On this date in 1864

[Bull Snipe]

Major General William T. Sherman and four Corps of the Union Army departed the city of Atlanta and began what is known as the “March to the Sea”. General Sherman’s objective in few words was “to make Georgia howl.” To this end he was very successful. During the march across Georgia, Sherman’s army inflicted 100 million dollars’ worth of damage on the Confederate State. This included destruction of 300 miles of rail road, miles of telegraph wire, numerous bridges & trestles. His forces confiscated or destroyed 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, 13,000 cattle, 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder. One Union soldier, in his memoires of the march, said that it was the only time he ever gained weigh on a campaign. In a letter dated 24 Dec 1865 to Secretary of War Stanton; Sherman states “We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience.”

[fatez]

I am sure you think Hitler was misunderstood and Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Tojo, well America should not have played in East Asia...

[Moonman62]

Have read both. I think General Sherman’s memoirs are a little more intellectual than Grant’s. He devotes more time to his thoughts and motivations.

...

Grant wrote his memoirs as he was dying from throat cancer, so his wife would have money. They were published by Mark Twain.

[DiogenesLamp]

It wasn’t an either or, it was very complex. But the Southern states tried to secede because of Lincoln’s election and his election marked that the abolitionist were making huge headway electorally.

What kind of headway would they have needed to abolish slavery? I've done the math on this. If the 11 states that became the confederacy held together, it would take a Union of 44 states to abolish slavery. That could not happen until 1896 at the earliest. If the five Union slave states held together with the 11 states that became the Confederacy, it would require a Union of 64 states to abolish slavery. (We haven't reached 64 states yet.)

So what kind of "headway" were the abolitionists making?

They left because and really only because of slavery.

I believe I showed you the math where slavery in the Union wasn't going anywhere. They were apparently going to keep slavery in the Union till at least 1896, and so why would they leave over something they already had?

Lincoln was not fighting to remove slavery, but to preserve the Union.

Why should the United States be preserved when the United Kingdom was not? By what argument can you claim that we had a right to leave a Union that was over a thousand years old, but could not leave one that was only "four score and seven years" old?

When the founders broke from the United Kingdom, they asserted that men had a right to independence, and that right came from Nature and Nature's God. If the principle of our own founding was correct, then why should this same principle not be recognized when asserted by states that no longer wish to be a part of a Union?

In other words, People had a right to leave a government which no longer suited their interests. The "Union" did not have a right to force them to remain.

The longer the war dragged on, Lincoln linked the issue of slavery to the war.

You kill 750,000 people in the initial conflict, and perhaps 2 million more from disease, starvation and exposure, and you have to justify it somehow by appealing to a higher principle, and claim that is why all the blood was shed.

It wouldn't do at all to say you started a war to protect the financial interests of Robber Barons in New York. No, that wouldn't work.

[Pelham]

So... does that mean that you side with George III and his legal government with its emancipation policy, over slaveowning George Washington and his fellow treasonous rebels?

Please clarify, as your reply was rather oblique, being a question rather than an answer.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes having 3 war heroes in one of the greatest causes ever is not much to crow about diogenes. How many slaves did your family own and are you still pissed we freed them???

My family did not arrive in the US until after 1900, so we didn't own any slaves. My family also did not settle in any of the Southern States, so I wasn't surrounded by Southern sympathizers.

I came by my position because my best friend in Highschool who is black, and majored in History, *TOLD* me that he had learned in one of his history classes that Lincoln deliberately triggered the war. At first I didn't believe him, but after looking up the things he told me, it became apparent that Lincoln really did start the civil war.

[fatez]

So I will answer you directly, my family (directly) are Daughters of the Revolution. But we were supporters of John Adams and his strain of liberty...From Massachusetts and Connecticut.

[DoodleDawg]

Their earlier discussions had all but one saying it would cause a war. Their earlier discussions were correct, and their later discussions were incorrect.

The earlier discussion were when they thought there was a chance for peace. When Confederate intent became clear the decision was made not to give in to rebel demands.

[Pelham]

I’m SAR. You’re DAR. That’s family history, not an answer to the question that I posed to you.

You appear to be saying that you support the secession of Massachusetts and Connecticut from the government of King George and Parliament, but withhold your support of rebellion by the other colonies- is that because you want to separate New England from the colonies that had slaves?

That sounds similar to what the Massachusetts Essex Junto and the Hartford Convention stood for. Although Hartford considered secession from United States and rejoining England during the War of 1812.

Either way it wouldn’t free you from the taint of slavery. Slavery existed in Massachusetts until the Quock Walker Case was decided in 1783; and slavery remained legal in Connecticut until 1840.

[fatez]

I am tainted by slavery because I am human. My family were poor and did not own slaves. My ancestors going further back paternally and very recent on my mothers were peasants. But I don’t think there is a human not tainted by sin...

[Pelham]

Then perhaps the moralistic posturing from upthread ought to be retired.

[jmacusa]

Hiya Lampster! Still writing your history, huh?

[jmacusa]

And those Southerners who still don’t get it after 150 years are just as dumb as their ancestors.

[jmacusa]

Hiya General! I wouldn’t be popping open any jugs of O Be Joyful if ANY state in the nation seceded. Not even the one you live in. Because were that to happen we wouldn’t be the great , powerful and free United States Of America.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Of course Adolph Hitler proved much the same thing during the subsequent century."

rockrr: "I call Godwin’s Law. You lose."

Isn't it curious... I doubt if anyone posting on Free Republic takes louder or stronger objections to having Confederates compared to (perish the thought!) Nazis than our own DiogenesLamp.

And yet, with no prompting or prodding whatever, DL is out likening Sherman to Hitler.
My oh my...

Georgia Girl: "Most of those farms and plantations your hero burned, raped and pillaged his way through were being maintained by women and children.
There were no fighting men around.
It doesn’t take much bravery to whip a bunch of women, dig up their silver tea service, steal all their food and burn their house down then leave them to starve.
That’s the reality of what happened."

And here we see actual claims of what makes Sherman "another Hitler": "burned, raped and pillaged his way through..."

• "Burned?" Only those properties from which Sherman's troops received enemy rifle fire.

• "Raped?" No evidence outside occasional court proceedings of those prosecuted for it.

• "Pillaged"? Only to the degree that Confederate Armies also "pillaged" when outside the Confederacy.
  Sherman's men marched under the slogan: "Remember Chambersburg", which Confederates burned & pillaged in 1864.

• And there was one routine activity of Confederate Armies which Sherman's men never did: grab any freed-blacks they found for return & sales as slaves.

And, did you notice what's missing from this list?
Mass killings -- either systematic, as in Holocaust or consequential, as in 20th century air raids.

In fact, there's no comparison between Sherman & Hitler -- none, zero, nada valid comparisons.
But it is striking -- however much DiogenesLamp may loudly deprecate mentioning it -- that both Confederates & Nazis fought to impose forms of slavery on designated "races" (blacks, Jews, Slavs) considered unworthy of full citizenship.

[DoodleDawg]

And yet, with no prompting or prodding whatever, DL is out likening Sherman to Hitler.
My oh my...

Hypocrisy is the hallmark of a Confederate supporter.

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl: "Burning Atlanta to the ground on his way out.
Now he’s burning in Hell for eternity. :-)"

Unlike the July 1864 Confederate burning of Chambersburg, PA, Sherman's orders said military & government buildings only.

On the current abode of Sherman's spirit: Sherman himself was not particularly religious, though his son Thomas became a Catholic priest, suggesting the family took such matters seriously.
So whether Sherman might satisfy the Lord's standards for Heaven, or whether his son Thomas might put in a good word for his Dad, we of course can't know.

But in terms of his historical impact, however mixed the record: victory over slavery is Sherman's legacy, and for that he stands very tall indeed.

[DiogenesLamp]

The earlier discussion were when they thought there was a chance for peace. When Confederate intent became clear the decision was made not to give in to rebel demands.

That is putting your own opinion forward as fact. The Cabinet all but one said that retaining the fort would cause war, and they would prefer to give it up rather than have a war.

Talking about the "intent" of the Confederates and claiming it was something other than just not having a Federal Presence at the entrance to one of their most important harbors, is the same as putting your own words into their mouths. It's dishonest.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hiya Lampster! Still writing your history, huh?

Nope, just informing you what is actually written in history other than spin to justify an unnecessary war.

[DiogenesLamp]

I generally ignore your opinions because I can't get over your comparison of "Pearl Harbor" to "Ft. Sumter."

That stuff is off in wackadoodle land.

[fatez]

Pull the log out of your own eye since you seem free to post your opinions also...