No recognized historian has found evidence (i.e., graves, reliable newspaper reports) to support claims of Union mass genocide against Confederate white civilians.
As to what percentage of Southern families owned slaves, it ranged from roughly 50% in some Deep South states to fewer than 10% in a Border State like Delaware.
Javeth: "Grant, Sherman and Sheridan as contrast were bloody genocidal killers.
It's their statues that must come down across the states."
No genocide during the Civil War.
And such evidence as we have of Native American populations does not support claims of "genocide" during the mid-to-late 1800s.
Howdy BroJoeK! If you notice, DoodleDawg, x, and I each tried to draw several of these characters out to defend their statements. We got goose eggs for our efforts. I was going to PM you with my comments but screw it - I’m making them “public” instead.
There has been a trend of late by some southern partisans to demand that monuments commemorating northerners come down (”If we can’t have ours, then you shouldn’t get yours”). I find this disturbing and deplorable. For these many months I (and others) have been supportive of defending and keeping the southern monuments, even though we aren’t supportive of the idiocy that was the confederacy. This latest trend makes me wonder if my support was misplaced.
In the final analysis decisions regarding the disposition of local monuments (city and state) should be made locally and without interference by outside agitators. To my thinking southerners should be able to settle their own affairs. If they lack sufficient numbers (sans agitators) then let the chips fall where they may. The interference by outsiders and their obvious anti-American agenda is in part what prompts people like me - and many other FReepers - to stand in solidarity even though I have no dog in this hunt.
Federal landmarks are a different story. I don’t live in Washington DC (very few humans do) but I have the right to be part of any decisions regarding federal monuments. And so do you. Daring unhinged people to destroy property out of spite is as bad as chaining a statue to your bumper and bringing it down yourself.
This latest twist is divisive, counter-productive, and just plain stupid.
No one asked me, but . . . you might be right.
If I wanted to defend Sherman against charges of genocide, I would say:
First. The word genocide wasn't invented until 1944 so Sherman could not have committed genocide during the Indian Wars.
Second. History records only that Sherman wanted to exterminate Indian people. ("We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”)
Third. Genocide, by definition, is “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Sherman - this is tricky here, just wanted extermination, not genocide.
There it is: a defense of Sherman against the charge of genocide. How does it sound to your ear?