Posted on 08/09/2002 3:38:13 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Not true. They “killed” less than 200,000 “yankees”. The rest died of various "Camp Fevers" from poor sanitation and exposure to the elements, which plague an invading force much more than a defending force. In the 19th Century it was statistically nearly as dangerous to be in a camp as it was to be in combat.
Another point that seems to be overlooked was the number of troops assigned to logistical functions in the Union Army vs. the Confederate army. The Union Army provided the vast majority of its own logistics from teamsters to ambulance corps to railroad gangs to trench diggers. They also typically had much longer lines of supply to maintain and defend which takes large chunks of men away from combat operations. The Confederates relied very heavily on local slave populations either volunteered or "requisitioned" from their owners to perform most of the logistics functions. The result was that the Confederates could field a much higher percentage of their forces for actual combat operations than could the Union army. The so-called “2 to 1” advantage quite often did not manifest itself on the battlefield.
Much of the evil that is done in this world is done by people who believe that there actions are right, even that they themselves are acting against some evil. Take, for example, the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski. He didn't get a walk because he believed that what he was doing was right. But you seem to be suggesting that I should excuse Lincoln on such grounds.
I would however quibble with your hypothesis that Lincoln himself believed that Southern secession was wrong. We can never know what was in his mind, but his actions can equally well be explained by the assumption that he saw secession as a monkey-wrench thrown in the works of his implementation of the "American system". It would similarly completely explain his opposition to the extension of slavery to the territoties.
tyrants are REALLY good at LIES, hyprocracy,self-promotion and self-deception. lincoln had all of those traits!
he and wee willie klintoon are about the same sort of politician.
for a free dixie,sw
for a free dixie,sw
as i've said before, he was ONLY a cheap politician & war criminal;nothing more, nothing less. the blood of a MILLION people is on his hands and on those of his inner circle.
lincoln was honest in the same way that sewage is clean.
free the south,sw
GEN Johnston called it "the largest prison camp in the country, the inmates of which feed and guard themselves".
had we won our war for independence from the damnyankees, the fortress would have soon flown the Third National from its ramparts.
free the southland,sw
What you've claimed is not on this website. That's not a big surprise; you've been caught lying before.
Where can I confirm this order you claim Sherman gave to kill civilians?
I like the way this Bob Redmond characterizes the battle of Franklin, saying the AoT was "roughly handled."
In "Shrouds of Glory", the author suggests that the worst hour of the whole war in terms of bloodletting happened that day.
Walt
do you REALLY believe that "saving the union" was worth a MILLION LIVES?
for a free and much improved dixie republic,sw
So what?
No one was talking tarrifs in 1860-61.
The record shows that all southern ports combined collected less in a year in the late 1850's than Philadelphia. It simply wasn't an issue.
That is the sort of hard data that your interpretation totally lacks and also dismisses as irrelevant.
Walt
Protectionism tariffs may have been, and I don't deny that at all, the most visible signs of the central government in the south were the courts, the post office, and collection of tariff. I suppose that if there was as subsidized steamship line in Charleston or a trans-Mississippi railroad that the government was supporting then Lincoln might have mentioned them as well. But as far as the south was concerned, maintaining the forts, collecting the tariff, delivering the mail were the surest signs that the Federal government still was a presence down south. Denying the forces of rebellion possession of the forts or the ability to collect tariffs were signs to the outside world that they were not a government, regardless of what they said.
One's viewpoint towards others does tend to be slanted by ones beliefs. I no doubt view the intentions of the southern leadership with the same kind of suspicion that you view Lincoln's. So be it. We won't convince the other, but I suspect that neither one of us will stop trying.
Yes, history proves it was worth the cost, but a few sickos among us think it was worth a million lives so a few wealthy planters could keep their slaves.
Maybe people can fight better in wooden shoes. The sesesh should have tried that. What they -did- try was a miserable failure.
Walt
To the contrary. It's there plain as day: "Sept. 64 Forrest goes back to Tennessee, Hood threatens Sherman's railroad connection to Chattanooga, Sherman sends Thomas to deal with Forrest, and Sherman pursues Hood to no avail."
and
"26 Oct. 64 Sherman gives up trying to catch Hood, divides his army, takes the better part of it (incl. the 14th corps) for himself, and leaves the rest to Thomas."
Once again you are willfully avoiding the facts and fibbing about it when caught.
That's not a big surprise; you've been caught lying before.
The only liar here is you, Walt, as you have just demonstrated it you typical fashion.
Where can I confirm this order you claim Sherman gave to kill civilians?
Are you blind Walt or just stupid? If you are referring to the ones conducted during Milroy's Sherman-sanctioned reign of terrot, I've alread told you no less than three times.
See North & South Magazine, November 1999
Check it out for yourself if you doubt me.
Your lying again, Walt, and the historical record clearly shows it:
"I say that cotton is king, and that he waves his scepter not only over these thirty-three States, but over the island of Great Britain and over continental Europe, and that there is no crowned head upon that island, or upon the Continent, that does not bend the knee in fealty and acknowledge allegiance to that monarch...You suppose that numbers constitute the strength of government in this day. I tell you that it is not blood; it is the military chest; it is the almighty dollar. When you have lost your market; when your operatives are turned out; when your capitalists are broken, will you go to direct taxation? Burn down a factory that yields ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five thousand dollars a year to its owner and he goes to the wall. Dismiss the operatives, stop the motion of his machinery, and he is as thoroughly broken as if his factory were burnt; for the time he is bankrupt. These are matters for your consideration. I know that you do not regard us as in earnest. I would save this Union if I could; but it is my deliberate impression that it cannot now be done." - Sen. Louis T. Wigfall, United States Senate, December 6, 1860 (my emphasis added)
The record shows that all southern ports combined collected less in a year in the late 1850's than Philadelphia.
True or not (and according to many, your data is questionable and/or misleading) you miss the issue entirely. Tariffs are tools of competition control, hence the concept of protectionism. Protectionism functions just the same no matter what port the goods go through. If you intend to debate tariffs you need to take the time to learn about economic theory of trade as you are obviously not equipped to comment on the subject the way things stand now.
It simply wasn't an issue.
The historical record says otherwise. You just love contradicting that record whenever it disagrees with your agenda, Walt!
Yet the your beloved yankees took 4 years and 350,000 lives to conquer the south. If the CSA's effort was, as you say, a miserable failure, what does that tell us about the yankees who had such a hard time conquering them?
BTW, in case you were hoping otherwise I noticed you evaded the majority of my response to McPherson's fraudulent assertions in your quote, not to mention your continued evasion of my article rebutting McPherson at the top of this thread.
His actions were inconsistent with his words because he did exactly what he called invasion and then tried to claim he was not doing.
Face it. You are grasping at straws on this one. It is evident in your argument itself, which has shifted to a debate of skewered semantics, spin doctoring, and pro-Lincoln bullsh*t artistry.
But try as you may you still can't seem to get around the consequences of Lincoln's statement. Lincoln specifically defined invasion as marching an army into a region against the will of its people and in hostility toward them. That he did exactly that throughout the war simply cannot be denied. Therefore he invaded. There's no way around it.
Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi,
In the field, Atlanta, Georgia, September 12, 1864.
James M. Calhoun, Mayor
E. E. Rawson and S. C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta
Gentlemen:
I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it 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, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufactures, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such thing at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.
We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.
But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta. Yours in haste,
W. T. Sherman, Major-General commanding.
--------------------------------------------------
That's called telling it like it is. War is hell.
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.