Posted on 12/05/2014 1:01:20 PM PST by aomagrat
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -
At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.
"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.
"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."
McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.
"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."
(Excerpt) Read more at wistv.com ...
The Oxford dictionary defines “civil war” as “a war between citizens of the same country”. The Union maintained that the USA was still one country therefore called it the Civil War. They won, we are still one country, so it’s properly called the Civil War. If the South had won it would be properly called the War of Southern Independence.
” The South just wanted to leave the Union which was their right. They never tried to invade, conquer and subjugate the North.”
They tried to take over Fort Sumter which was Union territory. Firing upon it was an act of war. The south had the right to leave, sure, but they lost the right to be left alone when they attacked a Union military fort.
*the South
It pertains to the honor of the American Fighting Man, that we know the difference between a legitimate act of war, and an atrocity. I make reference to the UCMJ and the U.S. Army Field Manual, as well as many other documents of a binding statutory nature. Our men are to honorable soldiers, not war criminals. They are to be faithful ("Semper Fidelis") to an unbending code of honor.
Were it otherwise, I would not stand for my son to be a U.S. Marine.
Im reading Jeff Shaara’s book on the Battle for Vicksburg. I am a Civil War buff, but not as well read as some others (maybe 40-50 books). This is my first significant exposure to Sherman. I think Jeff Shaara would agree with you completely.
One more time. Civil War is a fight between two factions for control of the govt. The South was not fighting for control of the govt. They wanted to secede, be left alone and have their own government. The Union/Northern states invaded, subjugated, occupied and forced their govt on the South. You can thank Abe Lincoln for the police state government we live in today. He was responsible for destroying states rights.
I agree. General Sherman was given a task to carry out and he did it. Anyone caring to criticize what happened should direct that to the man who gave the order.
“It pertains to the honor of the American Fighting Man, that we know the difference between a legitimate act of war, and an atrocity.”
Yes can you imagine the Marines digging up women’s silver tea sets in their backyard and taking their very last chicken or pig leaving them and their children to starve? No way. Today if you tried to get our kids in the military to do that they would never do it. Its sickening.
You are simply making up a definition of civil war to fit your opinion on ours. Civil wars can be fought for any number of goals, sometimes limited, sometimes for complete power. But the one factor that makes them civil wars is that they are fought between citizens of the same country.
There are many civil wars all over the globe right now. Name one that is not for control of the government?
The South never called the war a Civil War. That is the term the North labeled the war to try to make it seem like they had a right to invade, subjugate, ravage, occupy and torture the South. Not to mention force them to to stay in a union they no longer wanted. The United States is a compact and soon you will see that many states will be leaving again as the compact is untenable for them as it was in 1861.
Lol
Clear thinking to most here on these topics is like mold to Wonder bread
Most amusing to me in all this thrashing about on this thread is the notion Sherman is the only Yankee to commit what we calk war crimes today on civilians
Hell most did it when it suited them...Sherman just made it public strategy and then usual South haters here still applaud it
But just try this in Afghanistan etc and hear the howls
And before idiots here compare WWII total war remember the South never tried to conquer the north...they just wanted out
That is not the same as what the Axis powers wanted...world subjugation
And here we are today.... watching America literally and politically overrun by those incapable of managing their own children much less a country
The Civil War was just one step down a long road to the dissolution to our way of life...pointless
So laugh it up and preen with glee over Sherman’s masterful war on women and children and helpless black slave girls
Y’all are whistling past the graveyard
I'd put that on the 14th Amendment, actually.
At the rime of its occupation, the island was nothing more than a reinforced stone building. It was never commissioned.
The notion that it was “union property” was a canard used by newspapers to incite people with limited knowledge of law.
Union military had already fired on the South and arranged a blockade of ports.
The officials knew the Union was invading and took steps to stop it.
Fyi
By no small surprise Merriam Webster dictionary has the same definition for civil war as what Hugin offered. Although I prefer “The War Between The States” the “Civil War” is entirely accurate and the northern aggression foolishness is sheer nonsense..
Baloney
Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, in a resolution passed by the South Carolina legislature in December 1836. The legislation did not specify that the Fort was to be used to protect the state. Fort Sumter belonged to the Unites States.
The Union blockades of Southern ports did not begin until *after* the battle of Fort Sumter. The Battle was in April, and the Union Blockade Strategy Board wasn’t even formed until June. The first shots of the Civil War were by the South—not the North.
The agreement was governed by law which was violated. Ignoring the violation does not validate ownership but does demonstrate the failure of the Republican party’s responsibility to uphold federal law.
1864 is a far cry from 2014. The South took up arms against the duly elected government of the United States(that constitutes armed rebellion, treason) with the intention of preserving slavery and expanding it into Kansas which at the time was applying for statehood. Dance around that fact Mrs. Don-o all you want , you’re entitled to your own opinions, all of us are. We are not however entitled to our own facts. The South ‘’opened the ball’’, in the parlance of the day, they fired the first shots in a war they had every intention of winning and in the they lost. deal with it.
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.