Lancaster to honor Civil War general (125th anniversary of Sherman's "War is Hell" speech)

ohio.com ^ | Summer 05 | ohio.com

[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.

[U S Army EOD]

You need to learn a little more about Forrest. You also need to learn a little more about the origins of the KKK. It was originally founded as a vigilante group after the Civil War to help local landowners WHEN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS WERE BEING VIOLATED. The Federal Government was not going to help these people so they just did it themselves.

What you see as the KKK today is nothing like the original. Even in the 30's in the South it had not gotten into purely racial organization like it is now. Also I suggest you check the membership of the KKK in the 40's and 50's and I think you will find it was actually higher in the North. If you want to carry it a little further, check on the history of the major race riots in the 60's and you will find they ALL took place in large cities in the North and West Coast. You are typical of the damnyankees that read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the 1800's and knew very little about the South. As I stated in my other post, I would have fought to preserve the Union, but there is a limit to that.

[M. Espinola]

"As I stated in my other post, I would have fought to preserve the Union, but there is a limit to that."

What's stopping you from laying all your cards on the table?

[Heyworth]

stand, feel free to follow Heyworth around and keep exposing his exaggerated claims and poor on-line research.

Oh, that's rich. Yeah, I didn't do extensive research to come up with that number. I stumbled across the information in looking to find out what happened in North Carolina in 1864. I accepted the information that's on the monument at the site. At least there's some debate as to the number of dead and the 11,700 number is easy to find.

As opposed, of course, to a U-Boat on display in Galveston and the existence of the book in which Watie claims to have read about it.

Now, if you can prove that Sherman's Army entered North Carolina in 1864, you might have something to complain about.

[U S Army EOD]

After reading your posts, it is not hard to figure out why the South wanted out.

[M. Espinola]

The controllers of the South's slave empire had a lock on this nation's politics for over 50 years, when Lincoln was elected the so-called 'Confederate' leadership knew changes to 'their way of life' (death to others) was about to be altered, so what action was taken? Full scale insurrection was instigated by the same element, which after four bloody years of the Civil War, the 'Confederate' staged rebellion was throughly crushed.

[U S Army EOD]

That is only part of the story, ONCE AGAIN, read your history and you will find the war was over State Rights, the question of slavery was a MAJOR portion of this. There were three slaves states that did not succeed, the slaves were not freed in these states until after the war was over.

Most of the animosity between the North and South and racial problems and most of the bitterness was created during "Reconstruction". The South was treated harshly as an occupied country. Do a little research. "History" changes every time somebody writes a new book about it. The history I learned growing up about WWII is vastly different from the history I know about it today. We were taught early that the Germans were the problem and the only problem. Now we find out that actually Europe was the problem and the Nazi party was the problem in Europe. The Germans got all the blame even though the SS which was a terrible group of people was never over 40% German. Hitler was not a German. During the 1800's, by todays standards, everybody was mean as hell. In the American Civil War, both sides mistreated prisoners, mistreated blacks, and few people liked the Irish although the Irish fought for both sides right off the boat from Ireland. It is just the way things were back then. ((note): I tried to make a few paragraths in the review option but couldn't get it to do it. Remember, Gore invented the internet so there are going to be problems.)

[M. Espinola]

"That is only part of the story, ONCE AGAIN, read your history and you will find the war was over State Rights, the question of slavery was a MAJOR portion of this. There were three slaves states that did not succeed, the slaves were not freed in these states until after the war was over."

In general I agree, however the 'state rights' issue was for southern states to continue existing slavery and expand slavery westward to states such as Kansas and the entire Western frontier was the ultimate goal.

"Most of the animosity between the North and South and racial problems and most of the bitterness was created during "Reconstruction". The South was treated harshly as an occupied country."

I would call slavery based on some poor schnook's race a 'racial problem'. In terms "Reconstruction" the leaders of the insurrection go off far too lightly, considering the horror they inflicted on the entire nation.

"We were taught early that the Germans were the problem and the only problem. Now we find out that actually Europe was the problem and the Nazi party was the problem in Europe. The Germans got all the blame even though the SS which was a terrible group of people was never over 40% German. Hitler was not a German."

Hitler was an extremely close cousin in terms of being "German". I also agree there were deep rooted ethnic & political problems in Europe long before World War One, and many of those problems still exist, covered over by the farce of the E.U. The Balkan wars of 1911-1913 onward were directly tied to the opening shot triggering WWI. Things are anything but kosher in the former Yugoslavia to this day.

The Nazi SS state, if they had succeeded in winning the war along with their Axis pals, would have swept the entire globe like a deadly plague, mass exterminatrions of various nation's populations the SS deemed "unfit"/ Berlin had every intent of conqueror not only England, but America, Canada & far beyond the invaded territories of greater Reich of 1942.

"In the American Civil War, both sides mistreated prisoners, mistreated blacks, and few people liked the Irish although the Irish fought for both sides right off the boat from Ireland. It is just the way things were back then.

What you have stated is true. The influx of the Irish began only a decade prior to the beginning of the Civil War caused by the potato famine and excessive unemployment. The Irish were the newest grouping of immigrants and were shafted as a result.

I have attempted to forget Al/Gore :)

[injin]

I have come to the conclusion that before discussing this topic again I would like to find out who the great grandfathers of the debaters were . Some things go that deep indeed...

[rustbucket]

Oh, that's rich. Yeah, I didn't do extensive research to come up with that number. I stumbled across the information in looking to find out what happened in North Carolina in 1864. I accepted the information that's on the monument at the site. At least there's some debate as to the number of dead and the 11,700 number is easy to find.

I hope that you are not using a variant of Wlat Truth, i.e., the number of times something appears in Google is an indication of how true it is. If you are, try looking up "Lincoln and "tyrant" sometime.

Yes, the 11,700 number can be easily found, probably primarily because it is posted on the monument. The average person tends to accept such things as gospel without question. The 11,700 number was an 1871 US government estimate not based on records. If the 11,700 figure were correct, Salisbury's death rate would be higher than those of Andersonville and Elmira added together. Strange that I hadn't heard that before.

As opposed, of course, to a U-Boat on display in Galveston and the existence of the book in which Watie claims to have read about it.

If you will remember, I posted to both of you that I'd been on the submarine in Seawolf Park in Galveston and that is a US submarine.

I enjoy your posts, but your repeated messages about the submarine are getting old. You have more to contribute than that.

Now, if you can prove that Sherman's Army entered North Carolina in 1864, you might have something to complain about.

Not my issue. The Union army was in Cherokee County in Western NC in 1864, but they may not have been under Sherman's command at that point in time.

[dsc]

"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."

There are two things about that: cavalry has often been used against infantry, though best used not in a frontal attack (as at Balaclava). A cavalry attack on the flank of a line of infantry can roll them up like a venetian blind. Then, even inferior infantry can succeed in their attack.

That's how the British prevailed at Sobraon in the first Sikh war.

The second thing is that cavalry in the WNA outraged the purists by moving light artillery at high speed to support themselves. This gave them more capability against dug-in infantry.

"If the North had just used its massive troop superiority to start off with, the South could not have stopped them."

The South was always outnumbered. Numbers aren't everything. Look at Rorke's Drift.

[U S Army EOD]

Tell it to the Germans on the Eastern Front.

[U S Army EOD]

PS: And Custer at the Little Big Horn.

[PhilipFreneau]

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.

Sherman will always be a war criminal, no matter how much he is sugarcoated.

[dsc]

“But Slavery was just such an evil.”

What sort of evil? One that justifies everything the North did and robs all arguments in favor of secession of legitimacy? How could it be clearer that you are offering the end (abolition) as a justification of the means (starting a war to prevent secession)?

“into a classic Non-Sequitur via your "...that every act the North took was justified, and no act the South took could possibly be justified..”

That’s hardly a non sequitur when “slavery was evil” is your reply to every Constitutional and natural-law argument I have made.

“ Are we now reduced to using the "(A) Fish can swim; (B) Man can swim; ergo (C) Man is Fish" scientific method of reasoning?”

Actually, it’s the “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck, it’s probably a duck” method of reasoning. I might suggest that you could short circuit it by offering Constitutional arguments against Constitutional arguments, and natural-law arguments against natural-law arguments.

“allow me to point out the trend I see in your logic, at the very heart of the matter - Slavery:”

If that’s what you see, then you'e not getting my reasoning.

“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;”

Well, it is an EJTM argument. It argues that secession was invalid and the WNA was justified because slaves had no voice.

“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.”

It parries indeed, but does not prove your point. In the north, more than half the population was disenfranchised by virtue of failing the johnson test, yet I do not see you on that basis denying the validity of their political process. At the same time, you try to deny the validity of the Southern political process on the grounds that slaves were not allowed to vote.

If universal suffrage is your yardstick, the north fails nearly as solidly as the South. Free blacks in the north were denied the vote, as was everyone who failed the johnson test. How can we say anything the north did had majority support when over half the population was denied the vote? And yet you deny the legitimacy of the South’s political process on the grounds that slaves were denied the vote. What is one to think, except that you are saying that slavery such a great evil that the end justifies the means?

“Your trend, then, is essentially this: Slavery was irrelevant, the Slaves did not matter.”

I was hoping you would see that slavery is irrelevant to the Constitutional and natural-law arguments under a Constitution that permitted it. If the question is, “Was slavery permitted under the Constitution,” then “Slavery is evil” is not an answer. It is a true statement, but it is irrelevant to the question.

Similarly, you cannot deny the Constitutionality of secession, or a natural-law right to secession, by asserting the evil nature of slavery. You can say “Slavery is too evil to be allowed,” but that is half a sentence. The whole sentence is, “Slavery is too evil to be allowed, even though the South had a Constitutional and a natural-law right to secede.” And that, podnuh, is an EJTM argument.

“BTW, what other three or four reasons leading to the ACW were more important than slavery? I'm interested in your take on this.”

(1) Cultural friction (in the Southern ethos, an insult is a casus belli), (2) the perception (accurate, in my view) that the north was using its political power to bleed the South through tariffs, because it could not support its teeming masses, (3) a general perception that the north had evil designs on the South, and (4) a deep dislike of the northern culture and northerners.

“that I have degenerated the discussion”

That was a reference to your use of the terms “rebellion” and “feudalism.” I didn't think it was necessary or helpful to start using loaded terms like that.

“Feudalism depended on a strict relationship”

That’s really stretching, especially as it was very possible for a plantation owner who managed his business poorly to lose everything.

“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.”

No, Lincoln and the others were right about that. The reason that the South was so land-hungry is that their agricultural methods and the crops they grew could exhaust the soil in thirty years or less. Even if slavery had expanded in the short term, mechanization would have killed it in the larger area as certainly as in the smaller.

“This is not a "false accusation"

Actually, my aside about false accusations was in the nature of a general remark characterizing the broad debate between “Northern Angels and Southern Demons” true believers and those with a more accurate view. I’m sorry that I was unclear enough to cause you to take it personally.

“ascribe to me a presumed "I'm always right; you always wrong" methodology rears its persistent head!!!”

I’m not doing that. I’m just trying to confront you with the fact that “Slavery was evil” does not answer all questions.

“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?”

From Wikipedia: “Defining feudalism is difficult because there is no generally accepted agreement on what it means. In order to begin to understand feudalism, a working definition is desirable. The definition described in this article is the most senior and classic definition and still subscribed to by many. It refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs.
However other definitions of feudalism exist. Since at least the 1960s historians have often included a broader social aspect, adding the peasantry bonds of Manorialism, referred to as a "Feudal society". Still others since the 1970s have re-examined the evidence and concluded Feudalism is an unworkable term and should be removed entirely from scholarly and educational discussion (see Revolt against the term feudalism), or at least only used with severe qualification and warning. No matter what, all scholars agree the term only applies to Medieval European history and its usage outside that context, as a pejorative description of "backwardness", is inappropriate."

[dsc]

“Tell it to the Germans on the Eastern Front. PS: And Custer at the Little Big Horn.”

Oh, come on. You can’t take two of history’s worst examples of stupidity and use them as an argument against the possibilities of cavalry.

In both cases, the fatal mistake of the commanders was just being where they were.

[M. Espinola]

"Sherman will always be a war criminal, no matter how much he is sugarcoated."

Maybe General Sherman should have marched to Atlanta, congratulated the Confederates for starting the Civil War, while drinking tea with lemon.

[dsc]

As opposed to shelling the city without advance warning to the civilian population, as the laws of war required?

Actually, it would have been more appropriate for him to apologize for invading and go home.

[185JHP]

People nasty enough to start and fight a war to preserve slavery deserved what they got. That doesn't mean that there weren't some good men hornswoggled and abused by Davis' "planter aristocracy."

[injin]

my point is thus made....

[CGVet58]

Much Better! Am very much enjoying this exercise of ours - though you may find the following remark odd, it is adding to my body of knowledge and respect for this great struggle in our history.

Why this apparent downshift? Effective today, I'll be hitting an approximately 2-week-long cycle of 18-20 hour days that will leave me scant time for a triple-S treatment, much less the reflection, thoughtfulness and time required to consider our exchange/respond to you. Would very much like to continue this afterwards if ok with you. Knowing as we do how threads have a shelf-life - perhaps continueing through freepmail might be best. Which do you prefer? So many things left to write about, some just in response to your last. Quicknote: we are juxtaposed on several key issues, certainly... you believe the North started the war; I've never heard the shots fired @ Ft Sumter described like this; or my wanting to explore further the Feudalism-simile (yes, I have read the revolt against folks; just that I'm not convinced theirs is the final word on this, nor can their interpretation be read to mean that similarities I've described cannot then be labelled as such because they do not permit it...)... so many other things to discuss; but I cannot do them nor offer respectful replies to you at this time.

So, here's to hoping we can continue this 2 weeks hence - and not to worry, I've cut'n'pasted all our exchanges. Rather lengthy collection it is, but I won't suffer memory loss on our various ideas we discuss; in my saved document, your comments are in Gray.

What say you?