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.
Thanks! Knowing that mortars were LESS accurate than say Parrot's or rifled pieces, accuracy and longrange guns which were at Sherman's disposal equaled more efficiency/accuracy of Union firepower. Nonmiliary targets were hit. I'll set back and let some of you comment if you will.
Seems that the point you're trying to make is the vilification of Sherman for shelling the city indiscriminately. Here we part company. You seem to come down on the humanitarian side -- that civilians should never be subject to actions of hostility. I come down on the military side: make them quit, whatever it takes.
Sherman's goal was to make Hood leave the city so he could destroy that army. (Sounds a bit gruesome today, doesn't it?) Duty and honor required Hood to resist as long as possible. Who's the loser? The civilians caught up in that defensive position.
As to targeting landmarks, I'm with cedarstripper -- I'd have liked to have had a go at that bell myself. Hard as it is to dismiss such destructive, rowdy play as high-spirits, it looks very much like that was what it was: "betcha I can hit that before you can."
Focussing on the civilian hurt detracts from the overall picture: war. Sherman made Hood leave Atlanta. Sherman made the deep south cry uncle. It might be said that Sherman made Lee quit because he would soon be facing twice what he was facing. It might be acknowledged that Sherman was occasionally overly enthusiastic, but every incident is part of the whole fabric of war. The final picture, however painfully painted, was the capitulation of the Confederacy.
By the way, accuracy of artillery has been touted as evidence of Sherman's barbarity. I don't share your confidence in CW artillery. One gun in the hands of an expert can be expected to be precise, but I will wager that that same gun fired 25 times will not put 25 rounds within a 10-yard circle at, say, 400 yards.
Regards,
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The ruins in Charleston are part of the Selected Civil War Photgraphs Collection which contain thousands of images "made under the supervision of Matthew B . Brady, and include scenes of military personnel, preparations for battle, and battle after-effects."
According to an article in Harpers, the Great Charleston Fire of 1861 destroyed "600 homes and every public building," although I seem to remember an unscathed "Secession Courthouse standing in the background. Apparently, many Charlestinians suspected the cause of the fire was "negro incendiarism."
Below is the response from the Reference Section of the Library of Congress regarding my inquiry on the photo from Posting # 471 (Charleston, South Carolina. Ruins of Cathedral of St. John and St. Finbar and Secession Hall.)
"Dear Ms. Hepburn:
Thank you for your recent email inquiry about the dating of the Civil War glass
negative LC-B811-3077, "Ruins of St. John and St. Finbar and Secession Hall." This forms part of a series of stereographic negatives later published by E.& H.T. Anthony for "The War for the Union" series, almost all of which we have at the Library in LOT 4163. Our similar stereos of this cathedral say at the bottom "Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1865, by E. & H.T. Anthony Co." which means they were copyrighted in 1865. [Info taken from stereo with negative LC-B811-3076, also of same church] The note field for the date used in American Memory which includes this says"Created/Published" followed by the date. This means that the the date could be the date the photo was made, or the date it was published. Since the publication date for the series is 1865, that is what was placed in that field. Technically it should say "copyrighted 1865."
The stereograph made of this glass negative is not here at this library, but can be seen online at http://www.mdgorman.com/Photographs/Anthony/3077.htm. What we have are the original glass plate negatives which were used to make the stereographic photos.
The image shows the ruins of the St. John and St. Finbar Cathedral at the left. The spire of the church in the center is NOT the cathedral but rather St. Philip's Church.
A similar stereograph in our holdings with negative LC-B811-3443, titled "Charleston, S.C. Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. John and St. Finbar (Broad and Legare Streets) destroyed in the fire of December 1861" also is dated 1865.
According to the book Anthony: the Man, the Company, the Cameras by William and Estelle Marder (1982), pages 343-347 show a full facsimile of Anthony's "New catalogue of Stereoscopic Views "published Oct. 1862,without a single mention of Charleston. On page 148 it states that "Anthony published the first of a large series of Civil War views by Mathew Brady and his staff in 1862. By 1864 these were sold under the title "War Views." Page 149 continues: "The 'War for the Union' series continued to be published with additions after 1865, with numbers in the 3030 to 5000+ range." NOTE: The image you are interested in is numbered 3077. The later dating tends to show that the images were published later in the War, around 1864-1865.
Dating the image: The dating of the stereo is different according to the George Eastman House. See http://www.geh.org/fm/st05/htmlsrc/m198188470004_ful.html for a related Charleston stereo. This is dated ca. 1864. In the same Eastman site, some E. & H.T. Anthony stereos of Charleston are dated ca. 1862, and the firm is identified as being active 1862 to 1901.
Although we could not definitively date the image, we hope that the fact that is was copyrighted 1865, that no stereo images were made before 1862, and its later numbering of 3077, would show that the date of our glass negatives is likely 1865." ********************************* Reference Section Prints and Photographs Division Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20540-4730 telephone: 202-707-6394 fax: 202-707-6647 URL: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/ > email: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ask-print.html >
Wars are terrible things. And if you don't want to feel the effects of war, then don't start them.
Regards,
Cash
Dear Sir,
Could you please inform this Cadet as to the official "start" of the Civil War? I was under the impression that April 12, 1861- following the events at Fort Sumter and Pres. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers- was the official "start" of the Civil War. If that be true, and according to your quote above, then how could the city of Columbia and its subsequent destruction be considered the result for having "started" the Civil War?
Columbia and Ft. Sumter aren't even neighbors. Perhaps you, sir, were merely referring to the site of the first state secession from the union as the "proverbial start" and not actually the " official start" of the Civil War. Yes?
Regards,
__________________
GoocherLee
Last edited by GoocherLee; 12-14-2005 at 02:57 PM.
Could you please inform this Cadet as to the official "start" of the Civil War? I was under the impression that April 12, 1961- following the events at Fort Sumter and Pres. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers- was the official "start" of the Civil War.
April 12, 1861, at 4:30 AM, when confederates began firing on Fort Sumter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoocherLee
If that be true, and according to your quote above, then how could the city of Columbia and its subsequent destruction be considered the result for having "started" the Civil War?
It was the confederates who started the war, and as part of putting down the rebellion Columbia was occupied by Union troops. During their retreat, confederate soldiers set fire to cotton in the streets of Columbia which later flared up and spread fire throughout the city. Add to that some drunken soldiers and released prisoners who maliciously set fires of their own, even as Union soldiers on duty tried to extinguish fires. If not for the war, those fires would never have started.
April 12, 1861, at 4:30 AM, when confederates began firing on Fort Sumter.
Thank you, that's what I also thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
It was the confederates who started the war...
So then why wasn't every confederate state capital engaged thusly? Columbia just had the distinction of being "on the way" as Sherman returned northward?
Not likely. It was deliberate and served the purpose of crushing the idea of southern regrouping, with a little vengeful retribution thrown in for good measure.
__________________
GoocherLee
Last edited by GoocherLee; 12-14-2005 at 03:03 PM.
According to McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom," Sherman's troops did identify South Carolina as the birthplace of the rebellion and were harsher there.
I have a problem with the "they got what they deserved, because they started it" argument because the people who get hurt aren't always the ones who started it, even if we accept that South Carolina was a leader in seceding.
South Carolina as the "birthplace of the rebellion" I can concede, even if I don't agree. I'm not about splitting hairs here, but as you said, saying things like: "don't start nothin', then there won't be nothin' " as a justification for the dishonorable actions visited upon Columbia is irrational.
There was indeed a military design that included the razing of Atlanta, Columbia and the "path of Sherman," so I'm not whining about why it happened; although I don't agree with the extent of the destruction as just being simply: "war is hell, get over it."
So then why wasn't every confederate state capital engaged thusly? Columbia just had the distinction of being "on the way" as Sherman returned northward?
Not likely. It was deliberate and served the purpose of crushing the idea of southern regrouping, with a little vengeful retribution thrown in for good measure.
Not so. As I recounted in my post, retreating confederates set fire to cotton in the streets of Columbia, which later flared up and spread fire around the town due to the high winds. There were some drunken soldiers and released prisoners who maliciously set fires as well.
The standard history is Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia.
According to McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom," Sherman's troops did identify South Carolina as the birthplace of the rebellion and were harsher there.
I have a problem with the "they got what they deserved, because they started it" argument because the people who get hurt aren't always the ones who started it, even if we accept that South Carolina was a leader in seceding.
My point is not that "they deserved it." My point is awful things happen in war, and when you start one you bring those things on. Those who are complaining about Federal destruction are giving a free pass to those who started the war and brought the destruction on. There is always destruction in war. Innocents always get hurt in war. Even in an age of GPS-guided munitions and laser-guided bombs, innocents still get hurt. Those who make the decision to start the war bear responsibility for what happens.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
