Sherman's March to the Sea

samgrant said:
1) yes, as William sez, it was a most remarkable achievement, and credit to Lincoln and his army.

I've tried really hard to understand how Sherman's march was a "remarkable achievement" and a "credit to Lincoln". What is remarkable about a bully plowing through (largely) defenseless towns comprised of mostly elderly, women and children and how is that a credit to the "benelovent" Lincoln?

samgrant said:
2) but those boys didn't sign up to free the slaves, they signed to Preserve the Union and suppress the rebellion, but may have had achange of heart after being in the south.

Maybe, do you have any evidence this is true? I believe if it is true they rejoiced mainly because they saw it as even more revenge against the slave owning South.

samgrant said:
3) Battalion's response was not to the point of William's post - he just carped about alleged 'atrocities' of the Union soldiers.

It would be interesting to know what "carping" the North would have done if Lee had been as morally corrupt as Sherman and created a scorched earth effect on their homeland and made war against their women and children. Sherman and his men committed outrage after outrage against the South and if Southern people complain you call it "carping". That is incomprehensible.

samgrant said:
But as for that I said that it was not to be unexpected that young men (boys) may have gone on a 'rampage' from time to time as in their stressful situation they might have expected to act their age (comparing and contrasting present day youthful rioting over such as football, basketball games).

Sam, you have just compared war crimes and inhumane acts against non-combatants to youthful rioting over a sports game. "Boys will be boys", is that it? Steal the lady's valuables, take her food and destroy what you don't need, throw her and her children out of her house and then burn it and all their posessions that weren't stolen...you call this mere vandalism? You believe it is not to be unexpected? It would be not unexpected to see such behavior in earlier century barbarians, but for United States troops it was nothing short of appalling.

samgrant said:
And finally Sherman wasn't after the little folks and left them largely untouched, but WAS after the wealth of the Confederacy which initiated and fed the rebellion.

Sherman's men hated Southerners. If they left the little folks alone it was because they had nothing of value to take, but if they had food or livestock they could kiss it good-bye when the Union troops paid a visit. As a matter of fact they even robbed the slaves. Sherman may have had a loftier agenda, but he didn't stop his troops from their shameful behavior in the South.

Rose
 
Hi Rose, thanks for your post. I wanted to address a couple of things.

Terry, it really drives me crazy when I read how the Southern aristocrats are responsible for the war.

Rose, the slave owners brought on the Civil War.

Perhaps it's true that the slave owning aristocrats "reaped what they had sown", but they were only approximately three percent of the Southern population. Many, many more innocent and mostly non-slave owning people suffered Sherman
.

True. The wealthy brought on the war, and the small land-owner, farmer, poor man, paid the price. However it was not Sherman who made them pay. The wealthy cotton kings placed the entire south in harms way, everything and everybody, when they brought on the conflict to save their way of life, their manservants, their mansions, their slaves. They are the ones who offered up their poor brethren for sacrifice to save themselves. Did they think twice? About the rest of the south? Hell no. Your cotton oligarchs created the debt that was to be paid, your poor southern farmer had to shell it out, and Gen. Sherman came to collect.

Terry
 
Wild_Rose said:
Sam, you have just compared war crimes and inhumane acts against non-combatants to youthful rioting over a sports game. "Boys will be boys", is that it? Steal the lady's valuables, take her food and destroy what you don't need, throw her and her children out of her house and then burn it and all their posessions that weren't stolen...you call this mere vandalism? You believe it is not to be unexpected? It would be not unexpected to see such behavior in earlier century barbarians, but for United States troops it was nothing short of appalling.

Rose


(just a side note-)

This brings to mind something I came accross in the National Archives.

A list of stolen property confiscated from Federal troops by their Provost Marshal.

The items were taken during a cavalry raid (over a 2-week period)-

"Stolen property taken from the men of the 2nd Brigade...etc...etc...

4 Gold Watches
1 Pewter Watch
1 Silver Tea Server
1 Silver Candle Stick
1 Silver Cup
3 Silver Spoons
1 Silver Fork
1 Silver Napkin Ring
1 Music Box
1 Lady's Reticule [purse?]
1 Small Cushion
1 Embroidered Napkin Ring
2 Ladies Breast Pins
1 Miniature Book
1 Silver Watch
1 Box Paper Seals
1 Silver Badge
1 Silk Dress [:laugh1:]
1 Accordion [:laugh1:]
1 Silver Sugar Bowl
6 Plates (Stoneware)
3 Glass Tumblers
1 Tea Cup
1 Black Dress Coat
$700 Phoenix Bank Bills..."



...wonder if any of the guys posting on this board had handed down to them my Great-G-Grandmother's Silver Tea Set?

It'd be funny...if it weren't so bad...
 
william42 said:
Hi Rose, thanks for your post. I wanted to address a couple of things.



Rose, the slave owners brought on the Civil War.

.

The wealthy brought on the war, and the small land-owner, farmer, poor man, paid the price. However it was not Sherman who made them pay. The wealthy cotton kings placed the entire south in harms way, everything and everybody, when they brought on the conflict to save their way of life, their manservants, their mansions, their slaves. They are the ones who offered up their poor brethren for sacrifice to save themselves. Did they think twice? About the rest of the south? Hell no. Your cotton oligarchs created the debt that was to be paid, your poor southern farmer had to shell it out, and Gen. Sherman came to collect.

Terry


Who Invaded who?

No Invasion. No War.

*

The South didn't set foot on Northern soil till Sept. 1862.
 
Who Invaded who?

No Invasion. No War.

Battalion, who seceded from the Union? Who attacked Fort Sumter?

As far as your list of stolen articles, sure I'm sure stuff was stolen, and that was wrong. But it's amazing to me how you guys always try to side track the main issue using stolen household items.

"The slave owners started the war to protect their own selfish interests."

"Um, silverware! Shermans men stole silverware! That's so horrible!"

"It was the wealthy southern politicians who raised secession fever to such a high pitch, for so long, that firing on Fort Sumter and starting a civil war came without a second thought"

" Antique furniture! They burned antiques for firewood!"

"The entire south, even the poor farmer, was coerced by the wealthy landowner into taking up arms because he was told his wife and children were in danger from the yankee hordes if he didn't. Forget your farm! Forget your livelihood! Take up arms and fight so I don't have to give up my manservants and slaves!"

" Cows! They took all the cows and chickens, and burned the barn! Those heathens. May they rot in hell!"


You can keep just keep singing that old tune, and tossing out your platitudes, if it makes you feel better. The truth though? If you ever care to hear it? The wealthy landowners of the South, who would do anything to preserve their lifestyle, including sacrificing all their good young men, started the Civil War.

I was born and raised here in heavily butternut country. Things are not and were not always as black and white in this area as they would be in Chicago or Charleston. So I tend to see both sides of an issue when it comes to the Civil War. But one issue that's clearly plain as day for me is which side caused the war to happen and which side started the war. Clearly in both cases it's a no-brainer for me. It was the South.

Battalion, you have posted some good, well thought out stuff on the this board. You're a smart guy. If you and others want to continue doling out this "You started it, we didn't" stuff, then that's certainly your right, and there's plenty of board space available. I've said what I'm going to say about the subject, Shermans march, etc, and I'm done with this thread. Thanks for the lively debate. Take care.

Terry
 
William: Good post.

It amuses me that they wanted only to be allowed to leave peacefully. But first, they wanted all the Federal property: arsenals, forts, customs houses, post offices, land, and control of the Mississippi River.

In Sherman's correspondence from Louisiana before the secessions, he remarks that the eastern seceding states will likely come to their senses over a short time. But if the Mississippi comes under secessionist control, there will be war of the most horrible kind.

Although he often expressed his disgust with politicians and government in general, he was firmly in favor of the union -- as imperfect as it was -- and he considered secession to be foolish and wrong. And he did like the south.

Ole
 
Ole,
Not all federal property,forts,customs houses friend.They just wanted those in the territory of the Confederacy.Did the American colonist let English troops stay garrisoned in America?No that just isn't practical.Once they seceeded that couldn't be allowed.They did since peace commisioners Lincoln ignored remember.I believe you're wrong on control of the Mississippi.The Confederacy was willing to compromise trade and traffic on the river for peace.They weren't being all that nice ,but they hoped it would avoid war.Would the south have invaded the North in 1861?No.
 
Wild_Rose said:
Perhaps it's true that the slave owning aristocrats "reaped what they had sown", but they were only approximately three percent of the Southern population.

Respectfully,
Rose


I'd guess it was that "three percent" that Terry was referring to as being "responsible for the war".
 
Wild_Rose said:
I've tried really hard to understand how Sherman's march was a "remarkable achievement" and a "credit to Lincoln". What is remarkable about a bully plowing through (largely) defenseless towns comprised of mostly elderly, women and children and how is that a credit to the "benelovent" Lincoln?




Rose

Rose, it is clear that William was referring th the larger issue of freeing the slaves in that post, not "the March".

(Sorry if I must respond to to some of your points in separate posts, but I don't know how to "do the "Quote" thing and be able to insert my replies within the big "Quote". Maybe it's simpler than I think, but the one time I tried it, it didn't work. Is there a 'trick' to it, or am I just imagining that it is not easily done?)
 
Wild_Rose said:
It would be interesting to know what "carping" the North would have done if Lee had been as morally corrupt as Sherman and created a scorched earth effect on their homeland and made war against their women and children. Sherman and his men committed outrage after outrage against the South and if Southern people complain you call it "carping". That is incomprehensible.





Rose

I was merely making the point that Battalion was not responding to the point of William's post, and instead made an 'off point' response, much like you did on the issue of the achievement of freeing the slaves (see previous post).
 
Wild_Rose said:
Sam, you have just compared war crimes and inhumane acts against non-combatants to youthful rioting over a sports game. "Boys will be boys", is that it? Steal the lady's valuables, take her food and destroy what you don't need, throw her and her children out of her house and then burn it and all their posessions that weren't stolen...you call this mere vandalism? You believe it is not to be unexpected? It would be not unexpected to see such behavior in earlier century barbarians, but for United States troops it was nothing short of appalling.




Rose

I did not. I don't believe I mentioned "war crimes and inhuman acts ...".

I was simply making the point that young men, both today and in the era of the Civil War (and perhaps for all of time), have a tendancy to get over exuberant and behave badly under some circumstances. When they don't have wars to work out their frustrations, for example, they have football games, etc.

Maybe if my 1st post had'nt got lost you might have realized more fully the point I was trying to make.

As for your last sentence, you might note that the folks who did the damage at Abu-Gharib were not "earlier century barbarians", just some mothers' sons and daughters under very stressful situations.
 
Wild_Rose said:
Sherman's men hated Southerners. If they left the little folks alone it was because they had nothing of value to take, but if they had food or livestock they could kiss it good-bye when the Union troops paid a visit. As a matter of fact they even robbed the slaves. Sherman may have had a loftier agenda, but he didn't stop his troops from their shameful behavior in the South.

Rose

"robbed the slaves"? "Maybe, do you have any evidence this is true?"

"but if they had food or livestock they could kiss it good-bye when the Union troops paid a visit."
Let's rephrase that: "but if they had food or livestock they could kiss it good-bye when Joe Wheeler or the Union troops paid a visit."

"Sherman's men hated Southerners." "Maybe, do you have any evidence this is true?"

What if they did hate Southerners, to their mind, it was the Southerners who started the war that they had to fight in, to get shot at, to march in the dust and the mud, to sleep or not in the rain. I wouldn't be surprised.
 
I think Sherman's march was different from the sort of ad hoc vandalism, as happened in Virginia, or the crime incidental with a gathering of any large group of people. Destruction of "public" property, pretty widely defined, was the object of the March.

As far as Sherman's men hating Southerners, after nearly three years of war, I would be surprised if they didn't. But the direction came from the top, and Sherman didn't act out of hate, but deliberately, trying to win the war. I don't think that let's him off the hook by any means.
 
matthew mckeon said:
I think Sherman's march was different from the sort of ad hoc vandalism, as happened in Virginia, or the crime incidental with a gathering of any large group of people. Destruction of "public" property, pretty widely defined, was the object of the March.

As far as Sherman's men hating Southerners, after nearly three years of war, I would be surprised if they didn't. But the direction came from the top, and Sherman didn't act out of hate, but deliberately, trying to win the war. I don't think that let's him off the hook by any means.


I don't have any documentation handy on this, but from what I have recalled from my readings, Sherman did not himself "hate Southerners", in fact he rather liked them having spent much time in the South before the war. It is my impression that he was actually concerned for the South, should they secede, that it would only result in their destruction and he cautioned against it on that basis.
 
william42 said:
True. The wealthy brought on the war, and the small land-owner, farmer, poor man, paid the price. However it was not Sherman who made them pay. The wealthy cotton kings placed the entire south in harms way, everything and everybody, when they brought on the conflict to save their way of life, their manservants, their mansions, their slaves. They are the ones who offered up their poor brethren for sacrifice to save themselves. Did they think twice? About the rest of the south? Hell no. Your cotton oligarchs created the debt that was to be paid, your poor southern farmer had to shell it out, and Gen. Sherman came to collect.

Terry

Terry, I know you believe this and I respect your opinion. Most Northerners and even some Southerners believe the same way in this day and age.

The poor and middle class did not fight for the Southern planters that lived in mansions and owned dozens or hundreds of slaves. In fact they were pretty much scornful of this rich class of people. This poor to middle class fought mostly because of their pride and resistance to the central government "ruling them". They were very jealous of their sovereignty (state's rats) and intended to keep it. They were angered, insulted and defiant that anyone from the North deigned to give orders to, or make demands on, their state. They were convinced that secession was the only way to be rid of these meddlesome people and they could have cared less about the slavery institution. They did, however, believe the slavery question was a Southern issue to be determined on a state to state basis and not intended for any outsider to have any say over.

One thing that isn't always discussed is the different views the North and South had regarding central government. The South had a more Jeffersonian view that government should be tightly limited, while the North seemed to believe the government could better help the country by being more involved. There are probably dozens of other reasons, but IMO these are the most significant.

Regards,
Rose
 
ole said:
William: Good post.

It amuses me that they wanted only to be allowed to leave peacefully. But first, they wanted all the Federal property: arsenals, forts, customs houses, post offices, land, and control of the Mississippi River.

No, actually we wanted you to take them with you when you left.:wink: Since that wasn't possible we offered to pay for them. They were in our states, after all.


ole said:
Although he often expressed his disgust with politicians and government in general, he was firmly in favor of the union -- as imperfect as it was -- and he considered secession to be foolish and wrong. And he did like the south.
Ole

Perhaps Southerners should be grateful that Sherman liked the South, but they just couldn't get past his actions that said otherwise.

Regards,
Rose
 
Wild_Rose said:
Terry, I know you believe this and I respect your opinion. Most Northerners and even some Southerners believe the same way in this day and age.

The poor and middle class did not fight for the Southern planters that lived in mansions and owned dozens or hundreds of slaves. In fact they were pretty much scornful of this rich class of people. This poor to middle class fought mostly because of their pride and resistance to the central government "ruling them". They were very jealous of their sovereignty (state's rats) and intended to keep it. They were angered, insulted and defiant that anyone from the North deigned to give orders to, or make demands on, their state. They were convinced that secession was the only way to be rid of these meddlesome people and they could have cared less about the slavery institution. They did, however, believe the slavery question was a Southern issue to be determined on a state to state basis and not intended for any outsider to have any say over.

One thing that isn't always discussed is the different views the North and South had regarding central government. The South had a more Jeffersonian view that government should be tightly limited, while the North seemed to believe the government could better help the country by being more involved. There are probably dozens of other reasons, but IMO these are the most significant.

Regards,
Rose

With all respect, Rose, I must say that you continue to misconstrue William/Terry's points. It's not an issue of why folks fought, but of why that "three percent" initiated that war. The remaining 97 percent were thrown into that maelstrom by the 3% whether they liked it or not.

Once it was a fact, it is not at all surprising or unworthy or wrong, that those 97%, those common folks gave there support to what they perceived as being a good cause.

I just believe that they were misled.
 
MobileBoy said:
Ole,
Not all federal property,forts,customs houses friend.They just wanted those in the territory of the Confederacy.Did the American colonist let English troops stay garrisoned in America?No that just isn't practical.Once they seceeded that couldn't be allowed.They did since peace commisioners Lincoln ignored remember.I believe you're wrong on control of the Mississippi.The Confederacy was willing to compromise trade and traffic on the river for peace.They weren't being all that nice ,but they hoped it would avoid war.Would the south have invaded the North in 1861?No.
This is the same old stuff you've posted before, isn't it? About the only part that makes sense is that the south had no intention of invading the north.

Let's just slay one dragon at a time. Your mission, should you accept it, is to list the peace commissions Lincoln ignored, and why. Then we can move on to federal property.
Ole
 
samgrant said:
With all respect, Rose, I must say that you continue to misconstrue William/Terry's points. It's not an issue of why folks fought, but of why that "three percent" initiated that war. The remaining 97 percent were thrown into that maelstrom by the 3% whether they liked it or not.

Sam, I understand what you and Terry are saying. My point is that those 3% would have been fighting the war by themselves if the rest of the South hadn't wanted secession for whatever reasons. In order to claim that 97% of the South did the bidding of 3% doesn't add up. The only way you can make that theory work is to believe the Southern people were completely gullible and not very bright. I know that wasn't the case.

The North already had an army they could deploy to invade the South. The Union soldier had no choice in the war short of disobeying orders. The South had to start from scratch with volunteers and form a military. In most places where volunteers were called for the volunteers exceeded the number being requested. This is where Southern men had a choice and they made it.

I understand the general concensus is that the war was about slavery and as such there has to be a reason why the non-slave owning South would agree to fight the war. Therefore, the slaveowners must have started it and duped the rest into fighting it. That doesn't add up.

Secession, and ultimately war, was not about slavery as far as the average Southerner was concerned. The Southern population that had little or no interest in slavery did, however, think the slavery question was a Southern issue and was affronted that the Northern people interfered in Southern business. To the Southern masses it was about Southern honor, pride, independence and the Constitution as the Southern people percieved it. That is why 97% of the South rallied behind their "country". If not for those reasons that 3% would be fighting some very overwhelming odds.

"We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner."--General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

Respectfully,
Rose
 
posted by Wild Rose:
No, actually we wanted you to take them with you when you left. Since that wasn't possible we offered to pay for them. They were in our states, after all.
You of all people surely understands that federal property belongs to all the people, not just to the state in which it is located. I'm aware of at least one attempt to purchase the property -- SC was making offers for Ft. Sumter. However, a president cannot authorize a sale of federal property -- that is reserved to congress. (At this point, I'll ask for your list of offers to buy the properties before seizing them.) If the seceding states had made reasonable offers to a sitting congress before seizing them, or opening fire on some, we might be discussing something entirely different. Remember, Lincoln had little support until Sumter was put under hostile fire.
The North already had an army they could deploy to invade the South. The Union soldier had no choice in the war short of disobeying orders. The South had to start from scratch with volunteers and form a military. In most places where volunteers were called for the volunteers exceeded the number being requested. This is where Southern men had a choice and they made it.
The north had an army of approximately 17,000 officers and men, most of whom were posted in Indian territories -- hardly a readily available invasion force. Shortly after the provisional CSA was set up, a call for 100,000 (could be wrong on that number) militia was issued by Jeff Davis. After Sumter was reduced to rubble, Lincoln called for 75,000 (later, 200,000) militia volunteers. And so it went from there.

The northerners volunteered with an enthusiasm equal to that of the southerners. With the exception of the near-useless standing U.S. army, both armies started equally -- untrained volunteers. That the CSA had to resort to conscription first reflects only the limited numbers of volunteers available to it.

And I do agree with you that the average southerner did not fight for the right to own slaves. But the war was started by the slaveocracy and fought by the average man, for whatever personal reason he had -- and some of the personal reasons included keeping slaves in tight control.

Ole
 
Back
Top