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.

[minnesota_bound]

Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.

[TurboZamboni]

Instead we get Agent Orange and the crying game.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

States, Colonies, they are still the same people and the same land, so the distinction is just a distraction. Also I find sources that dispute your claim that slavery was banned in Rhode Island.

http://slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rhode_Island#Slavery

In February 1784 the Legislature passed a compromise measure for gradual emancipation. All children of slaves born after March 1 were to be "apprentices," the girls to become free at 18, the boys at 21. As with other Northern instances of gradual emancipation, this gave slaveowners many years of service to recoup the cost of raising the children.

No slaves were emancipated outright. The 1800 census listed 384 slaves, and the number fell gradually to 5 in 1840, after which slaves were no longer counted in the censuses for the state. And, in an essential element of the 1784 compromise, the right of Rhode Island ship-owners to participate in the foreign slave trade was undisturbed.

[Billthedrill]

Uh...this is from your own source:

In 1652, Rhode Island passed the first abolition law in the thirteen colonies, banning African slavery.[13]

HERE

It's about halfway down.

[DiogenesLamp]

Uh...this is from your own source:

In 1652, Rhode Island passed the first abolition law in the thirteen colonies, banning African slavery.[13]

HERE

It's about halfway down.

Seriously? Are you just TRYING to be argumentative for no other purpose? The dispute isn't about whether or not they passed a law, the dispute is about whether or not they were a slave state in 1776, and the fact remains that in 1776, Rhode Island was a slave state.

The very sentence you quote is followed by these sentences:

The law was not enforced by the end of the 17th century. By 1774, the slave population of RI was 6.3%, nearly twice as high as any other New England colony.

You could not possibly have copied your quote above without noticing that next two sentences which demonstrates it to be completely non-operational, and effectively nothing but legislative theater.

In all particulars, Rhode Island was a slave state in 1776, as were all the other states in the Union, including Pennsylvania (the seat of our Government at the time) and Massachusetts.

So again, I ask you, are you just trying to be argumentative for no other purpose than the sake of arguing?

[Billthedrill]

You’re the one doing the arguing. I cited a fact. Now stop blustering and leave it.

[wbarmy]

In any case, the response was massively disproportionate.

From our historical viewpoint or from their "right then and right now" viewpoint. We have 200 years of hindsight to look back on, Lincoln had the then and there decision making of what to do.

As for conspiracy theories of Lincoln trying to foment war, how hard is it to start a war with belligerents who desperately want it. I guess if someone starts screaming in my face about wanting a fight, and I raise my fists, is it my fault if the fight starts?

Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace? Should police in Ferguson abandon the streets to keep the peace?

[Doctor 2Brains]

Sorry, I’ve just never read of the systematic, wholesale, wanton destruction perpetrated by the South that I’ve read of with Sherman.

This Chambersburg stuff is small potatoes to Sherman’s antics, akin to saying, “See, here’s a GI who shot a Nazi prisoner, so how can you complain about Auschwitz.”

[Lazamataz]

I hate both of you.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re the one doing the arguing. I cited a fact. Now stop blustering and leave it.

You cited an immaterial fact. Protesting that it is immaterial is not "Blustering".

[DoodleDawg]

The attack on Ft. Sumter was stupid, but the Fedzilla response was by far disproportionate.

Was the nuking of two cities and the burning of a bunch of others proportionate to the attack on Pearl Harbor? The South started the war. Having started it, the South alone was responsible for all the death and destruction that followed.

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.

You think they bombarded the fort for over 24 hours and honestly weren't trying to kill anyone? Really?

It is folly to think we "won" the war of Independence. Britain just decided to stop fighting us.

The British signed a treaty granting the U.S. pretty much everything it was fighting for. You don't call that winning?

Had Lincoln been in charge of England, we wouldn't have gained independence.

Had Lincoln been in charge of the Confederacy and Davis the Union you would be a separate country today.

And what makes this a better cause than the preservation of the United Kingdom?

Because we weren't an integral part of the United Kingdom. We were a colony.

Why are slave states breaking away from the United Kingdom better than Slave states breaking away from the United States?

The rebellion of 1776 was not in defense of slavery. The rebellion of 1861 was.

[DiogenesLamp]

As for conspiracy theories of Lincoln trying to foment war, how hard is it to start a war with belligerents who desperately want it. I guess if someone starts screaming in my face about wanting a fight, and I raise my fists, is it my fault if the fight starts?

The Washington Post is considered to be a fairly prominent newspaper with a respected reputation albeit quite Liberal. Here is an article I found previously regarding the Ft. Sumter incident. Here is an excerpt.

In March, 1861, a group of Southern commissioners went to Washington to negotiate a peaceful settlement of all questions arising from secession, to pay for federal property and to arrange for the removal of the garrison in Charleston Harbor. Lincoln refused to meet with them. He employed Secretary of State William Seward to obfuscate the situation by maintaining that cooler heads would prevail, Fort Sumter would be abandoned and that he was working towards a peaceful reconstruction of the Union. Seward continued the deception until April 7, 1861.

The article makes for interesting reading and it does flesh out a bit the history of how it started. (Presuming the facts outlined within are correct.)

Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace?

Perhaps not all is according to what you have been led to believe? Read the article if you will.

[DiogenesLamp]

Was the nuking of two cities and the burning of a bunch of others proportionate to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

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.

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

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.

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.

You think they bombarded the fort for over 24 hours and honestly weren't trying to kill anyone? Really?

And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?

The rebellion of 1776 was not in defense of slavery. The rebellion of 1861 was.

Slave states in rebellion from the United Kingdom were fighting for their slave property too. You cannot separate that aspect out from the overall cause of the war. If I recall correctly, the United Kingdom did ALSO offer freedom to any slave who would fight against the vile slave holding colonies.

However the blacks made their greatest bid for freedom by taking up arms. They took up arms fighting for the British early in the Revolution. The British offered blacks their freedom in return for their aid in fighting the Americans. Blacks took up the offer not because they were fighting for the British but because they were fighting for their freedom.

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?

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.

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

People have a right to create whatever sort of government suits them, even if their reasons for doing so are bad, and even if their newly created government turns out to be a mistake.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've had enough of this stuff for today. There will be no further responses from me for awhile.

The civil war was a tragic period in this nation's history and the consequences of it are still being felt today.

It should not have happened.

[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.

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.

Following your claim, had the Union murdered every person in the South, you would say they deserved it.

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.

No, this is sheer emotionalism and after the fact justification for abuse.

Abuse? If the mugger is tazed by police has he been abused? If the murder is executed has be been abused? Abuse implies innocence, and the South was not the innocent party in this. The South was the aggressor, and brought down all that happened to her all on her own.

And you think they could do such a thing for 24 hours and NOT kill anyone if they were trying?

Obviously that's what happened.

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?

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

[Ditto]

I think that Sherman's March is to the Confederate Lost Cause what Ferguson is to Al Sharpton and his ilk. An incident that is used to rally around and inflame passions but at the end of the day is based mainly on myth and inaccuracies.

That's a pretty fair analogy. In point of fact, all the 'Sherman Hate' in the South didn't actually crop up until 30+ years after the war when the Lost Cause myth-makers got into high gear.

Hell, even Confederate General Joe Johnston served as a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral. Johnston was the guy who tried to stop Sherman in North Georgia and then later in the Carolinas.

[RaceBannon]

no, the south not only seceded, but they fired first, starting the entire war

[Willgamer]

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.

[Georgia Girl 2]

No. The South just tried to leave the Union which they had every right to do. The South did not try to invade and conquer the North.

[RaceBannon]

you fired on fort sumter

you started the war