[jmacusa]

Yeah, from a recent History Channel documentary on The Civil War that stated for all of Shermans supposed ‘’burnings and murders' all over the south his army was never near any of the areas many Southerner claimed his was. Trace his route yourself and then cross check it with claims made by Southerners who claim his army burnt their great-grandaddys barn. Simple isn't it? Madame the North didn't didn't go to war to end slavery, it went to war to preserve the Union and won. The South went to war to preserve slavery and lost everything, didn't it? And on second thought I'm not going anywhere. I'll go toe to toe with you as long as you like. You Madame prevaricate all over the place.

[Nellie Wilkerson]

I lived where Sherman marched, sir. I was born in Ringgold, Georgia and lived in his path the first decade or so of my life. And with the occasional exception (”80 Acres of Hell”) the History Channel trumpets the Victors’ Version.

What claims by Southerners are you speaking of? Since you are giving no references, it could be coming from your imagination.

Why did the north need to go to war to preserve the union? Couldn’t the north have made it as a nation on its own, without Dixie? I mean, it only took nine states ratifying the Constitution to set the federal government, and basically the country, in motion. After the South left, there were 22 states left in the union, more than twice the nine required to create it. The vaunted, sainted north couldn’t make it as a nation without the dirty South?