The Forget Hell! crowd

Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2006 | W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

[SuzyQ2]

I love history. I’m proud of my Southern heritage. But for me to be angry to the point of protesting a moment in Southern history that happened nearly a century-and-a-half ago would be just, well, nonsensical. And would in some ways tarnish that heritage.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Just as a comment, the Yankees are just as cranky now about having lost in 2000 and 2004 as they would have been about losing the Civil War in 1864. Very, very sore losers. As well as bad sports, bad neighbors, and bad winners. Wish to hell they'd stayed in England, frankly.

I'm a Red Sox fan, but a Southron first(the Astros are my second team). Lemme just say that I LOVED that post. Anybody who can badmouth the goddamned Yankees is a friend of mine! ;)

[lentulusgracchus]

LOL -- We're rehabilitating Clemens and Pettitte......

By the way, sounds like Rocket is going to go ahead and try to go another year, he was pretty well worn out and hurtin', feeling his age, after the World Series (he left the Series after only a couple of innings thanks to back spasms -- and that damned cold rain they like to play in up in Chi-town), but his wife and kids talked him into it (guess they all want Lamborghinis for their birthdays -- LOL!)

We're also civilizing Lance Berkman! Are we good or what?!

BTW, why'd the Yanks deal for Johnny Damon? They have a thing for guys with three "Y" chromosomes?

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

The Damon deal makes no sense, unless it's "my enemy doesn't have him, so that makes me stronger". JD is on the wrong side of the curve when it comes to signing multiyear contracts. Boston had him on the right side, the Yankees are about to find out about the short side....

[af_vet_rr]

What you say about Joe Johnston is quite right...i think folks here bristle when South Bashers here applaud Sherman's tactics as though the South deserved that punitive good measure

I think that a lot of people lose perspective of Sherman's contribution to the end of the war. I've read God knows how many books over the years about the Civil War, and most of them arrived at the same conclusion - that Sherman sped the end of the war up. In 1864, even though the South was pretty much finished, the people in the North were getting tired of War, and had Lincoln lost the election, the war could have ended with a draw which would have been disastrous for both sides (more so with the South).

Sherman did what he had to do to end the war, it's no different than dropping the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. He wasn't out to punish the South per se (although some under his command tried), it was that he understood how to break the South's will to fight, and he did.

There were bad things that happened, there is no doubt about that. Off and on over the years I've done genealogy research for others, and one involved me going through a lot of court martials of Union soldiers operating under Sherman's command during the campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas for crimes against civilians, and quite a few Union soldiers found themselves shot or hanged (interestingly enough, Lincoln liked to involve himself in those sentences where execution was chosen, and more often than not he had no problems with executions involving rapists, murderers, etc., and he duly made comments and notes about the cases).

It's a pity that it happened the way it did, but it was necessary.

I say this as somebody whose family was primarily in Florida and Texas and who lost a lot of property to corrupt politicians/carpet baggers/democrats, as many in our family chose to fight for the Union, and others in the family that fought for the Confederacy basically confiscated land from those family members (corrupt Democrats in Texas had a lot of power after the war).

It may seem odd that a family that had been in Florida and Texas for a few hundred years before the Civil War would choose to fight for the North, but my family was a very devout Christian family.

[af_vet_rr]

As long as we're a couple of degrees off-topic,

I don't think it's off-topic, I think there are a lot of parallels between WWII and the Civil War, in regards to the "total war" strategy (which some credit Sherman with).

I have found it ironic that some who say the bombings were necessary, don't feel the same about Sherman's campaigns, but hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.

It might interest you to know that many in the Army Air Corp/Air Forces studied the Civil War, in regards to going after supply lines and manufacturering centers.

You might even say that there wasn't much difference between Union soldiers twisting rails around trees, and pilots shooting up trains/blowing up rails/railyards, other than 80 years and the weapons used. The end results were the same.

[rustbucket]

Sherman did what he had to do to end the war, it's no different than dropping the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. He wasn't out to punish the South per se (although some under his command tried), it was that he understood how to break the South's will to fight, and he did.

I see you are a genealogist. So am I. Have you ever tried to trace families who lived in Sherman's path? His troops burned marriage records, land records, etc. We have more than one dead end in our genealogical research because of Sherman. Perhaps you can understand why I don't salute when I hear his name.

[AnAmericanMother]

The way I look at Sherman, and this tends to really piss off some people, is that Sherman's Confederate contemporaries did not look down upon him the way that many people do today, nor did the citizens of Atlanta and the Carolinas of his era.

This is a fact. As I said up thread, my gg grandfather invited him to his UCV chapter (or "camp" as they were called) and they gave him a big testimonial dinner. They LIKED him. In contrast to slimy reptiles like Ben Butler --

"Old Ben Butler is dead! Early yesterday morning the angel of death, acting under the devil's orders, took him from earth and landed him in hell. In all this Southern country there are no tears, no sighs and no regrets. He lived only too long. We are glad he has at last been removed from earth and even pity the devil in the possession he has secured.

"When Grant died, it was with the respect and esteem of the Southern people. When Sheridan died, all the harm he did our cause during the bloody contest of more than a quarter of a century ago was forgotten, and his seeming cruelty had grown to be held as love of country and his terrific assaults as great generalship. When old Tecumseh Sherman passed away, the people who he devastated and robbed of property and precious lives were pleased to forget the bonfires he made of our cities, the path of death he cut to the sea, and they now hold him as one who loved well his country and was cruel only to be true.

"But with Ben Butler it is different. His stay in the South was a curse to our people and his dead body cannot shake the estimate formed of his character when he sat in New Orleans as a military satrap upon the lives and property of defenceless men and women.

Entire jeremiad here. They SURE don't write obituaries like they used to!

[wardaddy]

Sherman burned my hometown of Jackson Mississippi in 1863 before the South was finished.

It was his nature and I don't think he was thinking humane when he did it.

He wanted to win at all costs and if you expect folks down here to applaud that then you should rethink that. We can still see evidence of his handiwork.

The ends justifies the means can be a slippery slope and not in any war that I am aware of has the United States embarked on as great a proportional personal path of destruction simply to destroy personal property with no military purpose. Most of the rural South was already strapped.

In Vietnam we refused to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam or the supply ships in Haiphong harbour.

In WWII, we did not run pell mell through the countryside purposely trying to burn foodstuffs and housing so folks would be destitute and desperate and in reality....punished....in fact we avoided that and don't try to claim Southerners were as prepared as Japanese to wage a fight to the last woman and child between Atlanta and Charleston.....that is simply not even remotely plausible.

With very few exceptions, the US military outside of Union campaigns in the South has never engaged in scorched earth against a civilian population.

One may justify that any way they like but what it boils down to is perspective. I am Southern....and am a part of 8 generations as such now from Mississippi and from my end I see no nobility in Sherman's military actions against unarmed civilians no matter how you slice it. It is not much different than what the British did to the Boars in Southern Africa with their camps.....unable to subdue a formidable enemy in the field and so one resorts to attacking the civilian's homefrotn to weaken the enemy politically and starve him out.

It all depends on perspective I assume. I am proud of my Southern ancestry and thank God almost daily to have been born a part of it. Were I am ambivalent about my Southern heritage perhaps I would applaud Sherman's actions but I'm not and I'm sure not going to oorah over it.

His post war conciliation is another matter.

This sort of thinking is just like those here who consider the Radical Republicans of that era to be the best governments we've ever had and that the South deserved worse and that they are the equivalent of today's cultural conservatives...which is bollocks...they are the equivalent of today's Pelosis, Hillaries, and Schumers in my opinion. Small minded vindicative people for whom big government is a cure all. (not you personally, let me clarify that)

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one who is a Union leaning sympathizer would be more fond of Sherman than say myself. The Union army learned well from this and later employed similar tactics against some Plains tribes.

[4CJ]

Just as a comment, the Yankees are just as cranky now about having lost in 2000 and 2004 as they would have been about losing the Civil War in 1864. Very, very sore losers. As well as bad sports, bad neighbors, and bad winners. Wish to hell they'd stayed in England, frankly.

Bump ;o)

[Flavius Josephus]

South couldn't afford to feed the yankee prisoners.

[Heyworth]

I wonder where and how Lincoln obtained the consent of Virginia's legislature? As I recall Lincoln did not consider the states in rebellion to be out of the union.

There were two separate bodies claiming to be the Virginia legislature. Since one of them was in rebellion, Lincoln recognized the other as legitimate, and that legislature voted to divide the state. The rebel legislature was unable to do anything about it--they certainly couldn't call on the Federal government for help, and the Confederate government was useless in the matter.

File it under "Bad Things That Can Happen When You Rebel" and "Natural Right of Revolution: It's Not Just For States."

[Dr.Zoidberg]

...I continue to embrace the one I've never experienced first hand: the Southern. I hope I can experience it before I die.

If you come with a reasonably open mind and an empty stomach, you'll die happy when it's time.

And everyone's welcome, the only yankees we tend to take a dislike to are the ones who try to bring the north with them when they visit.

[Donald Meaker]

Then they should have surrendered.

[Donald Meaker]

Not an insult. Just fact.

[4CJ]

South couldn't afford to feed the yankee prisoners.

Actually the South did not have the resources to feed the yankee prisoners and their own troops. Part of it was due to a blockade imposed by yankees, part was due to Sherman's campaign against civilians and destruction of private property, livestock and food crops. The Confederacy did attempt to purchase medicines for the POW's with gold, but that was refused. The Confederacy even offered to release POW's without matching releases, but that was rejected. In July 1864 Captain Wirz sent a delegation of 5 yankee prisoners - carrying a petition signed by almost every Union prisoner at Andersonville - to Washington to demand that the union government abide by the terms of exchange agreement. That was rejected as well.

[af_vet_rr]

He wanted to win at all costs

It's called "Total War"". I studied the concept while in college a few *ahem* decades ago in ROTC, and when I came into the Air Force, I studied it in detail and saw how it was applied over the previous 100 years, and learned how to apply the doctrine using the weapons we had at the time.

and if you expect folks down here to applaud that then you should rethink that.

He wasn't there to win friends, he was there to break the will of the South and win the war as quickly as possible.

We can still see evidence of his handiwork.

I can still find evidence of Hurricane Camille. Neither one of those proves anything other than whatever evidence remains was apparently not worth rebuilding in the first place, or was preserved for one reason or another.

I went up and down his and others' campaign trails when I was a kid with my grandfather and with my own son (camping and driving several of the trails). The "handiwork" we came across was for the most part, deliberately preservered.

not in any war that I am aware of has the United States embarked on as great a proportional personal path of destruction simply to destroy personal property with no military purpose.

The Germans, Japanese, and American Indians would love to have a word with you, but in all honesty, what you call "personal property" can have great military value. I think you would be shocked at what the US military considers to have military value, whether it was the Civil War, WWII, or Iraq.

I think you would be utterly shocked at the targets we considered in a worst-case scenario in Europe against the Soviets in the '70s and '80s, as well as targets in North Korea (and worst case South Korea if we were pushed down the peninsula) from that time period up through the 1990s.

It's only been in the past 15-20 years that the military has reached a level of precision that we can wage total war while minimizing civilian involvement.

Remember "Shock and Awe" - that's just the 2003 version of Sherman's March and all other examples of Total War that we've seen since then.

Most of the rural South was already strapped.

The people who ran the South were not strapped - far from it. They wanted war, and the day President Davis ordered General Beauregard to open fire, they got it.

It's unfortunate that the poor and middle class of the South suffered the most, but that always seems to be the case in civil wars - the people who can least afford to lose everything quite commonly do. The people calling the shots did not have the poor Southerner in mind when they ramped up the rhetoric. They were concerned with lining their pockets under the guise of states' rights (and did a damn good job of fooling your typical Southerner into falling for it).

In Vietnam we refused to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam or the supply ships in Haiphong harbour.

We did some things that would shock the hell out of you.

WWII, we did not run pell mell through the countryside purposely trying to burn foodstuffs and housing so folks would be destitute and desperate

Those Germans in and around Dresden who survived February 13-15, 1945, would laugh in your face.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that one who is a Union leaning sympathizer would be more fond of Sherman than say myself.

As I said, my family were devout Christians, and there was only one side for them to join.

There were some in my family who wanted to stay out of it - there was one letter from a mother to her son saying, in effect "our family came here 100s of years ago, we were here before the United States was a country, and we'll be here long after. There's no reason for you to enlist".

Understand this - I don't like war, I don't like many of the things we as a nation have done in wartime (notably the issue of American Indians, which both you and I have touched upon), but with few exceptions, they were ultimately justified, whether it's Sherman breaking the will of the South, or the firebombing of Dresden or the atomic bombs in Japan.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I am also proud of my Southern heritage.

My heritage of which I am so proud includes a 3great-grandfather who was a strong Unionist who put his money where his mouth was, helped desserters, Union Soldiers and Blacks cross enemy lines.

It also includes a Confederate Colonel who died during the initial assault on Petersburg (June 15).

Their oldest children grew up, married one another, had a long, happy marriage and according to my grandfather were the kindest, most loving two people he ever knew.

I figure if they got over it, so can everyone else.

[af_vet_rr]

Since this is slightly seperate from our discussion, I'd like to ask a few questions.

Let's pretend that Sherman did not do what he did, and that as a result, Lincoln did not win re-election (Northern voters having lost the will to continue the fight, or rather believing the war to be unwinnable).

What do you think the result would have been?

Keep in mind the Mexicans were still pissed off over the Mexican War in the 1840s, and Spain still had eyes for various parts of the Americans.

Also keep in mind that France and England were seriously considering joining one side or the other. With a divided nation, do you think they would let such an opportunity pass? The English have long memories, and the French were heavily involved with Mexico.

The North would not have lifted a finger if Mexico/Spain/France had decided to reclaim parts of the South, and I'm not so sure that Canada would have gained independence from England in the late 1860s with a divided United States.

Putting aside the fact that the South would have been extremely vulnerable militarily, economically the South had no chance. If you don't have industry, you're not going to have much power at that time - you are going to end up with a lower class of free citizens who are out of work and angry (something that has happened throughout history).

The potential for a civil war within the South could have easily came about as a result of a lower class of freed citizens who saw the slaves as economic competition. The South would have been hemmed in by New Mexico on the west, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and on down the line to the East - there would have been no safety valve that the west provided in the 1860s through the 1900s when land was available for free in territories outside of the CSA.

Then there is slavery - there were plenty of devout Christian groups who were working to free the slaves, and had the War ended in a draw, I think you would have seen those Christians stir up enough slaves, that you would have had a revolt.

Could you imagine what mass uprisings, I'm talking on the state level or larger, would have been like in the South? It might have taken years, but those Christian groups were very committed to freedom for their fellow Christians, at the risk of their own lives. When you study these people and these groups, these were people who were driven by a higher calling, and this would have been their modern day crusades.

[af_vet_rr]

Entire jeremiad here. They SURE don't write obituaries like they used to!

No kidding, I'm going to have to pass that on to a friend. That is one heckuva an obituary.

[AnAmericanMother]

I adore that obit. It was originally published in the Nashville American for January 1893. I had posted it a couple of times on FR threads, then boothead gave it its own thread. I have it bookmarked, it's too funny to lose.