Looking back on the whole bloody mess, I truly believe that it was completely pointless EXCEPT as a maneuver to obliterate southern independence.

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I do agree - things shouldn’t turn out that way. I entered some discussions here to find out how much of (unnecessary) destruction happened but could never get a clear picture.
I am pretty much convinced that the US government in reality acted quite lenient during reconstruction - but it might be possible that much unnecessary damage was done during the war.

You are not alone in your views. In the October 2012 issue of Civil War Times, scholar Stephanie McCurry, wrote:

The level of barbarity and violence reached in the United States pales even in comparison to the other major example of a civil conflict fought conventionally. In the Spanish Civil War (1936-9), there were, in addition to 300,00 battlefield deaths, at least 200,000 extrajudicial killings of civilians-including the purposeful killing of many women and children behind the lines. Three-quarters of them were killed by Franco's forces in mass executions... More than half a million refugees were forced into exile, and many died in French concentration camps... There is little in the American record to compare to this systematic targeting, terrorizing and exterminating of civilians for purposes of political repression...​
It is a sad truth that the civil wars of our own time constantly force the Civil War into new perspective. Observers of recent genocidal wars... are unimpressed with the violence of the American war. What strikes them most is the level of restraint observed by Union troops in their treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians. What other country, they ask, adopted rules of war in the midst of the fighting? Indeed. It is one of the most impressive and - yes - unique features of our war; that the Lincoln administration was willing to bind itself to a set of regulations limiting the latitude of the Union army in its operations, including in occupied territory and guerrilla warfare. It says something profound.​

The post war era was also marked by this relative restraint. In his book Reconstruction: A Concise History, Allen C. Guelzo stated
Reconstruction followed the route of generosity—it created no conquered provinces, no mass executions for treason. As Walt Whitman wrote, almost in self congratulation, Reconstruction “has been paralleled nowhere in the world—in any other country on the globe the whole batch of the Confederate leaders would have had their heads cut off.” Ironically, most of the violence that pockmarked reconstruction was inflicted on the victors, not the vanquished.​

None of this will mollify many viewers of this period, they will not buy it that the US was "relatively" restrained. But comparative analysis of world history can lead us to this conclusion.

- Alan
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
In 2011, an article in BBC.com (link below) described a then recent-pseudo no holds barred mental slug fest between American and British lawyers, in non other than Philadelphia. The topic of the question was the legitimacy of T. Jefferson’s listed grievances as justification for issuing the DOI, resulting in the separation of colonies from British rule. Not surprising, the lawyers had opposing viewpoints, each supporting their country of origin. The American lawyers deemed the grievances Jefferson listed as legal justification for unilateral secession. The British lawyers contended there was no legal basis that allowed the colonists to arbitrary leave, for what they considered trivial reasons. To disregard this and formally declare separation meant a treasonous rebellion; adding Lincoln decided Texas cannot leave the union if it wanted to.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15345511.amp

The final decision for the legitimacy of unilateral secession was of course decided on the battlefields of both wars, not through political negotiations and ramblings. Furthermore, the moral justification often either proceeds or entails such victories, often rewritten.

The thing is, the Declaration of Independence did not claim that the colonists' actions were legal under British law. They claimed the right of revolution, NOT a right of secession. The DoI states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.​
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.​

Note that the colonists do not cite a legal right to leave the government, they say it is a God given right... it is a right granted by the Creator, not the government. They cite the Right of the People to abolish a government, they do not claim a right within that government to abolish the government. We call this right the right to revolution.

It is quite... disconcerting that today, there is this notion that the American Revolution was "secession," and a legal secession at that. It was a revolution, and the right to conduct it was a natural right. I understand that after the fact (ie the fact of what was said in the DoI), there might be some that say, well it was legal after all. But that's not what the colonists said, the DoI made their case, and they decidedly did not cite legal justification for their actions.

Of interest to me is that the colonists did not cite the Rights of Englishmen, which was the underpinning for the call of "no taxation without representation." The DoI concludes by saying

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States...​

They do not invoke any legal authority of Britain, they say they are acting under "Authority of the good People of these Colonies."

- Alan
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
If anyone who wants to strive to be an accurate historian, trained through Historian craft or just wants to be accurate they must understand when the evidence is not palpable they must accumulate the most certainties or probabilities to build an accurate case. Otherwise, they are formulating a narrative with opinions, 'what ifs' and surmise scenarios that don't hold any weight in historiography.

All the certainties and probabilities pertaining to southern independence are indicative that it would have been a periphery nation and not a core nation. Nobody thinks that they could not obtain independence, but it was a matter of periphery and core country status, and it sure looks like the south what have been periphery for a long time. I showed the lagging and leading indicators and the opposition was nothing but opining with rhetoric. Historiography speaking, we did what is right accordingly and the naysayers did quite the opposite.
Cotton could be grown in many places. And Texas could grow millions of bales per year, which required railroads if it was going to be transported to Galveston and Shreveport. Texas needed investment. With the Confederacy and slavery intact, where was the money going to come from? The world was going to diversity cotton growing. The Confederate monopoly was not likely to last.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
You are not alone in your views. In the October 2012 issue of Civil War Times, scholar Stephanie McCurry, wrote:

The level of barbarity and violence reached in the United States pales even in comparison to the other major example of a civil conflict fought conventionally. In the Spanish Civil War (1936-9), there were, in addition to 300,00 battlefield deaths, at least 200,000 extrajudicial killings of civilians-including the purposeful killing of many women and children behind the lines. Three-quarters of them were killed by Franco's forces in mass executions... More than half a million refugees were forced into exile, and many died in French concentration camps... There is little in the American record to compare to this systematic targeting, terrorizing and exterminating of civilians for purposes of political repression...​
It is a sad truth that the civil wars of our own time constantly force the Civil War into new perspective. Observers of recent genocidal wars... are unimpressed with the violence of the American war. What strikes them most is the level of restraint observed by Union troops in their treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians. What other country, they ask, adopted rules of war in the midst of the fighting? Indeed. It is one of the most impressive and - yes - unique features of our war; that the Lincoln administration was willing to bind itself to a set of regulations limiting the latitude of the Union army in its operations, including in occupied territory and guerrilla warfare. It says something profound.​

The post war era was also marked by this relative restraint. In his book Reconstruction: A Concise History, Allen C. Guelzo stated
Reconstruction followed the route of generosity—it created no conquered provinces, no mass executions for treason. As Walt Whitman wrote, almost in self congratulation, Reconstruction “has been paralleled nowhere in the world—in any other country on the globe the whole batch of the Confederate leaders would have had their heads cut off.” Ironically, most of the violence that pockmarked reconstruction was inflicted on the victors, not the vanquished.​

None of this will mollify many viewers of this period, they will not buy it that the US was "relatively" restrained. But comparative analysis of world history can lead us to this conclusion.

- Alan
The rules of war were adopted. And for the first two years, the exchange system was working. This was good for the soldiers, as a hanging contest would have ensued if the Confederates had been treated as traitors. It also encourage Confederates to surrender, when they were in a tight spot, and to go home to loyal territory if they could.
By treating Confederate civilians as temporary foreign belligerents, the administration could suspend their due process rights. It could emancipate their slaves and take their property based on military necessity.
Most of the major cities in what had been the slave section of the country, St. Louis, Louisville, Baltimore, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Alexandria, Savannah and Mobile, passed through the war with minimal damage. In the border states and in Tennessee the towns and cities made money, sometimes large amounts of money on the war.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The US needed to do two things: it had to convince the Confederates they could not win. Vicksburg, Port Hudson and Chattanooga went a long way to accomplishing that goal. It then had to convince the Confederate soldiers that there was an acceptable future life available to them if they quit the war. That took time. But parole and exchange was part of the process.
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
While I am also convinced that the southern economy showed serious deficits in regard of self-subsistence I’d stress the point that it was highly profitable.

Maybe it’s completely wrong to interprete it as some kind of Arcadia where old wealth financed high life.
I am currently of the opinion that it was a thoroughly capitalist economy that did everything to make the biggest money (more or less) out of just one cash crop. Regarding the production and export of cotton a more profitable economical system was hardly conceivable in those times - and it produced enough wealth to make the South the 4th richest country in the world.

Modern investment funds would be excited with an economy so fundamentally adjusted to it’s “core competences” - it just had to be prevented that slavery was abandoned as long as the business was thriving.

Hence I’d propose to take a look on the entrepreneur skills of the South - if they were that highly developed (as I tend to believe at the moment) then they would have probably found ways to stay afloat...

But you are absolutely right when criticizing such a monoculture because it hindered the development of other industries and led to a concentration of wealth in just a few hands.
But again this was not the consequence of dumbness but just capitalist reasoning and a lot of people North, South and abroad were interested in that business running smoothly.

Albeit I have no idea how wealth was distributed in the northern society.
I suppose the concentration of wealth in Britain or France could have been somehow comparable to the South’s.
Highly profitable for whom?
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Most of the major cities in what had been the slave section of the country, St. Louis, Louisville, Baltimore, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Alexandria, Savannah and Mobile, passed through the war with minimal damage. In the border states and in Tennessee the towns and cities made money, sometimes large amounts of money on the war.
I am familiar with the situation in several of those cities. Of note is that, in several (most?) of those cases, the local government surrendered or simply remained loyal to the Union. By choosing not to be a threat, they were spared a lot of potential damage.

Compare that to the case of Atlanta. Many sources say the Atlanta Campaign started in May 1864, the Siege occurred during July-August, and CSA General Hood left Atlanta on September 1. The Confederates were prepared to defend it to the bitter end, and it was a bitter end indeed. An earlier surrender of the city would have spared a lot of grief, but Confederates saw the defense of the city as their duty, and they did it. And then cruel war does what it always does.

- Alan
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I am familiar with the situation in several of those cities. Of note is that, in several (most?) of those cases, the local government surrendered or simply remained loyal to the Union. By choosing not to be a threat, they were spared a lot of potential damage.

Compare that to the case of Atlanta. Many sources say the Atlanta Campaign started in May 1864, the Siege occurred during July-August, and CSA General Hood left Atlanta on September 1. The Confederates were prepared to defend it to the bitter end, and it was a bitter end indeed. An earlier surrender of the city would have spared a lot of grief, but Confederates saw the defense of the city as their duty, and they did it. And then cruel war does what it always does.

- Alan
In cities that were damaged, the city centers were destroyed. And in South Carolina residences were also burned.
 

Piedone

Corporal
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Highly profitable for whom?
As I said before „for some“
- the point I wanted to stress was that the planters probably were not the chivalric poets of the „Ashley Wilkes“-kind they so very often (and especially after the war) liked to style themselves as -
but (in my opinion) were often rather tough businessmen.
 

Piedone

Corporal
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
The US needed to do two things: it had to convince the Confederates they could not win. Vicksburg, Port Hudson and Chattanooga went a long way to accomplishing that goal. It then had to convince the Confederate soldiers that there was an acceptable future life available to them if they quit the war. That took time. But parole and exchange was part of the process.
I (at the moment) am somehow doubting that parole and exchange were practised to convince Confederates of something. Where do you base that idea of yours on?
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Cotton could be grown in many places. And Texas could grow millions of bales per year, which required railroads if it was going to be transported to Galveston and Shreveport. Texas needed investment. With the Confederacy and slavery intact, where was the money going to come from? The world was going to diversity cotton growing. The Confederate monopoly was not likely to last.

I just don't think it was a big enough enterprise anyway with everything intact to be the cornerstone of a diverse economy. I know it is shameful to say this but slavery made the cotton enterprise turn. I personally believe that emancipation ruined the cotton industry. It appears, cotton production backed by slavery was efficient and prosperous when the demand for cotton was high. The subsequent sharecropping industry was not efficient and proved classical economics inflation to be true----too many people chasing one crop. In turn, over production of cotton devalued it to the point of deflation kicked in. I think that to be true considering the demand of cotton in the 1880s baselined, but it was not as profitable in the 1880s like it was in the 1850s. I think emancipation was the Coup de Grace to the cotton monopoly. But other markets around the world made cotton cheaper and lack of investment because of thereof contributed to its demise.
 

Piedone

Corporal
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
I just don't think it was a big enough enterprise anyway with everything intact to be the cornerstone of a diverse economy. I know it is shameful to say this but slavery made the cotton enterprise turn. I personally believe that emancipation ruined the cotton industry. It appears, cotton production backed by slavery was efficient and prosperous when the demand for cotton was high. The subsequent sharecropping industry was not efficient and proved classical economics inflation to be true----too many people chasing one crop. In turn, over production of cotton devalued it to the point of deflation kicked in. I think that to be true considering the demand of cotton in the 1880s baselined, but it was not as profitable in the 1880s like it was in the 1850s. I think emancipation was the Coup de Grace to the cotton monopoly. But other markets around the world made cotton cheaper and lack of investment because of thereof contributed to its demise.
I am absolutely of the same opinion - and this would very well explain why especially the Deep South was so thoroughly pro-secession...
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I just don't think it was a big enough enterprise anyway with everything intact to be the cornerstone of a diverse economy. I know it is shameful to say this but slavery made the cotton enterprise turn. I personally believe that emancipation ruined the cotton industry. It appears, cotton production backed by slavery was efficient and prosperous when the demand for cotton was high. The subsequent sharecropping industry was not efficient and proved classical economics inflation to be true----too many people chasing one crop. In turn, over production of cotton devalued it to the point of deflation kicked in. I think that to be true considering the demand of cotton in the 1880s baselined, but it was not as profitable in the 1880s like it was in the 1850s. I think emancipation was the Coup de Grace to the cotton monopoly. But other markets around the world made cotton cheaper and lack of investment because of thereof contributed to its demise.
Baltimore was the railroad city that connected Washington, D.C. to the northeast.
Cincinnati/Covington/Newport connected the Midwest to the central south. Louisville/New Albany/Jeffersonville did the same thing further west.
St. Louis was the gateway to the Missouri and the west.
Each of the cities had a lower % of enslaved people and more immigrants. Baltimore already had a functioning free blacks community.
If the Confederates did not control those places, they were simply too small and too rural to last long.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Steamships and steamboats were built in cities and small industrial towns like Portsmouth, NH, and New Albany, IN. Whether they were armored ironclads, steamships fitted with bolted on armor to protect their power plants, simply river boats, or mere cross river ferries, these ships controlled the economy. The Confederate leadership was working a con on their rural population. The leadership had no economic plan other than a few cotton operations, maybe 50,000 in total, would make some money selling cotton produced by under paid and under employed involuntary labor.
The US administration, by plan, or by ad hoc improvisation, simply made the Confederate situation worse. Alexandria, Nashville and New Orleans, were picked off. Without New Orleans the Confederacy had no chance to function economically. The fact that down river traffic was further transferred to the internal railroad system, was an economic disaster for the Confederacy.
By 1863 the US navy was patrolling below Memphis and above Baton Rouge, and occupied large parts of the Virginia and North Carolina coast. Yet the economic deprivation continued under the cover of the politics of slavery.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Stephanie McCurry, Civil War Times, October 2012:
"It is one of the most impressive and - yes - unique features of our war; that the Lincoln administration was willing to bind itself to a set of regulations limiting the latitude of the Union army in its operations, including in occupied territory and guerrilla warfare. It says something profound."

-I'm amazed by such forbearance and magnanimity.

---------------

Union Death Squads in Middle Tennessee:

"...execution without trial had become commonplace in occupied Middle Tennessee. Not content with capturing and defeating various bushwhacker gangs, [General] Milroy still felt that the civilian base of support for such bands needed to be destroyed. He believed that his policy of 'fire and blood' was the best way to accomplish such a task. Milroy found allies among those individuals who had been affected by Hood's return to Tennessee in November and December 1864.

Moses Pitman was one of the pro-Union men who had been attacked by guerillas during the absence of Union troops from Tullahoma. His list of stolen and lost goods included several weapons, horses, and household goods. Pitman provided Milroy with a list of goods for which he was seeking restitution as well as a list of his neighbors who he felt deserved punishment for 'disloyal' actions.

Names of some disloyal citizens of the Fourth district Franklin County Tenn.
A narration of their crimes and the orders of Maj. Gen'l Milroy as to what
punishment they shall suffer for said crimes....

Joel Cunningham- He is a leader of a gang of bushwhackers 75 to 100 strong.
[Milroy's instructions:] Kill

Wesley Davis- Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out [-confiscate property that can be removed and burn the rest]

Green Denison- A bushwhacker with Hays.
Kill

Jane Lipscum- A widow. Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out

Curtis McCullum- Harbors bushwhackers and instigated his son and three others to murder in cold blood a Union man named Samuel Kennedy on Oct 15, 1864....
Hang and burn

Cynthia McCullum- Wife of the above and also instigated her son to murder Kennedy, the same remarks that apply to her husband apply also to her with double force. She is a very bad and a very dangerous woman.
Shoot if you can make it look an accident

Charlotte McCullum- An unmarried sister of the above and is almost as bad as her mother.

Burn everything

The list goes on for a total of 58 names....

Leroy Moore, Thomas Saunders, and William Saunders were three of the men that had been ordered to be executed...Leroy Moore was described as 'an old, white haired man' while Thomas Saunders was 'over 50 years of age,' and William Saunders was only 14. When the detail from the 42nd Missouri reached the Saunders house Moore was found to be visiting them. All three had their hands tied behind their backs and were forced to wade into a mill pond at Huffers Mill. They were then shot in the back and their corpses were guarded for three days before the families were allowed to remove them from the water. The method of their execution was the same as that styled 'barbaric' by General Slocum and General Thomas when three of their men were murdered at Mulberry in 1863. The three are still buried on the banks of the mill pond." -With Blood and Fire, pp. 115-117, 120
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Stephanie McCurry, Civil War Times, October 2012:
"It is one of the most impressive and - yes - unique features of our war; that the Lincoln administration was willing to bind itself to a set of regulations limiting the latitude of the Union army in its operations, including in occupied territory and guerrilla warfare. It says something profound."

-I'm amazed by such forbearance and magnanimity.

---------------

Union Death Squads in Middle Tennessee:

"...execution without trial had become commonplace in occupied Middle Tennessee. Not content with capturing and defeating various bushwhacker gangs, [General] Milroy still felt that the civilian base of support for such bands needed to be destroyed. He believed that his policy of 'fire and blood' was the best way to accomplish such a task. Milroy found allies among those individuals who had been affected by Hood's return to Tennessee in November and December 1864.

Moses Pitman was one of the pro-Union men who had been attacked by guerillas during the absence of Union troops from Tullahoma. His list of stolen and lost goods included several weapons, horses, and household goods. Pitman provided Milroy with a list of goods for which he was seeking restitution as well as a list of his neighbors who he felt deserved punishment for 'disloyal' actions.

Names of some disloyal citizens of the Fourth district Franklin County Tenn.
A narration of their crimes and the orders of Maj. Gen'l Milroy as to what
punishment they shall suffer for said crimes....

Joel Cunningham- He is a leader of a gang of bushwhackers 75 to 100 strong.
[Milroy's instructions:] Kill

Wesley Davis- Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out [-confiscate property that can be removed and burn the rest]

Green Denison- A bushwhacker with Hays.
Kill

Jane Lipscum- A widow. Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out

Curtis McCullum- Harbors bushwhackers and instigated his son and three others to murder in cold blood a Union man named Samuel Kennedy on Oct 15, 1864....
Hang and burn

Cynthia McCullum- Wife of the above and also instigated her son to murder Kennedy, the same remarks that apply to her husband apply also to her with double force. She is a very bad and a very dangerous woman.
Shoot if you can make it look an accident

Charlotte McCullum- An unmarried sister of the above and is almost as bad as her mother.

Burn everything

The list goes on for a total of 58 names....

Leroy Moore, Thomas Saunders, and William Saunders were three of the men that had been ordered to be executed...Leroy Moore was described as 'an old, white haired man' while Thomas Saunders was 'over 50 years of age,' and William Saunders was only 14. When the detail from the 42nd Missouri reached the Saunders house Moore was found to be visiting them. All three had their hands tied behind their backs and were forced to wade into a mill pond at Huffers Mill. They were then shot in the back and their corpses were guarded for three days before the families were allowed to remove them from the water. The method of their execution was the same as that styled 'barbaric' by General Slocum and General Thomas when three of their men were murdered at Mulberry in 1863. The three are still buried on the banks of the mill pond." -With Blood and Fire, pp. 115-117, 120
The point is, it could have been worse, as bad it as it was in other places on the globe. Of course this will not placate a good many people, but some of them might not be alive today (their ancestors would be dead) if the USA treated former CSA in the way that folks in other wars were treated.

The author in the piece basically asks, given that war is cruel, why was the cruelty more limited in the US Civil War than elsewhere? That answer requires an examination of war worldwide, and some have done that research; others will ignore it. Focusing solely on the war itself will not answer the question. I think many, myself included, can cite the end of WWII as an example of the true extremes of war cruelty, but there are so many others.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
The point is, it could have been worse, as bad it as it was in other places on the globe. Of course this will not placate a good many people, but some of them might not be alive today (their ancestors would be dead) if the USA treated former CSA in the way that folks in other wars were treated.

The author in the piece basically asks, given that war is cruel, why was the cruelty more limited in the US Civil War than elsewhere? That answer requires an examination of war worldwide, and some have done that research; others will ignore it. Focusing solely on the war itself will not answer the question. I think many, myself included, can cite the end of WWII as an example of the true extremes of war cruelty, but there are so many others.

- Alan
Was a light hand a good policy. There may have been no Jim crow era if a policy approach similar to other parts of the world had been applied. I don't think if I had been a union veteran I would be too happy to see former confederates serving in congress.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I’ve read first-hand accounts of the sacking and burning of Columbia, South Carolina.

The south suffered tremendously at the hands of Lincoln and Grant and Sherman and Sheridan, et al. and their policy of “total war.”

The southern states did nothing to deserve that kind of treatment.
Especially at the hands of a nation that owed its very existence to treason.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
The point is, it could have been worse, as bad it as it was in other places on the globe. Of course this will not placate a good many people, but some of them might not be alive today (their ancestors would be dead) if the USA treated former CSA in the way that folks in other wars were treated.
The same could be said about Slavery in the US. Yet to say so, is routinely classified as, "whataboutism", while the atrocities committed by Yankees, are considered "restraint". Weird... :O o:
 
Top