THE BATTLE OF ATLANTA: Civilians were Sherman's targets

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | 07/16/04 | JOHN A. TURES

[canalabamian]

Not only was William Tecumseh Sherman guilty of many of the crimes that some apologists portray as "tall tales," but also his specter seems to haunt the scandal-ridden halls of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Sherman had a relatively poor record battling armies. His lack of preparation nearly destroyed Union forces at Shiloh. He was repulsed at Chickasaw Bluffs, losing an early opportunity to capture Vicksburg, Miss. The result was a bloody campaign that dragged on for months. He was blocked by Gen. Pat Cleburne at the Battle of Chattanooga and needed to be bailed out by Gen. George Thomas' Army of the Cumberland. His troops were crushed by rebel forces in the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain.

But Sherman knew how to make war against civilians. After the capture of Atlanta, he engaged in policies similar to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia by expelling citizens from their homes. "You might as well appeal against the thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war," he told the fleeing population. Today, Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for similar actions in Kosovo.

An article on Sherman in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last spring asserted that Sherman attacked acceptable military targets "by the standards of war at the time." This seems to assume that human rights were invented with the creation of the United Nations. But Gen. Grant did not burn Virginia to the ground. Gen. Lee did not burn Maryland or Pennsylvania when he invaded. Both sought to destroy each other's armies instead of making war against women and children, as Sherman did.

After promising to "make Georgia . . . howl," Sherman continued such policies in the Carolinas. Not only did he preside over the burning of Columbia, but he also executed several prisoners of war in retaliation for the ambush of one of his notorious foraging parties. While Andersonville's camp commander, Henry Wirz, was found guilty of conspiracy to impair the health and destroy the life of prisoners and executed, nothing like that happened to Sherman.

According to an article by Maj. William W. Bennett, Special Forces, U.S. Army, Sherman turned his attention to a new soft target after the Civil War: Native Americans. Rather than engage Indian fighters, Sherman again preferred a strategy of killing noncombatants. After an ambush of a military detachment by Red Cloud's tribe, Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

Bennett notes that Sherman carried out his campaign with brutal efficiency. On the banks of the Washita River, Gen. George Armstrong Custer massacred a village of the friendly Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle, who had located to a reservation. Sherman was quoted as saying, "The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous."

Such slaughter was backed by the extermination of the buffalo as a means of depriving the men, women and children with a source of food. Many Native Americans not killed by Sherman's troopers were forced onto reservations or exiled to Florida to face swamps and disease.

Now we have learned about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Such events may seem unrelated, were it not for reports that Sherman's policies are still taught to West Point cadets as an example of how to break an enemy's will to fight.

Are we therefore shocked by the acts of barbarity against Iraqi detainees? As long as we honor Sherman, teach his tactics and revise history to excuse his actions, we can expect more examples of torture and savagery against noncombatants we encounter in other countries.

John Tures is an assistant professor of political science at LaGrange College who was born in Wisconsin, opposes the 1956 Georgia flag and still has a low opinion of Sherman.

[stand watie]

WELL SAID!

free dixie,sw

[4CJ]

One more:

In 1848, Mr. Lincoln said: "Any people whatever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." A brave affirmation was this of the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;" and one which would have commanded the united applause of the North, then and now, had the application concerned Hungary, Poland, Greece, or Mexico. But, with reference to the South, there was a most important modification of this admirable principle of equity and humanity. When asked, "Why not let the South go?" Abraham Lincoln, the President, in 1861, said: "Let the South go! Where, then, shall we get our revenue?" And the united North reechoed: "Let the South go! Where, then, shall we look for the bounties and monopolies which have so enriched us at the expense of those improvident, unsuspecting Southerners? Where shall we find again such patient victims of spoliation?" [italics in original]

Frank H. Alfriend, The Life Of Jefferson Davis, Cincinnati: Canton Publishing House, 1868, pp. 200-201.

[4CJ]

Whether the Sun quote is true or false isn't established. Those who use the quote may not interested in verifying it.

Again, if the person to whom was addressed - a man of the cloth - or if Lincoln, as the other party, found fault with the citation I'm sure both would have clamored for a correction. Besides being published by the Sun, it was published by two other Baltimore papers the following day. If the account was wrong, certainly it would have been corrected. I mean, who's in the habit of calling for retractions of the truth?

[4CJ]

Your thinking precedes from the assumption that unilateral secession was constitutional. But this is precisely what was at issue. There were real differences of opinion on this issue, and where such differences of opinion exist, it's up to those who want to change things not to behave provocatively.

Why? Where is that expressed in the Constitution? Where is it prohibited? How can something be unconstitutional, if there's no prohibition against it?

[PeaRidge]

"I repeat, most of these are second- or third-hand citations. They aren't consistent in their wording and don't give the time and place where such comments were allegedly made. They are folklore rather than fact."

There are several first hand citations. Where are your first hand refutations?

"You've asked me to show you where you make unsupported jumps or leaps in reasoning. And here's one: when the subject was first discussed Lincoln's military advisers counseled against using force to reinforce Sumter or remove the danger to it."

Correct. (You begin with a commonly accepted statement).

"They also did not support reinforcement, but advised evacuation."

Correct. (and more of the same).

And here comes the famous x twist:

"Knowing that Lincoln attempted resupply and the result was war, you assume 1) that the military advised against resupply because it would bring war..."

You used the term, "you assume".

I do not assume. Here are the facts:

3/9/1861 One day after Congress had adjourned, Lincoln conducted his first formal cabinet meeting.

Lincoln invited a group of military and naval experts to give their views. They were all against military excursions to Ft. Sumter. Most believed that the resources needed to forcibly re-supply Ft. Sumter were too large, and that this effort would certainly prompt a military response from the Confederacy, with war sure to follow.

Secretary of Navy Gideon Wells said,

“By sending or attempting to send provisions into Ft. Sumter, will not war be precipitated?

4/7/1861 Major Anderson received a letter from Secretary of War Cameron telling Anderson that the President intended to send a fleet to Charleston.

Major Anderson immediately replied to Secretary Cameron. He was stunned at the cabinet’s decision to send the fleet. It was apparent that the government was willing to risk war, which he had so skillfully avoided.

“I…confess that it…surprises me greatly…(that these orders) contradict the assurances of Mr. Crawford that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

“It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned…Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea (of re-supply), merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced"

According to commentary from Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, who led the Ft. Pickens re-supply effort,

“This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession.”

Meigs placed the responsibility of the bloodshed to come, not with the Confederacy, but “in the office of the President.”

In the record.....not assumptions.

"and 2) that Lincoln sent supplies to the fort because he wanted war."

He certainly liked the outcome of the expedition:

5/1/1861 In a letter to Gustavus Fox, President Lincoln said,

“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation not to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.”

"But neither one of these leaps of assumption is proven to be true, and both may be false."

It does seem that his military advisers did conclude that action at Sumter would bring war. It also seems that Lincoln was pleased with Fox's results.

So as you can see, neither of the points you provide are "leaps of assumptions". and using your logic, both may be true.

"From what I've read, both are false."

Reading the Kool-aid labels again?

[PeaRidge]

The interesting thing here is that dozens of Northern and Southern newspapers were printing the essential fact that the Union would have no revenue if the South were "allowed" to trade with Europe.

Same thing was being said in the US Congress during speeches. Businessmen were debating the subject in meetings and it was street talk.

It is obvious that Lincoln would state the obvious in various conversations, because the truth was openly known.

With the secession of the South and its production now going directly to Europe, the Treasury was losing 98% of its revenue. So, why wouldn't he ask the question to those who recommended that the secesssion not be opposed.

Why x wants to spend so much time and effort spinning his web of "my sources tell me", and "looks like just speculation to me" are weak arguments. He uses his verbage to dress them up, but you can't make a race horse out of a donkey.

[PeaRidge]

"In sending out Secession Commissioners and calling for a large army,"

Just how large was large?

[PeaRidge]

"Do I disagree with your "authorities"? Obviously. I question whether they really have much authority in this particular question. What's right or wrong doesn't depend on majority opinion or on credentials, but it may not hurt my case to say that most of the respected scholars who've written about Sumter take a dim view of neoconfederate conspiracy theories."

The information I have given you comes from public records, and the "Official Records...". Seems as if your 'respected scholars' dim view is of the records of the time, which is understandable since your modern historians are not disposed to expound on the truth.

[GOPcapitalist]

There are several first hand citations. Where are your first hand refutations?

Naturally, he doesn't have any. He'd rather sit at a distance and bloviate.

[PeaRidge]

"I don't know how old you are, or if you've ever had to live in uncertain or dangerous times (I haven't either, so it's not a slam), but if you ever do, you might have more of an idea of how things play out in times of national crisis."

And I think the same can be said of you.

Neo-Unionist, Lincoln apologists tend to morph the actions of Lincoln into the sincere new president, operating in a vast maze of complicated options and circumstances. You would claim that he was trying to preserve the Union, "maintaining peace, making a firm stand, and preventing a collapse of morale", etc.

You apologists fail to point out that it is public record that after the "Star of the West" fiasco, and through the next three months, there was peace in the two sections. Mail continued despite bumps. Trade continued. The coastal packet trade went on.

The Union government was operational in its boundaries. So was the South. All was at peace except for a few minor civil problems.

So, Lincoln was inaugurated. Many in Washington expected a major civil conflict. Nothing happened.

Trade continued. Ships from New York, bound for Charleston and other places, sailed on. Tourists and business continued.

Newspapers advocated peace. Lincoln's cabinet advocated peace. Congress spoke of peace.

There was peace.

Then, March 18.

Everything changed in the mind of the public. Now everybody in the North was clamoring for war.

But as you know, ten days before, Lincoln had already asked his cabinet for a war plan for Charleston.

In fact, in December of 1860, four months prior, he had asked that a war plan be prepared.

So, conspiracy theory crap does not apply. That man had been looking for a confrontation since before he took office. Everything he did (not said) was consistent with that goal.

You would like the image of Lincoln sitting at the desk, working his way through problems, to a solution.

His final solution was armed coercion of the Southern people.

[PeaRidge]

Yeah, kind of reminds you of Grand Old Partisan.

[PeaRidge]

Thank you for another example of what was being commonly said in 1861, by both the press and the President.

[PeaRidge]

So, x, what was Lincoln concerned with in March of 1861? Was he having cabinet meetings discussing the thirteenth amendment and how to implement it. Was he talking about approaching the border states and discussing gradual emancipation with government compensation, as did the British?

By the way, you failed to answer this question for me:

"Why was he willing to endorse legalized slavery at the time of the inauguration, but was unwilling to endure the issue until gradual emancipation could be arranged?"

Did he summon Gustavus Fox to obtain his council on compensation of Southern planters?

Did he confer with former attorney general Black on his opinion that the President did not have the authority to obstruct secession?

Did he ask Seward to arrange safe passage back to Africa for those slaves that would request it?

Did he open a line of communication to President Davis? Did he offer to meet with Davis' emissaries?

Did he do anything consistent with seeking a peaceful resolution?

NO. And Colonel Baldwin testified to the same.

[GOPcapitalist]

If all those written and widely circulated reports of it within Lincoln's own lifetime were false, one would think that either Lincoln himself or somebody close to Lincoln would have refuted or disavowed them at least once.

Think about it. If somebody came along and falsely claimed to have heard George W. Bush say "then what will become of my oil profits?" about Iraq and then all the newspapers and all the books started repeating it, do you not think that either Bush himself or one of his surrogates would disavow it somewhere?

Given how widespread that quote was in his own day, Lincoln could not have failed to know of its existence being reported freely and openly. Yet he and his surrogates and defenders said absolutely nothing to cast any doubt whatsoever on it. That fact alone lends credibility to Foster's report.

[GOPcapitalist]

It should also be noted that Lincoln's tariff sentiments are corroborated in the records of his associates. Around December 1, 1860 Lincoln was visited in Springfield by Hawkins Taylor, a friend and Republican organizer from Iowa who had helped him win the nomination in Chicago. They spoke at length about the impending crisis and the policies he should pursue after taking office. Taylor recorded the events of the meeting in a December 21st letter to a friend:

"I was at Springfield a few days since and had the pleasure of seeing the President Elect. And had a good long old fashioned talk with him and if our friends do not assist the Locos to demoralize the Republican party before he gets into office there will be no danger after. He will be as firm as was Jackson was and pursue exactly the same same course towards Nullifiers that Jackson did 28 years ago. If he does not take care of the Country and his party it will be the fault of his nominal friends. While he will be mild he will never consent to the lowering of the Republican Standard in the least We had a free talk about the Chicago Convention and Canvass and I found that he was thoroughly posted on what had been done & who done it. I found that Indianna made great pretentions for on account of the Course of her delegates at Chicago. I told him that I thought I was about as well posted as any one who was there and while great Credit was due to Indianna that there was tenfold more due to the Old Henry Clay Whig Tariff element of Penn. That that element was an influential one and was the first interest of any magnitude outside of Ill that fully took ground for him and that intereest was really what Controlled the entire Delegation of Penn and then and not till then did Ia. leave Bates & McClainand act heartily & fully for him ... I told him of our first talk and your reporting to me the next morning your action of the night before and the Conclusion arrived at & that I thought no man had done him more Service than you had. He fully agreed with me that to the Tariff Whig element of Penn was he most indebted (and he will not betray it) Towards Penn he feels most greatful and particularly &c towards Cameron who did not send a Packed delegation to Chicago as some others did."

That Lincoln had the tariff on his mind along side his warmaking is thus without doubt.

[whiskeycacaa]

Ok, I am back. And I am here to tell you all that it was all about slavery. That's right! Slavery! I don't care what you dad nob purflit cry babies say, you just go and sacrodurb flossit on your neoconfederate ratcherdrib.

Wlat

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Man, that sounds crazier than the time Lee and Grant decided to do shots.

Lee was a great military strategist. But damn! He didn't know what he was getting in to there, now did he?

[GOPcapitalist]

ROTFLMAO!

[4CJ]

I don't care what you dad nob purflit cry babies say, you just go and sacrodurb flossit on your neoconfederate ratcherdrib.

Wlat

Dang .... we hardly knew ye. [*sniff*]

[4CJ]

Did he do anything consistent with seeking a peaceful resolution? NO. And Colonel Baldwin testified to the same.

As did Botts, and Rev. Fuller, and ...