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

[Bonny Blue Flag]

My dad told me,, "All is fair in love, war and biology"

--BBF

 

[Unionist]

My dad told me,, "All is fair in love, war and biology"

--BBF

lol, that's funny. But seriously, I'd take Sherman's brand of war over the alternative any day. I'd also take Sherman over the the butchers of Southron Unionists.

Anyway, retribution seems like the only thing that would have stopped the used of land minds. It worked. What else would have stopped their use?

 

[MarylandLine]

What are "land minds"?

Also since you appear to have knighted Sherman for his brand of "retribution" against the evil Southron butchers.......how do you compare Sherman's same action plan when used against the Plains Indians after the war?

 

[Unionist]

What are "land minds"?

Also since you appear to have knighted Sherman for his brand of "retribution" against the evil Southron butchers.......how do you compare Sherman's same action plan when used against the Plains Indians after the war?

It was a spelling error. Who knighted anyone? This is a discussion. I'd like to discuss. I suppose I'd compare Sherman's actions after the war with the southerners treat of them[Indians] before the war. And I'm not painting all southerners as butchers. How can I since I'm accusing some of butchering others- which did happen.

 

[wilber6150]

If a General did today what Sherman was said to have done in Georgia and South Carolina on his march... "to make them pay for aiding their families", he would be charged as a war criminal.

So how many civilians were killed? How many mass graves have been turned up?

 

[wilber6150]

What are "land minds"?

Also since you appear to have knighted Sherman for his brand of "retribution" against the evil Southron butchers.......how do you compare Sherman's same action plan when used against the Plains Indians after the war?

As opposed to the kind treatment they received in the South before the war?

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I just have never, ever witnessed a thread which was at all balanced when it pertained to Uncle Billy- by which one understands which end of the stick I tend to view his role in the war. If one makes a statement like that, one is instantly 'pro'- the rape and pillage of entire towns, the burning of a wide swath of the south by a consciousless butcher the likes of which History has never encountered. I'm not, and he wasn't. It was a military objective, it worked. If I'd been one of the owners of a plantation his army encountered and razed, yep, would have been shattered I am sure. His 'monster' legend, like Butler's ( 'nother story ), far exceeds the facts because of the inherent bitterness carried over now for 150 years, my goodness. Shelby Foote told the story of having someone come up to him with the story of how his Great Granddaddy had had his home burned to the ground by Sherman, rot his soul. Oh? Said Foote, where was his home? 'XYZ', said the man, whereby Foote pointed out this place was 200 miles from Sherman's route. He used this as something which was not a singular example, but typical of the legend grown around what is viewed as Sherman's complete and utter ravaging of the entire south.

I'm not stating this as good or bad, merely what seems to be the case. It's just impossible to have a discussion on this. Even this will no doubt evoke 'Oh yea? What about the time he.....', then someone who 'likes' Uncle Billy could come back with 'Well, what about the unnamed thousands of African Americans slaughtered as they attempted to escape their bonds of slavery, was not that unconscionable?' Or the lynchings of supposed Union sympathizers which took place? It could get long. His mission was a mission, a military one. Think I'll stick to that since even going this far is stirring the pot and do not mean to.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Ah, Unionist, just ran into just such a 'Sherman' thread in another forum. Please put on kevlar vest before entering zone.

 

[CSA Today]

Completely unfounded statement. Not only did Sherman have a lower death rate than Grant and Lee, he purposely tried to avoid bloodshed when he could. You all have such tunnel vision that you don't care whose reputation you tarnish. There is no evidence that he committed war crimes, going by the rules of the day, let alone that he would have done so on such a scale.

I was referring to Confederate civilians not the Confederate army.

Lieutenant Charles Brown (21st Michigan) describing a Confederate attack on his position at Bentonville: "stood as long as a man could stand and when that was no longer a possibility we run like the duce."

 

[Unionist]

Can I get a list of Civilians he killed please? And they need to be civilians who were not aiding their military in anyway. Such civilians who had harm done to their property were compensated by the US government. I can give a partial list of southrons massacred by Confederates.

But if you want to get into civilian causalties, we can discuss the displacement and abuse of Indians in the south.

 

[CSA Today]

Can I get a list of Civilians he killed please? And they need to be civilians who were not aiding their military in anyway. Such civilians who had harm done to their property were compensated by the US government. I can give a partial list of southrons massacred by Confederates.

But if you want to get into civilian causalties, we can discuss the displacement and abuse of Indians in the south.

You wrote: "Can I get a list of Civilians he killed please? And they need to be civilians who were not aiding their military in anyway."

"While Sherman, in Cheraw [SC], contemplated, his next move, Kilpatrick, crossed the state line, commenced operations. The cavalry commander was not close enough to Cheraw to harass the retreating Hardee but the next day at Phillips Cross-Roads, North Carolina, a portion of his own command was more than harassed by Wheeler. In an all day skirmish the Confederate took fifty prisoners and were on the verge of complete victory when Federal artillery was brought into play.

Before this engagement started, a scouting party of one hundred men from the ninth Michigan cavalry, under the command of Major J.G. McBride, had been sent to Wadesboro [North Carolina] with instruction to "clean out the town." The major carried out his orders by destroying a gristmill, saw mill, tannery, large government stables, and other public property.


Wadesboro, however, had already been pillaged the previous day by detachments of Kilpatrick scouts under Captain T.F. Northrop. Thomas Atkinson, Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina, wrote of how at the point of a gun, he was robbed of watch, clothes, jewelry, and a horse. He said every house in town where there seem to be anything worth taking was robbed. The soldiers broke opened the storehouse and took what they wanted. Atkinson went on to state that in some instances defenseless men were killed for plunder: A Mr. James C. Bennett, one of the oldest and wealthiest men in Anson County, was shot at the door of his own house because he did not give up his watch and money, which had been previously taken from him by another party.

The events Bishop Atkinson described are in a letter written to Cornelia Spencer, January, 30 1866 are part of the D.L.Swain Papers, SHC, U.N.C

You wrote: "Such civilians who had harm done to their property were compensated by the US government."

You are making this up, certainly the US government didn't compensate any of my ancestors nor anyone else in my county for theft or damage in my county. Nor did that government compensate the congregation of Caledonia Church ( about two miles down the road from our farm) torched by 17th corps marauders. The congregation rebuilt the church in 1881 at their own expense and without a penny from the US government.

You wrote: "I can give a partial list of southrons massacred by Confederates."

Please do and list places and circumstances.


You wrote: "But if you want to get into civilian causalties, we can discuss the displacement and abuse of Indians in the south."

I think you probably mean the US Government abusive Indian policies in Illinois and the Southern States in the 1830s. Those policies have been thoroughly discussed here, but if you think something was missed we could do it all again. But more in keeping with the topic under discussion (the 1860s and not the 1830s), don't you think the Lincoln government's Indian abuse in places like Minnesota and Colorado would be more apropos?

"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

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The Civil War was the first war the US had been involved in that involved a good deal of irregular warfare in and among a civilian population. (The Seminole and various Indian wars were certainly irregular, but they weren't generally interspersed with local civilians.) Commanders were at something of a loss as to how to respond to a situation such as a guerrilla band firing at passing river transports (most of which were civilian vessels under government charter). Where the specific perpetrators could be identified, they were individually targeted; but more usually, local civilians either didn't know anything about the perpetrators, or at least said they didn't know.

Along the Western rivers, Federal commanders generally began with warnings that such-a-place would be shelled if the attacks continued, and a warning to remove women, children, and other noncombatants before the shelling. These warnings were often replied to defiantly and not complied with... eventually, the warnings were for the most part discarded and the retributory shelling became more common. The position taken by Federal commanders was that, if the local civilian populace wasn't supporting (or comprising) the guerrilla bands directly, they were at least supporting them indirectly; and this mode of warfare was seen as "ungentlemanly" among the more idealistic officers, and the more pragmatic officers simply preferred to reply in kind.

Federal forces never entirely solved the problem of dealing with what we would today characterize as a counterinsurgency situation... and it certainly would not be the last time that US forces would be confronted with the problem.

 

[dvrmte]

Excuse the typos, it's cut and pasted as it was found.

HEADQUARTERS DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Vicksburg, Jan. 31, 1864.
MAJOR E. M. SAWYER,
A. A. C. Army of the Tenn.,
Huntsville, Alabama.
Dear Sawyer : In my former letters I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known or suspected to be hostile or " Secesh." This is in truth the most difficult business of our army as it advances and occupies the Southern country. It is almost impossible to lay down rules, and I invariably leave the whole subject to the local commanders, but am willing W give them the benefit of my acquired knowledge and experience. In Europe, whence we derive our principles of war, wars are between kings or rulers through hired armies, and not between peoples. These remain, as it were, neutral, and sell their produce to whatever army is in possession.
Napoleon when at war with Prussia, Austria, and Russia bought forage and provisions of the inhabitants, and consequently had an interest to protect the farms and factories which ministered to his wants. In like manner the Allied Armies in France could buy of the French habitants whatever they needed, the produce of the soil or manufactures of the country. Therefore, the general rule was and is that war is confined to the armies engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. But in other examples a different rule obtained the sanction of historical authority. I will only instance one, where in the siege 01 William and Mary the English army occupied Ireland, then in a state of revolt. The inhabitants were actually driven into foreign lands, and were dispossessed of their property and a new population introduced. To this day a large part of the north of Ireland is held by the descendants of the Scotch emigrants sent there by William's order and an act of Parliament. The war which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government with us of the North, but still maintained through state organizations a species of separate existence, with separate interests, history, and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till at last they have led to war and have developed fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason or the slower process of natural change. The question then arises, Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country ?
When men take up arms to resist a rightful authority, we are compelled to use like force, because all reason and argument cease when arms are resorted to. When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, etc., are used by our enemy, it is clearly our duty and right to take them also, because otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant by an inimical people are clearly our right, and as such are needed as storehouses, hospitals, and quarters. But the question arises as to dwellings used by women, children, and non-combatants. [ So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, their opinions and prejudices can in no wise influence the war, and therefore should not be noticed ; but if any one comes out into the public streets and creates disorder, he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished to the rear or front, as the officer in command adjudges^ If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished according to law with death or minor punishment. These are well-established principles of war, and this people of the South having appealed to war, are barred fVom appealing for protection to our constitution, which I they have practically and publicly defied. They have^ appealed to war, and must abide its rules and laws. .
It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say that they made the South, that they own it, and can do as they please to break up our Government and shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse, and commerce. We know, and they know, if they are intelligent beings, that as compared with the whole world they are but as five millions to one thousand millions, that they did not create the land, that the only title to use and usufruct is the deed of the United States, and that if they appeal to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure. For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people more or less responsible, and I would give all a chance to reflect, and, when in error, to recant. I know the slaveowners, finding themselves in possession of a/species of property in opposition to the growing sentiinent of the whole civilized world, conceived their property to be in danger and foolishly appealed to war, and /chat by skilful political handling they involved with themselves the whole South on this result of error and prejudice. I believe that some of the rich and slave-holding are prejudiced to an extent that nothing but death and ruin will ever extinguish, but I hope that as the poorer and industrious classes of the South realize their relative weakness and their dependence upon the fruits of the earth and good-will of their fellow-men they will not only discover the error of their ways and repent of their hasty action, but bless those who persistently have maintained a constitutional government strong enough to sustain itself, protect its citizens, and promise peaceful homes to millions yet unborn.
If the people of Huntsville think differently, let them persist in this war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted.
Three years ago, by a little reflection and patience, they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is top late, all the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves any more than their dead grandfathers. . . .
A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many people, with less pertinacity than the South has already shown, have been wiped out of national existence.
My own belief is that even now the non-slave-holding classes of the South are alienating from their associates in war. Already I hear crimination and recrimination. Those who have property left should take warning in time.
Since I have come down here I have seen many Southern planters, who now hire their own negroes and acknowledge that they were mistaken and knew not the earthquake they were to make by appealing to secession. They thought that the politicians had prepared the way, and that they could part the States of this Union in peace. They now see that we are bound together as one nation by indissoluble ties, and that any interest, or any fraction of the people that set themselves up in antagonism to the nation, must perish.
Whilst I would not remit one jot or tittle of our nation's rights in peace or war, I do make allowances for past political errors and prejudices.
Our national Congress and the Supreme Court are the proper arenas on which to discuss conflicting opinions, and nofthe battle-field.
You may not hear from me again for some time, and if you think it will do any good, call some of the better people of Huntsville together and explain to them my views. You may even read to them this letter and let them use it, so as to prepare them for my coming. . . .
We are progressing well in this quarter, but I have not changed my opinion that although we may soon make certain the existence of the power of our national government, yet years must pass before ruffianism, murder, and robbery will cease to afflict this region of our country. Your friend,
WM. T. SHERMAN,
Major Gen'l Comd.

 

[Unionist]

Atkinson went on to state that in some instances defenseless men were killed for plunder: A Mr. James C. Bennett, one of the oldest and wealthiest men in Anson County, was shot at the door of his own house because he did not give up his watch and money, which had been previously taken from him by another party.

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.

You are making this up,

I
am not making up anything. Were your ancestors loyal to America? If not, then of course they wouldn't be compensated. I said loyal citizens were. You should pause before calling someone a liar.

Please do and list places and circumstances.

You can start here:
http://southernunionistschronicles....-civil-war-unionist-from-burnet-county-texas/
"a gruesome murder of some 36 men suspected of Unionism had taken place in their former home county, and that Henry Flaugher was among them. Twenty-five of the 36 men, according to the story, were hanged over the mouth of a saltpetre cave (there are many such caves in Burnet County), the ropes then cut so that the bodies dropped into the cave, seemingly out of sight forever."

This is merely a start, I'm at work and can't do much now. But the war crimes against southron Unionists is a plenty

I think you probably mean the US Government abusive Indian policies in Illinois and the Southern States in the 1830s.

No.
I think I mean, the southrons asking the Fed to come remove them. I cna't find it now but Sherman had a great quote about how the south would use the US Army when it needed.

Those policies have been thoroughly discussed here, but if you think something was missed we could do it all again. But more in keeping with the topic under discussion (the 1860s and not the 1830s), don't you think the Lincoln government's Indian abuse in places like Minnesota and Colorado would be more apropos?

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

 

[Unionist]

Excuse the typos, it's cut and pasted as it was found.

HEADQUARTERS DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Vicksburg, Jan. 31, 1864.
MAJOR E. M. SAWYER,
A. A. C. Army of the Tenn.,
Huntsville, Alabama.
Dear Sawyer : In my former letters I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known or suspected to be hostile or " Secesh." This is in truth the most difficult business of our army as it advances and occupies the Southern country. It is almost impossible to lay down rules, and I invariably leave the whole subject to the local commanders, but am willing W give them the benefit of my acquired knowledge and experience. In Europe, whence we derive our principles of war, wars are between kings or rulers through hired armies, and not between peoples. These remain, as it were, neutral, and sell their produce to whatever army is in possession.
Napoleon when at war with Prussia, Austria, and Russia bought forage and provisions of the inhabitants, and consequently had an interest to protect the farms and factories which ministered to his wants. In like manner the Allied Armies in France could buy of the French habitants whatever they needed, the produce of the soil or manufactures of the country. Therefore, the general rule was and is that war is confined to the armies engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. But in other examples a different rule obtained the sanction of historical authority. I will only instance one, where in the siege 01 William and Mary the English army occupied Ireland, then in a state of revolt. The inhabitants were actually driven into foreign lands, and were dispossessed of their property and a new population introduced. To this day a large part of the north of Ireland is held by the descendants of the Scotch emigrants sent there by William's order and an act of Parliament. The war which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government with us of the North, but still maintained through state organizations a species of separate existence, with separate interests, history, and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till at last they have led to war and have developed fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason or the slower process of natural change. The question then arises, Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country ?
When men take up arms to resist a rightful authority, we are compelled to use like force, because all reason and argument cease when arms are resorted to. When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, etc., are used by our enemy, it is clearly our duty and right to take them also, because otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant by an inimical people are clearly our right, and as such are needed as storehouses, hospitals, and quarters. But the question arises as to dwellings used by women, children, and non-combatants. [ So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, their opinions and prejudices can in no wise influence the war, and therefore should not be noticed ; but if any one comes out into the public streets and creates disorder, he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished to the rear or front, as the officer in command adjudges^ If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished according to law with death or minor punishment. These are well-established principles of war, and this people of the South having appealed to war, are barred fVom appealing for protection to our constitution, which I they have practically and publicly defied. They have^ appealed to war, and must abide its rules and laws. .
It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say that they made the South, that they own it, and can do as they please to break up our Government and shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse, and commerce. We know, and they know, if they are intelligent beings, that as compared with the whole world they are but as five millions to one thousand millions, that they did not create the land, that the only title to use and usufruct is the deed of the United States, and that if they appeal to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure. For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people more or less responsible, and I would give all a chance to reflect, and, when in error, to recant. I know the slaveowners, finding themselves in possession of a/species of property in opposition to the growing sentiinent of the whole civilized world, conceived their property to be in danger and foolishly appealed to war, and /chat by skilful political handling they involved with themselves the whole South on this result of error and prejudice. I believe that some of the rich and slave-holding are prejudiced to an extent that nothing but death and ruin will ever extinguish, but I hope that as the poorer and industrious classes of the South realize their relative weakness and their dependence upon the fruits of the earth and good-will of their fellow-men they will not only discover the error of their ways and repent of their hasty action, but bless those who persistently have maintained a constitutional government strong enough to sustain itself, protect its citizens, and promise peaceful homes to millions yet unborn.
If the people of Huntsville think differently, let them persist in this war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted.
Three years ago, by a little reflection and patience, they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is top late, all the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves any more than their dead grandfathers. . . .
A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many people, with less pertinacity than the South has already shown, have been wiped out of national existence.
My own belief is that even now the non-slave-holding classes of the South are alienating from their associates in war. Already I hear crimination and recrimination. Those who have property left should take warning in time.
Since I have come down here I have seen many Southern planters, who now hire their own negroes and acknowledge that they were mistaken and knew not the earthquake they were to make by appealing to secession. They thought that the politicians had prepared the way, and that they could part the States of this Union in peace. They now see that we are bound together as one nation by indissoluble ties, and that any interest, or any fraction of the people that set themselves up in antagonism to the nation, must perish.
Whilst I would not remit one jot or tittle of our nation's rights in peace or war, I do make allowances for past political errors and prejudices.
Our national Congress and the Supreme Court are the proper arenas on which to discuss conflicting opinions, and nofthe battle-field.
You may not hear from me again for some time, and if you think it will do any good, call some of the better people of Huntsville together and explain to them my views. You may even read to them this letter and let them use it, so as to prepare them for my coming. . . .
We are progressing well in this quarter, but I have not changed my opinion that although we may soon make certain the existence of the power of our national government, yet years must pass before ruffianism, murder, and robbery will cease to afflict this region of our country. Your friend,
WM. T. SHERMAN,
Major Gen'l Comd.

I question that statement about Napoleon. I'm not real knowledgable on the subject but I've heard that his army tore through towns and didn't give a hoot about leaving them without food.

 

[dvrmte]

I question that statement about Napoleon. I'm not real knowledgable on the subject but I've heard that his army tore through towns and didn't give a hoot about leaving them without food.

I question much of what Sherman wrote. On one hand he would call the southerners traitors and guilty of violating the law of the land, then later state he would refuse to use his army if ordered to do something he didn't agree with. I think he suffered "delusions of grandeur."

 

[Unionist]

I question much of what Sherman wrote. On one hand he would call the southerners traitors and guilty of violating the law of the land, then later state he would refuse to use his army if ordered to do something he didn't agree with. I think he suffered "delusions of grandeur."

I see no contradiction. But non sequitor anyway. It has nothing to do with Napoleon's war machine.

 

[diane]

Just my two cents worth about Sherman's comments on Napoleon - Sherman was gilding his lily a little! When Napoleon conquered a country it became part of the French empire and so subject to taxes, conscription or whatever the French were subject to. Sherman was somewhat artlessly considering Napoleon to be democratic (which went along with Napoleon's view!) but he was an emperor. After all, he was so strapped for cash he sold Spain's hunk of America - the Louisiana Purchase - for about 3 cents an acre. Doubt he paid for much of anything from a country he was passing through. (Besides, Austria and Prussia were allies of Russia - where he was headed. )

 

[wilber6150]

You wrote: "Can I get a list of Civilians he killed please? And they need to be civilians who were not aiding their military in anyway."

"While Sherman, in Cheraw [SC], contemplated, his next move, Kilpatrick, crossed the state line, commenced operations. The cavalry commander was not close enough to Cheraw to harass the retreating Hardee but the next day at Phillips Cross-Roads, North Carolina, a portion of his own command was more than harassed by Wheeler. In an all day skirmish the Confederate took fifty prisoners and were on the verge of complete victory when Federal artillery was brought into play.

Before this engagement started, a scouting party of one hundred men from the ninth Michigan cavalry, under the command of Major J.G. McBride, had been sent to Wadesboro [North Carolina] with instruction to "clean out the town." The major carried out his orders by destroying a gristmill, saw mill, tannery, large government stables, and other public property.


Wadesboro, however, had already been pillaged the previous day by detachments of Kilpatrick scouts under Captain T.F. Northrop. Thomas Atkinson, Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina, wrote of how at the point of a gun, he was robbed of watch, clothes, jewelry, and a horse. He said every house in town where there seem to be anything worth taking was robbed. The soldiers broke opened the storehouse and took what they wanted. Atkinson went on to state that in some instances defenseless men were killed for plunder: A Mr. James C. Bennett, one of the oldest and wealthiest men in Anson County, was shot at the door of his own house because he did not give up his watch and money, which had been previously taken from him by another party.

The events Bishop Atkinson described are in a letter written to Cornelia Spencer, January, 30 1866 are part of the D.L.Swain Papers, SHC, U.N.C

You wrote: "Such civilians who had harm done to their property were compensated by the US government."

You are making this up, certainly the US government didn't compensate any of my ancestors nor anyone else in my county for theft or damage in my county. Nor did that government compensate the congregation of Caledonia Church ( about two miles down the road from our farm) torched by 17th corps marauders. The congregation rebuilt the church in 1881 at their own expense and without a penny from the US government.

You wrote: "I can give a partial list of southrons massacred by Confederates."

Please do and list places and circumstances.


You wrote: "But if you want to get into civilian causalties, we can discuss the displacement and abuse of Indians in the south."

I think you probably mean the US Government abusive Indian policies in Illinois and the Southern States in the 1830s. Those policies have been thoroughly discussed here, but if you think something was missed we could do it all again. But more in keeping with the topic under discussion (the 1860s and not the 1830s), don't you think the Lincoln government's Indian abuse in places like Minnesota and Colorado would be more apropos?

"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

Sherman is responsible for this killing? Are we attributing the crimes committed by indivdual soldiers to their commanding generals? If so then Confederate generals don't come out looking so good as well...And I see you are still using that Lincoln quote to imply something that it doesnt..Isn't it time for some new material?

 

[CSA Today]

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.


I
am not making up anything. Were your ancestors loyal to America? If not, then of course they wouldn't be compensated. I said loyal citizens were. You should pause before calling someone a liar.






You can start here:
http://southernunionistschronicles....-civil-war-unionist-from-burnet-county-texas/
"a gruesome murder of some 36 men suspected of Unionism had taken place in their former home county, and that Henry Flaugher was among them. Twenty-five of the 36 men, according to the story, were hanged over the mouth of a saltpetre cave (there are many such caves in Burnet County), the ropes then cut so that the bodies dropped into the cave, seemingly out of sight forever."

This is merely a start, I'm at work and can't do much now. But the war crimes against southron Unionists is a plenty

No.
I think I mean, the southrons asking the Fed to come remove them. I cna't find it now but Sherman had a great quote about how the south would use the US Army when it needed.

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

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.

You wrote: :I am not making up anything. Were your ancestors loyal to America? If not, then of course they wouldn't be compensated. I said loyal citizens were. You should pause before calling someone a liar.

You use the word liar not me. I will say, though, you are being disingenuous by first saying "Such civilians who had harm done to their property were compensated by the US government " and then only later, in another thread, saying you really meant only if they were unionists.

You wrote: You can start here:
http://southernunionistschronicles....-civil-war-unionist-from-burnet-county-texas/
"a gruesome murder of some 36 men suspected of Unionism had taken place in their former home county, and that Henry Flaugher was among them. Twenty-five of the 36 men, according to the story, were hanged over the mouth of a saltpetre cave (there are many such caves in Burnet County), the ropes then cut so that the bodies dropped into the cave, seemingly out of sight forever."
This is merely a start, I'm at work and can't do much now. But the war crimes against southron Unionists is a plenty

I agree that unjustified killing took place on both sides, my problem with you and a number of even more strident posters here that would have us believe such occurrences were only hideous and uncalled for when committed by Confederates, but can be satisfactorily explained away when it was only Federal atrocities against Confederates.

I do wonder about the objectivity of a source describing itself as the " Southern Unionist chronicles." Were the people killed innocent bystanders killed for no other reason than being Northerners living in Texas or were they armed partisans preying on loyal civilians. I'm suspicious of the source ,but if the story is true it would be somewhat ironic given that Texas led the CSA in the number of Northern born men among their troops.

You wrote: "I think I mean, the southrons asking the Fed to come remove them. I cna't find it now but Sherman had a great quote about how the south would use the US Army when it needed.

You wrote: "I cna't find it now but Sherman had a great quote about how the south would use the US Army when it needed."

Was it this one?

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children. Nothing less will reach the toot of the cause."
--William T. Sherman

Or this one? "The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous"...

William T, Sherman

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

What are you talking about now?

"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