Posted on 01/04/2009 2:29:32 PM PST by NCjim
Revisionist history at its very worst.
Actually the South invaded the North in 1863 in PA and there was not widespread looting and destruction as seen by Sherman one year later
True. As had very similar raids by Missourians going the other way. I grew up in the area, Dad was from KS, Mom from MO. I got both sides of the legend from family members.
Despite the years of fighting, massacres of unarmed people had been somewhat limited in scale before Lawrence, generally ten or a dozen at most.
Please don't portray the people of MO as innocent victims of Kansan aggression. There was plenty of blame to be distributed for this civil war within a war.
It is also interesting that even after the Lawrence massacre, the Kansas and Union troops perpetrated no similarly-scaled atrocity.
You stated...how Sherman's troops burned her parent's home to the ground and how before they fled,
Not to pick on you any but to use you as a footstool to make a comment about Shermans march. My understanding is that if the house was physically occupied while the troops passed by they in general did not destroy the property or molested the occupants, unless agitated by occupants. In general the Union officers pretty much knew which families had supported the Confederates big time and which ones didn't. They had maps and information on many of the families that lost much. My understanding is that they specifically sought out the destruction of specific properties. Everything else was up to the troops and the officers over those troops.
But if the property was not occupied while they passed by there was an assumption that the head of the family had went off to fight the war or that the family had something to fear because of their involvement of the confederacy. Pretty much unoccupied properties got destroyed.
Either way I can't blame occupants for fleeing their properties, but in so doing they suffered the consequence. Basically if they stayed they face the unknown for their lives but if they fled at least they might live another day. But if I was them I probably would of fled too. But because many people fled their houses, their houses where destroyed. Kind of like being between a rock and a hard place and not knowing the intentions of the enemy before they get to your house.
Most talk is about the destruction of houses during the march through Georgia, but most of the destruction was in South Carolina where they spare no mercy.
I wish Israel would do a “March to the Sea”, breaking any and all resistance. This is a fight for survival.
Why is Israel the only country for which a military response to a year long rocket barrage is considered excessive?
What we have forget in today’s world is that the object of war is to win. Only the total defeat of one side by the other leads to peace. In regards to tariffs, if the South wasn’t a slave society, they might have developed an economy that did not only benefit a small aristocratic elite.Slavery was ineficient, and retarded any industrial or commercial development. It is a sin, that so many Southerners gave their lives for the benefit of those who were screwing them economically.There were those in West Virginia, East Tennessee and North Alabama who realized this. The Ante-Bellum South was a typical Third World economy.
BS!! I’m with you. Sherman was a war criminal, plain and simple. If you need any facts to back it up, just read the book “War Crimes Committed Against Southern Civilians.”
But there is a difference. The people of the South just wanted to go in peace, and according to the logic of the declaration of independence had and still have every right to do so.
That's what I like about threads like this. It seems like every one introduces yet another new Southern myth.
Interesting comment, I guess since Gen. Sherman was not a Christian he probably couldn't give a damn about most of the civilization. I don't know if the man was a man that stood by high morals of the day, I've got a feeling he did though even though it doesn't appear to be the case at least from the southern point of view. But I think we need to keep in perspective he was in charge of an army overall and not of the individual divisions etc. Its hard for one man to control 100,000 men.
As far as Gen. Jackson goes he was a Calvinist so pretty much he would of believed your eternal destination was determined before hand, so as many Calvinist would of said, "lets kill them all and let God sort them out".
Esteemed economist and mediocre historian Walter Williams. Still, there is no reason why states can't leave. Just do it properly.
I guess this explains why there are no statues of him in Savannah.
That was certainly the preferred attitude in the Japanese army. But you can't project that onto the entire population. The Japanese government knew in April of 1945 that they would have a million deaths due to starvation in the next six months. They knew it was over. In deed the very fact that the Japanese did surrender sort of disproves the fight to the last man myth.
The Union army didn't seem to have any problems doing that as well. Especially in the west.
Well do please give us the magic incantation.
“If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place.
I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there.
If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in 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; very well.
Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late.
All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers.
Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives.
A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences.
Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.”
William Tecumseh Sherman, 1864
You're wrong in any number of ways.
Lincoln even said in his First Inaugural that he did not care about the plight of the Negro.
Where?
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.