Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
All the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our Forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth.
--Robert E. Lee
Why do Americans continue to remember their past?
Perhaps it is because it was a time when truth was spoken. Men and women took their stand to give us the freedoms we now enjoy. God bless those in military service, who do their duty around the world for freedom.
The Hall of Fame for great Americans opened in 1900 in New York City. One thousand names were submitted, but only 29 received a majority vote from the electors. General Robert E. Lee, 30 years after his death, was among those honored. A bust of Lee was given to New York University by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Let America not forget January 19, 2005, the 198th birthday of General Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee was born at Stratford House, Westmoreland County, Virginia, on January 19, 1807. The winter was cold and fireplaces were little help. Robert's mother, Ann Hill (Carter) Lee, was suffering from a severe cold.
Ann Lee named her son Robert Edward after her two brothers.
Robert E. Lee undoubtedly acquired his love of country from those who had lived during the American Revolution. His father, "Light Horse" Harry, was a hero of the revolution and served as governor of Virginia and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Members of his family also signed the Declaration of Independence.
Lee was educated in the schools of Alexandria, Virginia. In 1825, he received an appointment to West Point Military Academy. He graduated in 1829, second in his class and without a single demerit.
Robert E. Lee wed Mary Anna Randolph Custis in June 1831, two years after his graduation from West Point. Robert and Mary had grown up together. Mary was the daughter of George Washington Parke Custis, the grandson of Martha Washington and the adopted son of George Washington.
Mary was an only child; therefore, she inherited Arlington House, across the Potomac from Washington, where she and Robert raised seven children.
Army promotions were slow. In 1836, Lee was appointed to first lieutenant. In 1838, with the rank of captain, Lee fought valiantly in the War with Mexico and was wounded at the Battle of Chapultepec.
He was appointed superintendent of West Point in 1852 and is considered one of the best superintendents in that institution's history.
President-to-be Abraham Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Lee in 1861, but Lee refused. He would not raise arms against his native state.
War was in the air. The country was in turmoil of separation. Lee wrestled with his soul. He had served in the United States Army for over 30 years.
After an all-night battle, much of that time on his knees in prayer, Robert Edward Lee reached his decision. He reluctantly resigned his commission and headed home to Virginia.
Arlington House would be occupied by the Federals, who would turn the estate into a war cemetery. Today it is one of our country's most cherished memorials, Arlington National Cemetery.
President John F. Kennedy visited Arlington shortly before he was assassinated in 1963 and said he wanted to be buried there. And he is, in front of Robert E. Lee's home.
Lee served as adviser to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and then commanded the legendary Army of Northern Virginia. The exploits of Lee's army fill thousands of books today.
After four terrible years of death and destruction, General Robert E. Lee met General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, and ended their battles. He told his disheartened comrades, "Go home and be good Americans."
Lee was called Marse Robert, Uncle Robert and Marble Man. He was loved by the people of the South and adopted by the folks from the North.
Robert E. Lee was a man of honor, proud of his name and heritage. After the War Between the States, he was offered $50,000 for the use of his name. His reply was "Sirs, my name is the heritage of my parents. It is all I have and it is not for sale."
In the fall of 1865, Lee was offered and accepted the presidency of troubled Washington College in Lexington, Virginia. The school was renamed Washington and Lee in his honor.
Robert E. Lee died of a heart attack at 9:30 on the morning of October 12, 1870, at Washington-Lee College. His last words were "Strike the tent." He was 63 years of age.
He is buried in a chapel on the school grounds with his family and near his favorite horse, Traveller.
A prolific letter writer, Lee wrote his most famous quote to son Custis in 1852: "Duty is the sublimest word in our language."
On this 198th anniversary let us ponder the words he wrote to Annette Carter in 1868: "I grieve for posterity, for American principles and American liberty."
Winston Churchill called Lee "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived." Lee's life was one of service and self-sacrifice. His motto was "Duty, Honor, Country."
God Bless America!
For graduates of southern school systems he should be impressed that they can consistently get the computer on/off switch to the 'on' position.
The original topic was Shermans campaign in Georgia and the southron claim of mass devistation, starvation, murder, pillaging, etc., etc. And there is considerable evidence to support the claim that the destruction of homes and looting of personal property has been way, way overblown. Was there destruction? Yes, since Sherman's goal was to remove Georgia's ability to support the war effort. And even your clip from Augusta paper supports the fact that it was that support that was the target of Sherman's actions. Medicine taken, which could support the confederate army. Livestock taken or destroyed, keeping it from being used by the confederate army. Gins burned, weakening the economy and its ability to support the confederate army.
Was there destruction visited upon the south? Yes. War is hard on civilian, always has been. The people of the south paid the price for their leaders actions, just as the civilains of every war have from Iraq in this century back to biblical time. Was the devestation worst in the south? Certainly, since that was where the bulk of the fighting was. But as confederate actions on the few times they campaigned in the North shows, similar actions were visited on the North. Had the confederates spent more time in the north then the damage would no doubt have been much worse. So if the North escaped the looting and the burning and the foraging it's because they didn't give the confederates the chance to do it.
And they had every right to sail warships (sic) into a harbor without authorization? I don't see that in there.
You also don't see any place that might indicate that South Carolina had any legal claim to Sumter. Hopefully we've put that issue to rest.
In a message delivered personally to Governor Pickens by Robert Chew, Lincoln made it clear that his intention was to land food and supplies only, and that men and munitions would be landed only if the resupply effort was opposed. Lincoln made it clear that he was not planning on forcing the issue unless confederate action made it necessary. Had the federal ships been allowed to land food then the status quo would have been maintained, and negotiation for settlement might have been possible. Time, after all, was on the side of the confederacy and not Lincoln. Instead the Davis regime chose to start a war.
"Will you accord the same honor to President Grant, General Grant?"
As a son of the South, I certainly didn't like what General Grant did - his scorched Earth policy and all. I think he was one serious son-of-a-bitch for burning the South.
However, as a veteran Soldier...I realize the effectiveness of his tactics to achieve his goal.
I refer to him as General Grant or President Grant - it's a simple matter of respect.
Fair enough. At least you are morally consistent.
Have you ever considered debating the merits or is name calling and gotcha all you have in that Atari keyboard or yours? Your style has a name in the South: poor breeding.
Speaking from experience are we? If you have issues with your pedigree, I would talk to your mother. I cannot help.
It is obvious that you are intimate with vulgarity and insult yourself.
"And how did the North supposedly own this property that was part of another sovereign State?"
"Own" might not be the correct word, but Federal money was used to purchase (from Spain and France) the land which comprised many of the Confederate States that were not part of the original 13 colonies. Federal resources (blood and treasure) were used before the Civil War to defeat lingering Mexican claims to Texas. Federal resources were also used to purchase land in the South from Indian tribes and to "relocate" them.
Why was there this difference in behavior? A key difference was the leadership from their commanders. Union generals decried the behavior of their troops on many occasions but the instances of looting, marauding, and destruction were so widespread that they don't seem to have been very effective at stopping it. However, the moral authority of someone like Lee and the character of the regular Southern soldier seems to have made a difference.
Here is an example of Northern leadership from the Official Records:
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA,And here is contrasting one from the South.
In the Field, at Rude's Hill, Va., May 30, 1864.
Major T. QUINN,
Commanding First New York Cavalry:
MAJOR: You will detail from your command 200 men, with the proper complement of commissioned officers, to proceed to Newtown to-morrow morning at 3 o'clock, for the purpose of burning every house, store, and out-building in that place, except the churches and the houses and out-buildings of those who are known to be loyal citizens of the United States. You will also burn the houses, &c., of all rebels between Newtown and Middletown. You will spare the house and premises of Dr. Owens, at Newtown, he having been very kind to our wounded soldiers; and where the burning of the house or out-buildings of the rebel shall not be burned. You will report back to these headquarters, making a written report of the expedition.
This by command of the major-general commanding [Hunter]:
I am, major, very obediently, yours,
[P. G. BIER,]
Assistant Adjutant-General.
GENERAL ORDERS, Numbers 73. HDQRS. ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, Chambersburg, Pa. June 27, 1863.
The commanding general has observed with marked satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march, and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested.
No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the past ten days.
Their conduct in other respects has, with few exceptions, been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise.
There have, however, been instances of forgetfulness, on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and that the duties exacted of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.
The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenseless and the wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement.
It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.
The commanding general therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property, and he enjoins upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject.
R. E. LEE, General.
Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi,
In the Field, Kingston, Georgia, November 9, 1864
1. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings viz.: The right wing, Major-General O. O. Howard commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, Major-General H. W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.
2. The habitual order of march will be, wherever practicable, by four roads, as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points hereafter to be indicated in orders. The cavalry, Brigadier - General Kilpatrick commanding, will receive special orders from the commander-in-chief.
3. There will be no general train of supplies, but each corps will have its ammunition-train and provision-train, distributed habitually as follows: Behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; behind each brigade should follow a due proportion of ammunition - wagons, provision-wagons, and ambulances. In case of danger, each corps commander should change this order of march, by having his advance and rear brigades unencumbered by wheels. The separate columns will start habitually at 7 a.m., and make about fifteen miles per day, unless otherwise fixed in orders.
4. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for his command, and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass; but, during a halt or camp, they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging-parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage, at any distance from the road traveled.
5. To corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc.; and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested, no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or other -wise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility.
6. As for horses, mules, wagons, etc., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit; discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile and the poor and industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging-parties may also take mules or horses, to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts; and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance,
7. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along; but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one, and that his first duty is to see to those who bear arms.
8. The organization, at once, of a good pioneer battalion for each army corps, composed if possible of negroes, should be attended to. This battalion should follow the advance-guard, repair roads and double them if possible, so that the columns will not be delayed after reaching bad places. Also, army commanders should practice the habit of giving the artillery and wagons the road, marching their troops on one side, and instruct their troops to assist wagons at steep hills or bad crossings of streams.
9. Captain O. M. Poe, chief-engineer, will assign to each wing of the army a pontoon-train, fully equipped and organized; and the commanders thereof will see to their being properly protected at all times.
By order of Major-General W. T. Sherman,
L. M. Dayton, Aide-de-Camp.
But I have pointed out to you two Northern acknowledgments that two different Confederate invasions of the North had been relatively free of that.
That was the popular misconception, but recent research has challenged that. Both Noah Andre Trudeau and Stephen Sears wrote books recently on the Gettysburg campaigns and detail the fact that looting and pillaging of private property in Pennsylvania and Maryland by a minority of the confederate soldiers was not uncommon. Evidence seems to indicate that the order of Lee's that you quoted, issued after the army had entered Maryland and Pennsylvania, was issued in response to reports of looting and other misbehavior by ANV soldiers against civilians. As the authors also point out the order was widely ignored.
Bump for all to see.
The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted - Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.
With respect to your post of Sherman's orders, let's look at the actions of some of his soldiers in Georgia and the Carolinas. Union commanders weren't very effective at curbing looting, burning, etc.
Col. Acker, 9th Michigan Cavalry, Dec 19, 1864: "During that day we marched thirty-nine miles and took six prisoners. 20th, Companies B, C, and D, being detached for a scout to Griswold Station in charge of Captain Ladd, meeting the enemy, but keeping them at bay, burned the town, destroying the railroad, cutting the telegraph wire, burned a train of cars."
General Howard (Union) to General Sherman, Dec. 28, 1864: "I regret to say that quite a number of private dwellings which the inhabitants have left, have been destroyed by fire, but without official sanction; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver plate, &c."
Brevet Major General Williams (Union) to the Twentieth Corps, Robertsville, SC, Jan. 31, 1865: "The indiscriminate pillage of houses is disgraceful and demoralizing to this Army. The houses in this vicinity, of free negroes even, have been stripped of the necessary bedclothes and of family apparel. Brigade commanders will at once take measures to put a stop to these infamous practices. ... The brevet Major-general commanding the corps expects the hearty co-operation of all officers to put a stop to practices disgraceful to our arms and shocking to humanity."
General Sherman, Feb 1865: "Vacant houses being of no use to anybody, I care little about, as the owners have thought them of no use to themselves. I don't want them destroyed, but do not take much care to preserve them."
Gen. Howard (Union), Feb. 9, 1865, General Field Orders No. 9, issued near Binnaker's Bridge, SC: "The attention of the general commanding has been called by officers of our own army to the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of private property, burning of dwelling houses, plundering and pillaging the houses of the few poor people who have remained at home ..."
So anyone in the South should have remained in involuntary servitude to the Union? Note that "Federal" resources included resources and the lives of many Southerners. Are you denying that Federal acts were completed for the benefit of the member states at the time?
The Federal system was never meant as a means of locking in and enslaving states to a central government.
The usual version of the line is "we won; get used to it." I'm not sure either contributes version much to the discussion.
People won't object to a hobbyist interest in the Civil War, but if you get deeply involved in trying to vindicate a lost and unworthy cause of a previous century, you'll be the one who loses out. Obsessing about a long lost war isn't going to change anything for the better, and if you look at the neoconfederate mob they're not a very attractive sight. You've only got to look at some of the hardliners to realize that either they had something wrong with them before, or they've messed themselves up obsessing about long settled questions.
Plenty of people who lived through the war came to question whether secession was or could have been the right choice and to reject it. A lot of that had to do with the waste and horrors of the war, but many ordinary Southerners came to realize that secession or Confederate victory wouldn't have made them any freer or happier than remaining in the Union would have. It wasn't their fight at the beginning. It was something the elites promoted that ordinary people had gotten drawn into on one side or other. And down to recent times, most Southerners and most Americans would have agreed.
Lately some agitators have spread the false idea that the Confederacy, one of the most repressive governments ever established on our continent, or secession, the battle cry of power blocs that want to preserve their power from public scrutiny, were truly libertarian and on the side of human freedom. There's something ludicrous about the whole enterprise.
The assumption seems to be that anything that weakens the federal government would make Americans freer. It's a lot like saying that if America hadn't been discovered, we wouldn't be paying taxes to a federal government, hence we'd be freer today. The problem is that there are too many possibilities and contingencies between then and now to confidently make such predictions. Had things happened differently the results could have been far worse than what we in fact got.
So maybe the warning is for your own good. Get caught up in that neoconfederate nonsense, and it may be a long time before you find your way back out to the real world.
This has been very true until the recent move toward favoring a large Federal nanny government, but just one more "benevolent" than the Democrats want. That is, the line between Republicans and Democrats is blurring regarding size of government (both want it big), and the difference is now the nature of that big government. I.e, your "most of them" needs to be re-thought, or at least emphasized as a disclaimer.
NS says: "Circumstances point to the conclusion that actual plundering of nonedible property was minimal during the march to the sea, and possibly less than what confederates destroyed in Pennsylvania."
Could you source that quote?
NS: "but unfortunately they haven't posted any of the articles online."
So, until someone finds it, I would trust General Sherman himself.
In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."
For the battle of Atlanta, 10,000 soldiers and civilians.
Source: Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States, Frederick Phisterer.
"Burning buildings is not murder. Your post is a total non sequitur from your claim"
During the bombardment of Atlanta Sherman’s chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, implored Sherman to stop the bombing of the undefended city because of the grotesque spectacle of the corpses of women and children in the streets.
Sherman coldly told him that such scenes were exactly what he wanted. After destroying 90 percent of the city the federal army evicted all the remaining residents from their homes just as winter was settling in.
Sherman’s (and Lincoln’s) strategy (which Quack historian James McPherson calls "brilliant") was to terrorize the civilian population.
For example, as he swept to the sea in 1864 Sherman wrote to a subordinate, General Louis D. Watkins:
"Send over about Fairmount and Adairsville [Georgia], burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let it be known that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon ...."
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.