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.
They were sent south to live in chains as slaves. Any implication, intended or not, that being a slave was in any way equivalent to being a free person deserves no respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN
- The slaves found jobs.
No, they didn't. A job is where one is paid for one's labor. They were slaves. This attempt to equate being a slave with being an employed person who could move about freely and was not owned by anyone is offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN
The women found husbands? How nice of Uncle Billy. His own little E Harmony.com Irrelevant, however.
Wrong. It shows they were not oppressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN
- This seems to be anything that doesn't fit your South-hating tunnel-vision, or anything not quoted by some left-wing revisionist professor.
So you've taken to insults now. I'd advise you not to go there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN
-Prove it. How much is "most"?
Faulty memory on my part. Most of them stayed in the North with their newfound husbands and families.
- Not very different at all. How many times have we been presented with the tragic, tearful drama of slaves being torn from their families and sent far away? These women were torn from their families and homes and sent far away, and all for nothing but working in a mill. I guess this behavior is excusable if the perpetrator wore a blue uniform?
Wrong again. It's very different. They settled down in their new surroundings and raised families. They found work and were paid for their labor. The women were not torn from their families because except for husbands who were in confederate military service their families went with them, so that claim is bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN
Sherman had destroyed the factories, so what exactly was the point?
The point is there was no food in the area for them to feed themselves or their children. Or would you prefer they be allowed to starve?
Read the article. They WERE sent South. As for being better off, no one here has made that argument or inference. You're creating a straw man. The subject at hand, is kidnapping. And of course, hypocrisy.
John W.
---------
No, the subject is being kidnapped and sent into slavery. You're the one constructing a strawman. Claiming a free person being paid for their labor and freely marrying and raising children is the equivalent of being a slave is disingenuous at best.
- If a person is not allowed to live where they please, or go where they want, then they're obviously owned by someone, either literally or figuratively.
John W.
Who says that once they settled in the North they were not allowed to live where they pleased or go where they wanted?
"To the petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."~William T. Sherman~
"I could look forty miles in each direction and see smoke rolling up like one great bonfire." ~William T. Sherman~
I'm afraid I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to believe that rapes and murders occurred during Sherman's uncontested campaign through South Carolina and Georgia. Equally difficult is the belief that looting and arson were kept to a minimum, when the evidence clearly states otherwise.
But then I'm also hard-pressed to understand the ideal that the "South got what they deserved," and that Sherman was justified in waging war on civilians. Even the notion that Sherman's men were on a mission to wipe out Southern aristocracy in order to unfetter blacks is lost on me. How does a 'new birth of freedom' stack up to the pillage of the South...brutality against Americans? And is it not a paradox that the North rose up like a phoenix of self-righteousness to quelch the treasonous South because they no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America? It's a bit of a democractic conundrum to me.
Along with Sherman's 'bummers,' the New York regiments were "filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Ripe with revenge, it is not difficult to imagine the furor of such men as they crossed the borders into South Carolina.
To downplay the severity of destruction to the South and the crimes committed against civilians belittles the lives of the people who were killed and injured during Sherman's march through the South. One rape, one murder, and one instance of unmetigated looting and arson is noteworthy; but it seems this same minimization is applied to Sherman's treatment of Native Americans.
Whether Sherman ordered homes burned, looted, or women raped is irrelevant - that atrocities were committed under Sherman's command is a fact and should not be forgotten; but even Sherman admitted later in life that he had "departed from civilized warfare." It was questioned whether Sherman was psychologically fit to command an army of 60,000 men, but the fact that Sherman would rather attack defenseless civilians is revealing of his emotional state during the war.
Thousands of civilians found themselves without food or shelter in the late fall of 1864 and many died from malnutrition and exposure. Women and children were left homeless, homes, schools, churches and libraries were needlessly destroyed, family heirlooms, jewellery and other personal belongings were stolen, crops and livestock were destroyed, and the land was poisoned. Anyone capable of such conduct is also capable of rape and murder. There are numerous stories handed down from generation to generation describing Sherman's atrocities, yet they are not to be believed because they are not 'neatly documented.'
General Ivan Turchin is an interesting case in point. After an attack on Athens, Georgia, in which Turchin encouraged his men to 'rape and loot for an hour,' he was court martialed but then reinstated and promoted to Brigadier General by President Lincoln.
A soldier from Michigan is quoted as saying: "In South Carolina there was no restraint whatever in pillaging and foraging. Men were allowed to do as they liked, burn and destroy." (Citizen Sherman: M. Fellman)
And for the record:
"Some of the women...have been convinced that the yankees have hornes but not hornes on the top of the head. I should have hesitated to of believed that men or those pretend to be men would become so demoralized and void of all decency or respect."(James Grennlach 1st Michigan engineers, to his wife, from Savannah, Ga, december 26, 1864)
Hon. E. M. STANTON.Secretary of War: The crimes of spying, murder, arson, rape, and others, as well as desertion, are increasing, and the power to check them by inflicting the penalty of death is a nullity, for [with]the delays necessary to get them a regular trial by general court-martial, and then holding them until the matter is reviewed and approved by the President, such a time elapses that the troops are relieved and the culprit escapes. This ought to be remedied. (W. S. ROSECRANS, Major-General, Commanding. OR S 1 volXX pt 2)
"I found the prejudice of color and race here in full force, and the general feeling of the army of occupation was unfriendly to the blacks. It was manifested in various forms of personal insult and abuse, in depredations on their plantations, stealing and destroying their crops and domestic animals, and robbing them of their money.The women were held as the legitimate prey of lust, and as they had been taught it was a crime to resist a white man they had not learned to dare to defend their chastity".(Brigadier Gl Saxton, USA, Beaufort, SC, 30 december 1864 to E. Stanton, OR SIII volV p1028/29)
GENERAL: I feel surprised, after the precautions that have been taken by yourself and officers, to find that many depredations have been committed near this place, and certain things done that would disgrace us even in the enemy's country, e.g., the robbing of some negroes and abusing their women."(Gl Howard, 10 january 1865, beaufort, SC, OR SI, vol XLVII pt 2 p33).
"While on picket guard I witnessed misdeeds that made me ashamed of America...for example about five miles from the fort about 8-10 soldiers from the new York 47th regiment chased some negroes women but they escaped, so they took a negro girl about 7-9 years old , and raped her." (John Bessemer, november 17 1862, South carolina coast.)
Wherever his army had camped , desolation and defilement worse than death had followed. In the same paper, a letter from a gentleman, in Liberty Hill...corroborates every particular, in one instance, a servant saving her young mistress by taking her place & another servant's death being caused by the brutality in her advanced pregnancy. I told Liddy of this and she says that few knows waht had taken place at Dr Milling's plantation, because the negroes were so ashamed they could not bear to tell. The wretches staid there a week & gave themselves loose rein in the most indecent manner without the men daring to interfere to save their wives..."(Diary of Miss Emma Holmes, april 2, 1865).
"The next morning, their unclothed bodies bearing the marks of detestable sex crimes were found about the city" (Walters: Sherman and total war, V. Univ.).
"An old negro woman...was subjected to several brutal assaults. Then at the proposition of one of the attackers , to finish the old ***** she was put into a ditch and her head held under the water until life was extinct. Mrs T.B.C. was seized by one of the soldiers, an offiier, and dragged by the hair and forced to the floor for the purpose of sensual enjoyment. She resisted as far as practical, held up her young infant as a plea for sparing her and suceeded, but they took her maid, and in her presence threw her on the floor and had connection with her." (D.H Trezevant, papers, SCL, U.S.C.). See also Charles Royster "the destructive war".
Head Quarters 1st brigade Grover's division in camp on bayou Boeuff beyond washington La, april 27, 1863...) This brigade encamped on the evening of the engagement, April 14, 1863, near the scene of the action. Next morning it marched in pursuit of the enemy, and at night encamped near Indian Village. Next day it marched to New Iberia. The scenes of disorder and pillage on these two days' march were disgraceful to civilized war. Houses were entered and all in them destroyed in the most wanton manner. Ladies were frightened into delivering their jewels and valuables into the hands of the soldiers by threats of violence toward their husbands. Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children. These disgusting scenes were due to the want of discipline in this army, and to the utter incompetency of regimental officers. At night in New Iberia there was some noise and confusion in this brigade, owing to the fact that some soldiers got hold of Louisiana rum.(...) WILLIAM DWIGHT, JR., Brigadier-General, Commanding Brigade. USA OR S1 vol XV
"Wherever I am present in person all is quiet and orderly, but in some instances, in regiments remote from headquarters, I hear the most deplorable accounts of excesses committed by soldiers. I beg authority to control these plunderers by visiting upon their crimes the punishment of death". 19 May 1862, Major Gl Ormsby M.Mitchel, 3rd div. army of Ohio to Stanton, camp Taylor near Huntsville (Alabama). OR SI vol X pt2 p204
I cannot fathom how the statement could be made that "most Southernwomen would say a Union soldier raped them in order to spare their husbandsome pain." Firstly, who is the victim in this scenario - the woman who is raped, or the husband? Secondly, rape is rape, no matter who the perpetrator is; and thirdly, why on earth would a Southern woman lie about who raped her? I'm certain that a CS deserter had a little more on his mind than stopping to rape women whom he was fighting to protect; and Wheeler's men raping their own women is simply ludicrous.
How does telling her husband that she was raped by a Union soldier lessen the pain? Is it so difficult to believe that 'bummers', loosely disciplined and hell-bent on revenge, were capable of such crimes? If you can turn women and children out in the cold and steal their food, then my guess is that you can pretty much do anything.
It is not difficult to imagine why rapes were not recorded (who would the women tell) and how a few missing civilians might go unnoticed. I would even venture to say that honour was just as important to Southern women as it was to their men, and being raped by the enemy is not exactly what you announce to the world back in 1860. But to deny that these things happened, and to further insinuate that Southern women lied to protect their reputations is astounding, to say the least.
You can airbrush or gloss over the atrocities of Sherman's campaign anyway you like or acquiesce to political correctness until the cows come home; but there is enough evidence to support these claims and I believe these innocent civilians should never be forgotten.
But I know...war is hell and the South deserved it.
Read the article. They WERE sent South. As for being better off, no one here has made that argument or inference. You're creating a straw man. The subject at hand, is kidnapping. And of course, hypocrisy.
How else am I supposed to interpret your statement that "They [blacks] were sent south to live"?
Sorry but a statement like that suggests to me that blacks were better off as slaves in the south than as free men in Pennsylvania.
I'm not saying that what Sherman did was right. It probably wasn't. But the big difference between the two scenarios is each group's eventual fate: one became slaves and the other didn't.
Quote:
If a person is not allowed to live where they please, or go where they want, then they're obviously owned by someone, either literally or figuratively.
Nobody was keeping those women and children by force of arms in Indiana. They were allowed to return back to Roswell if they wished to but most stayed in the north. Some did return though.
No Union atrocity will ever be big enough to erase away the fact that the Confederacy was founded for the direct purpose of keeping 4 million men, women, and children in bondage.
"To the petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."~William T. Sherman~
"I could look forty miles in each direction and see smoke rolling up like one great bonfire." ~William T. Sherman~
I'm afraid I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to believe that rapes and murders occurred during Sherman's uncontested campaign through South Carolina and Georgia. Equally difficult is the belief that looting and arson were kept to a minimum, when the evidence clearly states otherwise.
But then I'm also hard-pressed to understand the ideal that the "South got what they deserved," and that Sherman was justified in waging war on civilians. Even the notion that Sherman's men were on a mission to wipe out Southern aristocracy in order to unfetter blacks is lost on me. How does a 'new birth of freedom' stack up to the pillage of the South...brutality against Americans? And is it not a paradox that the North rose up like a phoenix of self-righteousness to quelch the treasonous South because they no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America? It's a bit of a democractic conundrum to me.
Along with Sherman's 'bummers,' the New York regiments were "filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Ripe with revenge, it is not difficult to imagine the furor of such men as they crossed the borders into South Carolina.
To downplay the severity of destruction to the South and the crimes committed against civilians belittles the lives of the people who were killed and injured during Sherman's march through the South. One rape, one murder, and one instance of unmetigated looting and arson is noteworthy; but it seems this same minimization is applied to Sherman's treatment of Native Americans.
Whether Sherman ordered homes burned, looted, or women raped is irrelevant - that atrocities were committed under Sherman's command is a fact and should not be forgotten; but even Sherman admitted later in life that he had "departed from civilized warfare." It was questioned whether Sherman was psychologically fit to command an army of 60,000 men, but the fact that Sherman would rather attack defenseless civilians is revealing of his emotional state during the war.
Thousands of civilians found themselves without food or shelter in the late fall of 1864 and many died from malnutrition and exposure. Women and children were left homeless, homes, schools, churches and libraries were needlessly destroyed, family heirlooms, jewellery and other personal belongings were stolen, crops and livestock were destroyed, and the land was poisoned. Anyone capable of such conduct is also capable of rape and murder. There are numerous stories handed down from generation to generation describing Sherman's atrocities, yet they are not to be believed because they are not 'neatly documented.'
General Ivan Turchin is an interesting case in point. After an attack on Athens, Georgia, in which Turchin encouraged his men to 'rape and loot for an hour,' he was court martialed but then reinstated and promoted to Brigadier General by President Lincoln.
A soldier from Michigan is quoted as saying: "In South Carolina there was no restraint whatever in pillaging and foraging. Men were allowed to do as they liked, burn and destroy." (Citizen Sherman: M. Fellman)
And for the record:
"Some of the women...have been convinced that the yankees have hornes but not hornes on the top of the head. I should have hesitated to of believed that men or those pretend to be men would become so demoralized and void of all decency or respect."(James Grennlach 1st Michigan engineers, to his wife, from Savannah, Ga, december 26, 1864)
Hon. E. M. STANTON.Secretary of War: The crimes of spying, murder, arson, rape, and others, as well as desertion, are increasing, and the power to check them by inflicting the penalty of death is a nullity, for [with]the delays necessary to get them a regular trial by general court-martial, and then holding them until the matter is reviewed and approved by the President, such a time elapses that the troops are relieved and the culprit escapes. This ought to be remedied. (W. S. ROSECRANS, Major-General, Commanding. OR S 1 volXX pt 2)
"I found the prejudice of color and race here in full force, and the general feeling of the army of occupation was unfriendly to the blacks. It was manifested in various forms of personal insult and abuse, in depredations on their plantations, stealing and destroying their crops and domestic animals, and robbing them of their money.The women were held as the legitimate prey of lust, and as they had been taught it was a crime to resist a white man they had not learned to dare to defend their chastity".(Brigadier Gl Saxton, USA, Beaufort, SC, 30 december 1864 to E. Stanton, OR SIII volV p1028/29)
GENERAL: I feel surprised, after the precautions that have been taken by yourself and officers, to find that many depredations have been committed near this place, and certain things done that would disgrace us even in the enemy's country, e.g., the robbing of some negroes and abusing their women."(Gl Howard, 10 january 1865, beaufort, SC, OR SI, vol XLVII pt 2 p33).
"While on picket guard I witnessed misdeeds that made me ashamed of America...for example about five miles from the fort about 8-10 soldiers from the new York 47th regiment chased some negroes women but they escaped, so they took a negro girl about 7-9 years old , and raped her." (John Bessemer, november 17 1862, South carolina coast.)
Wherever his army had camped , desolation and defilement worse than death had followed. In the same paper, a letter from a gentleman, in Liberty Hill...corroborates every particular, in one instance, a servant saving her young mistress by taking her place & another servant's death being caused by the brutality in her advanced pregnancy. I told Liddy of this and she says that few knows waht had taken place at Dr Milling's plantation, because the negroes were so ashamed they could not bear to tell. The wretches staid there a week & gave themselves loose rein in the most indecent manner without the men daring to interfere to save their wives..."(Diary of Miss Emma Holmes, april 2, 1865).
"The next morning, their unclothed bodies bearing the marks of detestable sex crimes were found about the city" (Walters: Sherman and total war, V. Univ.).
"An old negro woman...was subjected to several brutal assaults. Then at the proposition of one of the attackers , to finish the old ***** she was put into a ditch and her head held under the water until life was extinct. Mrs T.B.C. was seized by one of the soldiers, an offiier, and dragged by the hair and forced to the floor for the purpose of sensual enjoyment. She resisted as far as practical, held up her young infant as a plea for sparing her and suceeded, but they took her maid, and in her presence threw her on the floor and had connection with her." (D.H Trezevant, papers, SCL, U.S.C.). See also Charles Royster "the destructive war".
Head Quarters 1st brigade Grover's division in camp on bayou Boeuff beyond washington La, april 27, 1863...) This brigade encamped on the evening of the engagement, April 14, 1863, near the scene of the action. Next morning it marched in pursuit of the enemy, and at night encamped near Indian Village. Next day it marched to New Iberia. The scenes of disorder and pillage on these two days' march were disgraceful to civilized war. Houses were entered and all in them destroyed in the most wanton manner. Ladies were frightened into delivering their jewels and valuables into the hands of the soldiers by threats of violence toward their husbands. Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children. These disgusting scenes were due to the want of discipline in this army, and to the utter incompetency of regimental officers. At night in New Iberia there was some noise and confusion in this brigade, owing to the fact that some soldiers got hold of Louisiana rum.(...) WILLIAM DWIGHT, JR., Brigadier-General, Commanding Brigade. USA OR S1 vol XV
"Wherever I am present in person all is quiet and orderly, but in some instances, in regiments remote from headquarters, I hear the most deplorable accounts of excesses committed by soldiers. I beg authority to control these plunderers by visiting upon their crimes the punishment of death". 19 May 1862, Major Gl Ormsby M.Mitchel, 3rd div. army of Ohio to Stanton, camp Taylor near Huntsville (Alabama). OR SI vol X pt2 p204
I cannot fathom how the statement could be made that "most Southernwomen would say a Union soldier raped them in order to spare their husbandsome pain." Firstly, who is the victim in this scenario - the woman who is raped, or the husband? Secondly, rape is rape, no matter who the perpetrator is; and thirdly, why on earth would a Southern woman lie about who raped her? I'm certain that a CS deserter had a little more on his mind than stopping to rape women whom he was fighting to protect; and Wheeler's men raping their own women is simply ludicrous.
How does telling her husband that she was raped by a Union soldier lessen the pain? Is it so difficult to believe that 'bummers', loosely disciplined and hell-bent on revenge, were capable of such crimes? If you can turn women and children out in the cold and steal their food, then my guess is that you can pretty much do anything.
It is not difficult to imagine why rapes were not recorded (who would the women tell) and how a few missing civilians might go unnoticed. I would even venture to say that honour was just as important to Southern women as it was to their men, and being raped by the enemy is not exactly what you announce to the world back in 1860. But to deny that these things happened, and to further insinuate that Southern women lied to protect their reputations is astounding, to say the least.
You can airbrush or gloss over the atrocities of Sherman's campaign anyway you like or acquiesce to political correctness until the cows come home; but there is enough evidence to support these claims and I believe these innocent civilians should never be forgotten.
But I know...war is hell and the South deserved it.
Dawna
Careful Dawna, you'll confuse them with the facts. They won, so its Union always good. South, always bad.
Regards,
John W.
__________________ Ancestors in CSA Army: 51st VA, 54th VA, 45th VA, 50th VA, 24th VA
I remember posting a story on the Roswell women some time ago, and in particular, on a girl named Adeline Buice. She was employed as a seamstress in the Roswell Mills and was pregnant at the time of her deportation.
From Marietta, Adeline was shipped to Chicago where she languished for five yeras after her daughter was born. In 1869, Adeline returned to Roswell, on foot, only to discover that her husband had remarried sometime after the war, thinking that his wife was dead. Adeline Buice's history is fully documented and her grave is tended by her descendant, Wayne Bagley and the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. But there are many stories such as Adeline's.
The women of Roswell had no choice in where they were sent to work and live and most did not find their way back to Roswell. There were a few women, like Adeline Buice, who did eventually make it back to Roswell, and this would explain why some of the original Roswell workers showed up in the 1870 consensus. But this was the exception and most of these unfortunate women never returned to their native state.
The arrival of the Roswell women in Marietta was widely publicized at the time and spawned outrage from both Northern and Southern newspapers. One New York newspaper wrote, "It is hardly conceivable that an officer bearing a U.S. commission of Major General should have so far forgotten the commonest dictates of decency and humanity as to drive four hundred penniless girls (some pregnant) hundreds of miles away from their homes and friends to seek their livelihood amid strange and hostile people. We repeat an earnest hope that further information my redeem the name of General Sherman and our own from this frightful disgrace."
The Roswell women suffered immensely during their long journey to Marietta and once they were deported their hardships continued. Some women did find employment in factories while others found themselves starving in the streets with their children. One newspaper published articles begging citizens (The Women Will Howl, M.D. Petite) to come to the aid of the Roswell refugees, while the governor of Indiana wrote to the Secretary of War, pleading for assistance and complaining of large numbers of destitute Southern refugees living homeless in the streets. Other Roswell women died of disease, starvation and exposure.
Any implication, intended or not, that being a slave was in any way equivalent to being a free person deserves no respect.
- Any implication that being ripped from their home and livelihood against their will, and exiled hundreds of miles, was just a minor career change or better for them, deserves no respect.
Quote:
No, they didn't. A job is where one is paid for one's labor. They were slaves. This attempt to equate being a slave with being an employed person who could move about freely and was not owned by anyone is offensive.
- Slavery, though repugnant, is preferable to starvation. The Roswell women and children went north to starve. Many, on both sides, found that offensive.
Quote:
The women found husbands? How nice of Uncle Billy. His own little E Harmony.com Irrelevant, however.
Wrong. It shows they were not oppressed.
-
BOGUS. Slaves in many cases were allowed to marry. So, by your logic, this means they weren't oppressed?
Quote:
This seems to be anything that doesn't fit your South-hating tunnel-vision, or anything not quoted by some left-wing revisionist professor.
So you've taken to insults now. I'd advise you not to go there.
-
Sorry if I touched a nerve.
Quote:
Wrong again. It's very different. They settled down in their new surroundings and raised families. They found work and were paid for their labor. The women were not torn from their families because except for husbands who were in confederate military service their families went with them, so that claim is bogus.
- Baloney. Aunts, Uncles, grandparents, adult children, etc aren't considered family? If anyone "went" with them, it was by force. Nothing like a bayonet in the back to give you itchy feet.
Quote:
The point is there was no food in the area for them to feed themselves or their children.
- I must admit, I got a chuckle from this little gem. Sherman took all the food in the vicinity, and then was so concerned with their nutritional needs and welfare, he forcibly shipped them off to Indiana? If this is your line of logic, then why wasn't EVERY civilian in his Army's path exiled north? I guess he just liked the pleasing personalities of the Roswell women.
Quote:
Or would you prefer they be allowed to starve?
- They starved upon their arrival in the north. Check Dawna's references.
John W.
__________________ Ancestors in CSA Army: 51st VA, 54th VA, 45th VA, 50th VA, 24th VA
Ancestors in CSA Cav: 21st VA, 25th VA
Last edited by JohnW in E.TN; 11-05-2005 at 02:34 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Irrelevant, however.
Linear Mode
