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.
Also, as for why 'historians' call Grant a butcher, and not Lee, well, I'll be doggone if I have a real definitive answer on that, so it looks as if you'll have to dig into why those reputable historians, and their sources, refer to Grant as such.
Actually, reputable historians don't refer to Grant as a butcher.
I thought a silvertipped grizzly had devoured you. Good to see you're back with such enthusiasm! ;-)
I'm too mean for a mere grizzly to devour me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
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.
Regards,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)
Rob, First a pet peeve of mine, if I may. The popular use of "total war" is a misnomer. Many people believe it is warfare against civilians. That's not correct. "Total war" means using the totality of your own resources, including economic resources, financial resources, military resource, and diplomatic resources, agains the totality of your opponent's resources. Certainly civilian factory workers who manufacture munitions would be involved in that, but it does not include civilians who in no way support the war effort. That would be a misuse of the label, "total war."
Now, if you're going to claim the Federals made war on unarmed civilians, then you're going to have to show me where Federal troops deliberately fired on undefended and unarmed civilians. So far no such evidence has been produced. There is ample evidence that Federal troops foraged off the civilian populace and destroyed fields and foodstuffs. But one must look a bit deeper into this. The confederacy had what was called a "tax in kind." That meant that 10% of what every farmer produced belonged to the central confederate government. Therefore, every farmer in the confederacy, no matter how little or how much he produced, grew food for the confederate army. Unfortunately for the farmers, there was no way of roping off the 10% that belonged to the confederate government and only destroying that portion, since whatever portion was not destroyed would be subject to the tax in kind. The only way to ensure the confederate soldiers would not receive the food that sustained them was to destroy the entire crop. Now that is an aspect of total warfare, but it was not warfare on civilians. It was warfare on the confederate army's food supply. As usually happens in war, though, civilians were hurt also. But the responsibility for civilians being hurt by legitimate war actions belongs with those who inaugurated the war.
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."
Cash:
As much as I hate to disappoint you in your belief that I exclusively own one book, my quote did not come from Thomas DiLorenzo, although I'm quite certain Mr. DiLorenzo would be pleased to know that his name comes up so frequently on these Boards.
"Had the Confederates somehow won, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) 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)
Perhaps I'll have to stop surfing in Nebraska, for I fail to see how the bolded parenthesis alters the context of Mr. Kennett's statement.
"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."
"Sherman was talking about public property and militarily useful stores, which are all legitimate targets for destruction."
How much of the remaining $80,000,000 do you estimate to be in damage to civilian property? And how do you explain the many cases of Union troops sowing salt into the soil of areas in which they were about to leave - implacability?
"Not a very objective source is it? Ah, well. Let's see what it has to say."
And your sources are not biased?
"I consider them as destruction of public property and military stores that got out of hand."
An interesting perspective Cash. In the words of one of Sherman's bummers:
"How would you like it, do you think, Ab, to have troops passing your house constantly ... ransacking and plundering and carrying off everything that could be of any use to them? There is considerable excitement in foraging, but it is [a] disagreeable business in some respects to go into people's houses and take their provisions and have the women begging and entreating you to leave a little when you are necessitated to take all. But I feel some degree of consolation in the knowledge I have that I never went beyond my duty to pillage." (Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War)
In the words of Union Lieutenant Charles S. Brown to his family in Michigan:
“I have been thankful ever since I have been in the army that this war is South. You never can imagine a pillaged house, never – unless an army passes through your town and if this thing had been North I would Bushwhack until every man was either dead or I was. If such scenes should be enacted through Michigan I would never live as long as one of the invading army did. I do not blame the South and shall not if they go to Guerilla warfare.”
I would suggest that Sherman's bummers/foragers were a little more than a disillusioned few who simply got out of hand. Their purpose was to provide sustenance to the Union army and to dismantle the Southern countryside; and since the caliber of these men was not quite up to standards, it would not be difficult to imagine that Sherman's bummers accomplished their missions with moxie and retribution.
"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."
"The South" is the Confederacy...those southern states that seceded from the United States of America. Would you exclude people north of the Mason/Dixon line from the term Union; or did The Union consist only of the men and women who fought and died for the Union cause? If so, both armies should have been chucked into the Mojave Desert until they'd come to an agreement.
"Please show me where the Lieber Code prohibited demoralizing civilians."
Since the Leiber Code of Conduct was introduced to protect civilians, it seems that Sherman's "total warfare" policy was meant to do more than undermine the confidence of a group of people - in my estimation one hundred million dollars worth of defacement is elephantine.
Ah, you temptress you!
I would never attempt to shatter your vision of me as a DiLorenzo loving, cigar-smoking femme fatale. In order to do so, I would have to give up my spurs and latigo for a boa and lipstick; but anything is possible with Halloween just around the corner.
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.
And a few words from my favourite general, a true gentleman of the South:
"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."
I'm curious to know if you think that the results of invasion are promotion and betterment; or humiliation and submission?
Dawna, I will answer your question about invasions; is France better today after D Day & WWII than under the Nazi yoke? Is Germany better off today than under Nazi Control? Iraq & Afghanistan better off than under the Taliban & Sadaam? THe answer to all is of coarse. A lot of good men died to make other men free. I am NOT comparing the CS regime to any of the above but merely noting that some countries are quite a bit better off after an invasion.
Was Georgia & the South in general better off after Sherman marched through? I think the march shortened the war by at least a year, in fact I believe the march ended the war.
A lot of good men died to abolish slavery in the US and reunite a country and while not all felt they were either defending or eliminating slavery with the end of the war came an end to slavery. Was the south better off after the War w/out slavery? Absolutely. Was it better off in the US than in the CS? Absolutely.
War is not pleasent, it isn't played by any pretty rules; the victor doesn't become the victor by coddling his enemy. He becomes the victor by being the least incompetant army and beating on his opponent until that opponent cries uncle.
What standards in particular were Shermans men not up to? Wheeler's? They outmarched, outmanuevered, outfought and finally wrecked their enemy (which is saying a lot because it was one hell of a good army). They took the war to the doorstep of the enemy broke down his door and burned his house.
As a note the idea that Shermans men sowed salt... has been pretty solidly refuted as have such outrageous claims as a million rapes, 100,000 civilian deaths etc. How much of that property lost to the south was the value of slaves... a good chunk I think. The actual damage caused by Shermans men has been repeatedly inflated to the point of complete lack of reality. I would rather have chimneys minus a house than mass graves of southern civilians. Too many of the distrortions were done by people w/ an agenda, some by those wishing to be heard knowing that horror gets far more attention than reality... the words of the men who made that march just don't bear them out as the demons the Lost Cause is fond of making them out to be.
As a case in point look at Savannah, it was neither burned or looted, in fact its citizens were fed by Sherman. A feat that had not been accomplished by the CS.
It is confusing, to put it mildly, to wade through conflicting accounts... many contradictory, many written years after the war by people who wouldn't know one of Shermans men from Adam and many more written by people who hated everything the Union victory had brought to the US and were, some still are, doing everything possible to slander the men of 61-65 and by extension the US of today.
THere were quite a few Southern Unionists, I would certainly not call them Confederates and 150,000 odd USCT from the South... I will certainly not call them Confederates. THere is/was certainly a distinct difference between a Southerner and a Confederate. Not all Southerners were Confederates and not all Confederates were Southerners.
THe South today has a heritage of courage, fortitude and many other outstanding qualities than eed to be remembered and honored; so to does the North. Both sides have their dirty laundry.
DiLorenzo won't come to this board because he fears facing people who will actually question his fictionalized data. THe man has no credability among the historical community. THough if he did become a member and actually defend his works... my opinion of the man and his works would go up considerably... just for the courage it would take for him to face people armed w/ the facts and actual speeches instead of those taken out of context and rewritten in order to change their meaning to fit his particular agenda.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Ole, I agree. If Northers just said "We won and thats that." there could be no discussion.
I have sometimes thought that the views from the South, on these posts, seem to be more expansive and perhaps more intense than those from the North, and that is just because of that fact that the North did win.
Patrons of the South want to make their case in a world in which the North says 'Case Closed'. Can't blame them.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Ole, I agree. If Northers just said "We won and thats that." there could be no discussion.
I have sometimes thought that the views from the South, on these posts, seem to be more expansive and perhaps more intense than those from the North, and that is just because of that fact that the North did win.
Patrons of the South want to make their case in a world in which the North says 'Case Closed'. Can't blame them.
Sir,
If I may say so, this was a very respectful and gracious post. Bravo.
Regards,
John W.
__________________ Ancestors in CSA Army: 51st VA, 54th VA, 45th VA, 50th VA, 24th VA
I am mortified! Of course Meade was in command of the AOP. Grant just kept his HQ with that army. But when Grant took charge of all the armies in the North, I just wonder how many men died when he was on the scene or should we compare his total losses against Lee when he was in command in the West before becoming the Commanding General?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
As much as I hate to disappoint you in your belief that I exclusively own one book, my quote did not come from Thomas DiLorenzo, although I'm quite certain Mr. DiLorenzo would be pleased to know that his name comes up so frequently on these Boards.
Ah, but it sounds so straight out of Mr. DiLorenzo's book that the odds were in that favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Had the Confederates somehow won, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) 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)
Perhaps I'll have to stop surfing in Nebraska, for I fail to see how the bolded parenthesis alters the context of Mr. Kennett's statement.
The addition of the parenthetical just makes it a more complete quote. That was a minor thing. My major complaint was the lack of context which showed he was talking about destruction of property, not deaths of civilians, though.
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."
"Sherman was talking about public property and militarily useful stores, which are all legitimate targets for destruction."
How much of the remaining $80,000,000 do you estimate to be in damage to civilian property?
I read it a bit differently. I read that there was $20 million in property, such as cotton to use one example, that was taken and used for the advantage of the US Government, such as by selling it on the open market. The other $80 million in damage was simply destruction of public property and war materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
And how do you explain the many cases of Union troops sowing salt into the soil of areas in which they were about to leave - implacability?
I don't believe that actually happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Not a very objective source is it? Ah, well. Let's see what it has to say."
And your sources are not biased?
I use either primary sources or professional historians for the most part, which is as free of bias as we're going to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"I consider them as destruction of public property and military stores that got out of hand."
An interesting perspective Cash. In the words of one of Sherman's bummers:
"How would you like it, do you think, Ab, to have troops passing your house constantly ... ransacking and plundering and carrying off everything that could be of any use to them? There is considerable excitement in foraging, but it is [a] disagreeable business in some respects to go into people's houses and take their provisions and have the women begging and entreating you to leave a little when you are necessitated to take all. But I feel some degree of consolation in the knowledge I have that I never went beyond my duty to pillage." (Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War)
In the words of Union Lieutenant Charles S. Brown to his family in Michigan:
“I have been thankful ever since I have been in the army that this war is South. You never can imagine a pillaged house, never – unless an army passes through your town and if this thing had been North I would Bushwhack until every man was either dead or I was. If such scenes should be enacted through Michigan I would never live as long as one of the invading army did. I do not blame the South and shall not if they go to Guerilla warfare.”
I would suggest that Sherman's bummers/foragers were a little more than a disillusioned few who simply got out of hand. Their purpose was to provide sustenance to the Union army and to dismantle the Southern countryside; and since the caliber of these men was not quite up to standards, it would not be difficult to imagine that Sherman's bummers accomplished their missions with moxie and retribution.
Can you connect these excerpts specifically to the burning of Jackson, *******n, and Randolph, which is what my comment referred to? If not, then they have no relevance, I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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."
"The South" is the Confederacy...those southern states that seceded from the United States of America.
No, ma'am, the south is not the confederacy and the confederacy is not the south. Four southern states remained loyal to the United States, and that doesn't count the citizens of seceded states who fought for the Union. So while it's true that the confederacy was made up of only southern states, equating the south with the confederacy is historically inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Would you exclude people north of the Mason/Dixon line from the term Union; or did The Union consist only of the men and women who fought and died for the Union cause? If so, both armies should have been chucked into the Mojave Desert until they'd come to an agreement.
The Union side consisted of all the states that were not members of the confederacy, which includes the four southern states of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia. This of course ignores those from loyal states who fought for the confederacy and all the citizens of seceded states who fought for the Federals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Please show me where the Lieber Code prohibited demoralizing civilians."
Since the Leiber Code of Conduct was introduced to protect civilians, it seems that Sherman's "total warfare" policy was meant to do more than undermine the confidence of a group of people - in my estimation one hundred million dollars worth of defacement is elephantine.
No, ma'am, the Lieber Code's purpose was not to protect civilians. That was one function it performed, but its purpose was to codify the rules and regulations for conducting warfare, including treatment of prisoners of war and use of weapons.
What you would have to do is show me a provision of the Lieber Code that prohibited demoralizing civilians. I don't think you can. If not, then, demoralizing civilians is not a violation of the Lieber Code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I would never attempt to shatter your vision of me as a DiLorenzo loving, cigar-smoking femme fatale. In order to do so, I would have to give up my spurs and latigo for a boa and lipstick; but anything is possible with Halloween just around the corner.
I didn't even know what a latigo was until I just now looked it up in the dictionary. Oh, please don't ever give up your spurs and latigo, Dawna. It just wouldn't be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
And a few words from my favourite general, a true gentleman of the South:
"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."
Which seems to support my statement that because war is so cruel and devastating, those who make the decision to initiate it bear the brunt of the responsibility for the destruction caused by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I'm curious to know if you think that the results of invasion are promotion and betterment; or humiliation and submission?
Dawna
It depends on the invasion. And are you talking long term or short term? For example, Sherman's invasion of Georgia caused a great deal of destruction in the short term, but as it paved the way for ultimate victory and the removal of slavery, in the long term its results were promotion and betterment.
-----------
As you should be, my friend. Let's see, what would be a good penance. Perhaps saying one nice thing about DiLorenzo? Nah, that would be cruel and unusual punishment.
How about this--as your penance you must post a casualty comparison of Lee and Grant from a comparable perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
Of course Meade was in command of the AOP. Grant just kept his HQ with that army. But when Grant took charge of all the armies in the North, I just wonder how many men died when he was on the scene or should we compare his total losses against Lee when he was in command in the West before becoming the Commanding General?
Unionblue
I think we have to remember that as General-in-Chief, Grant had overall strategic control whereas Meade, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, had tactical control. Either could have operational control at various times. What we should do is compare Grant with Lee at comparable levels.
War is not pleasent, it isn't played by any pretty rules; the victor doesn't become the victor by coddling his enemy. He becomes the victor by being the least incompetant army and beating on his opponent until that opponent cries uncle.
Shane:
I understand you believe Sherman's campaign was necessary and that in the end it shortened the war; but I can't imagine anyone who would deny its cardinal ugliness. My objection to Sherman's march is the severity in which it was conducted, the army's additional agenda of revenge, and the fact that Sherman waged war on non combatants; specifically women, children, and the infirmed.
"What standards in particular were Shermans men not up to? Wheeler's? They outmarched, outmanuevered, outfought and finally wrecked their enemy (which is saying a lot because it was one hell of a good army). They took the war to the doorstep of the enemy broke down his door and burned his house."
My reference to 'standards' was with respect to Sherman's bummers who are frequently described as ruthless marauders, savage stragglers, looters, thieves, incendiaries etc.; who who operated with copious latitude and with complete apathy to befitting conduct. My estimation is that these men were not quite up to the standards of Sherman's regular army.
"Too many of the distrortions were done by people w/ an agenda, some by those wishing to be heard knowing that horror gets far more attention than reality... the words of the men who made that march just don't bear them out as the demons the Lost Cause is fond of making them out to be."
There are thousands of letters and diaries written by people who survived Sherman's march, and some are included in this thread. I've also quoted some of Sherman's bummers and other statements made by officers in Sherman's army - not all of the general's men were enamoured with their leaders tactics. Destroying foodstuffs and starving civilians has been well documented, and of the hundred million dollars in damage that was inflicted upon the South, millions of this was unmitigated, excessive destruction.
"As a case in point look at Savannah, it was neither burned or looted, in fact its citizens were fed by Sherman. A feat that had not been accomplished by the CS."
I've read assorted accounts as to why General Sherman chose to protect Savannah, but I'm curious to know what you think?
"DiLorenzo won't come to this board because he fears facing people who will actually question his fictionalized data."
I have invited Mr. DiLorenzo in the past to come and defend his works, and he originally declined; but it is not because he fears a good round of honest debate. And I haven't given up - sometimes the end results of my persistence just takes a little longer!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
