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.
As a Southerner who had many direct ancestors in the defence of Atlanta, I see the burning of cities by Union forces as unnecessary and reeking with revenge. Had the North won the war and not burned and looted to any degree private properties, I would not be involved in this discussion. Gen. Shermans' deeds may have ended the war sooner in some peoples' view, but this came with a BIG price-tag; perpetual resentment of Southern opinion against him & his invading army.
Yes, Sherman did deport Southern civilians - the Roswell women.
400 people I think was the number and unlike their black bretheren in Pennsylvania they were not sent into slavery. After the war ended some went back to Roswell.
They were not tortured or sent to a forced labor camp or anything like that. Their situation pales in comparison to what 4 million slaves had to deal with before, during, and after the war.
Quote:
why burn Atlanta...revenge?
Aside from Richmond, Atlanta produced more guns, equipment, and ammunition than any other southern city. He was destroying everything that aided the confederacy militarily.
It had nothing to do with revenge. Chambersburg was revenge.
And as I already explained southern civilians were just as responsible for the destruction of their cities as the Union army.
Quote:
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.
So vengeful southerners ransoming and burning down a town which had no military significance is okay but Sherman's men burning down a mill is wrong?
The reason Early's men went to Chambersburg is because of its close proximity. Early later regretted the whole episode because it destroyed the discipline of his cavalry.
But the North had 4 years of depredations. You may say the South was evil for having slavery, or what ever.
But don't ignore what really happened. Bad things happen in war. But that doesn't mean they can all be excused, or forgotten.
Anyway, Atlanta wasn't Sherman's objective. His objective as ordered by Grant was to destroy the AOT. He failed. When he captured Atlanta the administration pretended that Atlanta had been the goal all along to help the 64 election. So, the argument that Sherman's actions were OK since he was trying to destroy economic factors falls flat.
nbforrest, you need to do some reading. I might suggest THe Cause Lost by William C Davis Chapter 8 in particular. I might also suggest any of a host of other titles on the subject that I have put forward on this thread.
Bill, it is called accusation by association. It isn't hysterical... I have seen repeated posts on this thread in particular that lumps all bad actions by Union men, throughout the Union & the US, under the guise of Shermans men. It's intentionally misleading and it is what I have become used to, unfortunately.
Dawna, if you wish to know who has an agenda, ask via PM. THere is no need to air dirty laundry here. I do not believe you hold an Anti-US Agenda. I know you are an intelligent woman and as you have declared an urge to know the truth. A quick and easy identifier of a possible agenda, again not applying to you, would be almost two years with not a single positive thing to say about either the Union, the US or the Union soldier in particular. Frequent intentional misquotes, repeated instances of things taken completely out of context, cut and pastes taken directly from League of the South or other creative organization websites. It's easy to believe such things are accidental, siting a bad source or such. But when they happen over and over again one has to begin to wonder. As you say you are attempting to place the guilt for crimes commited by Shermans Bummers, I think you need to clarify that point as the first dozen pages or so certainly don't give that impression. As to the titles I suggested on this subject that you have read, which did you find the most informative?
__________________ 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
nbforrest, you need to do some reading. I might suggest THe Cause Lost by William C Davis Chapter 8 in particular. I might also suggest any of a host of other titles on the subject that I have put forward on this thread.
I would like to know what I am being accused of being ignorant about.
Now, I will admit that my knowledge is 90%+ on battles and tactics.
But again I would like to know what I am apparantly in the dark about so I may either reply or fix my ignorance.
I really don't see what I could have said that would warrant such a response. Freely admitting that Lost Causers twisted the truth and can't be trusted? Hmmm...a bit odd I'd say
Ok, checking the table of contents of Davis' book, it's called "The Turning Point that Wasn't:The Confederates and the Election of 1864"
I never said that the 64 election was a turning point. In fact, (although I don't believe I have posted to that effect on this site as of yet) I firmly believe that the 64-Democratic win scenario is overplayed and irrelevent to the war's outcome. Lincoln would have been in office until March. The end result would have been the same.
I am pointing out that Atlanta was not Sherman's objective. It wasn't. Look at the orders Grant gave him. Perhaps some reading on the Atlanta campaign would be in order, my friend.
I just bristle up a little when someone levels an accusation at me...I am only beginning my study of the war but since I have 190 ACW books in my personal collection, I would hesitate to say that I am totally off base here
It was no accusation, I feel it does a lot in explaining the relevence of the 64 election and helped me at least understand that particular subject of the CW in relation its relevence and lack of relevence to the campaigns. As to suggesting that I read some more on the Atlanta Campaign... I will gladly accept any suggestions you might have as I read every bit about it I can as I feel it one of the decisive campaigns of the War. I've read perhaps 100 titles on the subject of the Atlanta Campaign and would not consider myself an expert by any means.
If you feel that someone suggesting that reading a particular title is a charge of ignorance... I think we both need a beer; whats your favored brand?
__________________ 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
400 people I think was the number and unlike their black bretheren in Pennsylvania they were not sent into slavery. After the war ended some went back to Roswell.
Four hundred women were taken against their will and deported from their homes and very few made it back to Roswell. These women suffered during their long journey to Marietta and while some found employment in factories, many didn't. Again, 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.
When 400 women and their children are removed from their homes and families and forced to live and work in a strange and unfamiliar environment, what do you call it? And we are discussing the devastation that was caused to the South and the civilians who were put in harms way as a result of Sherman's march to the sea, not slavery. This is a completely separate issue.
"Aside from Richmond, Atlanta produced more guns, equipment, and ammunition than any other southern city. He was destroying everything that aided the confederacy militarily."
Again, this could have been accomplished without burning Atlanta.
So vengeful southerners ransoming and burning down a town which had no military significance is okay but Sherman's men burning down a mill is wrong?
Sherman's men burning down a mill? Are you referring to the Roswell Mills? If so, the town of Roswell was mostly populated by women, children, and the elderly. It could hardly be considered a military target since the Roswell Mills produced cloth to make uniforms for the Confederate army and other supplies such as rope and tent cloth. These factories were not producing weaponry.
And I would hardly call the burning of Chambersurg in response to Hunter's destruction of the VMI in June, 1864, as comparable to the $100 million in damage that Sherman inflicted upon the South.
If you wish to know who has an agenda, ask via PM. THere is no need to air dirty laundry here. I do not believe you hold an Anti-US Agenda. ?
I'm afraid you'll have to walk me through this one Shane. In a previous posting, you stated: "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."
I'm not aware of any Anti-Northern or occasional Anti-US bends on these Boards (I admit to being a naive Canadian), but since you made a public statement indicating otherwise, I was quite surprised and merely asked you for clarification. And now I find that I should have sent you a PM, rather than 'air my dirty laundry.' Yet another surprise.
I have been very specific regarding Sherman's 'bummers' and also the intent of this thread - to honour civilians who were injured or killed as a result of Sherman's campaign through the South; and also to capture the remnants of what were once beautiful, prosperous cities.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
