Posted on 10/07/2004 10:20:54 PM PDT by churchillbuff
When the Civil War broke out between the Union and the Confederacy and raged on for the next four years, the state of North Carolina managed to escape any real ravages of war. As the bloodiest battles went on in its neighbors to the north and the south, Fayetteville waited for some resolution to the conflict and prayed that the war would not come to the city. One Union general would not allow the peace to last.
"I will destroy the [Fayetteville] arsenal utterly," proclaimed General William Sherman in a letter written from Fayetteville on March 12, 1865 to his commander General Ulysses Grant. "Since I cannot leave a guard to hold it, I therefore shall burn it, blow it up with gunpowder and then with rams knock down its walls."
Now notorious for his "March to the Sea" that destroyed many cities and created many casualties in the South, Sherman put fear into the hearts of every Fayettevillian as he marched on the arsenal on March 12. Local nurse Annie Kyle recalled that day. "I had been in the hospital only about half an hour when an officer came up the steps and said, 'Ladies, if you have a home and children you had better go to them as Sherman is entering the town.'"
For the next two days, Sherman followed through with his sinister plan. Every building was knocked down and burned. Every piece of machinery was broken and ruined.
Kyle remembered the impact of the arsenal in its prime and those two distressing nights that erased it from Fayetteville's landscape: "It was a lovely spot and we justly felt proud of it, but Sherman's torch reduced it to ashes. As soon as night came on we could see fires in every direction as all the buildings in the country were burned. I can compare it to nothing but what I imagine Hades would be were its awful doors thrown open."
When Sherman was finished with Fayetteville, he turned his sights toward Raleigh and Goldsboro. On his way north, Sherman passed through the village of Averasboro, a stop on the Fayetteville-to-Raleigh stage coach road, on March 15. Miraculously, a unit of 8,000 Confederate troops commanded by General William J. Hardee delayed the left wing of 30,000 Union Army soliders under Sherman. For two days, the seige shattered the air with the sound of bullets.
Finally, Sherman was able to move his troops, but they were halted again at Bentonville. On March 19-21, Sherman's troops and the Confederate army, under the command of General Joseph E. Johnston, were engaged in the last major conflict of the Civil War. Less than one month later, commanding Confederate General Robert E. Lee would surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia.
"The surrender of Lee came upon us like a thunderclap," noted Stinson.
"Today, there is not one brick upon another," Stinson wrote about the aftermath of Sherman's visit to the arsenal and to Fayetteville. "One of the chief grudges which the people bear Sherman is for the destruction of their arsenal." With the bitter taste of war still lingering in their mouths, the states of the South had to set about the task of rejoining the United States, and the people of Fayetteville had to join their Southern and Northern counterparts in the long and arduous task of Reconstruction.
This is an editorial?
It's an interesting article, nonetheless.
But, it's not news.
It may be true, but it's also the defining characteristic of a despot, particularly when those civilians are his own countrymen.
You're affirming the consequent by premising your conclusion (that my statement is untrue) upon the declaration that it is untrue in the case of certain generals, which is a logically fallacious form of argument.
That said, a key distinction may be made between Sherman and Patton, McArthur et al in WWII insofar as the latter persons, for the most part, did not breach the conventions of warfare and did not go out of their way to intentionally maim the civilian population. It is one thing to accept noncombattant casualties in the crossfires and maneuvers of war but an entirely different thing to go out of ones way in an attempt to increase their severity and frequency, which is what Sherman did. The former, depending on the case, borders between a matter of double effect necessity and a lesser evil. The latter is, by definition, "might makes right" style despotism.
As to the "when those civilians are his own countrymen" bit, sorry, but try again.
No need to try again. I had it right the first time. It was Lincoln's contention, Sherman's contention, and presumably your contention that the confederacy never left the union regardless of what they claimed, was it not? While I tend to disagree with that and do not desire to enter into a debate on that subject here, one thing is logically certain: either the confederacy left or it did not leave - there can be no middle ground on that. Assuming we take the Lincoln/Sherman view that it did not leave, we must necessarily conclude then that the people Sherman attacked were still his countrymen. To suggest otherwise as you seemingly do would entail having one's cake and eating it too, so unless you are willing to concede the point that the confederacy did in fact leave (thus severely damaging Lincoln's professed justification for war by depriving it of the notion that it did not leave), my original point stands.
As I recall, the people that Sherman was waging total war against (not all, but quite a few of them) were doing everything they could to not be his "countrymen" anymore, so if his methods seem cruel, I'd argue that the destruction of the enemy's will and means to wage war was completely justified. As Sherman said, "It's all Hell, boys."
I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the original post for this thread was, but I'd rather not get into yet another lengthy discussion about "The Late Unpleasantness" as it's been done unto death. By the way, I had relatives on both sides of the war, so I'm in no need of lectures regarding it one way or the other.
Fayetteville Arsenal (Armory) was a former United States military installation that after it had been siezed by the Confederacy, produced thousands of weapons (Fayetteville Musket, saber bayonets) for the south. Rifle making machinery that had been seized at Harpers Ferry was sent to Fayetteville in 1862. The War had come to Fayetteville long before Sherman entered the city. Sherman was correct in destroying the armory if he could not guard it. It was an enemy military installation and the War was still ongoing.
How would you answer those who'd say you're an apologist for an arsenist? As everybody knows, Sherman didn't restrict his army to destroying military or military-support installations.
No. You're simply a walking illogical nightmare who seems incapable of upholding the logical consistency of what he argues and unable to comprehend the finer nuances of a well constructed argument.
It makes no difference what philosophical convolutions Lincoln applied to the matter to justify (rightly) the necessity of preserving the Union
Why? because you gratuitously say so? The philosophical justification for a war ALWAYS matters in any determination of whether that war was right or wrong. One cannot assert a philosophical justification, contradict it outright on the battlefield, and then purport that justification to be intact still. Either the south left the union or it did not. If it left the union then Sherman brutalized an enemy nation, yet that would also place Lincoln's greater war scheme in the wrong by making him the invader. If they did not leave the union then Lincoln's war scheme addressed a rebellion, but that would also mean Sherman brutalized his countrymen. There is no other option as the two are mutually exclusive.
what really matters is upon what terms those Sherman were actually fighting in the field wished to wage the contest. As the initial belligerents (they were warned that secession would bring war, and they "seceded" anyway), the onus was on them for any consequences that followed
Logically ridiculous. To respond as Lincoln did to Fort Sumter on the basis that its consequences cannot be controlled and are somehow justified by the initial act is akin to using an atomic warhead to dispose of a barking dog then saying "it's not my fault I destroyed the neighborhood in the process - his dog started it all by barking." To suggest as you do that the terms of firing or the so-called "first shot" argument gives the recipient a free pass to do anything and everything he wants no matter how brutal in the subsequent war is an immoral and fundamentally unjust position known mainly to tyrants and despots. Oh, and one more thing - as to your "first shot" argument itself. Technically speaking, the first shot at Sumter was fired off the yankee ship USS Harriet Lane on a southern civilian steamer a few hours before the battle itself, so even that does not hold up.
You really should read more history--it's a delightful pursuit. And worth the effort, especially if you wish to hold forth about it publicly with anything approaching credibility.
Print that out, find the nearest mirror, and repeat.
This book is about three Western military leaders--Epaminondas (ancient Greece), William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton. All three demonstrate, according to author Victor Davis Hanson, his thesis that the most fearsome army is one made up of "free men who march unabashedly toward the heartland of their enemy in hopes of saving the doomed, when their vast armies are aimed at salvation and liberation, not conquest and enslavement."
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
All this meaningless babble about "logic" and "illogic"
I wouldn't expect you to understand it anyway. You are obviously lacking in the mental capacities required for that otherwise simple feat.
a dodgy way to whine about the way you've been intellectually bested.
Uh oh, we've got a delusional one on our hands now! The walking talking non-sequitur thinks he's "intellectually bested" others by affirming the consequent of his own argument, gratuitously declaring it to be so when challenged on this, and running the other way while spewing insults when he finds that he cannot escape. Note to the AV department: you're missing a projector.
Head Quarters Dept. N.&C. B.R.
Tullahoma, Tenn
Sir:
You will proceed to the residences of the persons herein named and deal with them in accordance with the following instructions:
In all cases where the residences of the persons are ordered to be destroyed, you will observe the following previous to setting them on fire:
You will first search their houses and premises to see if they have any articles belonging to the U.S Gov. or that are contraband of War, which you will bring away in
case any are found; also all or any of the folllowing articles that may be found belonging to the aforesaid Persons.
First: All Hosres, Hogs, Sheep, Cattle, and any other animals or articles of whatever description that may be valuable to the U.S. Gov. especially those that are
valuable to the Quartermaster, Comisary, and Hospital Departments.
Second: All stoves and stove pipes of whatever description and all Kitchen utensils, Queens ware, beds, bedding, knives, forks etc; also chairs, sofas, sociables,
lounges, and everything of the charecter of househotel furniture.
Third: All window sash and glass, looking glasses, carpets etc.
Fourth: Every article of househotel furniture which you do not bring with you must be destroyed or burned with the house.
Fifth: All barns, stables, smoke houses, or any other out houses of any description whatsoever or any buildings or articles that could probably be of use or benefit as
comfort to Rebels or Bushwhackers, their friends or any person siding abetting or sympathising with Rebels Bushwackers etc or which could be used for subsistance
for man or beast will be destroyed or burned.
Sixth: All animals, forage or other articles of value brought in by you will be turned over to Lieut. J. W. Raymond A.A.L.M this stuff to be subject to the order of
Major Genl. Milroy to be disposed of as he may think proper; taking a receipt therefor from Lieut Raymond.
Seventh: The Train acompanying will be subject to your orders together with all the persons connected with it whether soldiers or citizens and you will cause any of
them, who may be guilty of committing depredations upon legal citizens or their Protperty to be arrested and you will not yourself or suffer those under your
command to commit any trespass or do any damage to persons or property except those specified in this order.
Eighth: You will burn the houses of the following named persons, take any of the articles named above that they may have, together with all forage and grains
belonging to them that you can bring away which may be useful to the U.S. Gov. for military purposes or otherwise and will give no receipts of any kind whatever.
Names Dist Residences
1. Joseph How 1/2 mile South of Hillsboro one mile west of the Hillsboro and Winchester road.
2. Shadrack McBride 11 On the Pelham & Hillsboro road.
3. Thomas L. Gunn 11 2 miles South of Hillsboro on Bean's Creek
4. Washington Riley Hillsboro
5. Pleasant Nevill 12 On the Pelham & Tullahoma road on Bean's Creek; (crossed out: Some neighborhood as the above named)
6. L. B. Austell 12 Same neighborhood as the above named.
7. John W. Jones 3 miles South West of Hillsboro and one mile West of the Hillsboro and Winchester road.
Ninth: The following persons will be shot in addition to suffering in the manner prescribed in Paragraph Eighth.
Names Dist Residences
Coffee Co.
1. Leroy Moore At Heffers mill on Bradley Creek
Franklin Co.
2. Thomas Sanders 8 On Elk River
3. William Sanders 8 Same neighborhood as the above. (search this house for arms before shooting him)
4. Louis Anderson 8 Same neighborhood as the above
By Command of Maj. Genl. Milroy
Thos. Worthington
Lieut. 106 O of I & A.D.C
I notice that the subtitle of the book is "How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny," which is an apt description of what both Sherman & Patton did during their respective conflicts. I've enjoyed a number of Victor Davis Hanson's books, though I confess I've never heard of this one. I'm going to order it today. Thanks.
"Today, there is not one brick upon another," Stinson wrote about the aftermath of Sherman's visit to the arsenal and to Fayetteville. "One of the chief grudges which the people bear Sherman is for the destruction of their arsenal."
They should get over it. Really. It was a military target.
Yawn. Evidently even the simplest of logical concepts are lost upon you. Gratuitous assertions are just that and may be rejected accordingly. That would include both your logically circular lines about Sherman and, of late, your unsubstantiated bombs about the course of this discussion, which have all the sophistication of stating "you're wrong because...because...because I said so! And you're a poo poo head and a big meanie too! So I win!" You shot off your mouth with an intellectually weak string of assertions and now you can't defend them so you throw bombs. Begone, flea. You've lost this one.
What part of the "Southern Cause" appeals to you the most? Secession (which was the textbook definition of treason)
Incorrect. A person who commits the crime of treason is called a traitor under the law, and the condition of being a traitor entails several very specific circumstances, none of which is met through secession. Here's what one of my favorite abolitionists had to say on that subject, though I suspect his logical sophistication far exceeds your own capacity to understand it, that is presuming you were even honest enough to read it, which is dubious in itself:
To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles [*8] of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.
The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.
Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.
For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power.
It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.
Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations.
It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.
For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.
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.
