Warning: Graphic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Retribution

[wilber6150]

You wrote: "And Sherman ordered this? Is it possible that in this war, as in all wars, there were jsut bad soldiers who acted outside of orders?
That being said, you have a grand total of one person "listed." I can name more southrons killed by Confederates off the top of my head.

Let me asks you this, if Sherman, Kilpatrick or Major McBride were unable to control their "bad soldiers" do you feel Wheeler's cavalry and especially the Home Guard (lived in counties where atrocities took place) were correct, as sometimes all alleged, to mete out summary justice to such villains, when captured, when their own officers didn't?

Did you read Bishop Atkinson's letter all the way through? In addition to the murder of Mr. Bennett he also wrote:"insome instances defenseless men were killed for plunder.



"Then came the Black-Hawk war; and I was elected a Captain of Volunteers -- a success which gave me more pleasure than any I have had since."
A. Lincoln-- December 20, 1859 - Autobiography

Using the same logic, then if Lee couldn't control his soldiers some of whom also robbed and murdered, and lets not talk about the kidnappings, then the Union had every right to execute a lot of prisioners taken in the Gettysburg campaign including the officers who knew of and condoned the kidnappings.... If men were captured doing atrocites then they should expect to ebe executed if captured.. However, we know that many of these executed men were killed simply for wearing the blue and not for committing any crime..This is especially true, in many instances of blacks captured under arms..
You are suspect of documentation that shows murder of Southerners by fellow southerners, yet have no problem beleiving equally suspect documentation about undisclosed murders that were supposed to have taken place..Interesting...How about posting the a link to the complete letter or set of leeters so we can examine it ourselves...

 

[Unionist]

Using the same logic, then if Lee couldn't control his soldiers some of whom also robbed and murdered, and lets not talk about the kidnappings, then the Union had every right to execute a lot of prisioners taken in the Gettysburg campaign including the officers who knew of and condoned the kidnappings.... If men were captured doing atrocites then they should expect to ebe executed if captured.. However, we know that many of these executed men were killed simply for wearing the blue and not for committing any crime..This is especially true, in many instances of blacks captured under arms..
You are suspect of documentation that shows murder of Southerners by fellow southerners, yet have no problem beleiving equally suspect documentation about undisclosed murders that were supposed to have taken place..Interesting...How about posting the a link to the complete letter or set of leeters so we can examine it ourselves...

Totally. In addition I find the southrons complaints about how the Union treated the Indians laughable- you know, coming from people who used the military to push them completely out of their area.

 

[Unionist]

Different(and beneath) retribution were plain acts of malice and desparation. Cutting the throats of foragers is not acceptable under any circumstances. Forgaging is a legit tactic and both sides did it.

 

[Nathanb1]

I think it was no different than the campaigns in the south, or the southern war in Mexico

What? Explain, please, just exactly what this entails? Thanky kindly.

 

[Nathanb1]

Totally. In addition I find the southrons complaints about how the Union treated the Indians laughable- you know, coming from people who used the military to push them completely out of their area.

Expired Image Removed

Uh.......yeah?

 

[Diana9]

I could be way off base, but I feel like once a civilian puts his hands in the pot, he/she is no longer a civilian but a combatant. I'm not saying your neighbors should pay for this, BUT the neighbors shouldn't tolerate such people.

Certainly when Davis and Beauregard called on the civilians in Georgia to defend against Sherman's army they officially turned their population into combatants. Wisely, few heeded the call or there would have been a lot of dead civilians.

Beauregard's appeal: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2006.05.1232:article=pos=2

There wre apparently efforts in Sherman's army to prevent abuses of foraging.

Here is an official report:

Dec. 1, 1864: Union officers were constantly on the lookout for those who abused foraging privileges.

"I. The attention of division commanders and commanding officers of detachments is called to the irregularities existing in foraging and the manner in which this privilege is often abused. It is noticed that many men not belong to proper foraging parties are allowed to straggle from the ranks and forage for themselves, without any authority whatever. Is is by such men that the greater part of the pillaging is done and depredations committed, of which there is so much complaint. Officers in charge of foraging parties must be continually instructed to keep their men well in hand, never allowing them to to precede the advance guard of the column; and to use more discretion in taking from the poor, being careful to leave them sufficient for their immediate subsistence. It is also noticed that the number of mounted men is very large increasing, and that the ranks [of walking soldiers] are correspondingly diminished. Measures will be at once taken to check this growing evil. The number of mounted foragers to each brigade should be limited and regulated in orders, which, if not done, mounted foragers will be no longer allowed. . . ."​

Source: U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1893, reprinted by The National Historical Society, 1971), Series I, Vol. XLIV, p. 594.

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/CivilWar/novdec64.htm​

​

​

If southern apologists want to hold Sherman responsible for the abuses of his soldiers then the same rule must be applied to Forrest and the massacre at Fort Pillow.

 

[ole]

A gentle reminder. This thread is about "Retribution," presumably during the Civil War and during Reconstructio. Can we stay on the topic and not go chasing after the Plains Wars, or the Trail of Tears, or the Blackhawk wars, or that Texas has only one tiny Indian Reservation? This adloscent "you did it too" deflection grows wearisome.

A less gentle reminder. Any further posts after this point will be a waste of time.

 

[Diana9]

Sherman's handling of west Tennessee and northern Mississippi included burning down the whole town of Salem because Forrest had been raised there. Nothing too personal, really, just lots and lots of kin to the rebel cavalryman in them thar parts and therefore lots and lots of spies, safe houses, supplies, food, recruits and so on. If he thought he'd get rid of Forrest this way he was certainly mistaken - it just gave Forrest great incentive to stay. But as you say, the objective was really to make it unprofitable and painful for support of rebel forces - even if they were your cousins! It's hard to say what else Sherman could have done - the idea of winning hearts and minds wasn't hatched yet, I suppose, but family is family at any rate. I'm always surprised a ruckus is made over Sherman in Georgia but barely a peep out of anybody about Sherman in Tennessee and Mississippi!

Can you provide a source?

 

[Diana9]

Ok Ole, I just read your post. I won't encourage diane to go off topic with a reply.

 

[ole]

Ok Ole, I just read your post. I won't encourage diane to go off topic with a reply.

It has to do with retribution, Diana. If Diane replies, it will doubtless fit withing the topic of the thread.

 

[Diana9]

It has to do with retribution, Diana. If Diane replies, it will doubtless fit withing the topic of the thread.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Shadow9216]

This thread is kind of a microcosm on the futility of cyclical retribution...one side does something, the other retaliates, and it gets into a feedback loop where neither side gains any ground but both are unable to disengage. There is potential deterrent in the threat of retribution, but once carried out, it usually spirals out of control and avails neither side anything of value.

The same thing happens in real life.

 

[wondering]

...one side does something, the other retaliates, and it gets into a feedback loop where neither side gains any ground but both are unable to disengage. There is potential deterrent in the threat of retribution, but once carried out, it usually spirals out of control and avails neither side anything of value...

Dude, you are so right. If mankind would only learn a few things from history, we would not be doomed to repeat it.

 

[ole]

I don't know ............ The concept of mutual destruction seems to have worked.

 

[Shadow9216]

I don't know ............ The concept of mutual destruction seems to have worked.

Precisely- the threat of retribution provides the deterrent. The nuclear triad made it uncertain an adversary would destroy an enemy's capability to retaliate, which meant the aggressor in a first-strike would still face retaliation. Fortunately, all the nuclear powers were sane enough not to gamble on surviving the retaliatory strike- thus MAD worked. Had either side called the bluff and launched, it would've worked as outlined in my previous post.

 

[diane]

Can you provide a source?

The Campaigns of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and of Forrest's Cavalry
Thomas Jordan and J P Pryor

Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma
Eddy W Davison, Daniel Foxx

Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography
Jack Hurst

That's three I have to hand. I'll get more if you want them.

Sherman also threatened to burn the towns of Tuscumbia and Florence if Forrest launched raids from their area. The idea was to keep the officials and people from lending the rebels a hand. Sherman had around 8,000 men moving through north Mississippi, the area around Salem. Old Salem was also on the railroad route and a Union depot. Sherman's mission was to keep Forrest from raiding and other operations in his old stamping grounds. These activities were facilitated by a substantial number of the civilians and, well, Sherman did his job! And, Forrest's job was to stop or at least hamper Sherman - which he did very well at this time. This was when Sherman famously said, "There will never be peace in Tennessee until Forrest is dead."

p s
As Shadow points out, the fear of retribution works well - if Sherman had done half the things he threatened to do, he probably would have been a war criminal. But - he was a master psychologist. He carried out enough threats to make one fairly convinced he'd do another!

 

[Nathanb1]

My point with my posts which Ole seems to object to....is that retribution and what one group considers crimes against persons can go back just as far as we want to take it. The Pequot War, for instance, which we studied last week. That's just the way the world works. To single out Sherman, Southern armies, etc. is to engage in a pretty unending list of recriminations and....oh yeah....retributions.

Just because one side wins (the Puritans, for example) doesn't make it right. Just because one side loses doesn't either. Unfortunately, this tit-for-tat goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden and it probably won't stop anytime soon. Wish it would...but I'm not that gullible...or hopeful.

 

[Nathanb1]

This thread is kind of a microcosm on the futility of cyclical retribution...one side does something, the other retaliates, and it gets into a feedback loop where neither side gains any ground but both are unable to disengage. There is potential deterrent in the threat of retribution, but once carried out, it usually spirals out of control and avails neither side anything of value.

The same thing happens in real life.

AMEN.

 

[CSA Today]

Using the same logic, then if Lee couldn't control his soldiers some of whom also robbed and murdered, and lets not talk about the kidnappings, then the Union had every right to execute a lot of prisioners taken in the Gettysburg campaign including the officers who knew of and condoned the kidnappings.... If men were captured doing atrocites then they should expect to ebe executed if captured.. However, we know that many of these executed men were killed simply for wearing the blue and not for committing any crime..This is especially true, in many instances of blacks captured under arms..
You are suspect of documentation that shows murder of Southerners by fellow southerners, yet have no problem beleiving equally suspect documentation about undisclosed murders that were supposed to have taken place..Interesting...How about posting the a link to the complete letter or set of leeters so we can examine it ourselves...

You wrote: "Using the same logic, then if Lee couldn't control his soldiers some of whom also robbed and murdered,"

Certainly and I feel that the Federals would have dealt just as harshly with any Confederate soldier, captured by them, guilty of murdering innocent Northern civilians.
You wrote: "You are suspect of documentation that shows murder of Southerners by fellow southerners, yet have no problem beleiving equally suspect documentation about undisclosed murders that were supposed to have taken place"

I never said Southerners didn't killed other Southerners, you need only look to Missouri and the Southern mountains regions to confirm that. What I did say was that I was suspicious of the objectivity some periodical calling itself the "Southerner Unionist Chronicles. " I might change my mind if more information is forth coming from the group about why these people were killed –I don't doubt they were killed.

You wrote: "How about posting the a link to the complete letter or set of leeters so we can examine it ourselves"

According to John G. Barrett in his Sherman's March Through The Carolinas on page 114, footnote 108, T, Atkinson to Cornelia P. Spencer, Jan. 30, 1866, D.L Papers, SHC, U.N.C.

"While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom's sons still supports her cause."

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother

 

[Nathanb1]

You wrote: "Using the same logic, then if Lee couldn't control his soldiers some of whom also robbed and murdered,"

Certainly and I feel that the Federals would have dealt just as harshly with any Confederate soldier, captured by them, guilty of murdering innocent Northern civilians.
You wrote: "You are suspect of documentation that shows murder of Southerners by fellow southerners, yet have no problem beleiving equally suspect documentation about undisclosed murders that were supposed to have taken place"

I never said Southerners didn't killed other Southerners, you need only look to Missouri and the Southern mountains regions to confirm that. What I did say was that I was suspicious of the objectivity some periodical calling itself the "Southerner Unionist Chronicles. " I might change my mind if more information is forth coming from the group about why these people were killed –I don't doubt they were killed.

You wrote: "How about posting the a link to the complete letter or set of leeters so we can examine it ourselves"

According to John G. Barrett in his Sherman's March Through The Carolinas on page 114, footnote 108, T, Atkinson to Cornelia P. Spencer, Jan. 30, 1866, D.L Papers, SHC, U.N.C.

"While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom's sons still supports her cause."

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother

Not saying it didn't happen. But it's covered up better than my feet at a December ball game. I can find no good primary sources or anything other than secondary "stories." At least we know exactly what happened with the "Treue der Union" guys and the Great Hanging. I'll keep looking.