Posted on 02/17/2005 1:55:46 PM PST by quidnunc
Q: After having read many accounts of the Civil War, I still don’t understand why South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter, galvanizing the North into war. What do you think might have happened had the South continued to let these coastal forts be manned by the Union for a longer time?
Hanson: I think conflict was inevitable, because the South had little appreciation of Northern industrial power nor of the competence of a number of formerly nondescript Union officers. The best officers of the Mexican War had joined the Confederacy and there was an erroneous general impression that all superior commanders had left the Union, and with vaunted Southern courage, a big victory or two would teach the Yankees that going into the Confederacy was simply not worth the trouble, especially for the increasingly controversial idea of emancipation. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
Well, I've thought quite a bit about this. My fathers side owned slaves but my mothers side were Tennessee hill folk and fairly poor in money. They we're all Scots-Irish and fairly touchy about their pride and their property. I'm thinking it was a mixture of pride, a rebellious nature and just loving a fight.
He never made any secret of it.
"It will be a physical impossibility to protect the roads, now that Hood, Forrest, Wheeler, and the whole batch of devils are turned loose without home or habitation. I think that Hood's movements indicate a diversion to the end of the Selma & Talledega road, at Blue Mountain, about 60 miles southwest of Rome, where he will threaten Kingston, Bridgeport, and Decatur, Alabama, I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Midgeville, Millen, and Savannah. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless for us to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people, will cripple their military resources. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and we will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl! We have on hand over 8 thousand head of cattle and three million rations of bread, but no corn. We can find plenty of forage in the interior of the state." -- William T. Sherman, October 1864.
look on a MD map. it's now a State Park.
4 of my ancestors were "guests" of the damnyankees there. none survived.
free dixie,sw
WASHINGTON, December 26, 1864.
When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but, feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering "nothing risked, nothing gained," I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours; for I believe none of us went further than to acquiesce; and, taking the work of General Thomas into account, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantages, but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole, Hood's army, it brings those who sat in darkness to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave General Grant and yourself to decide.
A. LINCOLN
I'm not saying Sherman was raping individuals, other than individual counties. Acceptable rules of war!! Destroying what little crops and civilian stores that were left for a starving population. Again, would you so quickly accept these rules of war had Lee played by them in Pennsylvania? Can you cite another campaign in the Civil War or any other American conflict (excluding John Kerry's fantasies about Vietnam)where these were the rules in dealing with defenseless civilians?
If that were a true statement it makes Grant's statement to the effect that the Confederates fought gallantly for their cause, although their cause was one of the worst for which men ever fought seem somewhat paradoxical.
So Lincoln was a member of the Illuminati, what Birchite twaddle!
"Armies of Europe". Now we can agree. Armies of Europe like Hitler's and Stalin's
Come on Tail Gunner!
Are you now comparing stealing Hogs, to Hitler and Stalin?
Yep, he was also grand poohbah of the stonecutters.
Actually, Rommel's "book" was entitled "Infanterie Greift An" (Infantry Attacks). They changed the name in the movie "Patton" to make Rommel look like more of a "panzer" expert.
Gee, as I recall there was an entire Confederate Army outside Atlanta that fought one of the great battles of the Civil War. Maybe you regard that as "defenseless", since the incompetent Johnston commanded that army, but that was hardly Sherman's fault.
I'd also like you to point to a single statement that I've ever made that could be construed as racist. You're the true hater here, Watie. Your venom drips from every post you make on these threads. That's why all the Unionists here are so amused at the poster who holds you up as a examplary arguer of the Southern Cause. That line you constantly use about "everyone is laughing at you" applies to you. You do more to discredit the subtle Constitutional arguments of nolu, 4CJ and the rest far more than my humble ability to add or detract.
Oh, have you heard from Dr. Lubar yet? Do you need his e-mail address?
You mean eastward to Petersburg. Grant was dug in south and east of Petersburg. Rail lines came in from the west to Richmond. I think Sherman was trying to avoid Johnstons Army. Moving to the Sea he could resupply, Which he did. He left Atlanta with 60.000 and reached Columbia, SC. with over 90,000 I use to live in Columbia and saw where Sherman set up his cannon's to shell the capital building. Nearly 5 miles- I didn't know those cannon's could fire that far. But it was down hill.
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.