The Avengement of South Carolina

[johan_steele]

Dawna, I don't understand how you can be so willing to 60,000 US troops as being raping, murdering bastards. And at the same time refuse to believe that there may have been some less than savory characters among the CS troops in the area. A deserter is no longer defending anything but his own self. A deserter is also a fugitive; often facing a death sentence if caught, in short a man w/ nothing left to lose and absolutely nothing but his own inherrent decency to restrain him. Wheelers men had a bad reputation from the citizens of Georgia before the satrt of the Atlanta campaign; I can't imagine it improving when the CS govt failed to pay or provide much at all for them.

I'm not downplaying the events, the vanadalism the murder, rape etc. I'm saying they have been grossly exaggerated by those w/ an Anti-Northern & occasionaly Anti-US bent to their agenda. And I am providing reasoning as to why I believe such. ALL crimes commited in a two state area of the South cannot have been commited by Union troops alone. The 60,000 odd Union Soldiers added to the population was not the only game in the field.

You will forgive me I hope if I refuse to slander 60,000 dead men and their officers over the words of men and women w/ a proven agenda. THere is enough truth in their charges to at least say they have taken a shred of truth and run w/ it. But the depth of slander they sank to boggles my mind.

I have friends among the Lakota and I have lived among them going to school w/ their children and graduating from one of the their schools. I have listened to stories of Custers defeat by the son of a man who was there and who participated. My best friends father was born on the Cheyenne River in a tepee when their was snow on the ground, around 1919. The Lakota are a proud and great people, hunters and gatherers they were but they were warriors first. They are also of a culture descended from superb warriors, among the best in the world. The modern day, PC, belief that they were merely nice peaceful hunters and gatherers is so much drek as to be offensive. THe conflict against the Lakota, Cheyenne, Commanche, Apache and other very hostile tribes was a no quarter given and none asked type that the world has not seen since w/ the closest paralel being perhaps the Pacific Campaign of WWII. A man who I had the pleasure of being the best man to as well as giving the bride away owns a Winchester 73 that was his ggg grandfathers. It has the typical tack work seen on most Native American weapons, it also holds a sling made from human scalps. I challenge anyone to call an Apache Warrior a peaceful farmer.

One rape is a crime and in my eyes the most horrid crime imaginable. I've said that many times. I've also said that I think it the height of cowardice to accuse 60,000 men of this crime when it is something that has been extremely exaggerated by the Lost Cause. This fact alone is more than enough for me to hold the Lost Cause & Lost Cause sources in utter contempt.

How many rapes were there, how many murders... that is all I ask. And I repeatedly point out is that there were other factors as well.

What land was poisoned, and how specifically? THe charge that salt was sown and corpses thrown into the wells has been proven, in my eyes at least, to be so much Lost Cause hooey.

I refuse to believe tales that are not documented firstly because I think they started as here say and outright lies in the first place that they were not 'neatly documented' at all by the people at the time doesn't help matters.

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)


As a note... IIRC Rosecrans was reffering to the Trans Mississippi in this quote, where he was commanding. In short whoever credits this snippet to referring to Shermans men is trying to equate the actions in the Trans Mississippi District to the wrong side of the river and even the wrong side of the country.

I put forward a host of titles that I thought worth reading, legitimate works by legitimate historians on the subject. Have you read any of them? If you think them biased; I started a thread specifically on the subject of bias.

[bill_torrens]

Forgive this train of thought if it is a tad simplistic. But the Union cause is based on the premise that no state could leave the Union and that its inhabitants remained U.S. citizens regardless of any ordinance of secession. South Carolinians and New Yorkers were, according to this train of thought, peas from the same pod: differences between them were as nothing compared to the similarities.

So when Union troops wreaked revenge on South Carolina they were, in effect, destroying part of their own national infrastructure. To wreck a town in South Carolina was substantially the same thing as to wreck a town in Ohio.

But they manifestly didn’t see things that way. They thought that they were punishing people who were aliens in every meaningful sense of the term. Which, surely, disproves the premise behind the Union cause. At the heart of this cause is a great big dollop of illogic. If you fight a war to maintain your political links with a given people/region, you surely do it because of affection for them; because you feel that you and they are brothers, are kin. But where is the logic in killing people to prove your affection for them? “I’m so close to you I’m going to wage war on you to prove the point.” You cannot wage a war without a commensurate degree of hatred; and whoever heard of a political union based on mutual hatred?

Whichever way you look at it, it makes no sense.

[bill_torrens]

One rape is a crime and in my eyes the most horrid crime imaginable. I've said that many times. I've also said that I think it the height of cowardice to accuse 60,000 men of this crime when it is something that has been extremely exaggerated by the Lost Cause. This fact alone is more than enough for me to hold the Lost Cause & Lost Cause sources in utter contempt.

Mistreatment of slaves is a crime and in my eyes the most horrid crime imaginable. I've said that I think it the height of cowardice to accuse 6 million men and women of this crime when it is something that has been extremely exaggerated by the Union cause. This fact alone is more than enough for me to hold Unionism and Unionist sources in utter contempt.

Fair comparison?

[johan_steele]

Bill, comparing a rape victim to a slave... a valid comparison especially as all too many slaves were the victim of rape. THe horror of Slavery an exaggeration and the glory of its repudation an exaggeration; hardly. Slavery as a national sin instead of a Southern one; I would agree as it took almost a century for the US to rid itself of it. But it took the Civil War, won by the Union, to begin the elimination of that national sin.

Is it an exaggeration to say that the Civil War ended Slavery? No. As the Union won the Civil War it could be further stated that the Union ended Slavery. That was a result of that victory, not the cause of their engagement in that conflict.

The blame for the survival of Slavery in the US sits squarley at the feet of the founding fathers because they lacked the courage to end it. Though I think they thought it the lesser of two evils.

[ole]

To out-over-simplify, Bill ---

"They thought that they were punishing people who were aliens in every meaningful sense of the term. Which, surely, disproves the premise behind the Union cause. At the heart of this cause is a great big dollop of illogic. If you fight a war to maintain your political links with a given people/region, you surely do it because of affection for them; because you feel that you and they are brothers, are kin. But where is the logic in killing people to prove your affection for them? “I’m so close to you I’m going to wage war on you to prove the point.” You cannot wage a war without a commensurate degree of hatred; and whoever heard of a political union based on mutual hatred?"

--- aliens? A parent whacks a kid on the butt to alter its thought process. Is that parent whacking an alien? Does that parent hate that kid? It's only a short step from the whack to the beating.

I don't see evidence of a preponderance of hatred. It was there, but not to the degree you intimate. I'd venture that most soldiers fought because that was why they were in their respective armies, not because they hated the other side.

To be sure, the combatants were likely exhibiting a degree of hatred, because that is required in a battle. But mutual hatred? I've seen no evidence of it's universality.

You have a great deal of sympathy for the Confederacy's inability to peacefully depart from a government from which they chose to separate themselves. I see it differently, but that's to be expected. Both our opinions are based on a deep feeling about what was right and proper. But I do have to call you to task for characterizing it as mutual hatred when that was clearly not the case.

Regards,
Ole

[ole]

Bill, you said:

"Mistreatment of slaves is a crime and in my eyes the most horrid crime imaginable. I've said that I think it the height of cowardice to accuse 6 million men and women of this crime when it is something that has been extremely exaggerated by the Union cause. This fact alone is more than enough for me to hold Unionism and Unionist sources in utter contempt."

My memory hasn't failed to the point where I missed seeing anyone on this board blaiming 6mm people for mistreatment of slaves. That some non-members may hold the entire south responsible is more a matter of ignorance than worthy of censure. And it's best to halt the corollary there.

Ole

[Admiral_Porter]

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.

I direct you to the Tiger Rifles of New Orleans. They were a rough outfit notorious in New Orleans and Richmond for their looting and destruction.

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.

Southerners killed Indians for as long as northerners did. It was not a one sided affair.

The forced removal of the Cherokees was done by a southerner: Andrew Jackson.

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.

Civilized warfare? That seems like such an oxymoron to me. I never consider war to be civilized.

Did Sherman deport, exterminate, or ship off to concentration camps thousands of southern civilians? No he didn't.

In fact he had all the civilians evacuate Atlanta before he began his work of destroying items useful to the Confederacy.

As the war progressed the Confederacy showed that they were just as willing to perform total war: burning of Chambersburg, attempted burning of New York, and spreading yellow fever are just a few examples.

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.'

The land being poisoned is pure balogny. If the land were truly poisoned it would look like North Africa today after Carthage was destroyed by Rome.

Wheeler's men were notorious for their confiscation of southern property in Georgia.

Here is a famous picture of Hood's supply trains:
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/narch083.jpg

Hood blew up the train and the fire eventually began to rage out of control burning down part of the city. Sherman was not responsible for this.

In addition, before Sherman's men entered the city after Hood left, those civilians still in the city went on a looting spree destroying anything they could. A very similar thing happened in New Orleans, civilians creating a riot, after Farragut passed the forts.

A similar incident happened in Columbia, South Carolina when Wade Hampton set fire to the cotton bales which in turn raged out control too.

What Sherman did was certainly not pleasant but his actions have been so exaggerated over the years by the Lost Cause crowd that any story showing Sherman's supposed devilish side is taken as fact while at the same time the south's role in the destruction of their own cities is completely swept under the rug.

[dawna]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

I don't understand how you can be so willing to 60,000 US troops as being raping, murdering bastards. And at the same time refuse to believe that there may have been some less than savory characters among the CS troops in the area. A deserter is no longer defending anything but his own self.

Shane:

I have not referred to 60,000 of Sherman's men as raping, murdering bastards...quite the opposite. I have specifically targeted Sherman's 'bummers', who did not operate under the same confines as the rest of the army; and men such at the regiments from New York - some of whom were American criminals whilst others were immigrants who had been prisoners in their native contries.

"I'm not downplaying the events, the vanadalism the murder, rape etc. I'm saying they have been grossly exaggerated by those w/ an Anti-Northern & occasionaly Anti-US bent to their agenda. And I am providing reasoning as to why I believe such. ALL crimes commited in a two state area of the South cannot have been commited by Union troops alone. The 60,000 odd Union Soldiers added to the population was not the only game in the field."

But many of you do downplay these events or deny that they even happened. I'm not certain which members have such an anti-Northern or anti-US bent to their agenda that it would cause them to grossly exaggerate the events of Sherman's March. Bill and are the only two regular foreigners on these Boards and we've both made our feelings crystal clear on more than one occasion, with respect to foreign participation on CWT. And I really don't see anyone here with 'Southern leanings' who takes the time to exaggerate the devastation caused by Sherman's campaign. My whyfor, as you may know by now, always, is to uncover the truth.

Sherman's march through the South with 60,000 men to subdue the civilian population which consisted mostly of women, children, and the elderly, was most certainly the foremost game in the field. Confederate men deserted their armies because their families were starving and losing their homes - to that end getting home was of paramount consideration.

"You will forgive me I hope if I refuse to slander 60,000 dead men and their officers over the words of men and women w/ a proven agenda. THere is enough truth in their charges to at least say they have taken a shred of truth and run w/ it. But the depth of slander they sank to boggles my mind."

I didn't ask you to slander 60,000 dead men and their officers, but I'm curious to know who exactly are the men and women that you refer to as having a 'proven agenda;' and what was the depth of their slander?

"I challenge anyone to call an Apache Warrior a peaceful farmer."

I don't think anyone would call an Apache Warrior a peaceful farmer - there would be the oxymoron. But again, Native Americans were defending their homes, the land they were raised on, and their way of life from invasion of the U.S. army.

"How many rapes were there, how many murders... that is all I ask. And I repeatedly point out is that there were other factors as well."

And I have repeatedly suggested that because of the chaos and devastation that reigned in the South for so many years after the war, many of these crimes would have gone unreported; and some people might have been too traumatized to ever discuss their experiences again. But if you look at the letters, diaries, and other documented sources that I've presented throughout this thread, you will read the words of civilians and officers of Sherman's army who were there, and who make it very clear that these things did happen.

"I refuse to believe tales that are not documented firstly because I think they started as here say and outright lies in the first place that they were not 'neatly documented' at all by the people at the time doesn't help matters."

I've noted that you have ancestors who fought in the Civil War - do you believe the stories/tales that have been handed down through your family? There are many members on these Boards, both North and South, who cherish legends that have been repeated from one generation to the next, and these family ballads are believed, and valued. Slaves kept their ancestor's memories alive through the same story-telling, as did Native Americans. And since these traditions were of such important to each culture, I would think that for the most part, the accuracy of their stories remained in tact.

"I put forward a host of titles that I thought worth reading, legitimate works by legitimate historians on the subject. Have you read any of them? If you think them biased; I started a thread specifically on the subject of bias."

I always make note of book suggestions Shane by reputable historians and other authors who I consider a little more obscure but still worth reading...whether I think they're biased or not.

Dawna

[bill_torrens]

Ole,

My memory hasn't failed to the point where I missed seeing anyone on this board blaiming 6mm people for mistreatment of slaves.

You’re entirely right. People have pointed out that mistreatment of slaves did sometimes occur, but nobody has accused the entire population of the South of complicity in it.

And, in the same way, people have pointed out incidents of rape perpetrated by members of Sherman’s army. But nobody on these boards has ever suggested that every member of that army was a rapist. Which is why it is a tad hysterical to write that “I refuse to slander 60,000 dead men and their officers.” And that was the point I was trying to make.

aliens? A parent whacks a kid on the butt to alter its thought process. Is that parent whacking an alien? Does that parent hate that kid? It's only a short step from the whack to the beating.

Your analogy does not persuade me. Firstly, because relatively few parents chastise a child by putting a Minie ball through his or her head. Secondly, because it misrepresents the relationship between the States of the North & South. They did not enjoy a parent-child relationship. The various states that formed the Union entered as equals. If you are going to draw an analogy based on kinship you would have to portray them as either siblings or cousins. In which case, the assumption of parental responsibility by the North would have to be seen as presumptuous.

To be sure, the combatants were likely exhibiting a degree of hatred, because that is required in a battle. But mutual hatred? I've seen no evidence of it's universality.

I don’t want to be pedantic, but “mutual” doesn’t actually mean the same as “universal”. We appear to agree that a certain proportion of soldiers on both sides felt hatred for their enemy – this is an inevitable by-product of warfare – and my interest is in the tension which this caused for someone who espoused the Union cause. It caused no such tension for a rebel: there was no contradiction between hating a region and wanting to break away from it. But there is certainly a potential contradiction (and, in my opinion, an actual one) between Northern hostility to the South and the desire to preserve the Union. A political Union, if it has any moral integrity, has to be based on mutual affection. And it is a physical impossibility to impose mutual affection at the point of the bayonet.

That is one obvious conundrum. Another one is the behaviour of Sherman’s men in South Carolina. The desire to punish and despoil was incompatible with the desire to demonstrate that South Carolina was as integral a part of the Union as Massachusetts. Sherman’s men were destroying their own infrastructure, destroying American property and ruining American lives. Surely you can see the massive anomaly which this represents?

Bill

[dawna]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter "Civilized warfare? That seems like such an oxymoron to me. I never consider war to be civilized."

And neither do I consider war to be civilized, and I agree that Sherman's quote is very much an oxymoron.

Did Sherman deport, exterminate, or ship off to concentration camps thousands of southern civilians? No he didn't.

Yes, Sherman did deport Southern civilians - the Roswell women.

"In fact he had all the civilians evacuate Atlanta before he began his work of destroying items useful to the Confederacy."

After "destroying items that were useful to the Confederacy," why burn Atlanta...revenge?

"As the war progressed the Confederacy showed that they were just as willing to perform total war: burning of Chambersburg, attempted burning of New York, and spreading yellow fever are just a few examples."

Let's look at Chambersburg a little closer:

THE BURNING OF CHAMBERSBURG

The Confederate Veteran, Vol. XI, No. 10, Nashville, Tenn.)

No destruction of property by the Confederate armies during the War between the States has been condemned by the people of the North in such unmeasured terms as the burning of Chambersburg, Pa., in 1864 by order of Gen. Early. While bitterly denouncing this as a wanton destruction of property, they applaud Sherman for permitting and encouraging his troops to commit daily the most unprovoked acts of incendiarism and theft upon the helpless citizens along his line of march from Dalton to Atlanta; and after the fall of the latter, with no army in his front to intercept his "famous"---infamous---march to the sea, the acts perpetrated upon the defenseless women and children, to say nothing of incendiarism, were as fiendish and brutal as ever marked the conquests of the Goths and Vandals in the days of barbarism.

It may condone American soldiery to note that two-thirds of Sherman's army was made up of mercenary hirelings, foreigners whose brutal instincts made them fit tools to go beyond the merciless orders of their leader. They had no interest in the welfare of Americans. These Northern partisans, while applauding Sherman, also sang the praises of Sheridan, who had made the proud (?) boast in this day of civilized warfare that his ruthless marauders had with fire and sword so desolated the beautiful Valley of the Shenandoah, inhabited at that time only by homeless and helpless women and children, that a "crow would starve to death flying over it unless he carried his rations with him." And yet Sheridan's army was, as a whole, composed of less objectionable material than Sherman's. It is reported that quite a number of his subordinates resigned or were deprived of their commissions rather than execute the brutal orders issued them, but he found in one Hunter a creature not only willing but eager to carry out his orders.

The following is a copy of a letter written to Hunter by Mrs. Edmund I. Lee, one of his victims, which clearly expresses the estimate placed upon him by the unfortunate citizens of Virginia at that time:

"SHEPHERDSTOWN, VA., July 20, 1864.

" Gen. Hunter : Yesterday your underling, Capt. Martindale, of the First New York Veteran Cavalry, executed your infamous order and burned my house. You have had the satisfaction ere this of receiving from him the information that your orders were fulfilled to the letter, the dwelling and every outbuilding, seven in number, with their contents, being burned. I, therefore, a helpless woman, whom you have cruelly wronged, address you, a major general of the United States army, and demand why this was done? What was my offense?

"My husband was absent, an exile. He has never been a politician, or in any way engaged in the struggle now going on, his age preventing. This fact David Strother, your chief of staff, could have told you. The house was built by my father, a revolutionary soldier, who served the whole seven years for your independence. There was I born; there the sacred dead repose; it was my house and my home; and there your niece, who lived among us all this horrid war, up to the present moment, met with all kindness and hospitality at my hands.

"Was it for this that you turned me, my young daughter, and little son out upon the world without a shelter? Or was is because my husband is the grandson of the revolutionary patriot and Rebel, Richard Henry Lee, and the near kinsman of the noblest of Christian warriors, the greatest of generals, Robert E. Lee? Heaven's blessings be upon his head forever! You and your government have failed to conquer, subdue, or match him; and disappointed rage and malice find vent upon the helpless and inoffensive.

"Hyena like, you have torn my heart to pieces; for all hallowed memories clustered around that homestead; and, demon-like, you have done it without even the pretext of revenge, for I never saw or harmed you. Your office is not to lead (like a brave man and soldier) your men to fight in the ranks of war, but your work has been to separate yourself from all danger, and, with your incendiary band, steal unawares upon helpless women and children, to insult and to destroy. Two fair homes did you yesterday ruthlessly lay in ashes, giving not a moment's warning to the startled inmates of your wicked purpose; turning mothers and children out of doors, your very name execrated by your own men for the cruel work you gave them to do. In the case of Mr. A. R. Boteler, both father and mother were far away. Any heart but that of Capt. Martindale (and yours) would have been touched by that little circle, comprising a widowed daughter, just risen from her bed of illness, her three little fatherless babes, the eldest not five years old, and her sick sister. I repeat, any man would have been touched at that sight but Capt. Martindale. One might as well hope to find mercy and feeling in the heart of a wolf, bent on its prey of young lambs, as to search for such qualities in his bosom. You have chosen well your man for such deeds; doubtless you will promote him.

"A colonel of the Federal army has stated that you deprived forty of your officers of their commands because they refused to carry out your malignant mischief. All honor to their names for this, at least; they are men; they have human hearts and blush for such a commander.

"I ask who that does not wish infamy and disgrace attached to him forever would serve under you? Your name will stand on history's page as the hunter of weak women and innocent children; the hunter to destroy defenseless villages and refined and beautiful homes, to torture afresh the agonized hearts of suffering widows; the hunter of Africa's poor sons and daughters, to lure them into ruin and death of soul and body; the hunter with the relentless heart of a wild beast, the face of a fiend, and the form of a man. O Earth, behold the monster!

"Can I say, 'God forgive you?' No prayer can be offered for you. Were it possible for human lips to raise your name heavenward, angels would thrust the foul thing back again and demons claim their own. The curses of thousands, the scorn of the manly and upright, and the hatred of the true and honorable will follow you and yours through all time, and brand your name, Infamy! Infamy! "Again, I demand, why have you burned my house? Answer, as you must answer before the Searcher of all hearts. Why have you added this cruel, wicked deed to your many crimes?"

The burning of Chambersburg was not an act of wanton destruction of property by marauding soldiers under irresponsible officers, but it was an act of retaliation for property destroyed by Gen. Hunter, and was so stated by Gen. Early when he issued the order.

"What Sherman did was certainly not pleasant but his actions have been so exaggerated over the years by the Lost Cause crowd that any story showing Sherman's supposed devilish side is taken as fact while at the same time the south's role in the destruction of their own cities is completely swept under the rug."

Not pleasant? I would hazard to guess that most Southerners would find this description of the devastation to the South as somewhat bromidic; as they would the "supposed devilish side" to General Sherman.

"I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple of thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash." General William T. Sherman, in a letter to his wife, July 1864, while in northern Georgia.

Dawna