Posted on 08/03/2005 10:47:14 PM PDT by churchillbuff
A city in east-central Ohio in September will celebrate Army Gen. William T. Sherman and the 125th anniversary of his ``War is hell'' speech.
The events will be Sept. 23-25, mostly in Lancaster in Fairfield County, the birth place of the Union Civil War general who marched in 1864 from Atlanta to Savannah through the heart of the Confederacy.
The celebration will include nationally recognized scholars and authors and hundreds of re-enactors portraying notable Ohioans and key Civil War figures. There will be a Civil War tea and fashion show and history walks featuring a Civil War encampment.
There will also be a Sept. 23 opening dinner at the Franklin Park Conservatory in Columbus. The speaker will be Dr. Richard McMurry, a Civil War author and historian. Re-enactors will portray Sherman and Ohio's own President Rutherford B. Hayes.
Sherman (1820-1891) delivered his famous speech on Aug. 11, 1880, at the Civil War Soldiers' Reunion at the Ohio State Fairgrounds (now the Columbus Park Conservatory).
``The war is away back in the past and you can tell what books cannot. When you talk, you come down to practical realities, just as they happened.... There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations yet to come. I look upon war with horror; but if it has to come, I am here,'' Sherman told 10,000 Civil War veterans.
Sherman's birthplace in Lancaster is a museum run by the Fairfield Heritage Association.
For more information, contact the association at 105 E. Wheeling St., Lancaster, OH 43130, 740-654-9923. The Internet site is www.lancaster-oh.com/Sherman.
And based on what Lincoln said, if this Georgia boy had already been in the Army, and based on what I have learned about the Civil War, and looking at simular histories through out the world, I would have probably fought for the North.
The North had a good basic army that was just lacking in aggresive leadership such as Grant or Sherman. Had either one of them been in command of the Northern Army in the East at the start of the war, the war would have been over in less than six months with a Northern victory.
The best thing that came out of the War was that the Union was not only perserved, but it was finally united as one country.
Excellent point, sir.
Before the Civil War, common jargon in referring the our country - the United States "are"; afterwards - the United States "IS"...
“by seeing the people express their wishes through and via the legislature, whereby the fruit of that process is demonstrated by subsequent and enduring legislative actions being the legal and political expression of those wishes.”
I have a good deal of work to do on this hot, muggy Yokohama Sunday (thank goodness for air conditioning), so I’ll have to keep this short.
At least some of the seceding states took popular referenda to decide whether or not to secede. I am not certain whether all did without research I don’t have time to do right now. Secession in such states was not, therefore, the decision of an oligarchy, but the expression of the popular will. Further, it seems that you are assuming that all the 44% of slaves in Georgia (and the slaves of other states) would have voted unanimously to remain in the union, when there is a good deal of evidence to the contrary.
“to claim a moral right to secede ultimately must be based on Freedom”
No, it is based on the right to self-government.
“Five of mine have no voice for the heel of my boot upon their throats".
Once again, that is an “end justifies the means” argument.
Let’s play dueling analogies.
Suppose that it had been the north that retained slavery, and the South’s reason for seceding was moral repugnance at that institution. Lincoln would have invaded the South to keep them from seceding on the same grounds that he did in actuality: “A house divided cannot stand.” The same dangers of balkanization and never-ended bloodshed that you mentioned earlier would still face us.
What, then, of the moral right to secede?
General William Tecumseh Sherman--a quirky, difficult, and much misunderstood man--deserves a place on the roll call of great liberators in human history. More than any other person, he destroyed the institution of American slavery and the Southern aristocracy that was interwoven with it. In the late fall of 1864 he marched an army of over 60,000 rural, voting Americans--mostly farmers from the Midwest--into the heart of the Confederacy, a patrician society based on bound labor. Sherman’s agrarian citizen-soldiers upended that world of slaves and masters, instantly liberated tens of thousands, and helped therein to destroy forever the idea of privileged nobility in America.
Hasn't VDH heard of the Kennedy's.
Have you finally realized slavery & Southern segregation of "persons of colour", were an un-American evil?
Oh, yes, I forget... I have to keep in mind in these Civil War discussions that the slaves didn't count, had no voice, and were viewed at best as a "child race", the White Man's Burden. Why, even at three fifths value, the South could and did count their chattel towards the number of representatives in Congress, so there was more political power from these children, but the 'polis' it was calculated from had no voice. How remarkable and curious an arrangement; representatives accrued for a people that were silent in their bondage.
"No, it is based on the right to self-government"
Which means??? --- the freedom to govern yourself as you see fit, perhaps? Or if we would narrow down the goal of secession, which was to be "free" of the Union? No matter how you look at it, you can't just dismiss the freedom factor in this process.
"...end justifies the means' argument..."
No, it is not. It was my poor attempt at illustrating the fallacy of exclusion in the presumed moral right to secede.
If you mean by end, the fighting of a war, please see the context where I offered this point. It was shallow to claim secession to be free of the Union, to be free to govern oneself, to dress it in States Rights, when the reason was to continue a system where some men were chattel, and others their rightful and lawful Masters.
The "Lost Cause"; "States Rights", etc., lend an air of moral superiority to the South of that time that only grows with the retelling of this event. Vilification of the Unionists in general, of Lincoln in particular, thus follows easily from this assumption.
What, please tell me, was morally superior about seeing the desired expansion of the slavery institution beyond the original borders of the South (see Dred Scott, Missouri Compromise, 1850 Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act)? How then did this moral right suddenly become paramount when an anti-slavery President (who upon election did not intend to eliminate slavery, only contain it, trusting that time and the inevitable-if-belated industrialization of the South would do it for him) was elected? If the term "moral right to secede" is acceptable in describing a rebellion of feudal masters who feared the expansion of their feudal system was threatened and to which their response to the threat was secession and war, then I see nothing moral about it.
As for the dueling analogy... c'mon, D... - you know as well as I that alternate histories are only plausible at the primary counterfactual level. My points about the possible balkanization of America resulting from a Southern victory fall qualify as such.
To get to your what-if requires secondary & tertiary counterfactuals, and there's a name for that. It's called "Fiction".
So true. There is a reason they are called 'rebels'. It's due to the rebellious spirit dwelling in each and every one of the hardcore 'neo-confederates'. Living in a 'free' society is an anathema for the promoters of turning the clock back on Americans they hate, which includes nearly everyone, judging form the bombastic screaming taking place from those possessed by the 'lost cause'.
"They know enough history to be able to confuse those who have not studied these issues closely and excell in specious and sophistic irrelevencies. But the outright LIE is closest to their hearts."
Exactly the reason why every occasion those in question begin spreading their half truths & outright lies concerning history, they must be countered.
"I believe that most sophisticated of them use this forum as a recruiting tool for their crackpot movement but that intent is sabotaged by the plainly mentally ill who also post. The LATTER'S problems lead to the question of how he got out of an institution at all."
The doctors & staff would have wound up in the very same condition if they allowed him to remain as a patient -lol!
"Out of context comments are another speciality. Fortunately there are enough patriots who can call them on every one of their absurdities and falsehoods and even find the exact source of their distorted quotes as N.S. did above."
The vast majority realize their rantings of those of a single agenda cult, however cults tend to be relentless in attempting to brainwash the uninformed, until the cult is fully exposed, discredited and eventually dismantled. They are greatly unnumbered on here, as well as in their own backyard, with loyal citizens from every state in the Union countering every deceptive move this band of repulsive renegades attempt.
You fire back, "Are you a member of the Taliban? You sure do post like one.(?)
I was under the impression that blazing sun down there was the cause of your obvious, advanced case of 'ulta-rebelitis', but if eating "grits" day & night is also directly link to your nonstop idiotic, insurrectionary incitement, then cool it on the "grits", and stay out of that 'Confederate' sun. No wonder you people lost the Civil War.
""...end justifies the means' argument...""
"No, it is not. "
Actually, that is the only type of argument you have presented. Your answer to every contrary assertion boils down to either, "Slavery was such a terrible evil," or "balkanization would have been so bad" that every act the North took was justified, and no act the South took could possibly be justified.
My analogy was an attempt to point that out, which is, I think, why you dodged it rather than addressing it.
Now, if you want to say "Slavery was such a terrible evil that every act the North took was justified, and no act the South took could possibly be justified," then own up to it. That would greatly simplify things for you, because you wouldn't have to mess around with constitutional or natural rights arguments at all.
"I would be most interested in seeing what states held referenda on secession, what percentage of the population voted in the referenda"
So would I, but I don't have time to spend looking for it today.
"and the percentage of population in those states that were slaves"
That is irrelevant to any but an "end justifies the means" argument.
"and I suspect by the time I have that data, the "referenda" will likely not be a majority"
They will be a majority of enfranchised citizens.
"I have to keep in mind in these Civil War discussions that the slaves didn't count, had no voice, and were viewed at best as a "child race", the White Man's Burden."
Back to "end justifies the means."
"How remarkable and curious an arrangement; representatives accrued for a people that were silent in their bondage."
That was a compromise reached to partially offset the huge advantage of the north in population. Without that compromise, there would have been no United States.
"No matter how you look at it, you can't just dismiss the freedom factor in this process."
Why not? How is that relevant to the scope of the Constitution? How is it relevant to the right of secession? The only thing it is relevant to is an "end justifies the means" argument.
"It was shallow to claim secession to be free of the Union, to be free to govern oneself, to dress it in States Rights, when the reason was to continue a system where some men were chattel, and others their rightful and lawful Masters."
One clear implication of that statement is that secession might have been legitimate for other reasons, that it was the "reason" for secession that invalidated it. IOW, we're still at "the end justifies the means."
BTW, slavery was only one reason for the WNA, about fourth or fifth down on the list.
"a rebellion of feudal masters who feared the expansion of their feudal system was threatened and to which their response to the threat was secession and war, then I see nothing moral about it."
I had high hopes that this discussion would not devolve to this point.
As there was a constitutional and moral right of secession, there was no rebellion, and the South was in no sense a feudal system.
It's worth noting, though, that having false accusations leveled at one confers a certain moral superiority vis a vis the people making those false accusations.
"you know as well as I that alternate histories are only plausible at the primary counterfactual level."
I also know that the quantum physicists conferred legitimacy on that extremely useful tool, the thought experiment. I offered to engage in one with you; you declined.
"My points about the possible balkanization of America resulting from a Southern victory qualify as such."
Justifying the WNA on the grounds that the existence of slavery justifies anything the north did runs up against one problem: Lincoln did not attack the South to eradicate slavery.
Even when one is reduced to "end justifies the means" arguments, the only one that holds water is the balkanization argument.
"the war would have been over in less than six months with a Northern victory."
I think you're mistaken about that.
In the early stages of the war, the Southern cavalry was greatly superior in all regards to the northern. That's how George Armstrong Custer came to be a brigadier general at such a young age.
Further, Lee and Jackson were fine generals; superior, in my view, to both Grant and Jackson. It was the naval blockade and the lack of an industrial infrastructure that lost the war for the South.
Well we will never know because it didn't happen that way. The Sothern cavalry was no doubt better, but cavalry could not take and hold ground. Trying to fight cavalry against the infantry and artillery of that time would have found the cavalry slaughtered. If the North had just used its massive troop superiority to start off with, the South could not have stopped them. Early victories helped the South and gave them the will to keep the war going. Had Richmond been taken early, it would have been a different story. Had the first battle of Bull Run gone the other way it would have certainly been different and that battle could have gone either way. On the other hand, if the Southern Army had been as good as it became by 1862, they could have followed up the victory at the first Bull Run and probably taken Washington. But, if a frog had wings he would not bump his butt when he jumped.
The initial part of the war given any quirk of fate could have really changed things. This has been true through out history. The Battle of Midway is a classic example of that. Another two would have been the Battle of Britian and the Crete during WWII. One little simple mistake or event just changed everything.
Then there was Nathan Bedford Forrest. From Wikipedia:
Forrest's early successes gained a promotion (July) to brigadier general and he was given command of a Confederate cavalry brigade. In battle he was quick to take the offensive, using speedy deployment of horse cavalry to position his troops, where they would often dismount and fight. Commonly he would seek to circle the enemy flank and cut off their rear guard support. These tactics foreshadowed the mechanized infantry in World War II and had little relationship to the formal cavalry traditions of reconnaissance, screening, and mounted assaults with sabers
DSC, you're a smart man, but you're out of your league on this point - US Army EOD knows what he speaks of... and sailed across a wintery North Atlantic in a matchbox to boot!
Frogs bumping their Asses when they jump... LOL!!! Man, oh Man, how I miss having pithy military essences like this one sprinkle my daily life. If I were a young man, I'd do it (join up for 24 years, or more...) all over again.
We've exchanged notes often enough that already there are patterns of thought process evident in both our sequences of remarks. You have hung your hat on dismissing me & my supposed "ends" oriented logic; let us be frank together in equal measure then, and allow me to point out the trend I see in your logic, at the very heart of the matter - Slavery:
I say "...slaves..." (in context where I question validity of referenda wherein significant portions of this polis have no voice...) - summarily dismissed as "irrelevant"; just another EJTM;
I aver it cannot thus be a true referendum, "...not be a majority..." (context: again back to slaves, and the sophistry of counting them for gaining political "representation" in Congress while handily not being answerable to this section of the polis in any way, shape or form) - you respond/evade with the "majority of enfranchised citizens" remark; a deft example of verbal fencing that both proves my point and parries it with your own.
Your trend, then, is essentially this: Slavery was irrelevant, the Slaves did not matter. Not in the so-called "referenda", not in any way except where the South could first use their chattel to increase their Congressional power, then use that presumed political power to extend itself beyond it's current borders.
BTW, what other three or four reasons leading to the ACW were more important than slavery? I'm interested in your take on this.
For the time being, I'll brush aside the inferrence that I have degenerated the discussion - you've only just mentioned this once, hence no pattern-of-thought that I can induce from it yet (and you can surmise that I too, observe declarations as well as omissions in your discourse, as you presume upon mine...) --- so I won't belabor your point by offering the sarcastic "sorry I can't keep with you" retort --- but I will try and offer a better explanation of where I see the similarities between a feudal-state and the antebellum South.
Feudalism depended on a strict relationship between Lords, Vassals, Serfs and Land. In this context, the slaves were clearly (and worse...) the Serfs. Though technically there were no "Lords" satisfying the strict feudal definition of the term, the Plantation Owners fit the role and the context.
Feudalism declined when either (A) there was no more land for the Lord to apportion to his Vassals; (B) it was overrun by exterior forces such as a better organized Nation-State in a war; or (C) the Feudal economic paradigm became less efficient, less profitable.
The historical exertions by Southern politicians during pre-ACW decades pointed to an expansion of land available upon which to continue their Feudal-like practices. In other words, the Slave-owners tried to extend the Feudal-like nature of their economy by embracing a political strategy that countered (A), above.
Interestingly, the South at the time had beginnings of industrialization, which - had there not been a Civil War - would have likely led to a gradual and inevitable dissolution of the Feudal-like practices per (C), above. Lincoln expected this, as did many Southern "Moderates" who argued against abolition by claiming that the Southern states should be allowed to see the institution melt away as had occurred in the North.
This was a false supposition; if political expansion of slavery would have continued, to then expect an institution to "go away of it's own accord" while that institution was being expanded into other territories & states was to literally stick one's head in the ground and presume one was then invisible to his surroundings.
As it turned out, the practices were abolished per method (B); overrun/defeated by a better organized NationState.
This is not a "false accusation" - it is an opinion, albeit one I offer based on my above-and-previously-posted historical precedent/similarities. Nor do I assume a "moral superiority" --- again, your penchant for using a logical fallacy to abscribe to me a presumed "I'm always right; you always wrong" methodology rears its persistent head!!!
Instead of tsk-tsking me away with charges that I falsely accuse, why not counter my feudal argument with some detail on why you disagree?
And you are right; this discussion has gotten a bit frayed. If I read you correctly, you believe I have "devolved the discussion"... levelled "false accusation"... assumed a "moral superiority" - did I get it all? Oh, almost forgot... I declined to engage in a "thought experiment".
Is this the point in our exchange where I should offer the ubiquitous "sorry I can't keep with you"???
I humbly suggest you sit down and wait for that one, D; if you wait for it standing up, you're gonna get awful tired...
In Brotherly & Patriotic Regard...
CGVet58
Soldiers: The old campaign is ended, and your Commanding General deems this an appropriate occasion to speak of the steadiness, self-denial and patriotism with which you have borne the hardships of the past year. The marches and labors you have performed during that period will find no parallel in the history of this war.
On the 24th day of December, there were three thousand of you, unorganized and undisciplined, at Jackson, Tennessee, only four hundred of whom were armed. You were surrounded by fifteen thousand of the enemy, who were congratulating themselves on your certain capture. You started out with your artillery, wagon trains, and a large number of cattle, which you succeeded in bringing through, since which time you have fought and won the following battles -- battles which will enshrine your names in the hearts of your countrymen, and live in history, an imperishable monument to your prowess:
Jack's Creek, Estinaula, Summerville, Okalona, Union City, Paducah, Fort Pillow, Bolivar, Tishomingo Creek, Harrisburg, Hurricane Creek, Memphis, Athens, Sulphur Creek, Pulaski, Carter's Creek, Columbia, and Jacksonville are the fields on which you won fadeless immortality.
For twenty-six days from the time you left Florence, on the twenty-first of November, to the twenty-sixth of December, you were constantly engaged with the enemy, and endured the hunger, cold and labor incident to that arduous campaign without a murmur.
To sum up, in brief, your triumphs during the past year, you have fought fifty battles, killed and captured sixteen thousand of the enemy, captured two thousand horses and mules, sixty-seven pieces of artillery, four gunboats, fourteen transports, twenty barges, three hundred wagons, fifty ambulances, ten thousand stand of small arms, forty blockhouses, destroyed thirty-six railroad bridges, two hundred miles of railroad, six engines, one hundred cars, and fifteen millions dollars worth of property.
In the accomplishment of this great work, you were occasionally sustained by other troops, who joined you in the fight, but your regular number never exceeded five thousand, two thousand of whom have been killed or wounded, while in prisoners you have lost about two hundred.
Not bad for a cavalry commander.
>> It's a real shame the U.S. did not have a dozen more Generals just like Sherman in order crush the insurrectionists, and resort civil order a couple of years prior to 1865.
It's a damn shame the South did not have a few blood-thirsty generals like Sherman. The war would have been over quickly, and the term 'carpetbagger' would not exist in American history.
Forrest of the Klan, plus others on the rebel side were rabidly 'slavery forever' & violently bloodthirsty.
The term 'carpetbagger' would not have been invented if the determined slaveocracy did not trigger the Civil War but since they did great American generals such as Sherman were ordered to crush the rebellion - and they did it very effectively, deserving of honour, not viscous condemnation from loutish, rabble-rousing malcontents. There's enough of that type of trash being thrown at America by the horde of enemies our nation confronts today.
Sailing across the North Atlantic in the winter time in a 36' boat, actually would make the average man think I was kind of stupid. The first Force 12 when we were about 200 miles north of Cape Finnestere in the Bay of Biscay, actually made me agree with them.
But they still couldn't hold the land, it doesn't help to win the small battles and loose the big ones. They just couldn't substain themselves. I have always felt that Forrest greatest achievement was not the many battles he won but was what he won them with. If ever there was a melting pot or a unit made up of all "Americans", that was the men that Forrest led. He had very few of the blue eyed, blond headed, well bred white boys in his units. He led lower class whites, Indians, negroes, and a hills mixture of all three. Not only did he lead them, they were willing to follow him to hell if need be. They would fight and they fought together.
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.