Juicy Gossip! William Tecumseh Sherman's "Mulatto Wife"

I think you are misunderstanding me. I really don't care about anyone's reputation in this. I am merely pointing out it is unsubstantiated gossip. She very well may have believed it. It may be true. Doesn't mean it is not unsubstantiated gossip. Is there confirmation of this outside her journal?
Not that I'm aware of other than James N. post with a photo yet another affair he mentions up above. :whistling:
 
I guess that answers my question. You don't have outside confirmation, so you're trying to twist my words to make me look like a jerk for asking for some. Okay then.

Not trying to twist your words at all and I'm sorry if it looks that way. Many made excuses for my philandering ex husband (RIP) but the buck stops with him. MOST of the "rumors /gossip" was true. Some women to this day fall for "uniforms/badges/power" so why would it be different back then especially if it helped feed you in a time where there was no public assistance?
 
Not trying to twist your words at all and I'm sorry if it looks that way. Many made excuses for my philandering ex husband (RIP) but the buck stops with him. MOST of the "rumors /gossip" was true. Women to this day fall for "uniforms/badges/power" so why would it be different back then especially if it helped feed you in a time where there was no public assistance?
I am merely approaching this from a historical angle. I am not approaching this from a morality issue. I have already told you I am willing to believe it is true if there is evidence. Do you have evidence? Do you have sources? No. I don't understand why I am being beat over the head with lectures that make me look insensitive to victims of sexual assault for asking for sources for a rumored affair that took place over 150 years ago nor do I appreciate it.
 
It's pretty clear you don't have any other substantiation regarding this rumor, and you're dancing around the issue and trying to insult me for asking reasonable questions. If you have actual historical evidence, I would like to hear it. But I can already tell it's not coming.
WHY are you SO defensive over words in a women's journal? She actually is teaching us of how it was back then...PC or not.
 
Last edited:
WHY are SO defensive over words in a women's journal? She actually is teaching us of how it was back then...PC or not.
I am not being defensive over her words--I am being defensive over your response to perfectly reasonable questions. You brought Epstein into this and made it seem like I don't care about victims of sexual assault. That was uncalled for. I don't care how you try to spin it. That was a completely unreasonable and hostile response to a perfectly legitimate question about history.
 
I am merely approaching this from a historical angle. I am not approaching this from a morality issue. I have already told you I am willing to believe it is true if there is evidence. Do you have evidence? Do you have sources? No. I don't understand why I am being beat over the head with lectures that make me look insensitive to victims of sexual assault for asking for sources for a rumored affair that took place over 150 years ago nor do I appreciate it.
"Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally" stemming from
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", which John Dahlberg made in a letter to an Anglican bishop.
Basically I thought the "juicy gossip" title said it all anyway.
 
"Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally" stemming from
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...", which John Dahlberg made in a letter to an Anglican bishop.
Basically I thought the juicy gossip" said it all anyway.
Again, I am not arguing about any of that. I am just asking for evidence, which you do not have, outside the journal article.
 
I am not being defensive over her words--I am being defensive over your response to perfectly reasonable questions. You brought Epstein into this and made it seem like I don't care about victims of sexual assault. That was uncalled for. I don't care how you try to spin it. That was a completely unreasonable and hostile response to a perfectly legitimate question about history.
My point was powerful men have always been believed over their victims and in this case a poor mulatto girl kow-towing to a Yankee General for whatever he provided for her, that's all. This young lady could have been a victim or not but we'll never know, but an already married powerful general kind of leans that way . Epstein got caught because of today's social media which women lacked back then.
Trying to discredit a woman from over 150 years ago is also a ploy to protect a powerful general as well, especially when there was no prior motive to her so-called accusations other than not liking blacks?
 
Last edited:
My point was powerful men have always been believed over their victims and in this case a poor mulatto girl kow-towing to a Yankee General for whatever he provided for her, that's all. Epstein got caught because of today's social media which women lacked back then.
My problem is you keep saying this is gossip but acting like it is proven. I just want to know what proof you have beyond one journal you label gossip. Do you see why that is confusing?

I've never said it didn't happen or is improbable. I am just merely asking what your evidence is outside of this journal. And you say you don't have any and it is gossip but then you turn right around and insist that because it could have happened it did happen.

I was trained in history, and this is just so antithetical to anything I learned about how you are supposed to treat sources.
 
Last edited:
My problem is you keep saying this is gossip but acting like it is proven. I just want to know what proof you have beyond one letter you label gossip. Do you see why that is confusing?

I've never said it didn't happen or is improbable. I am just merely asking what your evidence is outside of this journal. And you say you don't have any and it is gossip but then you turn right around and insist that because it could have happened it did happen.

I was trained in history, and this is just so antithetical to anything I learned about how you are supposed to treat sources.
I REPEAT! It is NOT a single letter but a personal journal that was edited to 494 pages! That's ALL we have to go on regarding how many women felt back then! No Facebook back then etc. and trying to "squeeze" total accuracy proof from feelings of suffering women of the time is futile. It is THEIR perception we glean from as lovers of history! Please lighten up! GEEZ!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807818976/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
 
My problem is you keep saying this is gossip but acting like it is proven. I just want to know what proof you have beyond one letter you label gossip. Do you see why that is confusing?

I've never said it didn't happen or is improbable. I am just merely asking what your evidence is outside of this journal. And you say you don't have any and it is gossip but then you turn right around and insist that because it could have happened it did happen.

I was trained in history, and this is just so antithetical to anything I learned about how you are supposed to treat sources.
Calling it "gossip" to begin with is NOT acting like it's proven. LOL
 
I REPEAT! It is NOT a single letter but a personal journal that was edited to 494 pages! That's ALL we have to go on regarding how many women felt back then! No Facebook back then etc. and trying to "squeeze" total accuracy proof form feelings of suffering women of the time is futile. It is THEIR perception we glean from as lovers of history! Please lighten up! GEEZ!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807818976/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
I corrected the letter part. But my point is simply do you not think his officers and other people would have been gossiping about that? Do you not think there would be other evidence floating around out there where this is mentioned. That's what I am asking about, and it apparently makes me uptight and insensitive to women's issues. Okay then.
 
I corrected the letter part. But my point is simply do you not think his officers and other people would have been gossiping about that? Do you not think there would be other evidence floating around out there where this is mentioned. That's what I am asking about, and it apparently makes me uptight and insensitive to women's issues. Okay then.
Very good. In fact all of the research I've done on female spies could peg them as the agitators in using their feminine wiles against men to extract information. It was a time when everyone used what they had without media repercussion like we have today. I don't want to fight with you Zella...just sharing how a married woman felt about a supposed Yankee hero MAY (most likely) have been a cad! LOL
 
I don't want to fight with you Zella...just sharing how a married woman felt about a supposed Yankee hero MAY (most likely) have been a cad! LOL
And that's fine--I wasn't really interested in fighting with you either!

Saying he may have been/was likely a cad isn't something I will argue with. It's true of many historical figures.

It was just treating it as if it were definitive without something more substantial to go on that I was objecting to. :smile:
 
And that's fine--I wasn't really interested in fighting with you either!

Saying he may have been/was likely a cad isn't something I will argue with. It's true of many historical figures.

It was just treating it as if it were definitive without something more substantial to go on that I was objecting to. :smile:
Thank you. All I did was post it for all to read and let them decide for themselves. :wink:
 
And that's fine--I wasn't really interested in fighting with you either!

Saying he may have been/was likely a cad isn't something I will argue with. It's true of many historical figures.

It was just treating it as if it were definitive without something more substantial to go on that I was objecting to. :smile:
Did you see the link I posted she wrote about Gen. Kilpatrick's mulatto mistress too? Another supposed cad! :whistling:
 
Back
Top