| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 06:26 pm |
|
61st Post |
|
David White Member 
|
Let me suggest a book (well maybe more of a long essay) for folks to read that changed my mind about Poor Southern Whites and the war. We all tend to give them a pass as not owning slaves and just protecting thier "homes and rats." The book is Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion about the ambassadors from the seceding states who went to the other southern states to lobby for seccession. Dew mainly bases the book on the public speeches given by these ambassadors as reported in southern newspapers of the time. Plain and simple, the appeal to non-slaveholding whites was flat out white supremacy and negroes will be marrying white women if they are freed. Per the newspapers, such talk galvanized the poor whites to action. At least the slaveholders had the flimsy excuse of protecting their property rights but for many non-slaveholders there was definitely a racist reason to fight. Yes some joined the adventure or wished to "defend their homes." But there were less noble motivations and it wasn't isolated but widespread in the south.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 08:51 pm |
|
62nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
David. I believe that appeals to white supremacy to justify discrimination against other ethnic groups had at their core economic considerations. I believe that more people were concerned with losing their jobs rather than their women when large numbers of competitors established themselves on the scene. Of course white southerners considered themselves superior to slaves and free blacks. So did white northerners (including Abraham Lincoln). Their status in society was considered to be higher. It had always been that way. Throughout American history, the newest wave of immigrants always faced discrimination by the more established citizens. The greater the ethnic differences, the greater and more prolonged discrimination they faced. The fiercest opposition usually came from those in the wave that had just preceded the newest one. The new arrivals would compete for their jobs, or at least drive everyone's wages down by working for less. Those at the bottom of the totem pole were those most threatened by the newcomers. They were the ones most likely to face competition from those coming into the job market. The thought of masses of newly freed black slaves arriving on the scene frightened many. An example that I would cite would be what happened in the New York City Draft Riots in 1863. The whites (mostly Irish), began a spontaneous and deadly series of attacks on black people who were minding their own business. The reason was pent up rage against those (free blacks) competing with them for their jobs. The Irish as newcomers had experienced discrimination ("No Irish Need Apply," etc), due to different ethnicity and religion. They felt themselves superior to the blacks, and this feeling gave them cover to attack them. When the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, it enraged many Union soldiers. There were even some protests made by soldiers. They had signed on to fight for the Union. They weren't interested in taking a bullet to free the slaves. Like most 19th century white men, they felt that the blacks were beneath them. Even before this announcement, many in the north feared a massive black immigration to the northern states. For example, in 1862, the state of Illinois ("Land of Lincoln") passed a consitutional provision to bar black immigration. They, too, feared that would threaten their economic interests. My point is that feelings of white supremacy (To justify keeping other ethnic groups down on the economic ladder) were not simply a: "southern" thing. They were the norm in the 19th century, and they were widespread in more than the south. Last edited on Fri Sep 7th, 2007 08:58 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
63rd Post |
|
David White Member
|
No doubt TD what you say is true, but the issue of black equality was how the average southerner was enflamed to rally to the cause, so they can't get a pass on not owning slaves, which you hear a lot from some of the Neo-Cornfeds trying to say that slavery was not at the root cause of the conflict.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 8th, 2007 02:40 am |
|
64th Post |
|
ole Member 
|
That's essentially the way I read it, David. Johnny Reb may well have been fighting to protect his hearth and home, but it wasn't necessarily against Yankee invasion. No doubt many figured that, as long as they had to pick a side, it would be the one their families were on. We might never know conclusively how many bought into the idea that blacks wanted their wives and daughters, or that Yankee victory intended to reward freed slaves with said femailes, but with all the stuff being thrown against the wall, you've got to figure some of it stuck. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 12:50 am |
|
65th Post |
|
susansweet Member 
|
***Deleted with permission of the poster****
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 05:21 am |
|
66th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
This can't be a forum for one against one back and forth. Two posts deleted. It would be unfair to the original poster if I have to lock this thread, but I will if I have to.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 05:25 am |
|
67th Post |
|
susansweet Member
|
Thanks Joe, I knew I shouldn't have done that the minute I did. I appologize Susan
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 05:44 am |
|
68th Post |
|
ole Member
|
A temporary diversion, Javal. This shall just be a bump in the night. Now. What were we talking about? Indignation. I will be the first to agree that "the March" might very well be controversial. It certainly visited the realities of war on the civilian population of a part of Georgia and a larger part of South Carolina. I happen to believe that the same devastated population got more or less rooked into a war. Having given that population the benefit of the doubt of who started what, I'm usually quite surprised that today's advocates for southern rights can resent what happened then. Today, it looks quite nasty. Then, it looked very much like a war. Sherman has 60,000 rangy western men who've mostly been through three years of hell. Most of the guys they enlisted with are gone. They have survived. It amazes me that they didn't kill everyone and destroy everything between Atlanta and Savannah. Did this get the thread back on track? ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 06:06 am |
|
69th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Ole, Perhaps Sherman's men simply devastated property instead of killing everyone because they remembered Lincoln's speech about : "not breaking our bonds of affection", and heeding: "the better angels of our nature."  Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 07:15 pm |
|
70th Post |
|
cklarson Member
|
Belatedly I come to this discussion. I was not able to see Sherman's march on the History Channel, but get the gist of it from these postings. I heartily agree with "Great Grandson's" posting regarding African-Americans and slavery. To my mind, the broader issue is: rarely are African-Americans considered citizens of the South during the war, even though thousands' families, for sure, had been in the nation longer than many Southern whites. Moreover, given the "customs" of many slave owners, many slaves were the descendants of the some of the most prominent men of the South. As to general slave comprehension, a clue can be taken from an incident that occurred in Marietta, GA in 1864. As the 59th IL led the way into town, the soldiers were met by slaves with offerings of tobacco and gourds of water. One remarked: "Ise been looking for you for six months, Massa." As to Sherman's march generally, a few new books have come out. The general academic consensus seems to be that fewer depradations were made than popularly believed or held. Sherman basically stuck to items that had a military use for part of the objective was not just to supply his army, but to keep supplies from going to Lee in VA. It must also be kept in mind that both sides' armies were so huge that just a gambol through any territory would pretty much pick it clean: of fences, trees, apples, corn, water, even before the real "provisioning" began. In GA, inmates were released from prison and I've read that many dressed in Union uniforms to rob the locals. There were GA Unionists who believed that SC should be ravaged for starting the war. An anecdote from a friend's family indicates that when owners cooperated with Union forces, homesteads were not burned (it also helped when you had a personal visit from Sherman). In Columbia, initially the fires of cotton bales were begun by retreating Confederates and the US soldiers tried to put them out. So a lot went into the mix of Sherman's march. CKL
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 05:22 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War in Movies and on TV > Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Top |
