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.
[A)] ..... but yes I think there was a sense of inherent honor that would have prevented the CSA from having their own march to the Sea.....
[B)]... I don't know if I think the CS soldier inherently possessed more honor but to me some of the leaders sure did.
Well......IF it was your thinking that people in the South pocessed an inherent sense of honor that people in the North didn't, then that strikes me as grossly overgeneralized and somewhat bigoted against a vast Union population.
IF it is a matter of just some leaders in the Union lacking the honor of some of the leaders in the CS, then any random change of Generals on each side might have as easily led to circumstances that would force you to reverse your position.
But even if the latter were true, no one (that I'm aware of) has asserted that these alleged lootings, or rapes and murders that Union troops are accused of were committed under orders of the leadership, but rather were prohibited acts of wanton violence and vengeance by individual soldiers......which puts us back to the former question of inherent honor of the individual soldier.
There's a reason the Fox can bite the head off a chicken and not the other way around. Doesn't mean that, ooohhhh... if the chicken only had the capability..........
It strikes me that the Union and CS goals were not the same. The Union needed the confederacy to give up, while the confederacy needed the Union to back off. Marching 60,000 troops throught the heart of the South and bleeding it helped fulfill the Union's goal. The confederacy's blazing a trail to the Great Lakes would not have served their goal, but brought even more determination to bear on them. And cut a swath to Lake Ontario wasn't necessary anyway. All they had to do was capture Washington and it would have been "Check." They couldn't even do that.
Cedar
Last edited by cedarstripper; 11-04-2005 at 03:37 PM.
Porter,
Is there any proof at all that the Confederate leaders planned to burn New York City?I assume the Confederate leaders were responsible for the anti-draft riots and murdering of blacks in New York City as well.If you read my post I commented on Confederate leaders or so you can plainly understand not a few soldiers or agents.
A casual browsing of any dictionary should clarify the differences in the words further. Cash is definitely smarter than the average bear, but he clearly understood what I was saying.
I wonder what information you have that the rest of the world has overlooked to make you sure that the Confederacy would have had their own quote March To sea.There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.To assert that it is Lost Cause propaganda is totally incorrect.
Yes Grant and Sherman gave very lenient surrender terms.I never asserted that they didn't.I don't see the relevance of surrender terms with discussing atrocities committed on civilians.Yes Washington was mad at Sherman for his lenient policies.That is all true but again not relevant to the topic.Grant nor Sherman were totally wicked we agree on that at least.Had Lincoln's plan been carried out then perhaps I would view him differently.Since it wasn't I find it difficult to accept 100 percent that he had these benevolent intentions to the South.During his reign he was anything but.I don't really know factually about Lincoln's actual Reconstruction plan.I've seen comments about it documented ,but never seen the quote plan.If you have a sight that provides anything other than commentary on the issue it would be greatly appreciated.His let em up easy quote gives your theory some good credibility.But he was alive during most of the pointless destruction of Confederate civilian assets.He didn't put a stop to it so forgive me for questioning his benevolence.
Cash,
I honestly have never heard about Lee kidnapping blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them home in chains before now.If you could sir please refer me to some sort of source to substantiate that claim.There should be numerous accounts of Pennsylvania civilians if that is true.If there are I'd give them credence as I don't believe large numbers of civilians North or South were inherently destined to lie.
Regards,
Ashley
Check out the article "A Regular Slave Hunt: The Army of Northern Virginia and Black Civilians in the Gettysburg Campaign"
I think there was an article in Civil War Times or one of the other magazines in the past couple of years, dealing with this subject. However, I fail to see how this was much different from Sherman's treatment of the Roswell women and children.
The Roswell women and children were sent North to live. They found jobs, and some of the women found husbands. Unlike neoconfederate propaganda we see on some websites today, most of them returned to Roswell after the war. They weren't sent into slavery. I see the two situations as being totally different.
Cedarstripper,
Yes exactly if the leaders were swapped all of this wanton destruction wouldn't have been discussed today.I don't blame Sherman or Grant for rape as I'm not sure how much they knew about and I don't think that they would participate or join in.Well maybe if Grant was drunk(that is strictly a joke)?I only condemn them from what they knew about.I don't believe Southeners were as a rule more inherently honorable.I would understand and gladly accept any outrage if I had claimed that.
Regards,
Ashley
Is there any proof at all that the Confederate leaders planned to burn New York City?
All of them? No. Nobody's suggesting they were all in on it. The plan was approved in Richmond by the Confederate Secret Service Headquarters. I don't recall seeing anything that said Jefferson Davis knew about it. But the CSS were leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I assume the Confederate leaders were responsible for the anti-draft riots and murdering of blacks in New York City as well.
Non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I wonder what information you have that the rest of the world has overlooked to make you sure that the Confederacy would have had their own quote March To sea.There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.To assert that it is Lost Cause propaganda is totally incorrect.
The rest of the world hasn't overlooked anything, since the rest of the world doesn't claim the confederates had some superior innate sense of honor that would prevent them from having their own March to the Sea type of operation.
Cash,
My school computer for some reason has the sight blocked.John also acknowledges it so I concede it must have occurred.I'll check it out later.That is dissapointing.Were these former slaves or simply free blacks?I guess noone could have known so that question may be irrelevant.I guess I'm seeking a way to justify this .Also were they predominantly male or women and children?
Regards,
Ashley
I assume the Confederate leaders were responsible for the anti-draft riots and murdering of blacks in New York City as well.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or a serious statement.
Quote:
I wonder what information you have that the rest of the world has overlooked to make you sure that the Confederacy would have had their own quote March To sea.There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.To assert that it is Lost Cause propaganda is totally incorrect.
It simply was not feasible given the Confederacy's situation to perform their own march to the sea.
You stated, at least I think it was you, that the south would never have done that because they were more honorable.
I and others have presented evidence that the south was not as honorable as some preach and the Confederacy certainly became more willing to accept practices of total war, such as at Chambersburg, as the war progressed.
Quote:
Yes Grant and Sherman gave very lenient surrender terms.I never asserted that they didn't.I don't see the relevance of surrender terms with discussing atrocities committed on civilians.
Sherman is often made to be the devil incarnate and I gave an example of how he possess some honor.
What widespread sanctioned atrocities were committed against southern civiliains? Confiscating or destroying their property is not an atrocity; it is an unfortunate consequence of war. They were not sent to concentration camps or exterminated or anything like that.
Quote:
Since it wasn't I find it difficult to accept 100 percent that he had these benevolent intentions to the South.During his reign he was anything but.I don't really know factually about Lincoln's actual Reconstruction plan.I've seen comments about it documented ,but never seen the quote plan.If you have a sight that provides anything other than commentary on the issue it would be greatly appreciated.His let em up easy quote gives your theory some good credibility.But he was alive during most of the pointless destruction of Confederate civilian assets.He didn't put a stop to it so forgive me for questioning his benevolence.
Lincoln did what he thought was necessary to preserve the Union. David Herbert Donald's biography on Lincoln provides good information on Lincoln's Reconstruction Policy and how some Republicans were very opposed to it because it wasn't radical enough for them.
He met with Grant, Sherman, and Porter on the River Queen for the express purpose of communicating his Reconstruction policy to them. He said: "Let them up easy."
Why should he put a stop to Sherman or Sheridan's actions? The south had started the fighting at Sumter, the war was in its fourth year, and still the south fought on. He was looking for anyway to end it. War is war and Lincoln realized that using McClellan's and Buell's hands off policy was not going to end the fighting.
How is it so much worse that Sherman burned down some buildings but people like Hood and Lee, who futilelessly threw away their men lives when their was little hope left, should be commended as grand heroes?
Besides, much of the fires in Atlanta and Columbia were started by the Confederates when they evacuated the cities. Uncle Billy is falsely blamed for all the destruction.
He was not some bloodthirsty monster looking to dip his pen in the devil's ink.
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 11-04-2005 at 04:18 PM.
My school computer for some reason has the sight blocked.John also acknowledges it so I concede it must have occurred.I'll check it out later.That is dissapointing.Were these former slaves or simply free blacks?
Both, but you're right, the confederate soldiers wouldn't have known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I guess noone could have known so that question may be irrelevant.I guess I'm seeking a way to justify this .Also were they predominantly male or women and children?
We don't have a breakdown. We do know it was men, women, and children.
Rachel Cormany provides an account in her diary: "O! How it grated on our hearts to have to sit quietly and look at such brtual deeds--I saw no men among the contrabands--all women and children. Some of the colored people who were raised here were taken along--I sat on the front step as they were driven by just like we would drive cattle. Some laughed and seemed not to care--but nearly all hung their heads." [The Cormany Diaries: A Northern Family in the Civil War, pages 329-330]
Col William Christian, 55th Virginia, wrote to his wife on June 28, 1863: "We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them."
"More reprehensible than any destruction of property was the search for Negroes by Jenkins and other semi-independent cavalry commands. Any that were found were seized and sent South into slavery. The Confederates carried on this practice in many sections of the state, but particularly around Mercersburg where they took free Negroes who had been born and raised in Pennsylvania. Jenkins captured 'quite a number' and started them South." [Edwin B. Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command, p. 161]
This was part of ANV policy. See the last sentence of the order below:
HEADQUARTERS FIRST ARMY CORPS,
Greenwood, Pa., July 1, 1863--10.30 a.m.
Maj. Gen. G. E. PICKETT,
Commanding Division:
As directed yesterday evening, if relieved in time to-day by General Imboden, the commanding general desires you to come on this evening as far as this point, and to follow on after the remainder of the command across the mountains to-morrow morning. If you do not start from the vicinity of Chambersburg before to-morrow you may move on across the mountain without stopping here. When you arrive here, either this evening or to-morrow, the commanding general wishes you to relieve a brigade of General Hood at New Guilford, and send it forward to rejoin his division. Your own brigade will in turn be relieved by General Imboden when he gets here and sent on to rejoin you. The captured contrabands had better be brought along with you for further disposition.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. M. SORREL,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
