Posted on 01/17/2016 1:26:17 PM PST by soakncider
That is why, within just a few months of the Proclamation, a number of commanders in the field...felt sanctioned to unleash the equivalent of what in the 20th century came to be called "total war"-a war upon civilians and their property in the South, with attendant looting, murder, arson, and rape, and neither women, children, the old and infirm, or oftentimes even blacks, were spared. As General-in-Chief Halleck noted in a letter to Ulysses Grant on March 31, 1863: The character of the war has very much changed..There is now no possible hope of reconciliation with the rebels..There can be no peace but that which is forced by the sword. We must conquer the rebels. A few days later Grant concurred: Rebellion has assumed that shape now that it can only terminate by the complete subjugation of the South..It is our duty to weaken the enemy, by destroying their means of subsistence, withdrawing their means of cultivating their fields, and in every other way possible. Thus it was that in his campaign in the West against Vicksburg, Mississippi, in the Spring and Summer of 1863, Grant had no compunction in attacking civilians and destroying feed mills: "Civilians were suffering from unceasing bombardment and the shortage of food"..In the aftermath, Grant ordered General William Sherman east to Jackson, the capital of Mississippi, which he conquered on July 17 after five days of incessant bombardment without Confederate resistance and proceeded to unleash the troops on a three-day rampage that, according to a Northern reporter, "left the entire business section in ruins, burned most of the better residences..and looted homes, churches, and the state library,"..."such complete ruin and devastation never followed the footsteps of any army before." Sherman boasted to Grant, "The land is devastated for 30 miles around."
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
I might suggest “The Cornerstone Speech” by The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens. In it he pretty much states that the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy is the inferiority of the black. That “platform” of the Confederation of Slave Power gained full traction following the Dred Scott decision made by the Supreme Court in the country’s first instance of judicial tyranny.
In sherman’s march to the sea, it certainly was an army of terror from the southerners’ perspective, and a policy of scorched earth.
However, i never intended to insult you or your family. I am sorry.
I haven’t posted any myths. Everything i have posted has been properly sourced and attributed...a matter of historical record, albeit from a southerner’s viewpoint. You call it nonsense, but you fail to prove it to be nonsense.
There is plenty of judicial tyranny going on today, as well as demagoguery. In that regard, our country has regressed. And when a president or vice president makes a speech, he speaks only for himself and his biggest donors. Obama doesn’t speak for a majority of Americans today and Davis and Stephens didn’t speak for a majority of southerners then. Most southerners of the day probably didn’t even know who their VP was, just as most don’t know who the VP is today, even with mass media. And if they ever heard him give a speech, they would probably instinctively think he was a lying snake oil salesman.
I love this Thomas Jefferson quote. Is there a source for it?
Okay, thanks!
I’m not going to play lawyer games with you.
Your sources are whacked, and you obsessively post this Lost Cause nonsense.
I understand exactly what you are saying. I know that the majority of the soldiers of the Confederacy were most likely not pro-slavery, but rather duped by the true ringleaders of the “movement”. But that does not excuse any one from the present, (knowing what we know now) saying they are pro-Confederacy but not pro-slavery. That is a contradiction. All too many rebel soldiers had been led to believe that Lincoln and the North were tyrants. There is the famous example of the Reb being asked by the yank, “why are you fighting?” and the the Reb replied, “because you’re here!”
By that definition every army is an army of terror. No, to win you must break supply lines.
However, i never intended to insult you or your family. I am sorry.
Thanks for the thought. Yeah, I have members straight up the paternal side (same last name) that fought in the Revolution also. I would never consider any US army an army of terror, almost always an army for freedom. The exception being Clinton's Serbia war.
I’m sure we southerners will do better in the next CW.
What makes you say that?
Most southerners of the day probably didn’t even know who their VP was, just as most don’t know who the VP is today, even with mass media. And if they ever heard him give a speech, they would probably instinctively think he was a lying snake oil salesman.
I'd say 33% will always be on the wrong side, 33% will not care enough but will pick the easy side, which these days is the Dem side because of the mass media. They'd rather be wrong than be made fun of.
You better believe it. :-)
January 18, 2016 and Sherman is still dead and rotting in Hell just like he was yesterday. :-)
And jeff davis is right there shining WT’s boots.
Sherman was one of a kind and bound for Hell. He got there and there he stays. He’s shining Satan’s boots everyday. :-)
Soakncider: “While it may be true, and i don’t know that it is, that Confederate soldiers, acting independently or in small groups, committed crimes against civilians, it wasn’t a matter of sanctioned national policy, as it was in the Union army of terror.”
The truth is there were relatively few massacres of civilians, certainly compared to other wars, but all such masacres as did happen were committed by Confederate troops.
There is more than one site which lists these, and I’ll post them for you when time permits.
As for Confederate policy regarding Confederate forces in Union areas, it was ALWAYS the same: 1) take what you need (i.e. food, horses, weapons) 2) return anything of military or economic value to the Confederacy 3) destroy what cannot be taken (i.e., bridges, railroads).
Yes, “payment” was sometimes offered, but more often not.
Confederate destruction of whole Union cities did not begin at Chambersburg, PA, and preceded Sherman ‘ s notorious March through Georgia.
Bottom line: Yes, Confederate forces did less damage in Union states & territories, but mostly because they had less opportunity, not fewer intentions.
Soakncider: “...Davis and Stephens didn’t speak for a majority of southerners then.
Most southerners of the day probably didn’t even know who their VP was...”
But of course Davis & Stephens DID speak for all Confederates in these matters, since they lead the government which first declared it’s secession and then declared war on the United Ststes.
As such, all Confederate citizens were bound, under penalty of law, to support their new government and it’s war on the United States — whether they fully agreed or not.
Yes, of course, many Confederate citizens did not care about slavery — especially in the Upper South — and would not fight ONLY to protect the slave - holding master class.
For them it was all about protecting their homes & communities.
However, those people did not make the laws, did not start the war, did not call up troops or lead them into battle.
Slave - holders did all of that, and much more, for the express purpose of defending their “peculiar institution”.
I respect your opinions as well as your kind demeanor, and I appreciate your thoughtful and informative posts. I realize this subject touches a lot of nerves, but it’s important to look at all sides...as there are more than just two sides.
there may come a day when we want to consider secession seriously.... like when the ‘rapefugee’ jihad begins in earnest, and our federal overlords fail to protect our communities.
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
When I first started using it years ago, I assumed that it was accurately attributed to TJ, but since there is no unassailable written evidence to that effect, I’ll amend my tagline.
So far as I know, everyone posting here to defend the Union side of Civil War also agrees that secession could have been, and still is, lawful & constitutional, provided it's done in accordance with our Founders' original intentions: 1) by mutual consent -- meaning with the approval of Congress, or 2) as a result of usurpations and oppression, which I would say should be confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Yes, those are very high bars to clear, and any state combinations which could jump such hurdles would doubtless also have the political wherewithal to effect necessary changes within the Union.
But there it is.
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.