Posted on 12/05/2014 1:01:20 PM PST by aomagrat
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -
At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.
"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.
"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."
McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.
"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."
(Excerpt) Read more at wistv.com ...
They never tried to invade’’. The what the f**k was Gettysburg?
Oh yeah, the were right alright. They got their tails kicked six ways from Sunday.
The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!
The federal government could not and did not own state land.
If you underpin an argument of culpability on “who fired the first shot”, then that responsibility lies with the Union Army that fired on Floridians ninety days before Ft. Sumter.
The blockades at Pensacola and Charleston predated 4:15 a.m. April 12, 1861.
That wasn’t me. I was quoting.
I see. My apologies.
You didn’t know?
Freepers, sheesh!
Okay, I won’t leave you out there.
3 minutes
Bluto’s Speech from Animal House: http://youtu.be/ep-xgd_eETE
I was addressing only the strategic destruction of civilian society, as carried on by Sherman. This is a war crime, no matter what the political or social forces which led to the formation of the CSA.
“Federal law did specify the use of states’ land for coastal defense only.”
Wouldn’t Federal law be void in the matter of a seceded state? From a legal standpoint, at least? Would you find me the Federal law that states this?
“The federal government could not and did not own state land.”
Oh, really?
“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.”
There are no records that I can find of Charleston being blockaded before the Battle of Ft. Sumter. If you could find a source, I would be happy to read it.
In regards to Pensacola and Fort Barrancas occupied by Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer BEFORE Florida seceded, it was “group of local men” who fired upon the Fort in an attempt to seize it, *NOT* Union men. This incident was 10 days before Florida became Confederate. The Lieutenant had every right to occupy this Fort. Historians do not officially consider this incident to be “the first shots of the Civil War,” but it was done by the Confederates, in any case.
*Rather, it was done by Confederate sympathizers.
All war is a crime. But either war is obsolete or men are.
U go girl
I salute
U go girl
I salute
If you will see the records, without question Slemmer ordered Union Infantry to fire on duly authorized Florida militia......the first shots of the war.
Historians do not have any authority to make any “official” determination.
The United States Coast Guard historical documents state that the “Harriet Lane” fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter at incoming shipping on the evening of the 11th.
Impeding shipping with cannon fire under the authority of an executive is a blockade.
Later, Charleston authorities defended their property.
“If it is your contention that secession nullified federal law, then you would be in agreement with state authorities that the pile of rocks in question lay within the navigable waters of the state, and under state authority.”
I wasn’t stating that that was true. I was wondering. You just answered my question. All that besides, where did federal law state that forts are to protect the states? Or that the Feds cannot take territory? And what about the fact that the South Carolinian government turned Sumter over to the Feds? The legislation ceding the Fort to the government states otherwise.
“If you will see the records, without question Slemmer ordered Union Infantry to fire on duly authorized Florida militia......the first shots of the war.”
What records? I never found anything to substantiate that claim. According to the Pensacola Historical Society, Slemmer moved his forces out of McRee and Barrancas and into the US-controlled Fort Pickens two days before the militias of both Florida and Alabama showed up. It was those militiamen that attacked Ft. Pickens on the 21st, A Union owned fort.
I didn’t say that the Historians have any authority. That would be like saying that the historians who claim Shakespeare was gay are right because they are historians. I was merely stating that as what I’ve read. The US government believes that the Battle of Fort Sumter was the first battle of the war, whereas it’s historians believe that the events in Pensacola are the beginning of the war. As you said, historians have no authority in this matter. The official date of the start of the Civil War was at Fort Sumter.
“The United States Coast Guard historical documents state that the “Harriet Lane” fired the first shots at Ft. Sumter at incoming shipping on the evening of the 11th.”
The Harriet Lane was besieged by Confederate forces, after the Governor of South Carolina threatened military action if the Union did not surrender Ft. Sumter. Governor Pickens stated,”I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina.” He states that the fort was owned by the US government. The Union forces were there to protect Union property. Who was the aggressor in that situation? As you say, the Union fired first, but it was in defense of government property. You seem to think that it was okay for the South to defend its property, but the North not to defend its property. If you read the legislation, there is no doubt that Ft. Sumter was Union property. You say that it was the Union that fired first, yet claim that the first skirmish of the war was in Pensacola. In Pensacola, it was the Confederates that fired first. At Sumter, it was the Union. So which one was it? If we go by the official reports, then Sumter was where it began, and it was in a defense of property. It wasn’t like the North waltzed in willy-nilly to take the fort. In truth, it was in the North’s possession. In both cases, the South was the aggressor, attacking forts owned by the US government.
So where are the supposed records of the blockades prior to Fort Sumter? I cannot even find any for Pensacola until May.
when a president knowingly breaks the law, ignores the rulings of the supreme court, jails congressmen who disagree with him and deny’s people a right to a trial and denying the constitutional right of habeas corpus.
I personally call that treason.
What “congressmen” did Lincoln jail? As for ignoring the rulings of the supreme court, I’d happily ignore anything that taney scribbled.
Lol
Damn it warms my heart to see two southern women do so well on this thread
And these numbnuts arguing are as oblivious to what 1861-77 was all about as they are to the disintegration going on around them now
They excuse anything the Yankees did to southerners because in their opinion it was all about race
And it still is today and its destroyed the country
We will never get it back as we know baring what you suggested
Ferguson etc is just the new norm
Note how well Yankees handle their own black population in numbers crisis(s)
Ferguson, Cincinnati, New York
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.