Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
"Sherman was a mass murderer, his troops raped and slaughtered their way across Georgia & South Carolina - meeting token resistance from feeble old men, women and children."
'That is simply not true.'
Let's see:
"When he entered Atlanta, Sherman issued an order requiring all the people to leave within five days. Hood protested against this order, and the mayor and council of Atlanta appealed to Sherman to withdraw it, pointing out that most of the inhabitants were women and children, who would suffer greatly if compelled to leave their homes.
"To this Sherman replied, 'I have read it [the petition] carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the case.'
When all preparations for the southward march had been made and the people had been forced to depart, Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground.
"Under Sherman's orders Capt. O. M. Poe 'thoroughly destroyed Atlanta, save its mere dwelling-houses and churches.' The destruction was by fire purposely applied to buildings, and permitted to spread, as was expected, from house to house until the defenseless city was almost entirely reduced to ashes. No efforts were made to prevent the spread of the conflagration, and scarcely any structure was designedly spared.
Only about 450 buildings escaped this ruthless burning, among them many churches, which in those days generally stood apart from other buildings. The thoroughness of the destruction can be realized, when we consider that by the census of 1860 Atlanta had a population of 10,000, which in 1864 had increased to 14,000. More than 4,000 houses, including dwellings, shops, stores, mills and depots were burned, about eleven-twelfths of the city.
Capt. Daniel Oakey, of the Second Massachusetts volunteers, says: "Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the Thirty-third Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections."
Sherman himself noted the rising columns of smoke as he rode away from the city. Considering that he had been in possession of the city since the 3d of September, he had had ample time to utterly destroy everything in it that could be of advantage to an enemy, without the wanton and inexcusable method to which he resorted. It was no more necessary from a military point of view to destroy mercantile establishments than private dwellings or churches.
Nearly 10,000 people perished in the Battle of Atlanta. Union loss to death at Spottsylvania, and the Wilderness were half this number. Union losses to death at both Gettysburg and Antietam totaled less than half this number.
The destruction of Atlanta can never be excused.
Is it your contention that nearly 10,000 civilians perished in Atlanta? What do you have to back that up?
Burning buildings is not murder. Your post is a total non sequitur from your claim.
The burning of Atlanta never needs to be excused. It was a brilliant an necessary move that helped save lives and sped an end to the war.
"Circumstances point to the conclusion that actual plundering of nonedible property was minimal during the march to the sea, and possibly less than what confederates destroyed in Pennsylvania."
Could you source that quote?
An article titled "The March to the Sea" by Steven E. Woodworth. It was in a magazine called "1864" which was a special edition from the publishers of America's Civil War, Civil War Times, and Military History magazines. It was on sale last month, and is available for purchase online here, but unfortunately they haven't posted any of the articles online.
"In fact, were not representatives dispatched to Washington to negotiate such, in addition to the declaration/proposed amendments to the Constitution?"
You said...."No."
Actually, the delegates were sent to Washington.
"A constitution for the New England Confederacy was drawn up, and it was stipulated that it would go into operation 'as soon as two or three states shall have adopted it.'
The Convention even designed their new nation’s own flag. The flag contained five stripes, representing the five states of the proposed New England Confederacy.
Moderates in the convention convinced the delegates to propose changes to the US Constitution instead of immediate secession. A special report with recommendations was drafted.
This official document of the convention was dated December 15, 1814. The final report arraigned Madison's administration and the war and proposed several constitutional amendments that would redress what the New Englanders considered the unfair advantage given the South under the Constitution. If these changes were not implemented, the Convention recommended secession.
By the time the Hartford delegation arrived in Washington to make their recommendations, the War of 1812 was over.
The claim was made that representatives were sent to Washington to negotiate secession of the New England states. That claim is patently, completely false. And if you read the Declaration of the Hartford Convention you will not find any threat of secession, either.
I am suggesting that your post of their quotes is not worthy of furthur comment.
Uh, no. They evicted squatters.
A certain German leader extolled the virtues of eliminating civilians - we call him a war criminal. Sherman [*spit*] did the same.
Can I go into your house and evict you as a squatter?
Nope.
I'm talking about places where US troops were sitting on property of others, such as Ft. Sumter, etc., and refused to leave.
Recall, they were SOVEREIGN states.
Fort Sumter was the property of the U.S. government, built on land deeded to the government free and clear by the legislature of South Carolina. It did not belong to anyone but the federal government, so what do you base your claim that the "US troops were sitting on property of others" on?
How so?
The claim was made that the negotiation of secession was in conjunction with the demands made in the Declaration. It would obviously be silly to demand changes to the Constitution while seceding...but either intentionally or not, you seem to like to evade such simple logic in your replies. I say this not in belligerence, but as the impression I get from your tactics.
The negotiators were to negotiate secession if they couldn't get demands met. The war ended, making the whole thing irrelevant.
You're arguing a straw man, though...because the fact is that it is well known there was serious talk of secession, if not for the efforts of moderates to attempt a two-pronged approach of demands and negotiation first.
Are some on this thread experiencing symptoms of sore-loserman?
You should have included the honorific, such as "Happy Birthday, General Lee," or "Happy Birthday, Mr. Lee," though the former would be preferable as he was a military man.
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.