Sally Field cast in Spielberg's Lincoln (Watch out for liberals trying to steal a Republican Hero)

Sherman with his "total war" had alot to insure that an already hard war turned into a long bitter, blood feud that left Freedmen blacks in the South holding the bag and remnants of that action endures to this day.

I think the hardness of Sherman's war is overrated. Besides, the freed slaves were treated badly under Presidential Reconstruction in areas far from Sherman's path.

The Radicals Republicans were ALWAYS for a revenge for slavery and rebellion.

I can't fault them on that. Stupidity has its consequences, especially when it costs hundreds of thousands of lives. Rather arcane arguments in favor of the legality of secession fade when the laughable self-destructive actions of the plantation power structure is considered.

Concerning my comment about segregation, the Radical ideal was to enable the freed slaves to live independently as self-sufficent farmers - separate and equal to white farmers. That was aim of Thaddeus Stevens' "forty acres and a mule". But separate and equal wasn't part of the rebs' mindset. In their mind, it was either all or nothing. It wasn't long-lasting effects of Yankee Reconstruction that held back the South for so long, but the common sense truth that you cannot both progress and hold back a large portion of your population at the same time.

Northerners had mines, factories and railroads. The South couldn't copy them and even if they could the Northern interests didn't want the competition. All they wanted protection from oversea competition and cheap labor to exploit and they already had that.

They cared not for the small Southern farmers and having nowhere else to go, poor southerners sided with the Slave owners. Thus the hidden economic reasons for the war: tariffs and taxes.

I do not know about tobacco, but there was not much small scale cotton growing before the war. Most small farmers in the South were much like small farmers in the North. The main difference was that southern farmers had to indirectly bear some of the costs of the big plantations' cheap labor, much as citizens have to do today with respect to illegal immigration. So why should southern small farmers be any more upset with tariffs than northern small farmers? If that really was a big deal, the logical action would have been to stay with Douglas in 1860 and maintain a united anti-tariff front. But either the southerners were incredibly stupid or they really only wanted to separate over slavery.

And I think that people sometimes over stress northern industrialization. The North was more industrialized than the South, but large areas of the Midwest was still agriculturally oriented and they did not like slavery and rebellion any more than the East.

The early period of the war -- which I assume is what you're talking about -- was a period of crisis. Davis and the Confederates were trying to get all they could.

Lincoln did so in response to some riots, local militia actions,but it was the unfounded belief Maryland other border slave states these would secede from the Union. Imprisoning the Mayor of Baltimore and numerous delegates of the legislature were very radical responses to local riots. But did that really justify suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus? In areas where the civilian courts were still open, which was the case of all of them, it was completely unwarranted and found so by the Supreme Court. Lincoln ignored the ruling

In other countries we would call this fascism. Chavez, Ahmedjame anyone?

The second problem is -- how was liberty "destroyed?" In the early years of the war, there were some restrictions on freedoms in the North -- more in the South -- but the country was free after the war, probably freer than it had been before.

True the slaves were freed and there's no discounting that but other countries outlawed slavery without destroying and killing a sizable portion of it's male population. But as others have posted Lincoln's centralization had been the tombstone of states right and cornerstone of very big government program ever proposed.

While it isn't as dramatic as brown shirts knocking on doors at midnight and concentration camps. The encroachment and worse still the mindset that government is the final answer to all woes would terrify the Foundering Fathers.

I think the hardness of Sherman's war is overrated.

So a 100 mile swath of homes, foods ruffs and personal property (not including war supplies) of worth 80,000,000 was "overrated"

"Uncle Billy" and his bummers did indeed make Georgia howl and burned into the conscience of millions of Southerners for generations to come how . Making war on civilians, mostly old men women and children was one helluva way of winning a war but it made a lousy way of winning the peace as history has shown. Don't know about the people in other places be we don't take kindly to the rape and pillage of our kinfolk and we tend not to forget it.

Besides, the freed slaves were treated badly under Presidential Reconstruction in areas far from Sherman's path.

Using that logic, Southerners shouldn't get all hot and bothered about 911. It was just a couple of little plane crashes in New York. Right?

No doubt about it, Freedmen were going to get the pointy end of the stick by vengeful rebels if they tried to vote, get organized etc., but Sherman 's march kicked the hornet's nest of repressed angry and shown many Southerners, particularly lower and middle class whites that the Radicals were in charge and it mattered not whether you were a plantation master or sharecropper, you were going to catch Hell for being a secescionsist.

I do not know about tobacco, but there was not much small scale cotton growing before the war. Most small farmers in the South were much like small farmers in the North

Some small farmers did grow cotton although tobacco was more widespread. It was considered a "cash crop"which once they planted after the essentials foodstuffs or as the markets demanded
. It allowed them to dream of better things as they toiled in the hot July sun. That's what our family did as small farmers and it helped them to acquire more land after the civil war.
The main difference was that southern farmers had to indirectly bear some of the costs of the big plantations' cheap labor, much as citizens have to do today with respect to illegal immigration

What costs do you mean? Puzzled

If that really was a big deal....

Brits used to say the same thing about Bostonians and their obsession with taxes and tea...

So why should southern small farmers be any more upset with tariffs than northern small farmers?

Export taxes fell heavily on tobacco and cotton. The two items major export items and difficult to raise in northern climates. Grains, apples and cranberries were mainly for domestic consumption.

But either the southerners were incredibly stupid or they really only wanted to separate over slavery.

Typical ignorant and biased Yankee response.

And people wonder why Southerners can't just " get over it"

Lincoln did so in response to some riots, local militia actions,but it was the unfounded belief Maryland other border slave states these would secede from the Union. Imprisoning the Mayor of Baltimore and numerous delegates of the legislature were very radical responses to local riots.

The government had good evidence of secessionist subversive activities in the Border States. It's possible to disagree with the precise actions that were taken, but not to act would have been to surrender legitimate authority and cave into such efforts.

True the slaves were freed and there's no discounting that but other countries outlawed slavery without destroying and killing a sizable portion of it's male population.

Those countries didn't have millions of slaveowners and others taking up arms against any hint of opposition to slavery. Generally, the numbers of slaves and slaveowners was small. And emancipation was often an act of a far-away colonial power. As it was, though, look at what happened in Haiti, or at how emancipation helped lose the Brazilian emperor his throne.

The government had good evidence of secessionist subversive activities in the Border States.
But then they should have brought the charges up in the civilian courts which was still open at the time
Those countries didn't have millions of slave owners and others taking up arms against any hint of opposition to slavery.

Really? Millions of slave owners? Speaking from the Census, Slavers were an minority even in the most pro slavery state like Mississippi or Louisiana. From those owning one to those who had several hundred slaves, there wouldn't have been more than 10 thousand owners of slaves in the whole country and even that is an exaggeration at best.

Tariffs and the sense of state patriotism was the reason many lower to middle class southerners went to war.

But then they should have brought the charges up in the civilian courts which was still open at the time

Should have? Probably should have, assuming that were possible and practical. But post-911 that's not so compelling an argument to make. We know about emergency situations. And we ought to know more about military tribunals and suspension of habeus corpus in the Confederacy? Did they resort to the same measures?

Really? Millions of slave owners? Speaking from the Census, Slavers were an minority even in the most pro slavery state like Mississippi or Louisiana. From those owning one to those who had several hundred slaves, there wouldn't have been more than 10 thousand owners of slaves in the whole country and even that is an exaggeration at best.

Okay, I spoke in haste. There were over three million slaves, and between three and four hundred thousand slaveowners. It's been estimated that in South Carolina and Mississippi over forty percent -- almost half -- of all households owned at least one slave. I don't know how accurate the estimates are, but slavery was surely a major factor in making peaceful emancipation unlikely in 19th century America.

Tariffs and the sense of state patriotism was the reason many lower to middle class southerners went to war.

Tariffs, not so much. That's more an excuse developed later.

But sure, local feeling, state pride, and "Southernness." The Upper South was opposed to secession until after the fall of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops. There was a feeling that the South and its social order were under attack and needed to be defended. And men went to war for home and family and an idea of freedom.

You can look behind that if you want -- Just what did "Our Southern Way of Life" really mean anyway? Exactly what freedoms were at issue? -- but you don't have to. The reasons men gave were compelling enough for them to fight. It doesn't change my point, though. Whatever the reasons individuals went to war for, in the big picture concern about the future of slavery and fear of abolitionism were important triggers for the crisis.

I had family in Northwest Georgia who were in direct contact with Sherman's army in the winter of 1863-64. Not only have I not heard any stories of plunder and bad behavior, but my great great grandfather received monetary compensation after the war from Congress for his property that the Union army had to use.

The cost of slavery that all southerners had to bear was the costs of keeping a large servile class controlled.

I am a southerner for whatever it's worth. My people were in Tennessee during the Revolution. But right is right and the Confederacy was wrong.

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.