Skip to comments.The Battle of Gettysburg Through a 13-Year-Old’s Eyes
Posted on 04/23/2013 5:44:26 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
My children have long been urging me to give them in a short story my experience in the Battle of Gettysburg. I was then a girl of thirteen, living on the Seminary Ridge which today is known to every child who studies the history of the Civil War.
I shall never forget the June afternoon when I stood on the Seminary steps with my parents and other persons to see a Confederate host marching in the Chambersburg Pike. It seemed as if Pandemonium had broken loose. A more ragged and unkempt set of men would be hard to find. Many wore parts of Union soldiers suits which, I suppose, had been picked up on the field of battle, or had been discarded by our men. A squad from the main body was sent over to the Seminary to find out whether any Yankee soldiers were concealed there. After the investigators were informed that the building was a theological school edifice, a guard, was placed around it, and we felt perfectly safe. I do not think any property was destroyed at that time, excepting a few cars containing government supplies, which were burned and also the railroad bridge, a short distance from the town. Early the following morning our unwelcome guests took their departure for the purpose, they said, of capturing Baltimore and Washington. Shortly after the enemy left our place, we were made glad by seeing regiment after regiment of our own men come and encamp around us. We gave them a royal welcome.
(Excerpt) Read more at historic-restorations.com ...
They didn't do any good because they weren't meant for protection.
Why did Sherman order the destruction of certain buildings if he was going to torch the entire city?
I’d have more respect for the ned-confederate cause except for two things.
They’re outraged by alleged mistreatment of southern women by Union soldiers, yet support a government created for the primary purpose of perpetuating an institution that gave 1/3 of the women in their “country” no practical legal protection at all against rape.
They may exist, but I’ve yet to see neo-confederates posting about their horror at American “war crimes” in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. By any standard you care to use, these vastly exceed the greatest atrocities claimed against Union soldiers.
Which makes it look very much like neo-confederates aren’t really against rape or killing of civilians as such. They just object to their own people being on the receiving end of such.
That’s a perfectly logical position, but it hardly stands out as morally or ethically consistent.
They're usually too busy condemning the United States for actions ("atrocities"?) against indians (southern US troops appear curiously and conspicuously absent from these conflicts...must just be an oversight ;-)
is there any need to label neo confederates?
Neo this neo that, it’s all we ever hear form the left when talking about our side.
very good read , thanks , how long will it be when the usual trolls come out getting their digs in and fight the war over again but behind the safety of their computers
Is there really a need to label people 'trolls'?
Troll this, troll that, it's all we ever hear from the left when defending the Union side of the Civil War.
Sorry, no intent to label.
What non-judgmental term do you prefer for CSA apologists? I will be glad to use it.
BTW, I am not anti-southern. I think the demonization of the southern heritage is destructive and much of it aimed indirectly at today’s America and American conservatives.
I honor the Confederate soldier, who fought as bravely as any man in history, against great odds. However, I agree with Grant that the cause for which he fought, whether he realized it or not, was among the worst in history.
I understand, with Lincoln, the trap the South was in in 1860 and the desperation it felt. I believe many if not most of the southern people and leaders were honest in their belief slavery was a good thing that should be preserved and that it was necessary to their way of life.
I believe they were wrong, but honestly mistaken.
The only southern group I consider despicable are the fire-eaters who intentionally, out of hatred, greed and ambition stoked the fires of sectional bitterness. Those who labored to convince their fellows that slavery was good and produce philosophical justification for it.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
The bales weren't for protection, they were moved there as to be protected, i.e. not burned. That is what Sherman's Torches were doing, burning everything.
Since there is NOTHING to apologize for, there is no proper term.
The Southern average citizen was defending their homeland from FedGov and for their states rights. You are mixing up cause and effect, again.
"Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information."
Do you not consider yourself an apologist for the South? You certainly seem to be trying to be.
Just curious. What cause do you think the average German citizen was fighting for in WWII? Was it not to defend his homeland from attack? By a Red Army inarguably a great deal worse than the Union Army.
Can a man not fight bravely and honorably to defend his homeland while later recognizing that his homeland was engaged in some pretty bad stuff and that therefore its defeat was probably for the good in the long run?
I'm not trying to draw an analogy here between the CSA and Nazi Germany, except insofar as their soldiers both fought with admirable bravery and skill for (what I consider to be) bad causes. YMMV on that.
In WWII the USSR was also a bad cause, just slightly less bad than the Nazis. Many Red Army soldiers fought to defend their homeland and defeat Nazism, not because they loved Stalin or Communism.
Nobody in Germany voted for secession, they voted in a dictator who was maniacal. The people of the South voted for secession, which was their right. No comparison.
If you read Mein Kampf, you would know Hitler hated republics and the Confederacy and was a fan of Lincoln.
Really? What's your source for that? What would rain do to cotton bales out in the open?
Why would Hampton give orders not to fire the cotton unless he put it there for kindling?
That is what Sherman's Torches were doing, burning everything.
You've given no evidence for that, whatsoever.
As Sherman later said, if he had intended to burn Columbia, he would have done a complete job if it without concealment.
You are ignorant. They have books on the subject, the torching of the south, well documented.
All Lost Causer books, no doubt, with just as much evidence as you’ve presented, none.
Ok, it is your stated official position that Shermans men pranced through TN, GA, SC and NC and never burned anything? The whole story is make believe? You really are stupid. I am usually not so blunt, but you are an idiot. Perhaps you are geriatric and senile, if so I apologize.
Here's the text.
Hitler hated The (Weimar) Republic, not republics. And he doesn't even mention Lincoln
Which is, of course, why you leave them lying in the street. Good plan.
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.