Posted on 12/27/2005 1:58:49 AM PST by Crackingham
The Atlanta History Center has obtained Civil War field orders handwritten by Union General William T. Sherman. The history center got the field orders in a deal that was clinched with the offer of a bundle of Confederate currency that was donated to the center. Of the documents, 50 are field orders written by Sherman and two are orders written by his aides. They join another 12 orders the Atlanta History Center already had.
"Sherman surrendered," said history center president Jim Bruns, who likes the idea of Sherman's orders returning to the city the general ordered burned down.
The orders are so valuable because they "show Sherman's intentions, the deliberateness of his movements," Bruns said. "They make it clear that he wasn't going to camp here, and he wasn't going to garrison the city. So he had to destroy the city."
The documents will go on display by next September, Bruns said.
The deal for the 52 field orders was aided by the contribution of a stash of about 3,000 Confederate States of America notes that were discovered decades ago by developer Dick Myrick. Myrick, who kept the notes in a briefcase for 33 years, decided last summer to donate them to the cause of acquiring Sherman's orders.
"It really was the Confederate currency that got it started," said Seth Kaller, the historic documents dealer who had Sherman's orders. "Dick's contribution was one of the first that was significant enough for us to know the Atlanta History Center was going to be able to acquire Sherman's orders."
This isn't about Kum-Ba-Ya. It's about elevating the threads to something useful instead of embarrassing. You can either be a part of that or not.
Folks, mark down yet another American military officer who fought for the freedom of us all that "4CJ" disdains...
Concurring bump. Also, I read somewhere that Sherman's personal escort throughout his famous "March to the Sea" were the 1st Alabama Cavalry U.S.V., one of six Union regiments from Alabama.
Two of Stand's identical clones are filling in for him in the infamous "bilge" department.
There were a lot of Alabama in Mississippi volunteers with Sherman.
There's nothing to evade, LeMay's own word indicate his knowledge of the illgality of his actions. Facts are not opinions, nor is is necessary to speculate on such. How 'bout "another American military officer who fought for the freedom of us all" - Timothy McVeigh - do you laud his actions?
Previously I asked you "Do you admire Germans, Italians and Japanese that attacked civilians? Do you believe that such men targeting your mother, grandparents or children are worthy of respect? If Iraq dropped a nuke on them would that be acceptable to you? Would you consider them war criminals?" By your standard of nonresponse, I can only assume that your family is a legitimate military target. I pity them if that is truly how you feel.
I have never bashed our troops, I thank all who served honourably to defend all Americans. You mistake my sentiments towards those employing self-admitted illegal tactics as extending towards our entire military - it does not. I have over 25 ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War, another 25 that fought in the "Civil" War , and others on up to the Korean War. My dad served, as did 3 brothers. I lived 5 miles from a base, surrounded by active duty members, many of whom went TDY to Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as I'm concerned they're some of the finest people on God's green earth.
I don't have any better sources than anybody else, but that's not my point. My point is that the history that is consumed by the snoring masses of public screwl attendees has been revisited so many times in order to keep it acceptable to the current crop of PC nazis, it is far from accurate. So, I'm suspicious of any material that is published today, particularly if it comes from up north.
That's why I used the Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary, Dean, Schumer in cahoots with the New York Times about rewriting Iraq War history analogy. An analogy which no one has disputed, by the way. And I find it puzzling that most here agree that this gang is, even as we speak, attempting to rewrite current events and recent history on Iraq, but object violently at the suggestion that the exact same thing was done post WBTS.
Totally incorrect.
Soldiers are trying to win battles; kill people and break things.
Politicians attempt to conquer, enslave, set free, etc.
I have never bashed our troops
Your posts consistently say otherwise, and speak for themselves.
Can you point me to those words?
bump
You really need to get your myths straight. The confederate army was outnumbered, but not 'vastly so'. The confederates had the advantage of being on the defense, with good terrain, and with a short supply line. And their supplies weren't skimpy, Atlanta was the supply center for the entire region. The confederates lost because Sherman out-generaled Johnston and the Union soldiers out fought the southern soldiers.
Limited government and the South being spoken of in the same sentence? Maybe limited for the guy holding the whip and chains because it seems that the slaveowners could do just about anything to their "property" except teach them to read and write, but a government that supports the enslavement of a large number of its residents is not limited.
Later during the war, the Confederate South certainly didn't have limited government as the powerful centralization pushed by Richmond could impress the "tyrant" Lincoln".
And after the the war and Reconstruction, Stalin would have been impressed by the the Deep South's apartheid system to keep its black residents at the bottom of the heap.
One of my favorite favorites...
Although Stalin was probably impressed by the Deep South's state mandated system of cruel, dehumanizing racial segregation, Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.
"Delorenzo's Disciples" will no doubt be rolling out the ever familiar 'Historical Revision Machine', which assists them in roboticly denying the truth - as always :)
Would you agree that such men targeting your mother, grandparents or children was worthy of respect? (4CJ Post #137)
Do you believe that such men targeting your mother, grandparents or children are worthy of respect? (4CJ Post #140)
Do you believe that such men targeting your mother, grandparents or children are worthy of respect? (4CJ Post #147)
I can only assume that your family is a legitimate military target. I pity them (4CJ #147, again)
For context, let's look at my posted offerings that generated these replies, in order:
Here's my hero from WWII, 4CJ: [picture of General Curtis LeMay] A great American general, whose strategy was one of the keys to our victory in the Pacific War. Go read his bio (you can google it), and then answer me this: do you think he should have been tried for war crimes? Yes or No answer, please. (AJC Post #135)
Is that a Yes or a No? Thanks. (AJC Post #139)
So, your evasive answer to my straightforward question is, ultimately, "Yes". Figures. Folks, mark down yet another American military officer who fought for the freedom of us all that "4CJ" disdains... (AJC Post #142)
So, your answer is "Yes". Gotcha. American military officers are the equivalent of terrorists: your message delivered and received. I have never bashed our troops* Your posts consistently say otherwise, and speak for themselves (AJC Post #150;*4CJ quoted here)
Any semi-lucid observer immediately notes the contrast: "4CJ" was asked, in lieu of his proffered contempt for one American military officer (Sherman), about his opinion regarding another--but outside of the context of the Civil War. This General was Curtis LeMay, one of the most highly decorated American officers of World War II; a man buried with honor at the Air Force Academy in Colorado.
The question was specific, to the point, and directly related to issues raised by his posts: the essence of "4CJ"'s reply rotated around an attempt to change the subject...by ranting about some speculative scenario regarding his questioner's family.
There are two things to think about here, and let's think about them.
First is the obvious: as much as I'm grateful that the Union won the Civil War, I'm also cognizant of the grace, dignity, and, yes, class that such Confederate Generals as Lee, Jackson, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Longstreet, among others, no doubt exuded in their personal lives. This is no commentary on the rightness of their cause: just an historical verity. Can anyone here imagine the sheer revulsion that each and every one of them would no doubt feel upon witnessing the "debating" tactics of such as "4CJ"? And then imagine their unmitigated contempt, mixed with an elixir of disgust, for someone pretending to speak, 140 years hence, on behalf of their long buried "cause" that would resort to such. Even third-rate potato scrubbers were held to higher standards than that in their assembled ranks, history tells us.
Second, and more importantly, is the curious inability of such savants in the Lost Cause Squad to engage another sentient human being on anything other than the immediate level of the needling innuendo, the watery slur, all combined with the instant, insatiable desire to change the subject--and keep changing it. This has been so perfectly demonstrated here as to almost be the template for future interactions along these lines.
Mitigation is always, of course, attempted, when those in the Lost Cause Squad start to sense that their anti-Americanism has begun to stray far outside of the acceptable forum bounds: "4CJ" went on a sweaty jag, no doubt largely false, about the "25" ancestors he claims fought in...well, name the war, and he'll no doubt fill you in on that massive legion of warriors.
Yet, even with all that "veteran" familial blood surging through his veins, he can't seem to bring himself to say a kind word about the former Air Force Chief of Staff, an American military officer who fought with honor and distinction against both the Nazis and the Japanese, who organized the Berlin Airlift, and founded the Strategic Air Command...
But that doesn't surprise me in the least: members of the Lost Cause Squad seem to despise only one thing more than they do the outcome of the late Civil War: and that is all the brave men who fought to preserve the great Union we are currently blessed to live in, and all the men who've fought to keep us free since.
This is, ultimately, what drives the inchoate rage of such persons who think that the clever way to "debate" is to ignore the issue at hand, and start babbling about theoretical horrors regarding another man's family--and who further believe they've scored some kind of "points" in the so doing.
Such persons would make Nathan Bedford Forrest himself vomit in disgust at that thought that his name could be associated with such.
I am just, beginning to realize the truth in this statement and it makes me very, very sad indeed. I guess I prefer to see the glass half full and to assume that others are as blind to differences among us as I am. And that goes for both "sides" of this "debate."
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.