Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1913 Gettysburg Reunion of Blue and Gray
Huntington News ^ | June 14, 2013 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

Posted on 06/15/2013 2:53:18 PM PDT by BigReb555

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last
To: sergeantdave
Recordings of a rebel yell

That was fascinating. Imagine being a Yankee soldier in the front lines and hearing that sort of yell coming from 15,000 enemy soldiers advancing toward you.

51 posted on 06/15/2013 7:13:21 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

You can see the video taken of this event in 1913 at the end of “The Civil War” series by Ken Burns. It is very moving to see these survivors marching with amputated legs and arms.
One of the honored guests was Mrs. Longstreet...
Very cool....


52 posted on 06/15/2013 7:13:38 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Good for you!
I had to memorize the whole thing in 7th grade...worth it.Visiting the battle field is awe inspiring. Truly sacred ground...


53 posted on 06/15/2013 7:15:55 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

Wonderful part of the series....
He was superb....


54 posted on 06/15/2013 7:17:10 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Exactly...
If one has studied even the beginning of our republic, the differences between the North and South were substantial even with the North also sanctioning slavery then...


55 posted on 06/15/2013 7:21:35 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bboop

here is what is happening the week of June 29 to Jul 7:

http://www.nps.gov/gett/planyourvisit/upload/GETT-150-CommemorativeGuide.pdf


56 posted on 06/15/2013 7:23:54 PM PDT by PaulZe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tenthirteen

Sherman, while being a scurvy varmint, knew how to win a war...
One place he did intentionally burn was Columbia, SC to level the home of Gen. Wade Hampton of CSA cavalry.
Now there was a guy (Hampton) who gave all for the cause...
Highly recommend all interested to read his story...


57 posted on 06/15/2013 7:26:23 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BigReb555

Well done...


58 posted on 06/15/2013 7:30:53 PM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 240B; 75thOVI; Adder; albertp; asgardshill; At the Window; bitt; blu; BradyLS; cajungirl; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks BigReb555. This is our weekly Digest list ping, hope you like it. :') Some old footage of that reunion survives, seen here from Ken Burns' "The Civil War".

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


59 posted on 06/15/2013 7:44:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Old footage of Gettysburg veteran’s reunions
http://grapevinedispatches.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/old-footage/

Rare Motion Pictures Show Civil War Veterans at the 75th Gettysburg Battle Anniversary Reunion
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/02/rare-motion-pictures-show-civil-war-veterans-75th-gettysburg-battle-anniversary-reunion

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/yt7qvuHSg6U/maxresdefault.jpg

The Gettysburg Reunion of 1913
Huntington News | June 16, 2011 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.
Posted on 06/17/2011 3:29:43 PM PDT by BigReb555
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2736301/posts


60 posted on 06/15/2013 7:54:12 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
Even after surrender Sherman had to burn Atlanta to the ground!

Do you have any idea what you are talking about.

First when Sherman was in Atlanta, the war was still very much hot and heavy. There had been no surrender.

Second, Atlanta was not "burned" to the ground. Go to Atlanta today and there are still many fine antebellum structures existing. Sherman focused on their 'industrial' and transportation infrastructure.

61 posted on 06/15/2013 8:10:24 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Wow. Good analogy — up to a point.... Meaning that, whereas I hold a good deal of respect for most of the generals (on both sides) of the Civil War, I have ZERO respect for today’s North Eastern Republicans and Democrats.


62 posted on 06/15/2013 8:16:17 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Well then I suggest you call Wikki and straighten their asses out!

In 1864, following the capture of Chattanooga, the Union Army moved southward and began its invasion of north Georgia. The region surrounding Atlanta was the location of several major army battles, culminating with the Battle of Atlanta and a four-month-long siege of the city by the Union Army under the command of General William Tecumseh Sherman. On September 1, 1864, Confederate General John Bell Hood made the decision to retreat from Atlanta, ordering all public buildings and possible assets to the Union Army destroyed. On the next day, Mayor James Calhoun surrendered Atlanta to the Union Army, and on September 7, General Sherman ordered the city’s civilian population to evacuate. On November 11, 1864, in preparation of the Union Army’s march to Savannah, Sherman ordered Atlanta to be burned to the ground, sparing only the city’s churches and hospitals.[32]


63 posted on 06/15/2013 8:18:21 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45

Also... it was 100 degrees??? Clearly global warming was getting an early start.

///////////////////

Very astute observation!

Better notify Mr Gore!


64 posted on 06/15/2013 8:19:10 PM PDT by man_in_tx (Blowback (Faithfully farting twowards Mecca five times daily).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: celmak

“Democrat Slavers ways and Democrat Slavers deeds never forgotten and still persist to the day!”

Lemme ax you this, buddy:

If you had no prospects of ever owning a slave—as was true of the vast majority of southerners—would you go and fight for slavery, given the hardships involved?

I can’t think of any sane person who would.


65 posted on 06/15/2013 9:01:42 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
Dude. That was not 'after surrender' as you had stated. It was after John Bell Hood, the worst commander the Confederates ever had, had burned half of Atlanta when he pulled out. That was in September of 1864 when Sherman moved into Atlanta.

Hood stayed outside the city and continued attacking Sherman's supply lines into the city. The war was far from over.

In November of 1864, Sherman eventually made his decision to leave Atlanta but instead of retreating back to Tennessee, he decided to move his best troops through Georgia to Savannah and to send more than half of his army back to Tennessee to deal with Hood -- who they then completely destroyed because Hood was an idiot.

When Sherman left Atlanta, he burned anything of military value, but the city was not 'burned to the ground' as you claim. Factories and rail yards and such were torched, but most of the city was untouched.

That all happened 6 months before there was any 'surrender' by the Confederates, but Sherman's march through Georgia surely hastened that eventual surrender and saved tens of thousands of lives on both sides.

War is hell.

66 posted on 06/15/2013 9:28:51 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

The city was surrendered! Dude! Sherman decided to burn it! What other city was burnd to the ground after surrender and hostilities ceased! I’m not talking Lee I’m talking the people of Atlanta and the Confederates moved out!
Read the text! What ever you want to think is fine with me> Sherman on a Yankee whim burned Atlanta! It’s history! now go beat another dead horse!


67 posted on 06/15/2013 9:33:45 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1

Yeah, ‘’states rights’’. The right of states to own slaves.


68 posted on 06/15/2013 9:40:51 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dsc
If you had no prospects of ever owning a slave—as was true of the vast majority of southerners—

Lemme ax you this, buddy:

If you were a 20 year old, why would you think you had no prospects of ever owning a slave? Why wouldn't they think they could become prosperous and own slaves some day?

Were all those Confederate solders just resigned to being poor and underclass the rest of their lives or did they have their own dreams and ambitions?

69 posted on 06/15/2013 9:41:08 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You're thinking of the cross-dresser from Mississippi


70 posted on 06/15/2013 11:35:26 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Rebel Yell!


71 posted on 06/16/2013 12:01:04 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Great pictures! Love it.
Thanks for posting.
72 posted on 06/16/2013 2:56:16 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx; celmak
man_in_tx: "Few things amuse me more than to hear advocates for the North declare the Confederacy a “foreign government,” and its followers traitors."

The Confederacy was never called a "foreign government", since it's legitimacy was never recognized by Unionists -- it was no "government" -- and the word "foreign" doesn't apply.

"Traitors" is a different question, since the US Constitution defines "treason" as:

Yes, after the war, all was eventually forgiven, and nobody was tried as traitors.
But tell us, FRiend, which part of the word "treason" do you not understand?

73 posted on 06/16/2013 3:08:30 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1; tanknetter; laplata; rockrr; celmak; tenthirteen; Ditto
Conserev1: "Even after surrender Sherman had to burn Atlanta to the ground!
Yankee ways and Yankee deeds never forgotten and still persist to the day! Never Forget!"

Conserev1: "The city was surrendered! Dude! Sherman decided to burn it!
What other city was burnd to the ground after surrender and hostilities ceased! "

First, it's important to remember that Confederate forces invaded & operated in Union states wherever and whenever they had the chance, including: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona and others not directly connected, such as New Mexico, Colorado, California and even Vermont.
Jefferson Davis' plan to invade Illinois was canceled only because of Grant's 1862 victories at Forts Henry and Donelson.

Second, while Confederate troops were usually very well behaved within the Confederacy, once outside it, then, well not so much.
They always, like Sherman in Georgia, "lived off the land" and left trails of pillage and destruction along every trip north.
Yes, some of Lee's troops in Pennsylvania did offer to "pay" for their pillage, but it was in Confederate money worthless to northern farmers.

Third, there are very few confirmed reports of Civil War soldiers -- Union or Confederate -- murdering, kidnapping or raping civilians, and certainly not as acts of policy, but most of those reports we do have come from Confederate troops invading Union states.
The biggest example of that came on August 21, 1863, when William Quantrill led Quantrill's Raid into Lawrence, Kansas, killing about 200 unarmed men, plundering and burning the town.

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania is another example, invaded by Confederate forces three different times, each time suffering destruction:

  1. "October 10, 1862, Confederate Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart, with 1,800 cavalrymen, raided Chambersburg, destroying $250,000 of railroad property and taking 500 guns, hundreds of horses, and [kidnapping] at least "eight young colored men and boys."[38]
    They failed, however, to accomplish one of the main targets of the raid: to burn the railroad bridge across the Conococheague Creek at Scotland, five miles (8 km) north of town.[39]"

  2. "During the early days of the 1863 Gettysburg Campaign, a Virginia cavalry brigade under Brig. Gen. Albert G. Jenkins occupied the town and burned several warehouses and Cumberland Valley Railroad structures and the bridge at Scotland."

  3. "The following year, Chambersburg was invaded for a third time, as cavalry dispatched from the Shenandoah Valley by Jubal Early arrived.[5]
    On July 30, 1864, a large portion of the town was burned down under orders from Brig. Gen. John McCausland for failing to provide a ransom of $500,000 in US currency, or $100,000 in gold.[42][43]

    "Among the few buildings left standing was the Masonic Temple, which had been guarded under orders by a Confederate mason.[44]
    Norland, the home of Republican politician and editor Alexander McClure, was burned even though it was well north of the main fire.

    " 'Remember Chambersburg' soon became a Union battle cry.[45]"

Remember, this happened long before General Sherman even thought of marching to Atlanta.

Point is: the idea of "scorched earth" was not a Union invention.
The Confederacy was familiar and practiced it as the occasions arose.

74 posted on 06/16/2013 3:56:39 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
Also... it was 100 degrees??? Clearly global warming was getting an early start.

It was all that hot air from Wilson.

75 posted on 06/16/2013 4:12:57 AM PDT by Rocky (Obama is pure evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The yankees stole my Great-Great Grandmother`s horse and denied her compensation. The Southern Claims Commission said it was because her brothers were Confederates.
There are some in the family today who are still want the horse back............not fourty acres and a mule.....a horse.


76 posted on 06/16/2013 4:15:18 AM PDT by Einherjar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Point is: the idea of "scorched earth" was not a Union invention. The Confederacy was familiar and practiced it as the occasions arose.

Chambersburg was an anomaly that is why it is always "remembered". What are your OTHER examples? For every example you come up with anyone could counter with 100 Yankee examples. So your liberal tactics aren't going to work.

77 posted on 06/16/2013 4:21:09 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I did not see the word surrendered in your examples.


78 posted on 06/16/2013 4:23:57 AM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1

What right was it that the states wished to retain? It was slavery.

You can paint it over any which way....but slavery was bad and needed to be abolished—north and south.

Anyway, the fight is over and we have bigger fish to fry today. Lets agree to disagree about the causes. Lets agree to work against the current enemy.


79 posted on 06/16/2013 4:25:52 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
The city was surrendered! Dude! Sherman decided to burn it! What other city was burnd to the ground after surrender and hostilities ceased! I’m not talking Lee I’m talking the people of Atlanta and the Confederates moved out!

My understanding of the situation, and people who know better are more than welcome to correct it for me, is that Sherman was about to cut off his logistics train and march his army (at least the portion that wasn't tasked with going back after Hood) across Georgia to Savannah, essentially "living off the land" as Winfield Scott had done during the march in Mexico a couple decades earlier.

Sherman couldn't afford the troops to occupy Atlanta. He was taking them with him or sending them after Hood. He did not want - in fact from a military perspective could not have tolerated - a major urban area/military center of communication in his rear that could have been reoccupied by his enemy following his departure. Even though the city had surrendered, the Confederate States of American had not.

Removing Atlanta as real estate with military value makes sense. Sherman would have been criminally negligent had he done otherwise. The possible alternative situation has a nice parallel in the 2003 Iraq War - the rapid drive on Baghdad with forces insufficient to occupy the territory won on the way there (and the refusal on humanitarian grounds to level those Iraqi urban areas in the path of the drive/bypassed by the drive and left either unoccupied or insufficiently occupied) caused all sorts of problems down the road.
80 posted on 06/16/2013 4:26:34 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1

To bad the South didn’t have a scorched earth policy too. The South was to weak to make it very far into the North. But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground. It would be such fun reading how it was the burned by vacating troops and how war is hell just get over it we won so shut up with the truth. I would love to see the same slough off of history but going the other way.


81 posted on 06/16/2013 4:27:35 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
What other city was burnd to the ground after surrender and hostilities ceased!

Chambersburg, Maryland by Jubal Early in July 1864. That was before Sherman took Atlanta.

82 posted on 06/16/2013 4:30:30 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
Yankee ways and Yankee deeds never forgotten and still persist to the day! Never Forget!

That's the same kind of sentiment that modern day black leaders use when they blame slavery for all their ills and call for reparations.

83 posted on 06/16/2013 4:32:41 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

The average Confederate soldier gladly took up arms against the New England puritan power structure. It had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with wanting a separation from haughty New England Yankee stranglehold on the USA. It was a cause looking for an issue. The slavery issue would due, heck any issue would do if it meant a free rifle, free ammo and the killing of Yankees. Heck the thought of killing Yankees right now has a lot of appeal to a lot of people in the South to this day.


84 posted on 06/16/2013 4:33:15 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
How unfair of the North to take the fruit of the labor of those hard-working slaves in the South and slap high tariffs on it.

Huh?

85 posted on 06/16/2013 4:34:53 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
we have bigger fish to fry today

You and that turd in your pocket?

86 posted on 06/16/2013 4:35:08 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar
There are some in the family today who are still want the horse back............not fourty acres and a mule.....a horse.

There's a very good chance that the horse is dead by now. Your family is aware of that?

87 posted on 06/16/2013 4:42:08 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: central_va
But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground.

They tried: Link. But being Confederate agents, stupid, and inept in that order their attempt failed.

88 posted on 06/16/2013 4:46:02 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dsc; celmak; Ditto; rockrr; central_va
dsc: "If you had no prospects of ever owning a slave—as was true of the vast majority of southerners—would you go and fight for slavery, given the hardships involved?
I can’t think of any sane person who would."

First, it's important to remember that secession and Civil War proceeded in three distinct steps:

  1. Step One: Seven Deep South states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana Georgia and Texas) declared their secession, solely for the purpose of protecting their "peculiar institution" of slavery against the perceived threat of newly-elected anti-slavery President Abraham Lincoln.

    At the same time eight other slave-holding states of the Upper South and Border States refused to secede just to protect slavery -- North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.

  2. Step two: recognizing that his cause was hopeless if he could not get more states to join the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis provoked, started and declared war (May 6, 1861) against the United States.

    In response, newly inaugurated President Lincoln called up Union troops to suppress the rebellion and recover seized Federal properties (i.e., Fort Sumter).

  3. Step three: Now that they were forced to chose sides in war, the four Upper South states which had originally refused, now switched to join the Confederacy: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.
    Four Border States still refused: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.

Second, it's important to remember that those categories of Deep South, Upper South and Border States correspond to average percentages of families which owned slaves:

  1. Deep South: roughly 50% of white families owned slaves, meaning that those who did not were typically young-marrieds or perhaps poorer artisans in towns.
    Virtually everyone was closely related to somebody who owned slaves.

  2. Upper South: roughly 25% of white families owned slaves, and many who did not were loyal Unionists whose young men served in Union units and who supported Union armies operating in their states.
    Many of these people received compensation for their expenses from the Federal Government after the war.

  3. Border States: typically 10% of white families owned slaves, slave owners were a distinct minority, lacking enough political clout to force secession, and states like Maryland had as many free-blacks as slaves.
    While Border States also provided soldiers to both sides, ratios were typically two Union for every one Confederate.

Point is: the vast majority of Confederate troops came from Deep South states or sections of Upper South & Border States with very high percentages of slave-holding families.

Areas of Confederate states with low slave-holding percentages (i.e., western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, etc.) remained loyal to the Union and provided military units to Union forces.

89 posted on 06/16/2013 4:46:53 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar
Einherjar: "The yankees stole my Great-Great Grandmother`s horse and denied her compensation.
The Southern Claims Commission said it was because her brothers were Confederates."

Thank you, I love that story!

It's true, the claims commissions were far more "hard *ssed" than we would wish today.
Basically, they required for you to be compensated for war losses, that your family had to have served the Union cause during the war, for example by supplying troops to Union units.

So far more applied for compensation than received it.

90 posted on 06/16/2013 4:52:55 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "Chambersburg was an anomaly that is why it is always "remembered".
What are your OTHER examples?
For every example you come up with anyone could counter with 100 Yankee examples."

Of course, since most of the war was fought in Confederate states.

But not all, and whenever Confederate forces had the chance to invade Union states or territories, they did, including the long list of states I mentioned in post #74 above.

In every case, Confederate forces "lived off the land", taking what they needed and often leaving trails of destruction behind them.
Indeed, for many of these operations (i.e., in Ohio, Indiana & Kentucky), their purpose was to gather up as many Union supplies as possible to equip Confederate forces.

If you are truly interested in details, then simply google the words "Civil War" followed by the particular state or territory, and it will explain all the military operations there.

By the way, in post #74, I did mention two specific examples -- Chambersburg and Lawrence Kansas.
So far as I know, they are the worst, but others suffered to lesser degrees.

91 posted on 06/16/2013 5:05:56 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
Conserev1: "I did not see the word surrendered in your examples."

The undefended city of Chambersburg "surrendered" but still refused to pay the ransom demanded, so it was burned, again.

You're leaning too heavily on that word "surrender", FRiend, and it won't hold the weight of your case.

The truth is, the Confederacy had fewer opportunities to practice "scorched earth", but they did it on occasion, and long before Sherman marched into Georgia.

92 posted on 06/16/2013 5:13:30 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: central_va
To bad the South didn’t have a scorched earth policy too. The South was to weak to make it very far into the North. But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground. It would be such fun reading how it was the burned by vacating troops and how war is hell just get over it we won so shut up with the truth. I would love to see the same slough off of history but going the other way.

Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

The South wanted to establish itself as an independent, sovereign nation. It knew that following any victory it would have to share a LOOOOONG border with the independent, sovereign nation it had just defeated in winning that independence. The Southern leaders (particularly the senior Generals) knew this and were trying to balance winning with preventing as much post-war bitterness and animosity as possible. That's why Lee and other Southern generals at least put on the appearance of being magnanimous (and in many cases they were magnanimous).

The North wanted to bring the South back into the Union and do so under circumstances where it would never want to leave again. Yes, Lincoln was genuine with his "Charity towards all, malice towards none" statement and philosophy, but it was predicated upon the South first being unequivocally (and brutally) defeated. The theory being that you pound your enemy into the rubble - making sure they know that they have LOST - and THEN extend the helping hand of friendship to help them get back up on their feet. The bad policies of Reconstruction and later the Treaty of Versailles show the wrong way to do this. The continued military pacifism of Japan and Germany following WWII show the right way to do this. IMHO.
93 posted on 06/16/2013 5:28:08 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
If you think the death of the stolen horse is a problem, you need to read Mark Twain's version an a similar subject, “The Great Beef Contracts.”

It is not a problem.

94 posted on 06/16/2013 5:30:29 AM PDT by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

The South fought a gentleman's war against a ruthless rapacious enemy. It should have been an eye for an eye.

95 posted on 06/16/2013 5:31:20 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The South fought a gentleman's war against a ruthless rapacious enemy. It should have been an eye for an eye.

Lee specifically rejected that philosophy as being counterproductive.

The only thing worse than the South having gone that way and losing (Reconstruction would have been magnitudes more brutal than it was) would have been the South having gone that way and WINNING.

Harry Turtledove did an excellent series - not without its faults and flaws, certainly (I don't see the South ever trying to implement a version of Hitler's "Final Solution" against the blacks, for instance) - of exploring that possibility starting with a Southern win at Sharpsburg/Antietam. In all likelihood the CSA would have aligned with the Brits and the French (who would have probably entered the war at that point), the USA with the Germans. In a scenario where post-war the USA still develops as the world's industrial powerhouse while the South has a difficult time evolving beyond the agrarian. Turtledove hypothesizes a further war between the USA/CSA in the 1880s, followed by escalating conflicts as part of WWI and WWII.
96 posted on 06/16/2013 5:40:10 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O; central_va
O.E.O.: ""

Thanks for the link, great story!

I always suspected the NYC 1863 draft riots must have been helped along by Confederate sympathizers -- of whom there were many in New York.
Your link is the first I've seen of actual details of a New York plot.

I especially enjoyed this:

Who would have ever thought, that Robert Kennedy was a Confederate Captain, hanged in New York.

And here all this time I thought Sirhan Sirhan had something to do with it... ;-)

97 posted on 06/16/2013 5:42:31 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

I am tired of listening to your denigrations. Just leave it at that. The speculation is moot. I do it too. We now live in the aftermath(afterbirth) of Lincoln’s war. The republic is dead long live the empire.


98 posted on 06/16/2013 5:44:44 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; central_va
tanknetter: "Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South."

You give way too much credit to Confederate "chivalry" or good judgment, or whatever you might call it.

The truth is that Confederate troops typically did as much damage as they could whenever they invaded Union states.
Indeed, that was usually a main purpose of their raids -- to secure supplies for themselves and destroy the Union's facilities.

Sure, the example of Lee in Pennsylvania is often cited, but it was more the exception than the rule for Confederate forces operating in Union states & territories.

99 posted on 06/16/2013 5:58:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The truth is that Confederate troops typically did as much damage as they could whenever they invaded Union states.

Not true, a fairy tail.

I personally wish that were true though....

If any US commander in Iraq or Afghanistan had mutterer the word, "make Fallujah howl" and had done any of the things that the Army of the Tennessee did on a regular basis to civilians, those would be considered war crimes.

100 posted on 06/16/2013 6:06:56 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson