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

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

[definitelynotaliberal]

I love learning this stuff from FR scholars.

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2: "Well that and if you ever get caught with my conceal carry weapon with its 30 round mag or if you ever fire off a round practicing on your “rural” property. LOL!"

You may not know that Pennsylvania has the largest deer population and the most deer hunters in the country.
So the sound of hunters zeroing or practicing on varmints is not unusual around here.

As for me, I usually bag my limit of deer without ever firing a shot, since they very often come "hunting" for me, driving my vehicle at night, with a large deer-guard in front -- you know "deer caught in the headlights"?
More often than not, they jump towards me...

;-)

[Sherman Logan]

Hoover won about half the South, as did Eisenhower. Admittedly, that isn’t so surprising, since they also won the rest of the country.

You can go on believing that southern Democrats were all along really big government liberals who eventually saw the light and became conservatives, if you like.

Rational people can recognize that they were intensely conservative in all areas, except of course in race where I believe their views were directly contradictory to real American conservatism.

As I’ve noted before, the notion that GOP = conservative and Democrat = liberal wasn’t always true. Both parties had conservative and liberal wings, the relative strength of which waxed and waned. The conservative wing of the Democrats was centered in the South. but it was strong in the North too for a long time. Liberals finally gained the upper hand in 72.

Race and the aftermath of war explain the Solid South a whole lot better than a desire for big government. This is of course why the Deep South first deserted the Democratic Party in 48 and 68. Race, not size of government.

Hoover and Eisenhower both did better in the South than Goldwater.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Hoover and Eisenhower both did better in the South than Goldwater...
You can go on believing that southern Democrats were all along really big government liberals who eventually saw the light and became conservatives, if you like."

Well, first of all, those elections which you claim Republicans did so well in the Deep South look to me like Solid Democrat South.
In elections where Dems won big (i.e., FDR 1932 etc.) and only a few states went Republican, those few states were never Southern.

So, I don't "get" where you're coming from.

Hoover 1928:
Eisenhower 1952:
Eisenhower 1956:

[central_va]

The charge of "war crimes" requires particularly heinous actions, of which our Civil War was remarkably free.

Comedy?

[DiogenesLamp]

The fact that nobody died is a testimony more to the stoutness of the fort and the terrible artillerymen of the Confederacy than to any desire on their part not to kill anyone. And it was still an act of war on their part.

This comment is made in absence of knowledge either pro or con. It is not even worth addressing.

Had the Allies killed everyone in Germany and Japan would you say they didn't deserve it? They, too, started wars that they were ill equipped to win.

The notion that we should simply kill everyone is too extreme to even consider, at least by rational men. And no, Germany was quite equipped to win. But for massive Russian sacrifice and quite a bit of good luck on top of bad blunders by the Germans, they very likely would have won.

The South was the aggressor, and brought down all that happened to her all on her own.

The South slapped the Union in the face. The union responded with invasion and murder.

Obviously that's what happened.

No, it isn't obvious. That is the problem with you. You think everything is obvious because you have a specific desired understanding of the events. You lack objectivity. You have no grasp of any larger notion than "Rah Rah Rah" for your team, who cannot be in the wrong because they are YOUR team.

I'm fine with it because I know that what you claim is pure nonsense.

Yes you do. Just as I said earlier, the problem with you is that you "know" so much that isn't so.

Fools are certain. Wise men are not. I do not see where you are worth the trouble of arguing with you. You have the dogma which you wish to believe, and regardless of any argument presented, you will go back to "Rah Rah Rah" for your team.

[DiogenesLamp]

The American Civil War was fought during the Age of Imperialism (especially in Europe). As such it was important to establish a “casus belli” to justify attacking another nation. Lincoln was very cagey to do just that at Ft. Sumter. That attack also all but eliminated possible European intervention on the South’s behalf on the very first day of the war.

I have read various histories of Abraham Lincoln. He was indeed a shrewd man, and he was not at all above doing some underhanded things to get ahead. I have come to regard him as the Bill Clinton of the 1860s. He was in fact, too smart by half.

He agonized about the war, and well he should have. He more or less caused it singlehandedly.

[DiogenesLamp]

Fascinating. In your mind every evil in the nation came as a result of Lincoln enforcing the constitution.

Where do you get this "Every evil"? Not at all. I merely point out that the destruction of Federalism began with Lincoln. He was the first initiator of an Imperial Federal mindset. Others have followed after him. They simply added to his precedent.

I know I shouldn't - but I have to ask: How do you think things would have been any different or measurably better had Lincoln allowed the slavers to split the nation?

I do not know that they would be "better", but I do know that whether a woman would be "better" off with her husband, she still ought to have the choice of leaving him if she chooses.

Do you believe a woman should be forced against her will to remain in a marriage? Even if it is best for her?

[DiogenesLamp]

On that I will agree. There is a natural right of rebellion But that doesn't mean that the parties rebelled against are under some obligation to simply roll over and allow their nation to be dismembered. Rebellion is a roll of the dice, not some automatic victory.

A resort to violence is not a principled argument. If every disposition of a human populace is to be decided by violent conflict, then what need have we of arguments from principle? Let us just get to the killing and stop pretending we are reasonable.

Let us stop pretending the Union invasion was based on any noble idea. It wasn't. It was just a bigger group of people forcing their will on a smaller group of people. In that regard, it was based on the same underlying concept as slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, the first blood shed was on Pratt street in Baltimore when Confederate goons fired on Union troops passing through on their way to Washington.

Unless they had instructions from the Southern Government, I would suggest the Confederates were as responsible for them as the Union was responsible for John Brown.

Also the reports would seem to indicate that these people attacking the Massachusetts troops were all Marylanders, which If I recall correctly was a Union state. Dissidents, it would appear.

No, the first officially sanctioned bloodshed would still appear to be the attempted invasion of Virginia.

[11th_VA]

Excellent Info! I'd forgotten about the 1864 election; That had a significant influence on strategies in 1864.

To a large degree, the South was hoping for a McClellan win.

Unfortunately I believe the Chambersburg incident had the opposite effect than was intended.

[rockrr]

Do you believe a woman should be forced against her will to remain in a marriage? Even if it is best for her?

That's a fairly idiotic analogy. You want to try again?

[rockrr]

In that regard, it was based on the same underlying concept as slavery.

Man, you are on a roll this morning! Hyperventilate much?!

[DiogenesLamp]

And April 7, 1861 was when the SOUTH cut off the supply route to Ft Sumter. Less than a month after the “negotiations” started. Kind of difficult to honestly negotiate with someone when you are taking military action to starve out their troops.

Could this have been about the time they realized that Lincoln had no intention of negotiating?

Ft. Sumter was a foolish move on their part. About that there is no question.

The “myth” of the unbeatable southern soldier.

It would appear that pound for pound, they were certainly capable of whipping more than their weight in opposition forces. The Union had to resort to enslaving the Irish right off the ships to keep fighting them. In an even fight, it would appear that they would have demolished the opposition, but the Union, having better than four to one odds in population, made for a very formidable opponent.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's a fairly idiotic analogy. You want to try again?

You don't like it because it is all too apt of an analogy, and it doesn't paint your position in a good light.

In every way, the South was a weaker version of the North. It had a much smaller population, much less industry, much less money and much less capacity in everything. It was indeed in a sort of "Marriage" with the North that initially seemed to be in both their interests in 1776, but which over time came to be dominated by what best served the Northern Interests.

The South, being perfectly analogous as a "wife" to the North, decided that she had had enough and wanted to leave. She threw a plate at the husband, and he proceeded to beat her near to death. How dare she show such defiance to him?

"She doesn't have a right to leave me." Said the Husband. "I'll kill her before I let her go."

Rather than being a bad analogy, I think it's a rather painfully accurate representation of your position.

[DiogenesLamp]

Man, you are on a roll this morning! Hyperventilate much?!

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, you can easily tell which one you hit because that is the one which is yelping.

I think Lincoln said that.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read several books on this subject, and here is the important fact: Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, but he wanted something of value in return, and that was a pledge by Virginia not to secede -- a fort for a state was a good trade in Lincoln's mind.

A Fort would indeed be a very good trade for a state, especially a state as large and important as Virginia. But see, this once more illustrates a point. As the old joke goes, "We've already determined what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over price."

If Lincoln was going to give up Ft. Sumter and let the rest of the South secede in exchange for Virginia remaining, then how does that square with the assertion that it was of absolute unquestionable principle and importance that states didn't have a right to leave the Union?

How can you fight such a bloody war on a principle which you were willing to negotiate away?

[rockrr]

The only way the analogy works is if the “wife” has secretly been scheming to fleece the “husband”, steals everything she can, runs him down with her car, and then tells the divorce court to “KMA”.

[rockrr]

So you damn Lincoln for responding to the south’s quest for war, and you damn him for negotiating for peace. Apparently there’s nothing short of the death of America that will please you.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A resort to violence is not a principled argument.

So no rebellion is ever principled? Do they lose their moral legitimacy as soon as someone fires a shot?