Ebenezer creek

I am seeing three viewpoints here. The aftermath reports, letters and memoirs do not corroborate the events. There will be a tendency to absolve all from blame within military colleagues. Citing neccessity of war.
The only victims, the slave entourage. Have no official reports to tell their tale.

The view of the Union advance:
They are liberating slaves on their progress South. These grateful attach themselves to their liberators. Offering their services. The able bodied muscular are tasked with clearing the path. Removing obstacles, perhaps even assisting with the construction of pontoons? Their wives, daughters, parents accompany them on their march to freedom.
Q. With so many additions to the column, why not arm them? Or ask them to hunt,fish and forage a contribution?

The view of the CSA in pursuit:
These people have sliced through our land taking all in their path. Leaving a trail of devastation, and gathering up the slaves required to re-plant and work for our provision from hunger in the coming season. Our horses, cattle and slaves are stolen and absconded. The chase is on, to return our property, and bloody their Northern noses.

The view of the former slaves:
Mr Lincoln has declared us free. These are the soldiers dressed in blue, who fought to make this happen. We will join them now and leave this place of sorrow behind. They will take us to freedom in a different place. We can work with them to make this passage easier. All joined the procession. Fit, weak, old and young. Redemption!

Unfortunately Ebeneezers creek would be one of those dark, dark stains upon the tapestry of stories in the war. No one would emerge with glory in this incident.

Gen. Davis, whether working under orders, or of his own twisted logic. Had chosen to utilise as muscle, the fittest and most able negroes. The families and others of these same people. He viewed as a burden upon his objective. Selectively he chose to leave behind the greater number, he deemed to be of no use. How difficult would it have been to walk over 2000 people, on a 165 yard bridge? Wheeler's cavalry could not have been so close behind, that 20 minutes could not be spared. If they were that close. Why not do what soldiers do. Fight them?

Wheelers arrival to find the Union army slipped across the river. Leaving behind those who had assisted their escape. Would drive him to deliver retribution upon those he could lay hands on. A fate any slave would know, was doubtless to be cruel and painful. Some choosing to take their chances trying to cross the swollen river. Desperation at its inevitable worst.

So the real victims of this sorry event, wrote no memoirs, or official reports. It remains for us now to see their viewpoint. They welcomed the redeeming Northern soldiers, under orders of the President to free their people. In gratitude they toiled their labour, and suffered the long hungry march to freedom.
They found themselves abandoned to the lash and return to captivity. Death by drowning, or continued service at the front of the army clearing a path to the sea. Their muscles being useful, their empty stomachs and families left behind. Of no consequence.

Same old life: Different Massa.
 
That's another reason I believe the death count to be much higher. Some had the temerity to defend themselves and try to fight back. Not going to do too well against mounted cavalry armed with everything, and raising your hand to a white man was a death penalty. So the cavalry no doubt killed those who resisted. Wheeler gave no count of dead blacks - no property value there! - and the Union didn't go back to count them. I've always thought Sherman's explanation was dismissive, as if it wasn't an important matter, and that would certainly not be his reaction if it were white people! It is a very shameful and disturbing event.
 
That's another reason I believe the death count to be much higher. Some had the temerity to defend themselves and try to fight back. Not going to do too well against mounted cavalry armed with everything, and raising your hand to a white man was a death penalty. So the cavalry no doubt killed those who resisted. Wheeler gave no count of dead blacks - no property value there! - and the Union didn't go back to count them. I've always thought Sherman's explanation was dismissive, as if it wasn't an important matter, and that would certainly not be his reaction if it were white people! It is a very shameful and disturbing event.

My guess is that Davis thought the contraband he left behind would (a) slow down the advancing CSA army and/or (b) finally be out of hair. At worst, he probably thought thought they'd be re-enslaved and that some might be hurt; I don't think he anticipated that the Confederates would "attack" or otherwise harm non-combatants. Which, allegedly, did not turn out to be the case.

- Alan
 
That would be consistent with Davis' behavior, indeed. To end the Modoc War he dumped an agreement the Modocs made with the settlers, brokered by Pop Steele and some other prominent ranchers of the Lost River area. The Modocs agreed to put down arms, the ranchers agreed to give them a corner of Lost River. Davis waited until they stopped fighting then changed the deal to off to Oklahoma and arrested the leaders. Pesky blacks or pesky Indians, didn't much matter to him!
 
You havbe absolutely no idea what you are talking about whether referencing Wheeler or the US Army today.

Women, children, old men & the infirm... all unarmed. That's one heck of a militia and an insulting stretch to call them combatants.

The hypocicy I see here is gross and offensive. It's reprehsible that Sherman's men burned barns, tore up railroads, plantation houses and killed almost no one. But it's admirable (you're defending them) for CS Cav to sweep down and drive black women, children the old & inform into a river killing many hundred... to quote: "How very white of you."
Ive stated Wheeler was wrong for his actions. But Sherman is the man to blame..He had command over Davis. And when ask about Ebenezer creek,later in life,Sherman didnt even care! Yes,wheeler was wrong,but Sherman is to fault.
 
Simply put, Wheeler could have been a little more kind,but Davis is the man who cut the rops,If Johan Steele is correct,and if Wheelers men were nothing more than a "speedbump" for Shermans march, then why did Davis feel the need to cut the ropes? Im sorry but its hard for me to belive that Uncle Billy and Jeff Davis thought that the slaves would be "unharmed"..Thats complete BS. They knew what was gonna happen. Davis cut the ropes but Sherman was responsable. He was the comaniding officer.
 
LT.J.H.McDaniel said:
Ive stated Wheeler was wrong for his actions. But Sherman is the man to blame..He had command over Davis. And when ask about Ebenezer creek,later in life,Sherman didnt even care! Yes,wheeler was wrong,but Sherman is to fault.

So instead of Wheeler or Davis, who were both there, we're going to blame the guy who wasn't? How convenient.
 
So instead of Wheeler or Davis, who were both there, we're going to blame the guy who wasn't? How convenient.
No,we will blame the comanding officer for his mens actions. Just as everyone blames Forrest for the incedent oa Fort Pillow... Sherman was the high man on the totem pole,he gets the blame.He was the only one there who coulda stoped it..
 
LT.J.H.McDaniel said:
Simply put, Wheeler could have been a little more kind,but Davis is the man who cut the rops,If Johan Steele is correct,and if Wheelers men were nothing more than a "speedbump" for Shermans march, then why did Davis feel the need to cut the ropes? Im sorry but its hard for me to belive that Uncle Billy and Jeff Davis thought that the slaves would be "unharmed"..Thats complete BS. They knew what was gonna happen. Davis cut the ropes but Sherman was responsable. He was the comaniding officer.

By that metric, Forrest is to blame for Fort Pillow.

Criticize Sherman's reaction all you like, but he did not cause this. Davis and Wheeler did.
 
Actually, the two incidents are not really very alike. Forrest's little accident involved black soldiers who were armed and could fight; Sherman's little accident involved 3,000 civilians who were unarmed. The Union army had invited these people to follow them to freedom; Forrest didn't offer anything to anybody in Ft Pillow. The only real similarity is that neither commander thought it was much of a big deal until the schtuff started hitting the fan...
 
Actually, the two incidents are not really very alike. Forrest's little accident involved black soldiers who were armed and could fight; Sherman's little accident involved 3,000 civilians who were unarmed. The Union army had invited these people to follow them to freedom; Forrest didn't offer anything to anybody in Ft Pillow. The only real similarity is that neither commander thought it was much of a big deal until the schtuff started hitting the fan...
i agree. Sherman welcomed the slaves and offerd them protection,then fell back on his word.
 
I know this is off the subject of this post, but I have always wondered about Jefferson Columbus Davis. In September 1862 Davis got into an argument with his former commander Major General William Nelson in Louisville, Ky.'s Galt House. It seems Nelson had relieved Davis of duty, which Davis saw as a personal insult. Davis cornered Nelson in the hotel demanding an apology. Nelson refused and slapped Davis. Davis followed Nelson outside and shot him in the street. Nelson was unarmed. He shot him in chest at point blank range. Davis was arrested but after 20 days was released and never stood trial.

If Davis could do this, he could have never cared what happened to those poor slaves following him.

This just my opinion. War is just so cruel.
 
I know this is off the subject of this post, but I have always wondered about Jefferson Columbus Davis. In September 1862 Davis got into an argument with his former commander Major General William Nelson in Louisville, Ky.'s Galt House. It seems Nelson had relieved Davis of duty, which Davis saw as a personal insult. Davis cornered Nelson in the hotel demanding an apology. Nelson refused and slapped Davis. Davis followed Nelson outside and shot him in the street. Nelson was unarmed. He shot him in chest at point blank range. Davis was arrested but after 20 days was released and never stood trial.

If Davis could do this, he could have never cared what happened to those poor slaves following him.

This just my opinion. War is just so cruel.
exactly!!!! Why was there never a trial?Because he was a "good guy"...
 
exactly!!!! Why was there never a trial?Because he was a "good guy"...

Being a "good guy" had nothing to do with it. Horatio Wright spoke up for him and he was an experienced and talented field officer, which was needed. But because of this incident, he was never promoted above brigadier general.

R
 
exactly!!!! Why was there never a trial?Because he was a "good guy"...

I don't know the details, but it would not surprise me at all if the explanation was, these two guys got into a fight, they settled things the way men do. If one guy dies, whatever.

One of the more celebrated and infamous incidents of the 1950s was the caning of Sen Charles Sumner by Rep Preston Brooks. Sumner suffered brain injury and spent three years convalescing. Brooks got a $300 fine and no prison time, and was re-elected.

Meanwhile, it was not uncommon at all for men to engage in duels in the antebellum era, and dueling even persisted up to the time of the Civil War. I recall hearing an author on the radio who said that Union and Confederate officers engaged in dueling.

This is the way men were back then. Thank God we've made some progress since then.
 
Being a "good guy" had nothing to do with it. Horatio Wright spoke up for him and he was an experienced and talented field officer, which was needed. But because of this incident, he was never promoted above brigadier general.

R
then why did he remain a U.S. officer untill 1879? he was a brevet major general, same rank as Mr.Joshua Chamberlain...A very fine outstanding man! Why does Davis get to hold the same rank as this man? And i wasnt aware that if your a great millitary comander,you get a free pass from prison for killing anot officer..
 
I don't know the details, but it would not surprise me at all if the explanation was, these two guys got into a fight, they settled things the way men do. If one guy dies, whatever.

One of the more celebrated and infamous incidents of the 1950s was the caning of Sen Charles Sumner by Rep Preston Brooks. Sumner suffered brain injury and spent three years convalescing. Brooks got a $300 fine and no prison time, and was re-elected.

Meanwhile, it was not uncommon at all for men to engage in duels in the antebellum era, and dueling even persisted up to the time of the Civil War. I recall hearing an author on the radio who said that Union and Confederate officers engaged in dueling.

This is the way men were back then. Thank God we've made some progress since then.
i agree 100%,but to duel, the other party would need a weapon...Wich he didnt have.. He was unarmed..
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top