Posted on 12/05/2014 5:44:32 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
I'm a Yankee who has spent most of my life in the South. I have been persuaded to the States Rights origin theory but believe slavery is what brought the wrath of God down upon the South. It will be States Rights again, with sodomite marriage bringing the wrath upon the North this next go round.
The odd thing about the fame of the March Across Georgia is that all parties involved agreed that Sherman’s men were MUCH harsher marching across South Carolina than across Georgia.
Yet you almost never hear a word about that campaign.
While our present rules of engagement might indict Sherman as a war criminal, he never did anything remotely similar to what the Allies did in WWII. If Sherman is a war criminal, then so are MacArthur, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower.
Yes the North is pretty much now a Communist stronghold. At some point part of the rest of the country is going to de-couple. My guess is Texas, Utah, Idaho maybe AZ and then most of the old confederacy except for NC which is currently in flux trying to get back red from blue.
It is not "projection". The Assertion of "Projection" is usually the first move of someone who doesn't have a valid argument.
Now I will explain why it is not "projection". My Family was not here during the civil war. We didn't arrive in this country until the turn of the 20th century, some 35 years after it was all over. I do not live in a former confederate state. I have never lived in a former confederate state. I went to "Lincoln" grade school, and was taught to admire and revere Lincoln for most of my life. I remember making Silhouettes of Lincoln in grade school for "Lincoln" day.
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.
Now since I have put my "cards on the table" how about you let us know if you perhaps live in a Northern state or perhaps had ancestors who's conduct you feel in need of defending?
Yes, but the myth and inaccuracies are primarily from those who take the side that Fedzilla had a right to force people to remain in the Union.
When asked how they can defend a position so at odds with our founding principles (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence) their only answer is "Slavery!!!!" But when it is pointed out that every state was a slave state in 1776, they simply ignore or rationalize the point.
The fact is, the North could not invade the South for the stated purpose of forcing them back into the Union without violating the very principles upon which this nation was founded. Their arguments invariably boil down to a form of "Might makes right."
If that was the case..then many Sherman haters have nothing to bray about...Sherman was responding to what had happened at Chambersburg...
Every state had legal slavery in 1776. Presumably God would have objected just as much then as he would in 1861, yet the US won independence from Britain none the less.
I know that if you had asked a Northern soldier in 1861 why he was fighting, he would have told you "because they attacked Ft Sumter." If you had asked a Southern soldier in 1861 why they were fighting, he would have replied "Because they invaded our homeland."
I don't think "Slavery" was much of a consideration for either one of them until much later in the war.
I think terms such as "War Criminal" and "Crimes against humanity" are highly dependent upon whether or not you are in a position of power.
We like to think we are objective, but as has been pointed out, the difference between Heroes and "War Criminals" is whether or not their side won the war.
Of course it is projection. You are attributing your traits onto your opponents.
You start with a shotgun premise (”The problem for many such people is that they personalize it. If they come from a Northern state, or if they have ancestors who fought on the Union side during the war, they see the discussion as personal rather than abstract.”) as if only one side exhibits those attitudes.
You then extend that false premise with: “When it becomes personal they have to justify what happened, and the only fig leaf of justification they can find is “Well they were bad people, so they deserve what my ancestors/state did to them.””. Again, a simple review of the posts will show who is (and isn’t) exhibiting those “personalizing” of the topic.
When you became a Lost Causer interesting but secondary to the fact that you employed projection in order to minimize the posts of your opponents. You adhere to a line of rationalization and align your posts accordingly. You are no different than those you attempt to slander.
And the first shot of the war was fired by the South.
Lincoln had taken NO action against the South until that stupid incident. The South might have been able to peacefully separate but there were too many hot headed Southerners who wanted war because they thought the vaunted Confederate fighting spirit would save the day.
Stupid and losers at the same time.
It is totally irrelevant - unless you want to project again. But no, I don't live in a "northern state". My lineage is Scot/Welsh and both lines came to America through Canada. Both lines settled in southern states for several generations. One relocated to Montana and the other to Oregon and then Washington. I was raised in the south.
As I said, it is extraneous and irrelevant to the history of the period.
Well that can't be true, because my trait is objectivity, and I don't see much of that coming from your side.
You start with a shotgun premise (”The problem for many such people is that they personalize it. If they come from a Northern state, or if they have ancestors who fought on the Union side during the war, they see the discussion as personal rather than abstract.”) as if only one side exhibits those attitudes.
I have no doubt that some people on the Southern side of the argument also do this. There is a tendency to knee jerk defend your ancestors or your state, whether they be right or wrong. To many it is just an extension of your immediate family.
The reason I do not include them in my criticism is because we don't currently have to live with the consequences of their side winning, we have to live with the consequences of the Union side winning.
I keep saying this. Much of our current problems are the result of consequences dating back to the Civil war. The assertion of such great Federal powers trace back to the abuse of them which occurred in that conflict.
Lincoln created "Fedzilla." Teddy Roosevelt expanded him. Woodrow Wilson expanded him even further. Roosevelt further still. Lyndon Johnson made him into the beast which is currently killing us all, and every Democrat since has been feeding and growing him.
Now we have this horrible monster which appears to be threatening all of our lives.
Had the South not started a war with Fedzilla then her railroads wouldn't have been trashed or her slaves freed. Let that be the lesson to you.
When asked how they can defend a position so at odds with our founding principles (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence) their only answer is "Slavery!!!!"
One of our founding principles is that if you're going to start a rebellion, regardless of whether the reason is "taxation without representation" or defending slavery, then you had better win it. Another lesson for you.
The fact is, the North could not invade the South for the stated purpose of forcing them back into the Union without violating the very principles upon which this nation was founded.
The fact is that the North was not invading anything until after the Confederacy resorted to armed conflict to further their aims.
Their arguments invariably boil down to a form of "Might makes right."
More like the Union had the better cause, preservation of the United States. The South just had that slavery thing.
Firing at Ft. Sumter was indeed a stupid mistake. One high ranking confederate begged the leadership not to do it. He told them it would completely change the current state of grace they had with the friendly Northern states, and it did.
Lincoln had taken NO action against the South until that stupid incident. The South might have been able to peacefully separate but there were too many hot headed Southerners who wanted war because they thought the vaunted Confederate fighting spirit would save the day.
There is a pretty compelling argument that Lincoln deliberately coaxed them in to that attack because he needed them to attack to justify what he wanted to do to stop them from seceding. It would appear that he laid out a trap, and they stupidly blundered into it.
In any case, the response was massively disproportionate.
It would appear to be so in your case, but in many such cases it is not, But your response begs the question: If you have no stake in one side or the other, why do you think the Union government had a right to force people to remain with it?
No. Apart from the fact that there weren't any states in 1776, Rhode Island had banned it in 1652. First colony to do so. Also, at the time, the biggest importer of slaves. There's a bit of history trivia for you.
Sherman served as the superintendent of what would become LSU up until right before the war. He warned, begged and implored his compatriots in the south against embarking upon the route they did. Beauregard had a high enough regard for Sherman that he tried to recruit him to the confederate cause, which Sherman declined. Conf. General Joseph Johnston, Sherman's opposite in GA and the Carolinas held Sherman in high enough regard he served as pall bearer at Sherman's funeral, and per Wikipedia, "It was a bitterly cold day and a friend of Johnston, fearing that the general might become ill, asked him to put on his hat. Johnston famously replied: "If I were in [Sherman's] place, and he were standing in mine, he would not put on his hat." Johnston did catch a serious cold and died one month later of pneumonia."
Your argument is tantamount to someone responding to being hit by a pea-shooter with murder.
The attack on Ft. Sumter was stupid, but the Fedzilla response was by far disproportionate. No one was killed in the shelling of Ft. Sumter, and I cannot help but think this is because the Confederates really had no intention of killing anyone. Because of the zero casualties as a result of their attack, I suspect they were just trying to make a big show and scare people.
One of our founding principles is that if you're going to start a rebellion, regardless of whether the reason is "taxation without representation" or defending slavery, then you had better win it. Another lesson for you.
It is folly to think we "won" the war of Independence. Britain just decided to stop fighting us. Had Lincoln been in charge of England, we wouldn't have gained independence.
More like the Union had the better cause, preservation of the United States.
And what makes this a better cause than the preservation of the United Kingdom?
Why are slave states breaking away from the United Kingdom better than Slave states breaking away from the United States?
Quotes from Sherman
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_tecumseh_sherman.html
We could use him a president or House or Senate leader.
In fact, Confederate forces looted, destroyed and "lived off the land" everywhere they went, especially outside the Confederacy proper.
Sure, some generals like Lee made a show of "paying for" forced "requisitions" with nearly worthless Confederate money, but most just took what they needed and destroyed what they thought useful to the Union.
Despite all that, the Civil War included remarkably few atrocities, I.e. civilians murdered, but more by Confederates (Lawrence Kansas to mention one) than Union troops.
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.