Sherman Calling all Sherman Haters

[uaskme]

No objective person denies that Jefferson C Davis was wrong to destroy the bridge. No southern person can seem to acknowledge the confederate complicity in the tragedy. It's a pattern of avoiding any accountability for the confederates.

Seems you don't acknowledge Sherman's complicity. He set the tone for the events, what he wrote in the OR's was for posterity. What he messaged to his subordinates, and when he looked the other way was something else. He got set down when he got to Savannah, he was reprimanded. Racist as the worst. Whole campaign was directed at civilians. Rich, poor black or white.

I have studied Joe Wheelers Calvary. Never have heard of him attacking negroes. Negroes constantly went thru the lines. He would have had NO motive to attack them.

You haven't come up with any proof they did. Anyone of Sherman's Troopers would have had cause to deflect this tragedy.

Curious if Grant or Sherman was anyway connected to an event they got credit. Now all of a sudden he had nothing to do with it. North does some stupidity. Oh well we all did it. Backbone of a Earthworm.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Seems you don't acknowledge Sherman's complicity. He set the tone for the events, what he wrote in the OR's was for posterity. What he messaged to his subordinates, and when he looked the other way was something else. He got set down when he got to Savannah, he was reprimanded. Racist as the worst. Whole campaign was directed at civilians. Rich, poor black or white.

I have studied Joe Wheelers Calvary. Never have heard of him attacking negroes. Negroes constantly went thru the lines. He would have had NO motive to attack them.

You haven't come up with any proof they did. Anyone of Sherman's Troopers would have had cause to deflect this tragedy.

Curious if Grant or Sherman was anyway connected to an event they got credit. Now all of a sudden he had nothing to do with it. North does some stupidity. Oh well we all did it. Backbone of a Earthworm.

"He set the tone for the events"... That's an incredibly lame allegation. Show me where he advised subordinates to abandon refugees to confederate cavalry.

"Cause to deflect" describes the motivation of those here who can't admit that it was the arriving confederate troops that drove the refugees into the creek.

Yes, Sherman was definitely racist. But if that makes him evil then that makes virtually every southerner of the time evil as well.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I have studied Joe Wheelers Calvary. Never have heard of him attacking negroes. Negroes constantly went thru the lines. He would have had NO motive to attack them.

Wheeler's cavalry were described as "plundering, marauding bands of cowardly robbers." Apparently some southerners felt they were worse than the yankees.

 

[leftyhunter]

Not going to jump into this debate, but here is a famous example you may be interested in reading about lefty.

View attachment 564648

On June 11, 1963 George Wallace, who had made a campaign promise for "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", stood in front of the auditorium at the University of Alabama in a symbolic gesture to block black students Vivian Malone and James Hood.

In response, Kennedy issued Executive Order 11111, federalizing the national guard. Alabama Guard General Henry V. Graham is seen in this picture telling Wallace "Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States."

Wallace spoke for a little while longer, but then stepped aside.

Yes but no force was used the Union Army during the 1863 draft riots in NYC plus the NYPD didn't say " its my sad duty to inform you" or any political theater they just care of buisness.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Much Northern ism!

Just telling the truth. In no way were the Confedrates nicer to the Indians then the Union. I even have a thread on that.

Restricted - The Confederacy was not nicer to the Indians than the Union. | Wartime Politics, & Debates

At that point in history no white man was benveolt to the tribes. To paint northerners better or southerners better is like Don Quixote tilting at wind mills. I agree but some of pro Confederate posters have said that's not the case. I am merely posting sources that indeed it was the case...

civilwartalk.com

Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

Yes but no force was used the Union Army during the 1863 draft riots in NYC plus the NYPD didn't say " its my sad duty to inform you" or any political theater they just care of buisness.
Leftyhunter

No this is not true.

The New York police tried to contain the riots in the beginning, using clubs and firearms, but were overpowered.

The Union army arrived late to the riots, after several days and many buildings had been burned down. There were a few skirmishes where people where killed.

The "political theater" was Henry V. Graham talking to his boss George Wallace. A difficult situation for anyone, probably something that wouldn't happen today. Of course Graham is going to be as polite as possible and make Wallace look good if he can while completing his mission. Wallace can fire Graham.

The political theater was entirely on Wallace for making an election promise to keep segregation, then standing in the doorway and publicly obstructing until he was ordered to move, which accomplished absolutely nothing besides make him famous.

 

[leftyhunter]

No this is not true.

The New York police tried to contain the riots in the beginning, using clubs and firearms, but were overpowered.

The Union army arrived late to the riots, after several days and many buildings had been burned down. There were a few skirmishes where people where killed.

The "political theater" was Henry V. Graham talking to his boss George Wallace. A difficult situation for anyone, probably something that wouldn't happen today. Of course Graham is going to be as polite as possible and make Wallace look good if he can while completing his mission. Wallace can fire Graham.

The political theater was entirely on Wallace for making an election promise to keep segregation, then standing in the doorway and publicly obstructing until he was ordered to move, which accomplished absolutely nothing besides make him famous.

But it is true that the NYPD at least made an effort to control the rioters vs no Southern law enforcement agency used any force against white rioters from the end of reconstruction at least up to the 1970s if even that. The Union Army ended the riots but at least the NYPD made a vailient effort with the resources available to them.
Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

no Southern law enforcement agency used any force against white rioters from the end of reconstruction at least up to the 1970s if even that.

That is not true either. The Charleston police and naval police ended the Charleston riot of 1919, for example.

But this subject is complicated as the late 1800s weren't the early 1900s and the early 1900s weren't the 1960s or 70s. They were all politically charged in their own way, but charged differently.

The Charleston riot had navy sailors fighting in the streets and rioting, which wasn't well received by the local police.

 

[leftyhunter]

That is not true either. The Charleston police and naval police ended the Charleston riot of 1919, for example.

But this subject is complicated as the late 1800s weren't the early 1900s and the early 1900s weren't the 1960s or 70s. They were all politically charged in their own way, but charged differently.

The Charleston riot had navy sailors fighting in the streets and rioting, which wasn't well received by the local police.

Charleston “Race Riot” of 1919, 305 King Street | Discovering Our Past: College of Charleston Histories

King Street has not always been the touristy commercial district of Charleston. In place of its present-day antique shops, trendy fashion design outlets, and tempting eateries was once a sprawling corridor with many Black-owned and -operated businesses, especially around the southern section of...

discovering.charleston.edu

Naval Shore Patrol and Marines are federal not state or local law enforcement. Yes the South Carolina National Guard was called in but no evidence that the Charleston police or South Carolina National Guard used force against the white rioters. Almost no white men faced charges for the riot.
NYPD was local and in 1863 they definitely used force against white rioters.
Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

Naval Shore Patrol and Marines are federal not state or local law enforcement.

The Charleston police was most certainly involved and active in investigating and dispersing the riot. The marines had a joint command force with the citys police force and supported them in containing the riot.

49 men, mostly white, were arranged. That is not almost none.

3 rioters, two sailors and a black rioter, were acquainted of instigating the riot. The police dropped the remaining charges as they were overwhelmed that night and didn't have the documentation to get convictions. 8 men were fined for carrying a concealed weapon.

Military incidents like this also fall under the military jurisdiction, as they have their own police force, justice system, and punishments in parallel to but separate from the regular justice system. You can also be tried once in civilian criminal court and again in military criminal court.

The Navy put restrictions on sailors going into Charleston and 3 sailors were court marshalled, with one acquainted and the other two receiving 1 year in naval prison and a dishonorable discharge.

 

[leftyhunter]

The Charleston police was most certainly involved and active in investigating and dispersing the riot. The marines had a joint command force with the citys police force and supported them in containing the riot.

49 men, mostly white, were arranged. That is not almost none.

3 rioters, two sailors and a black rioter, were acquainted of instigating the riot. The police dropped the remaining charges as they were overwhelmed that night and didn't have the documentation to get convictions. 8 men were fined for carrying a concealed weapon.

Military incidents like this also fall under the military jurisdiction, as they have their own police force, justice system, and punishments in parallel to but separate from the regular justice system. You can also be tried once in civilian criminal court and again in military criminal court.

The Navy put restrictions on sailors going into Charleston and 3 sailors were court marshalled, with one acquainted and the other two receiving 1 year in naval prison and a dishonorable discharge.i there was one tiny exception but the general rule was Southern law enforcement did not protect people of color from hostile attacks from the majority white population.

So there was one very small exception to the rule that Southern law enforcement didn't protect people of color from attacks from the majority Southern population.
Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

So there was one very small exception to the rule that Southern law enforcement didn't protect people of color from attacks from the majority Southern population.
Leftyhunter

No the rule (if there is one) is that the police investigate crimes, regardless of who the perpetrator is. That is their job description, and has always been their job description.

In the late 1800s and mid 1900s there was a large amount of politics which corrupted the role of police and broke the rule. An example being the Wallace doorway standoff with both sides mobilizing police and military force to push a political agenda.

In the Charleston riot, there wasn't a political agenda going on in the background, the police weren't mobilized by either side and could just do their job.

 

[leftyhunter]

No the rule (if there is one) is that the police investigate crimes, regardless of who the perpetrator is. That is their job description, and has always been their job description.

In the late 1800s and mid 1900s there was a large amount of politics which corrupted the role of police and broke the rule. An example being the Wallace doorway standoff with both sides mobilizing police and military force to push a political agenda.

In the Charleston riot, there wasn't a political agenda going on in the background, the police weren't mobilized by either side and could just do their job.

Far more often then not if white mobs attacked African Americans the police either helped the rioters or sat on their hands.
Leftyhunter

 

[JulieWeathers]

A news story hits the papers after the fall of Jackson in July 1863: several soldiers who had been paroled had been captured at Jackson and Sherman shot them on sight.

It's in July editions all over the north, but mostly unattributed to a source. I finally found one paper that attributes the story to a special correspondent for the Chicago Tribune.

I dug for a bit to see if I could find corroborating information that this happened but I can't find any at first glance. The closest thing I could find was a story from Louisville that amongst the captured at Jackson was a Confederate captain who had been paroled. No mention of his execution, summary or otherwise. A story in the Chicago Tribune claimed that several of the buried at Jackson had parole papers on their personal effects, but no mention of how they died.

I know I've seen a personal account in the past from a soldier that Johnston refused to honor some of the paroles issued on technical grounds, and I wondered if anyone ever paid the price for that. I'm kicking myself for not saving that account.

This seems like something that *could* happen, but with all the Sherman haters out there surely someone would have brought it up in the past. Any Sherman haters out there know of this?

I don't care for Sherman, but I'm not sure calling for "Sherman haters" to come forth with damning evidence it the correct approach. It would be interesting to know one way or the other if this is true just for the record.

JW

 

[huskerblitz]

Hmmm....I missed this thread. So I'm here to say, "Present!"