhorred this sort of conduct and showed a remarkable willingness to testify against fellow soldiers or prosecute them in a military court. Some officers even issued standing orders to shoot on the spot any soldier found abusing civilians." [Joseph T. Glatthaar, The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman's Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaigns, p. 74]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"There is a class of people (in the South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."
You got this from one of those proconfederate websites. It takes Sherman's words completely out of context. He was talking about men, women, and children who were firing rifles at soldiers in passing trains in Kentucky, which had not seceded and was therefore not a part of the confederacy. These people were criminals, and even a child who commits murder is a criminal.
Your post made sense except for Grant being lionized.I never realized that anyone thought that highly of Grant.Who lionized him?
Almost the entire country after the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Also Lee was far superior to Grant as a soldier, as a person,in reputation,in just about every way Grant was clearly his inferior.
Utterly wrong. Grant was a better general than Lee in all respects, although Lee was a close second. You should really read some real historians instead of confederate propagandists.
JFC Fuller, for example, began a study of Lee and Grant at first believing the propaganda about Lee being so much better than Grant. When he finished his study he concluded Grant was the greatest soldier of his age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Grant is also to blame for the death of Union troops at Andersonville since he stopped prisoner exchange.
Proving you haven't studied the real history of the prisoner exchanges. The prisoner exchanges were stopped by Stanton in 1863 because the confederates were cheating by putting men back into line who had not been properly exchanged and because they were not treating black soldiers or their officers as proper prisoners of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I also think it's not a good example to compare Sherman with Mosby.Sherman destroyed civilian property.His men raped, looted,etch...Unless I missed something Mosby nor his men were ever accused of rape,looting,ethch...
Uh, I think you mean "etc." not "etch." "Etc." is the abbreviation for the Latin "et cetera." Note there is no "h" present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Did Mosby and his partisan rangers burn down homes turning out women and children?I've never read where they committed such acts or were even accused of it.
Those familiar with the actual history of the war will note that Mosby operated primarily in the south, not in the North, making such a comparison utterly useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
There is a clear difference between attacking civilian targets and attacking military targets.Sherman would be paralleled more with Al Quaida for his acts.
Speaking of utter nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I agree that Sherman's acts were exagerrated but the 1000 number seems a little low.It doesn't seem logical to just take the lowest figure reported as the correct assessment.War intentionally waged on civilians is terrorism.Sherman was no better in his actions than the terrorist who crashed planes into the twin towers.What makes it worse is that the US government sponsored his acts and saw to it he could never be punished for it.
Falsehood. You have to show that Sherman deliberately had his men fire on undefended civilians. Such a claim is completely inaccurate historically.
Apparently you think the United States is a terrorist nation, then, considering the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the bombing of other German and Japanese cities, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I am delighted by the fact that you admire Mosby, that he is your idol and that in his tradition of fighting for an 'ideal'. So I know you will trust him and take his word, since you hold him in such high esteem.
"The South went to war on account of slavery,...South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln,...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"
Quote by John Singleton Mosby, leader of Mosby's Rangers.
You know, I honestly believe him and admire him for speaking his mind.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." [John S. Mosby, Mosby's Memoirs, p. 20]
And regarding ex-confederate opinion of Grant:
"As to my own fate, I know not what is in store for me. I believe the politicians in Washington are bent on the most extreme measures, and if they have their way will stop at no humiliation they can heap on me. My sole reliance is on General Grant. I have faith in his honor and his integrity as a soldier, and do not believe he will permit the terms of my surrender of the parole given me, to be violated." -- Robert E. Lee
"Sir, if you ever again presume to speak disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either you or I will sever his connection with this university." -- Robert E. Lee
"Lee was correct in trusting General Grant, because at that time, Stanton and President Johnson were intending to put Lee under arrest. But Grant declared to Johnson that if any Federal official molested Lee, then he would surrender his commission in the United States army. I have always felt that General Grant should be entitled to the gratitude of all Confederate soldiers for this act." -- Joseph E. Johnston
"General Grant's truly great qualities - his innate modesty, his freedom from every trace of vain-glory or ostentation, his magnanimity in victory, his genuine sympathy for his brave and sensitive foemen, and his inflexible resolve to protect paroled Confederates against any assault... will give him a place in history no less renowned and more to be envied than any other man." -- John B. Gordon
"I had strong personal reasons for being friendly with General Grant. If he had not thrown his shield over me in 1865, I should have been outlawed and driven into exile. When Lee surrendered, my battalion was in northern Virginia, a hundred miles from Appomattox. Secretary of war Stanton invited all soldiers in Virginia to surrender on the same conditions which were offered to Lee's army, but I was excepted. General Grant, who was then all-powerful, interposed, and sent me an offer of the same parole that he had given Gen. Lee. Such a service I could never forget. When the opportunity came, I remembered what he had done for me, and I did all I could for him." -- John S. Mosby
But I am also curious as to why Grant is called a butcher when Lee lost more men to frontal assaults while he commanded the ANV than Grant ever did, even with Cold Harbor, when he commanded the AOP.
Neil, my friend, Grant never commanded the Army of the Potomac. Cold Harbor, by the way, was Meade's show all the way. Meade planned it and conducted it. Grant put an end to it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
