Something I'm curious about...

[Elennsar]

I'd like to know why Early's conduct in "...burning the furnace, saw mill, two forges and a rolling mill at Caledonia." (along with breaking the windows of the houses of the workingmen) during the Gettysburg campaign - contrary to Lee's occuptation polices in General Orders No. 72 - is not given much thought or blame when describing the wanton destruction of civilian property, but Hunter's activities in the Shenandoah and Sherman's in Georgia are repeated until we're all heartily sick of hearing of Sherman and Hunter.

This is not to say that Hunter and Sherman behaved acceptably - but neither did Early, and I don't see those who are most upset by such destruction commenting on his behavior either here or later.

Is it simply less serious an offense?

Or is it somehow acceptable to commit such acts as "retalitation for the 'various deeds of barbarity perpetrated by Federal troops in some of the southern states' and repayment to Stevens for 'a most vindictive spirit toward the people of the South'" (Early's justification - despite it being against orders)?

Personally, I'm more offended at Early being willing to defy orders "whenever he thought fit" than the actual destruction of the iron works - though the breaking of the workingman's houses seems to be an act of pointless vandalism.

 

[Vareb]

That is just the way war is.

 

[Elennsar]

So let me make sure I'm following.

Early disobeying orders and doing what he did here is "just the way war is".

Sherman's march to the Sea is pyromania.

I'm feeling there's some inconsistency here.

 

[lauren777]

I was thinking about your question and doesn't it seem like it would be the opposite reaction? That history would remember the destruction done up north at least as much as the destruction done down south. So I was thinking why would that possibly be. I would think it would have been used as propaganda for getting more Union fighters to enlist to defend their territory. Do you think they tried to down play the northern destruction because of the fear it might create in the north...like people would be less likely to want the war if they felt their territory was at stake? The destruction down south might have been purposely exploited to scare southerners and to make the north feel like they were winning. Do you think this is possible? Scott Mingus probably knows the answer to this since this is his area of expertise.

Lauren

 

[larry_cockerham]

I was thinking about your question and doesn't it seem like it would be the opposite reaction? That history would remember the destruction done up north at least as much as the destruction done down south. So I was thinking why would that possibly be. I would think it would have been used as propaganda for getting more Union fighters to enlist to defend their territory. Do you think they tried to down play the northern destruction because of the fear it might create in the north...like people would be less likely to want the war if they felt their territory was at stake? The destruction down south might have been purposely exploited to scare southerners and to make the north feel like they were winning. Do you think this is possible? Scott Mingus probably knows the answer to this since this is his area of expertise.

Lauren

Messing with yankee's stuff has never been as serious as when our southern stuff was being messed with. Any southerner will tell you that. Seems logical to me.

 

[Elennsar]

No doubt (as to Scott knowing the answer).

I'm more curious as to why those here on this site and in other places that describe how Sherman's behavior was so destructive treat this as at best an interesting detail of the Gettysburg campaign, rather than an example of wanton destruction.

After all, as stated, this was against Lee's orders.

Say what you like about Sherman's March, but Early did this for no reason having anything to do with winning the war.

Purely for revenge.

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

Elennsar,

Anyone's views on an incident are subject to which side they align themselves with and their political leanings. If you are on one side of an issue, it is very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of those on the other side of an issue.

To understand why some acts were deplored and some where praised, you must be able to put yourself on both sides, of those involved and those impacted by the acts.

Even if you choose to change your point of view, there is still within you the basis that forms your initial thoughts. It is from this you will be forced to start the process of evaluation and seeing both sides, be it a battle, the participants or an outcome. It would be against anyone's nature to begin an evaluation from the opposite side of their own beliefs.

When anyone fully understands the strengths and weaknesses of their beliefs and perception of facts, then they will be able to clearly see the opposite side of any issue and take time to understand it because the mind will be open and not influenced by years of perceived bias. This does not mean you have to change your views. It means you will have a deeper understanding of your own views, as they will be balanced by understanding the views of the other side.

If anyone does not fully understand their strengths and weaknesses of their beliefs and perception of facts, they will hesitate in understanding the other side of issues, etc. They will feel their biases are challenged. They will feel weak and will talk all the louder to defend that which they themselves don't fully understand.

A life of wearing blinders vs. a life of full vision.

--BBF

 

[Buzzard]

For your consideration

Lauren777 The destruction down south might have been purposely exploited to scare southerners and to make the north feel like they were winning. Do you think this is possible? Scott Mingus probably knows the answer to this since this is his area of expertise.

Scott did answer this issue in another thread, along with M.E. Wolf's review of Early's writings on the subject which are posted here:

Expired Image Removed The Dispatch Depot at CivilWarTalk > Historical Perspectives > Civil War History - Gettysburg Forum Expired Image Removed Caledonia Furnace

Also for your consideration:


The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to the destruction of much property. Though exact figures are not available, the loss of civilian life appears to have been very small. Consuming supplies, wrecking infrastructure, and undermining morale were Sherman's stated goals, and several of his Southern contemporaries noted this and commented on it. For instance, Alabama-born Major Henry Hitchcock, who served in Sherman's staff, declared that "it is a terrible thing to consume and destroy the sustenance of thousands of people", but if the scorched earth strategy served "to paralyze their husbands and fathers who are fighting ... it is mercy in the end."

Retribution is a common theme in every war that has ever been fought. It IS A Natural OFFSPRING OF WAR ITSELF. Neither the representatives of the North or South mentioned in this thread is more guilty or less guilty than the other at carrying out these affairs,

Sherman's campaigns and exploits garnered much more press then and after the war. Fame comes in many forms, Sherman was certainly given much more press for all of his behavior good, bad, or eccentric, over the length of the war and history.

In other words Early Who?

Buzzard

 

[Elennsar]

In other words, the fact that Early violated orders to do something with no useful impact on the war and his men went so far as to commit petty vandalism is a minor detail not worth being noticed because...bigger things happened?

Somehow, that disturbs me more than the actual act by Early.

 

[Vareb]

In other words, the fact that Early violated orders to do something with no useful impact on the war and his men went so far as to commit petty vandalism is a minor detail not worth being noticed because...bigger things happened?

Somehow, that disturbs me more than the actual act by Early.

I don't think I would get disturbed over something that happened 143 years ago.

 

[Elennsar]

I don't think I would get disturbed over something that happened 143 years ago.

Remind me to quote you on this next time Sherman comes up in a discussion.

But regardless of whether or not you would be disturbed by something that happened that long ago (146, actually), some would. And more importantly, it would be nice to see the history books and the students of history generally treat it as it should be treated, instead of as a detail almost too minor to be mentioned.

 

[cash]

So let me make sure I'm following.

Early disobeying orders and doing what he did here is "just the way war is".

Sherman's march to the Sea is pyromania.

I'm feeling there's some inconsistency here.

I shouldn't answer this post directly after commenting on the "Northern perspective" and "winners write history" thread, but I'm a bit pressed for time.

I see the inconsistency as part of a victimhood mentality among some self-described "defenders of the confederacy" such as the Kennedy brothers and Thomas DiLorenzo. Both actions were acts of war. If Early was disobeying orders, it was up to Lee to hold him accountable. I don't recall any courts-martial taking place, so Lee was apparently okay with Early's actions. So I wouldn't get too upset about Early disobeying orders.

But it fits in nicely with the victimhood mentality of the Kennedys and DiLorenzo to castigate Sherman, Sheridan, and Hunter as black-hearted war criminals while ignoring similar actions by officers wearing gray and then claiming that only the winners write history.

Regards,
Cash

 

[Horace Porter]

I shouldn't answer this post directly after commenting on the "Northern perspective" and "winners write history" thread, but I'm a bit pressed for time.

I see the inconsistency as part of a victimhood mentality among some self-described "defenders of the confederacy" such as the Kennedy brothers and Thomas DiLorenzo. Both actions were acts of war. If Early was disobeying orders, it was up to Lee to hold him accountable. I don't recall any courts-martial taking place, so Lee was apparently okay with Early's actions. So I wouldn't get too upset about Early disobeying orders.

But it fits in nicely with the victimhood mentality of the Kennedys and DiLorenzo to castigate Sherman, Sheridan, and Hunter as black-hearted war criminals while ignoring similar actions by officers wearing gray and then claiming that only the winners write history.

Regards,
Cash

Here, here!

 

[Glorybound]

bumped