Ebenezer creek

[cash]

I'm reminded of a certain famous Patton quote... lol

"No [son of unwed parents] ever won a war by dying for his country."

 

[dvrmte]

When you differentiate between old men, women, and children, and soldiers who you specify "are expected to die," I know exactly what you mean, and it isn't "We all expect to die."

Holy Cow! You have an incredible ability to misconstrue.

 

[cash]

Holy Cow! You have an incredible ability to misconstrue.

Just reading what you wrote. It's up to the writer to ensure their meaning is understood.

 

[5fish]

Here is some more photo's....

http://robertgouldhistoricalartist.blogspot.com/2010/08/tragedy-of-ebenezer-creek.html

Modern photos of the area...

http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc5/ebenezer1.htm

 

[dvrmte]

Just reading what you wrote. It's up to the writer to ensure their meaning is understood.

I was expressing compassion for those that had to make decisions like that. I also feel compassion for the pilots and crew of the Enola Gay, who may or may not have known that they were dropping an atomic bomb on 300,000 citizens, American and Dutch POW's, Korean forced laborers, along with some Japanese soldiers.

 

[K Hale]

"No [son of unwed parents] ever won a war by dying for his country."

"He won it by making the other poor SOUP die for HIS country."

 

[Battalion]

Then there were the refugees who stood their ground. 'From what we learned afterwards of those who remained upon the land,' Kerr continued, 'their fate at the hands of Wheeler's troops was scarcely to be preferred.' The refugees not shot or slashed to death were most likely returned to their masters and slavery....

The highlighted part is by the author of the article
( http://www.historynet.com/betrayal-at-ebenezer-creek.htm )
- not Kerr. Where does Kerr say that refugees were shot and slashed?

 

[ole]

Ole, you are correct the question should be was Davis militarily correct in pulling that bridge...It might be a nasty situation due to the civilians who wanted to use it, but was it done out of necessessity? Secondly, could he have held it open and fought off the Confederates as the slaves fled across it.. Or would that have put his units at risk..

That's my position.

 

[ole]

That would be a tough decision that would rip at my consciense the rest of my life; saving the life's of soldiers, (who are expected to die), by sacrificing old men, women and children.

Soldiers are expected to live -- to carry the fight to the opposition. Turning to fight Wheeler would have been justifiable under other circumstances, but Davis was under orders to avoid pitched battle. Furthermore, turning on Wheeler might have jeopardized the entire campaign. Davis, while appearing heartless, did the right thing.

 

[dvrmte]

Soldiers are expected to live -- to carry the fight to the opposition. Turning to fight Wheeler would have been justifiable under other circumstances, but Davis was under orders to avoid pitched battle. Furthermore, turning on Wheeler might have jeopardized the entire campaign. Davis, while appearing heartless, did the right thing.

Maybe I could've worded that differently but in war, just doing your duty can be almost certain death. Soldiers are tools of politicians and generals and are an expendable resource. When it becomes necessary to expend the lives of civilians to save a soldier, that is what tears at your soul.

 

[ole]

Maybe I could've worded that differently but in war, just doing your duty can be almost certain death. Soldiers are tools of politicians and generals and are an expendable resource. When it becomes necessary to expend the lives of civilians to save a soldier, that is what tears at your soul.

Did Davis expend the lives of civilians, or did he leave them to the tender mercies of Wheeler's men? Did he know that the refugees would be sent back to their owners? Certainly. Did he know that some would be killed? Or that some would, in desperation, attempt to cross the frigid stream? He could not be expected to know what would happen.

However, I agree that having to make such a decision would give me the heebyjeebies.

 

[dvrmte]

Did Davis expend the lives of civilians, or did he leave them to the tender mercies of Wheeler's men? Did he know that the refugees would be sent back to their owners? Certainly. Did he know that some would be killed? Or that some would, in desperation, attempt to cross the frigid stream? He could not be expected to know what would happen.

However, I agree that having to make such a decision would give me the heebyjeebies.

wilber6150 said: ↑​

Ole, you are correct the question should be was Davis militarily correct in pulling that bridge...It might be a nasty situation due to the civilians who wanted to use it, but was it done out of necessessity? Secondly, could he have held it open and fought off the Confederates as the slaves fled across it.. Or would that have put his units at risk..​

​

That would be a tough decision that would rip at my consciense the rest of my life; saving the life's of soldiers, (who are expected to die), by sacrificing old men, women and children.​

​

It sounds much better in the proper context, doesn't it?​

 

[diane]

Davis was actually a pretty good soldier and got lots of praise and promotion from his superiors. He was distinguished in the Seminole Wars and the Mexican War. His murder of Nelson with no court-martial was what got him on everybody's list, nor did he mind making enemies. And, he could be ruthless. That's what he was at Ebenezer Creek. Sherman wanted rid of the civilians, Davis wanted his bridge - done and done. Nothing else was his business. I don't think he was any more racist than anybody else of his day, but I suppose he would have saved a herd of cattle - they'd be food for the army. Not so a herd of Negroes. Like Sherman, he probably thought Wheeler's cavalry would simply round them up and the Confederates could have the problem of feeding them.

 

[dvrmte]

Davis was actually a pretty good soldier and got lots of praise and promotion from his superiors. He was distinguished in the Seminole Wars and the Mexican War. His murder of Nelson with no court-martial was what got him on everybody's list, nor did he mind making enemies. And, he could be ruthless. That's what he was at Ebenezer Creek. Sherman wanted rid of the civilians, Davis wanted his bridge - done and done. Nothing else was his business. I don't think he was any more racist than anybody else of his day, but I suppose he would have saved a herd of cattle - they'd be food for the army. Not so a herd of Negroes. Like Sherman, he probably thought Wheeler's cavalry would simply round them up and the Confederates could have the problem of feeding them.

Actually he did send a herd of cattle across the bridge.

 

[diane]

I thought so! They were more valuable to the army than the people left.

 

[cash]

The highlighted part is by the author of the article
( http://www.historynet.com/betrayal-at-ebenezer-creek.htm )
- not Kerr. Where does Kerr say that refugees were shot and slashed?

I posted the link to what he said. Do you need assistance?

 

[wilber6150]

​

That would be a tough decision that would rip at my consciense the rest of my life; saving the life's of soldiers, (who are expected to die), by sacrificing old men, women and children.​

​

It sounds much better in the proper context, doesn't it?​

It would if Davis actually cared about their plight, but I sort of doubt he did

 

[dvrmte]

It would if Davis actually cared about their plight, but I sort of doubt he did

I found a report in the OR's by one of Davis' subordinates. It stated that five black servants were brought to Savannah, it further stated that superior headquarters had issued strict orders about allowing only those necessary to come along. I never found the orders mentioned but that doesn't mean they aren't in the OR's somewhere. I'd like to read it in order to get a better understanding what was going on as they approached Savannah. I think Ebenezer Creek is only 20 miles or so from Savannah.

I hunted wild hogs in that area with my cousin about 15 years ago. I wish I had the interest then that I have now for the ACW. Lots of things to explore. Lots of da*n alligators and snakes too.

 

[ole]

It is a complex situation fraught with lots of emotion. If we can keep it down a touch, Nathan might allow the discussion to continue. If not, you've all been warned.

There's been lots of good observations and a lot of heated BS. I'm convinced we can talk about the "incident" dispassionately and seek some kind of resolution without vituperation. If you really are overly passionate about it, ignore this thread.

In other words, behave, go away or lose the thread. It's that simple.

My position on the matter is clear. Pulling up the pontoons was not nice. But it was a militarily sound decision at the time.

Anyone is welcome to differ. But the discussion will remain civil or it will be cancelled. Permanently.

 

[ole]

I found a report in the OR's by one of Davis' subordinates. It stated that five black servants were brought to Savannah, it further stated that superior headquarters had issued strict orders about allowing only those necessary to come along. I never found the orders mentioned but that doesn't mean they aren't in the OR's somewhere. I'd like to read it in order to get a better understanding what was going on as they approached Savannah. I think Ebenezer Creek is only 20 miles or so from Savannah.

I hunted wild hogs in that area with my cousin about 15 years ago. I wish I had the interest then that I have now for the ACW. Lots of things to explore. Lots of da*n alligators and snakes too.

Totally off topic, but I'd very much like to have hunted hogs with you. I can do without the 'gators and snakes.