Rough Rider
Retired User
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
And that was the point of the whole thread. You finally caught on.
......because the Civil War was just like a cooking show.
And that was the point of the whole thread. You finally caught on.
Still thinking that shooting at boats didn't tick Sherman off?
The takeaway I get from this book is that the Brits weren't the evil guys I grew up reading about. There was more in common between loyalists and rebels than sectional differences prior to the CW, and gasp, the King had a right to expect the Colonies to help pay for their protection by the imposition of modest taxes.
The takeaway I get from this book is that the Brits weren't the evil guys I grew up reading about. There was more in common between loyalists and rebels than sectional differences prior to the CW, and gasp, the King had a right to expect the Colonies to help pay for their protection by the imposition of modest taxes. The Mass. Puritan stock was extremely independent, considering themselves so since the Pilgrim landing. And get this, Bostonians were very worried about slave revolts in the city as the British withdrew. Sound familiar?
You've probably noticed the number of foreigners on this board that are sympathetic to the South of 1861. Maybe they read and sense history differently than we are taught, but hey, the US won the war and determined how it's history was written.
Consistent? I have been we are talking about the 1860's when both sides had regular field armies, and irregualars were called bushwackers and frowned upon. These men weren't considered heroes and even the Confederate high command didn't have a lot of use of them.But, going back to the Rev War, the colonists and Boston, they didn't have a standing army to face the British, and its was civilians shooting at them from Concord..Even then, it was looked down upon and no mercy was given to colonists they found firing that way..I'm on the farm this so limited by my iphone. On this I say you should know better, Wilber. I'm reading the new book 'Boston' by the author of 'Mayflower'. The Revolutionary War period was my fav as a kid and it's good to get back to it after seeing all the sectional bias **** associated with Civil War discussions. The detailed narrative of the British retreat from Concord are particularly brutal. Yes, shooting from behind walls, trees and buildings that you call cowardly. Even mutilation of redcoats by men we all call heroes. I guess that's why history is written by the victors, but you should at least try to be consistent.
Anyway, I'm trying to take care of things back here on the old family place. Things are a mess because I live several hundred miles away and can't get here often. I'd love to show you the swamps, bayous and magnificent Cypress sloughs. It's hot and there are lots of bugs so it's slow going but it gives me a chance to connect and reflect which to me is all worth it.
Wilber, I confess that I'm slightly confused. The letters you posted referring to guerillas were penned in Oct. '62. The OP contained a Dec. '63 quote with Sherman expressing a desire to slay millions to clear the Mississippi. Hadn't the big river been flowing unvexed to the sea for six months by then? Was he just stir crazy in winter quarters or what?
The firing and sniping was still ongoing, I posted these letters to show how he felt about men shooting from the river banks at ships many carrying civilians and non-war related goods..
As with many things, it wasn't so much the paying of taxes as in how it was asked. Pretty much from the establishment of the colonies, they were mostly autonomous, allowed to govern and tax themselves with only a little oversight from a royal governor. There were some fights but the colonies generally won because they owned the purse strings for the governor and so could challenge him on issues that they deemed important. All that changed after the Seven Years' War. Parliament began to see the colonies as strategic assets and wanted to take a more active role in their rule. They started decreeing what the colonies could do and overruled any objections by calling the colonists provincials who couldn't rule themselves. Understandably, this upset many in the colonies, which had been ruling themselves for decades if not more than 100 years. If Parliament had not looked down their noses at the colonists and invited their input in taxation and laws they would not have had a rebellion on their hands.
R
I'm glad you enjoyed it RR. I'll follow your deep thoughts more closely for enlightenment. The point of course was that words are just that, whether from a companion thread on Jeff Davis, a current one on Ms Deen or this one on Sherman. The responses are all predictable depending on the filter we read/hear them through. It's selective outrage, as is much of the discussion on this board. The ball has not been advanced one inch.It's always fun to watch people make flaccid analogies out of false equivalencies.....very compelling stuff.
Certainly nobody likes to pay taxes but I say in most cases you get what you pay for. People here in Louisiana have historically depended on either the French or Spanish - early days - to take care of them down to the later days of Huey Long - Edwin Edwards populism, which continues to this day. The state is expected to run things with very little burden from average citizens. Taxes are expected to be borne from the "rich" or greedy industry. If you like bad schools and bad roads that's fine, the food is good and the LSU Tigers are winning, so it's all good. That mindset has been here since the beginning and I see similarities with the Colonies. Yes they wanted to maintain their perceived independence but they still wanted the benefits and protection of English alliance without paying for it.
I'm glad you enjoyed it RR. I'll follow your deep thoughts more closely for enlightenment. The point of course was that words are just that, whether from a companion thread on Jeff Davis, a current one on Ms Deen or this one on Sherman. The responses are all predictable depending on the filter we read/hear them through. It's selective outrage, as is much of the discussion on this board. The ball has not been advanced one inch.
Thank you for the clarification, I get it now; I don't know why I didn't see it before. It seems that Paula Deen is another tragic casualty of the ongoing culture war. The unfortunate victim of a misogynist conspiracy to destroy the credibility of a successful southern white woman. The crucifixion of Paula Deen has absolutely nothing to do with business decisions based on demographics and arithmetic.
Is that the only post about Shermans atrocities in North Carolina that you can think of? How many times have you posted that? Twenty plus? Oh and by the way, did Sherman order this, or was this actually against his written orders?
Did he even know about the incident?Whether Sherman ordered the Wadesboro atrocity or not, the question arises what action did he take against the perpetrators if any? I’m not aware of Sherman taking any action against them -- are you? The only input that I seen here was whining about retaliatory action taken by the Home Guard and Confederate cavalry against Sherman’s men and especially those from Kilpatrick’s command in neighboring Richmond County a few days later.
"They left no living thing in Smithville [North Carolina] save the people. One old hen played sick and thus saved her neck, but lost all her children. The Yankees would run all over the yard to catch the little things to squeeze to death. Every nook and corner of the premises was searched and the things that they didn't use were burned or torn into strings. No house but the blacksmith shop was burned but they threw every tool, plow, etc. that was on the place....Gen. Slocum and two other hyenas of his rank rode up and introduced themselves with great pomp....Sis Susan was sick in bed and they searched the very pillows she was lying on, keeping up such a noise, tearing up and breaking to pieces, that the Generals couldn’t hear themselves talk, but not a time did they try to prevent it. They got all of my stockings and some of our collars and handkerchiefs. If I ever see a Yankee woman, I intend to whip her and take the clothes of her back."
Janie Smith
As moderator: We have a wonderful thread about Paula Dean: Paula Dean Fired. Please post there.
This is Off topic for this thread.
My apologies for posting inappropriately. Some very interesting speculation and historic parallels being drawn here. Begs the question: What if Sherman had written a cook book? How might this have changed the outcome of the Civil War?
I'd much rather the American Civil War had been decided by a cook off. I wonder how Lee was with a skillet.
Any Sherman cookbook would of necessity include a section of Flambe' recipes! His little buddy Hiram could supply the hooch, if there was any left over.My apologies for posting inappropriately. Some very interesting speculation and historic parallels being drawn here. Begs the question: What if Sherman had written a cook book? How might this have changed the outcome of the Civil War?