150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

Pioneer Press ^ | 11-15-14 | Christopher Sullivan

[TurboZamboni]

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — At the heart of this well-preserved antebellum city, sunbeams stream through the arched windows of a grand public meeting room that mirrors the whole Civil War — including its death throes, unfolding 150 years ago this week when Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman launched his scorching March to the Sea.

The first major objective along Sherman's route, Milledgeville was Georgia's capital at the time, and this room was the legislative chamber. Crossing its gleaming floor, Amy Wright couldn't help recalling family stories of the hated "foragers" who swept through then. "They were just called 'Sherman's men,'" she said in a hushed voice.

[onedoug]

Gross. A ‘true’ sophisticate, and a dishonor to that Confederate flag in his pocket.

[ErnBatavia]

Your brother hates Sherman for something that happened during the civil war? Is he 150 years old? Give me a break.

Take a deep breath, go back to post #2 and read it very slowly to yourself - multiple times as needed.

Give yourself a break.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "Again, no one died at Ft. Sumter.
There was no blood shed by the confederate forces.
The first blood shed of the war was when Union forces tried to invade Virginia."

Actually, there were two Union troops killed at Fort Sumter, Privates Hough and Galloway, when ammunition exploded during the surrender ceremony.
Four others were seriously wounded.

But it's important also to remember that Fort Sumter was only the last and most egregious assault by Confederates on Union forces & properties before the war itself.
Preceding Sumter were dozens of incidents, starting in December 1860, of Confederate seizures of Union property, threats against and firings on Union officials.
That none of these aggressions resulted in deaths by either Union or Confederate troops is more a matter of luck than anything else.
Confederates were certainly eager for war, "crusin' for a brusin' " you might say.

Finally, we should note especially that there were no Confederate soldiers killed in battle with any Union force, and no Union Army invasion of any Confederate state until after six months of Confederate provocations of war (December 1860 to June 1861), starting war (April 1861 at Fort Sumter), formally declaring war (May 6, 1861) and sending of military supplies and aid to Confederate forces in Union states (Missouri, May 1861).

Indeed, there was no Union invasion of Virginia until long after Confederate forces began seizing Union property there, and Virginia's voters formally ratified both secession from the Union, and joining the Confederacy's formally declared war on the United States of America.

DoodleDawg: "The South started the war.
Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed."

DiogenesLamp: "Your assertions is demonstrably wrong.
Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it.
Had the British murdered every colonist, you would say they had deserved it."

First of all, the Brits, not our Founders, started the Revolutionary War, more than a year before our Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, it was the British-started war which convinced many colonists that Independence was the only solution.

Likewise, Confederates began provoking war six months before formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And it was those numerous provocations (before Fort Sumter) which suggested to many Union citizens that war might be necessary.

Second of all, the Confederacy did not just provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States, they also invaded and supported Confederate forces within every Union state & territory they could reach, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
In short, the Confederacy presented an existential military threat to the Unite States, which had to be defeated for the USA to survive.

Finally, all talk about, if the "Union murdered every person in the South," is utterly, patently ridiculous.
The fact is that most soldiers on both sides were good Christian men, kept under effective control by their leaders, and so the American Civil War is therefore comparable to none other in all of history.
In contrast to most every other war, massacres were few and civilian deaths minimal to non-existent.

So here's the bottom line: Lincoln waited patiently until the Confederacy had fully provoked, started and declared war on the United States before he sent any Union forces to battle any Confederates anywhere.
Once war started then Lincoln, unlike some of his generals (i.e., McClellan), was determined to win victory and unconditional surrender.

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse.
It is no different from a murderer saying the victim had it coming because she slapped him."

No, in this particular case, our alleged "victim" carried a gun, began shooting at and demanding assets from the "perpetrator", and indeed, never stopped shooting for four long years.

DiogenesLamp on Battle of Fort Sumter: "And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?"

What matters here is that Confederates did not really care if they killed any Union troops or not -- that much is clear from the deadly force they used.
They were determined to secure Fort Sumter's surrender by any and all means necessary.

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "So how does it feel when YOUR SIDE is fighting for slavery while the other side is fighting against it?
How do YOU like it when your side's motives are tainted with the slavery issue?"

Ridiculous, because slavery was lawful in every colony in 1775.
So, slavery was not an issue between the states in 1776, though it was already a question within some Northern States, which began moving to outlaw it.
Even some Southern leaders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, recognized slavery as morally wrong and indefensible.
And they did what they could to restrict and control it nationally, while individual states wrote their own laws on slavery.

Slavery only became an issue between states many years later, when Southern slavery's enormous profitability became clear, and Southern states insisted every measure possible be taken to protect it.

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "Stop the hypocrisy.
Just stop it.
The only issue of relevance is whether or not people have a right to self determination or whether they don't."

Indeed, that is the Big Lie perpetrated by all Lost Causers against historical facts & reason.
The truth of the matter is the opposite: the issue which caused Civil War was not slavery, was not secession, was not even the forming of a new Confederacy.
No, there was one and only one reason for war: the Confederacy first provoked, then started then formally declared war on the United States, then sent military forces & materials to invade Union states.
All this happened before a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle with any Union Army.

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "You are supporting the side of Fedzilla oppression in opposition to a fundamental principle of natural law."

More total b*ll sh*t.
The fact is that former Confederate states were in total 100% support of such Liberal "Progressives" as Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt & Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson (!).
For many years the Old South was as socialistic as anyone, only finally, finally "seeing the light" when it became obvious that they were not the ones intended to receive all the benefits from Federal redistributionist largess.

Three Southern "heros":

1952 electoral map, Eisenhower vs Adlai Stevenson:

[Sherman Logan]

Just noticed something. First sentence of the article.

At the heart of this well-preserved antebellum city

The southern myth is that Sherman burned everything in his path. Yet here's a prewar state capital occupied by Sherman and it's still well-preserved today. Didn't even destroy the statehouse, much less the whole city.

The outrage over the burning of Columbia shows pretty clearly that burning cities was not a routine practice.

[wbarmy]

That is the problem, my studies of this are over 40 years old, but I do remember that the return of slaves was a significant point in several different discussions, and the abolitionist groups would never have agreed to anything like that. I also do not think that Lincoln would have agreed to that.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "It’s also pretty clear that the vast majority of requisitioning, looting, foraging or whatever you might want to call it was done by Union troops in the South.
Simply because that’s where 90%+ of the fighting took place.
Therefore I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim that Unionists when they behaved the same or worse were simply imitating the CSA."

No, it's clearly a matter of perspective.
First, for example, you say 90% of the fighting took place in the South, but I would dispute 90% based on the fact that Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and West Virginia were all Union states, and all saw significant fighting, especially in the war's early years.
Indeed, Lincoln remarked that had he lost Kentucky, the war would be lost, so it's hard to overstate the importance of those battles.

Second, I would say that 90% of Union troops, even in Confederate states, lived off supplies from their own railheads, not "living off the land" from confiscated Confederate supplies.

Third, to the degree that either army "paid for" their requisitions, the Union did so with real money, Confederates with near-worthless Monopoly-money.

Fourth, the Confederate Army was almost never entirely self-sufficient -- even within the Confederacy they had to beg-borrow-or-steal food & other necessities from local populations.
Once outside the Confederacy proper, they were at least 90% dependent on "living off the land" of Union civilians.

Finally, a major if not only purpose of many Confederate raids North (Morgan 1863) was to secure supplies and destroy anything of military value -- i.e., railroads & bridges.

Therefore it is totally fair and accurate to conclude that Sherman's actions in Georgia were simply bringing home to the Deep South things their own forces had been doing "up north" for years.
Morgan's 1863 raid:

[rockrr]

There you go, seeing the big picture with all of its implications and consequences instead of focusing on ones immediate gratification of “sticking it to the man”.

There is and always has been competition between the regions, for the exploitation of natural resources, and for acquisition of power. It’s never been smoothly conducted, but it has been moderated through the give and take of congressional negotiation. The method by which states were added (a “free” state in exchange for a “slave” state) is a good illustration. Imperfect but functional.

Any honest examination of the “lay of the land” in the 1850’s would acknowledge the desire and intent of both sides to develop and expand our presence in the west and northwest. While partners in this nation the interests of both sides were constrained and somewhat measured. When the confederacy formed one of the first things confederate sympathizers attempted was to seize control of states and territories all throughout the west and northwest (Whether or not they could retain it was another matter).

Add to that the necessary competition for foreign trade partners and you’ve got the foundation for generational conflict and strife. Especially when you don’t like your northern brothers to begin with ;’)

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2: "The wounds of the Civil War have not healed and are not likely to as the war was only peripherally about slavery.
It was mostly about states rights."

"States' rights" only in the sense of some states' rights to unilaterally declare secession, form their own Confederacy, then provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States while sending their own military to support Confederates in Union states & territories -- yes, indeed, those "states' rights".

In fact, secessionists of the time, 1860 & early 1861, made no secret of their primary purpose, to protect their "way of life" and their "peculiar institution", slavery, against Northern abolitionists and "Black Republicans" like Abraham Lincoln.
Those secessionists were not ashamed of slavery, far from it, they were quite proud, saying slavery was the greatest wealth-producing invention of all time.
Because of slavery, the average Southerner was better-off than average northerners, and the wealthiest individuals in the country were the great Southern plantation owners.
So Deep-South secessionists could not imagine living without slavery, and took as total "fighting words" any call to restrict, much less abolish, it.

That's why the mere November 1860 election of "Black Republican" Lincoln was so unacceptable that secessionists immediately began organizing to declare independence and form their own Confederacy.
It was all about protecting their "peculiar institution" of slavery.

Of course, neither slaves, nor slavery started Civil War -- that was done by secessionists eager to assert their ownership over anything Union within slave-holding states.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Because of slavery, the average Southerner was better-off than average northerners,”

The average southerner didn’t own slaves because they were too expensive. The majority of slaves were owned by a very finite number of people. Northerners also owned slaves including officers in the Union army.

The slavery issue and abolition were pushed to gin up northern support for a war agains’t the seceding states. Most Northerners were not that interested in the issue and most did not support a war.

[SamAdams76]

Because of slavery, the average Southerner was better-off than average northerners, and the wealthiest individuals in the country were the great Southern plantation owners.

I will have to question that one. By the 1860s, the industrialists of the North were already amassing huge fortunes, such as the Vanderbilts, who were building a railroad empire.

The wealth of the plantation owners of the South was greatly overstated due to the free labor they enjoyed. Everything was done for them for free and all they had to do was sit on the veranda and have refreshments brought to them so they could certainly have the appearance of being very wealthy. But in reality, they created very little wealth. Which was why when slavery was abolished, the South instantly became the poorest region in the country and even to this day, there are pockets of poverty that go back to Civil War days.

As the Industrial Age boomed after Reconstruction, nearly all the great fortunes were made north of the Mason-Dixon line. The white Southerners as a whole had no work ethic. They considered menial work "demeaning" because up to that point, only slaves had been asked to do it.

People of the North had no issue rolling up their sleeves and being industrious. People of the North were derided by Southerners as "mechanics" and "city slickers" but they were were mostly the ones that turned the United States into an economic juggernaut and the envy of the entire world.

I know that does not fit with what some may want to believe but there it is.

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

The Army of Northern Virginia spent at about two months in Union states. The Army of the Potomac spent almost four years continuously in CSA territory. The CSA simply had a lot less time and opportunity to oppress civilians.

When it comes to viciousness of border warfare in KS, MO, KY and WV, there is little to choose between the sides. Partisans of both sides behaved very badly, though to be fair the South achieved more spectacular atrocities.

I disagree that northern invasion and conquest of the South was simply retaliation for southern raids into the North. The invasion and conquest of the South wasn’t always pretty or polite, but it was necessary. I just don’t think we should try to pretty it up into just fighting back against the aggressors.

[BroJoeK]

PistolPaknMama on Sherman "war criminal": "Dang straight.
Modern U.S. troops have been tried and convicted of similar or much less serious charges.
Sherman was a demonic psychopath."

Sherman was certainly no more "war criminal" or "demonic psychopath" than any number of Confederate commanders who sent raiding forces into Union states or territories.
Confederate names like Henry Heath (Shelton Laurel Massacre, January 1863), William Quantrill (Lawrence Kansas Massacre, August 1863), Nathan Forrest (Fort Pillow Massacre, April 1864), Bloody Bill Anderson (Centralia Missouri Massacre, September 1864), Champ Ferguson (Saltville Massacre, October 1864) come to mind.

Indeed, the prototype for Sherman's November 1864 Georgia campaign might be said to be Confederate General Morgan's raid into Indiana and Ohio in the summer of 1863:

"The Confederates entered Ohio on July 13, destroying bridges, railroads, and government stores.
Morgan's Raid spread terror across southern and central Ohio...
During his daring raid, Morgan and his men captured and paroled about 6,000 Union soldiers and militia, destroyed 34 bridges, disrupted the railroads at more than 60 places, and diverted tens of thousands of troops from other duties.
He spread terror throughout the region, and seized thousands of dollars worth of supplies, food, and other items from local stores, houses, and farms...
In Ohio alone, approximately 2,500 horses were stolen and nearly 4,375 homes and businesses were raided.
Morgan's Raid cost Ohio taxpayers nearly $600,000 in damages and over $200,000 in wages paid to the 49,357 Ohioans called up to man 587 companies of local militia.[6]"

So Sherman's march through Georgia was larger in scale, though not different in kind, from similar earlier raids conducted by many Confederates.

[Sherman Logan]

In the slave states as a whole, about 25% of white families owned slaves. The number varied from 12% in MO to 49% in MS.

http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

Those who owned slaves were also by definition the leaders of their communities. Slavery was the dominant economic and social institution.

The slavery issue and abolition were pushed to gin up northern support for a war agains’t the seceding states. Most Northerners were not that interested in the issue and most did not support a war.

Correct. Sort of. The problem is that if you go down this road you are saying that the war, when it started, was over the issue of slavery. Whereas most CSA apologists, to remove any possibility of the Union fighting for a noble cause, try to make the start of the war about tariffs or some such, with slavery only being dragged in years later as a desparate measure because the Union was losing the war.

The fact is that the war was always about preserving the Union, with emancipation added as a tool to accomplish that, with the nice side benefit of it being an indisputable moral cause.

[Sherman Logan]

"Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040."

http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

But in reality, they created very little wealth. Which was why when slavery was abolished, the South instantly became the poorest region in the country and even to this day, there are pockets of poverty that go back to Civil War days.

Not exactly. See that $4000 of per capita wealth in 1860. About half was the value of slaves, and a great deal of the rest was physically destroyed during the fighting.

The South had spent 50 years investing all its capital in slaves and ALL that accumulated capital just went poof. No wonder they were poor after the war and took a long time to recover.

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2: "No the South seceded from the Union.
Then the North went to war with the South."

No, Deep-South Fire Eaters declared secession, then the Confederacy declared war on the United states:

1. Lincoln elected, November 6, 1860
2. Southern Fire Eaters began organizing to declare secession, November 9, 1860.
3. South Carolina declared secession and immediately began seizing Federal properties and threatening Federal officials, December 20, 1860.
4. Seceding states seized dozens of major Federal properties including forts, ships, arsenals & mints, and fired on Union officials January through April 1861.
5. The Confederacy began Civil War by assaulting and seizing Federal troops in Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
6. The Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
7. The Confederacy sent military aid to Confederate forces operating in the Union State of Missouri, May 4, 1861.

All of this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.

[rockrr]

And my impression lies somewhere between yours and BroJoeK’s. I’m not sure how one would ever quantify the “relative well-being” of a class of citizens, but I imagine the equation would be complicated.

It seems like there has always been a disparity between the extremely poor and the extremely wealthy, and our nation is no different. Georgia Girl 2 rightly points out that slave ownership wasn’t universal or even prominent - in the south or anywhere else. It was a pricy proposition so the owner(s) needed to take heed that their investments paid off.

I’m going to have to do some more research to see if I can find actual wealth figures for individuals in order to better quantify my impressions.

One thing is inarguable - the prosperity and consequent well-being of all southerners was borne on the shoulders of slave labor.

[BroJoeK]

Resolute Conservative quoting Conan the Barbarian: “Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women”

DiogenesLamp responding: "Had George III been as determined as Lincoln, we would still be part of Britain.
Make no mistake.
The Full might of the British Empire would have ended us had they chose to wield it.
He forbore, Lincoln did not."

No, in fact Britain's efforts in North American were the largest of its time, including over 100,000 troops and hundreds of British Navy ships, extended over six and a half years, with related battles against the French, Spanish & Dutch, everywhere from the Caribbean to Gibraltar to India.

The Brits did everything they could to defeat Americans, only giving up the fight when they had nothing left to put into it.

So, one difference between George III and Lincoln was not in their willingness, but rather in their ability, to conduct war against secessionists.
Another was the fact that, unlike Confederates on May 6, 1861, our Founders neither started nor formally declared war on the British Crown.

[BroJoeK]

ErnBatavia to Georgia Girl 2: "Absolutely...every time I hear some talking head blather on about the Civil War being only about slavery, I tune 'em out..."

DiogenesLamp: "The problem for many such people is that they personalize it...
When it becomes personal they have to justify what happened, and the only fig leaf of justification they can find is...
It is called 'rationalization'. "

rockrr: "That’s an interesting case of projection."

Nobody posting here is "disinterested", but some of us are much more devoted to historical facts than are others.
So Lost Causer mythology is just that: total myths, created by secessionists themselves beginning when it became clear their war would end in defeat.

Suddenly, their war was no longer about protecting their "peculiar institution", as their Declarations of Causes of Secession clearly spelled out, but rather became about everything & anything but slavery.

Still, what's so astonishing, now 150 years later, is how utterly immune our Lost Causers are to basic historical facts & reasons, instead endlessly repeating lies upon lies regarding the start & course of our Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2 to ErnBatavia: "Yes on FR the trolls come out in full force for any Civil War thread.
They just like to stir it up.
I’m sure it would drive them all nuts to see the Confederate flags still flying in GA on every holiday. LOL!!!!"

Those "trolls" would be our Lost Causers, spreading their endless lies about the causes & course of the Civil War.
None of the rest of us give a hoot where you fly your silly flags, on holiday's or otherwise.

Everyone here respects the courage & tenacity of Confederate soldiers, and mourns their destruction by Confederate leaders whose blithering stupidity was only exceeded by irrational stubbornness.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I arrived at my current and objective opinions based on what I have subsequently learned of the conflict, and judging by the standards of that time period,
The "North" was clearly in the wrong.
The principles upon which the Southern states asserted their independence were exactly the same principles upon which the 13 colonies had previously asserted to win independence from Britain."

Sorry, your opinions are anything but "objective", since they are based solely on Lost Causer mythology, almost entirely devoid of actual historical facts & reasons.
In fact, there were no "principles" for Declarations of Secession, beyond protecting their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
Deep South Fire Eaters could not tolerate the election of abolitionists and "Black Republicans" like Abraham Lincoln, and therefore declared secession.

But slavery did not cause Civil War, nor did secession & forming a new Confederacy.
All of those happened without war breaking out.
So what caused Civil War was the Confederacy's provoking, starting & formally declaring war on the United States, then sending its military support to Confederate forces in Union states.