| ||||
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 5 6   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Indignation over Sherman's "March to the Sea" | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 02:09 am |
|
81st Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member 
|
Again, Texas Defender, well said....Only this time, may I add, very admirably, elequantly, and well thought out....Your response is educated and well researched... While having Southern sympathies, I am no fan of Sherman's....However, he did hasten the war's end and introduced a new way of fighting which has served the United States well ever since..... In my opinion, the discussion is moot, as Sherman did what he did..... the war ended....his methods were NOT a product of political or economic conspiracies, but, rather, were methods to end the war and move his army forward......To deprive his enemy of usefull materials, and to keep them off-balance.....He succeeded.... Again, your input and research are fabulous!! Merry Christmas, my freind!!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 02:35 am |
|
82nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Albert Sailhorst- Thank you for the kind words. As you know, many on this forum consider me to be a southern partisan. I have, for example, maintained for years my belief that secession was perfectly legal under the Constitution. I have defended prominent southern figures whenever I thought that they were being maligned by false charges and conspiracy theories. But because I also have southern sympathies does not mean that I will stay silent when I feel that a northern figure is being unfairly attacked. As I have said, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Merry Christmas to you as well.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 02:44 am |
|
83rd Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member
|
I agree whole-heartedly!! I, too, believe in the Constitutionality of Seccession, and I am a proponant of State's Rights and I will defend the South!!.....I will also give credit where credit is due, historically, and won't "re-write" history, as the facts will support (I am not a fan of either "history belongs to the winners" any more than I am a fan of revisionism)....
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 01:32 pm |
|
84th Post |
|
BHR62 Member 
|
TD....I have no probs with your southern sympathies....because I'm a partisan Unionist. You are very well informed on a lot of subjects and I've learned some things from you. Albert...I have states rights views also. The Federal Government of 1860s doesn't even remotely compare to today's government though. Hell the states of the north had to do all the initial recruiting and raising of armies in 1861. Plus in the case of Indiana most of the initial financing. Not until the Fed Reserve and income tax came in (1913) did the government of today come about, IMO. That all being said...Sherman's March was to break the backbone of the south. It demonstrated their governments weakness to defend them. The destruction may have got out of hand on occasions but one historian has noted people speaking bitterly about their grand dad's barn getting torched etc...then he finds out Sherman wasn't anywhere close to where their grand dad's barn was. But there were complaints from Union officers and enlisted on the things being destroyed. But all armies throughout history have at times got carried away on destruction. Sherman himself had no post war plans on what was destroyed. He did have negative views on the blacks. But what white person of the 1860's, including Lincoln, didn't? Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 01:33 pm by BHR62 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 03:47 pm |
|
85th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
BHR62- As I've said a number of times, history is always told from a point of view. Each of us has his own perspective, and so none of us can be completely objective. For my part, I try as much as possible to be objective in my views of historical events and figures. I recognize that as far as the Civil War goes, I have: "Southern sympathies." (Though born and raised in the northeast). I try not to let my feelings interfere with an accurate assesssment of the facts. As I said previously, I believe that the southern states had a right to leave the Union (for whatever reasons). Having said that, I will also say that it was in the best interests of the United States of America that the southerners lost the war. If the CSA had won out, there would have been two countries and continued tensions along the common border. It is possible that the two sections would have reunited a generation later, but it is also possible that there would have been further fragmentation in one or both of the sections. At any rate, there would have been less movement towards modernization and less progress throughout. For better or for worse, as a result of the war, the newly reunited country had a more powerful central government, and a more efficient one. (Though some of us are alarmed by how powerful it has become today). As a result of the war, there was more infrastructure built in the northern states. There was more and more industrialization. New waves of European immigrants were attracted by opportunities here (As my predecessors were ) in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. These new arrivals provided a vast workforce of cheap labor, which helped to accelerate the growing industrialization. It also helped that both sections were rich in natural resources. By the end of the 19th century, there was a growing sense of nationalism. For a short time, the U.S. became an imperialist power (Spanish American War and aftermath). There was a general feeling that the country was advancing to become a world power. This was certainly evident by the end of WW I. In spite of the hardships caused by a nationwide and worldwide depression, the U.S. was able to produce and operate an industrial engine on a scale never before seen in order to win WW II. (As an aside, I greatly admire the: "Greatest Generation," and it was my honor to serve in the Army with some of them). If the southern states had gained their independence, it is obvious that it would have put the former United States of America on a very different trajectory. Whether the two sections ever reunited or not, I don't believe that they could have achieved what was actually accomplished in making the 20th Century the: "American Century." Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2012 05:17 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 10:36 pm |
|
86th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
OK, lets backup before this gets out of control. Question: Did the South Secede from the Union? If they did, then did the Federal troops actually invade another nation in order to stop that from happening? In order to understand those who lead the fight, you need to go back to their motives. Only by exploring why they did what they did will we learn from this. Sherman may have lead the march but did he act as a leader or someone caring out someone else’s orders or desires. TAD99
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 11:30 pm |
|
87th Post |
|
BHR62 Member
|
TD...I had strong sympathies for the south when I was a kid. As I grew older I identified more with the northern cause and the closest ancestors were all Union Army vets. So I swayed back to the northern cause. Plus I think as a nation it was best that we stayed united. TAD99...I think Sherman was his own man. He had no use for other things than getting the job done, IMO. In the post war period he had no political ambitions whatsoever. His famous line of not running for President even if nominated was due to his experience at seeing what Grant went through. That epitomizes the man, IMO. He wasn't a saint by any means. He just had his own way.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2012 11:59 pm |
|
88th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
TAD99- On the question of whether or not the southern states actually left the Union, the answer would depend on who you asked. Jefferson Davis would have said that they had. Abraham Lincoln would have said that they hadn't. The USSC finally weighed in on the question in the 1869 decision Texas v. White. At that time, they said that Texas and the other states never actually left the Union. My personal view is that the eleven states involved did leave the Union and form their own country, the CSA. However, as a result of the war, the CSA ceased to exist in 1865. General Sherman did lead the 60,000 troops on the March. He did so after getting Mr. Lincoln to okay his plan. General Grant recommended to Mr. Lincoln that the plan be approved. Since in our system, the President heads the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch includes the military, both Generals Grant and Sherman were subordinates of the President and ultimately were: "Carrying out his orders or desires." Obviously, if Mr. Lincoln had disapproved of General Sherman's plan, it would not have been carried out.. I believe that I understand General Sherman's motives very well, and they are described in my previous postings and also in the New Georgia Encyclopedia source that I provided. General Sherman's plan was to convince the southerners of the weakness of the CSA in late 1864 and early 1865, and to try to convince them of the futility of continuing the fight. His : "Goal" was to end the war as quickly as possible, and there wasn't anything: "Secret" about it. Conspiracy theories about land records and the like are just so much piffle. Last edited on Fri Dec 28th, 2012 12:01 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2012 12:14 am |
|
89th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
BHR62, growing up in California I had no ties to the North or South. As time passed and my family roots were uncovered I discovered my Southern History as it were. My fathers side is from the South while my mothers is from the North. Both families go way back and have connections with the not only leaders of both sides of the war but go back to the very beginning of this nation when we were just settlements sponsored by the English. My feelings about the Civil War come not from my family history in Tennessee nor its roots in Ohio and Kentucky, it comes from what I have learned about the motives of those who backed the leaders of the nation back then. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the ending of the war was the best thing for this nation. I just don’t believe people in general know the real story behind the war. TexasDefender makes some good arguments and statements, but I really don’t see anything in what he as said that I couldn’t find in one of my HS text books. Life is just not that simple and people are not that noble. My desire and intent in starting this discussion is to encourage participants to think deeper than just what they have been told. Personally, I think Sherman did what he thought was best and his campaign to get approval shows that it was his plan and not a mission given to him by his superiors. But in his own words “I did not order the burning of Mobile but I also did not try and stop it” tells me that he is not the saint many think he was. Same goes for his treatment of South Carolina. To punish South Carolina when the controlling group was from and still in Virginia is was just wrong. The underlying causes of the war run a lot deeper than that. Tad99
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2012 12:40 am |
|
90th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
Cause and affect. Just like in the 1760's unfair taxes by government lead to unrest. What pushed the South to act the way they did. You can find this and a discussion on other reasons at: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes-american-civil-war.htm "In 1832, South Carolina passed an act that declared that Federal tariff legislation of 1828 and 1832 could not be enforced onto states and that after February 1st 1833 the tariffs would not be recognised in the state. This brought South Carolina into direct conflict with the Federal government in Washington DC. Congress pushed through the Force Bill that enabled the President to use military force to bring any state into line with regards to implementing Federal law. On this occasion the threat of military force worked. People in South Carolina vowed, however, it would be the last time." While the southern economy was supported and may have only survived with slavery as its main labor force, it was the preception or real unfair taxes that was the final straw. TAD99
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2012 04:53 pm |
|
91st Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
tad99, with all due respect, very few conspiracy theories stand much more than shallow rebuttal and neither does this one. the idea that history books dont tell the 'real' story and that there is a web site revealing the 'real' story does does not pan out. i'm not sure that mobile was burned, nor that sherman was nearby if it was. also, what is sherman's 'campaign to get approval' ? cheers, HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2012 09:07 pm |
|
92nd Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Perhaps this post is taking the discussion off track a bit, but I just can’t remain quiet when Texas Defender asserts that secession was legal. He and I have had a discussion about the legality of secession before in another post. I remain unconvinced by his arguments – they defy logic. He cites an 1869 decision, The US vs. Texas I believe, to say that secession was legal until the Supreme Court decided it was not – in this case 1869. In fact, this decision established that the state of Texas was still a state in the union, even after it seceded in 1861. The 1869 decision determined that secession simply did not occur. Further, It is not possible to have a working democracy if one group can secede at will, for example if the decisions made in that democracy are not to their liking. Finally, in all partnerships there is an expectation that the partnership’s dissolution must be subject to laws or if there are no applicable laws, negotiation. Nowhere in our legal system can one party make unilateral decisions about a partnership. Southerners knew that that secession was of dubious legality, and instead of pursing a legal/political war, they opted for a physical war. A very bad choice.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2012 09:40 pm |
|
93rd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Mild Man- I will repeat my contention that when secession took place in 1860 and 1861, it was legal under the US Constitution. (See 10th Amendment). Whether you are: "Convinced" of this or not is of no importance to me. You can't present any documentation to refute it. All you have done here is to transplant your disagreement on this issue from another thread. The 1869 USSC decision that addressed the issue was Texas v. White, not: "US v. Texas." In fact, I never cited any USSC decision that said that secession was legal. Perhaps you should reread my postings on the other thread. You seem to be careless with facts as is another poster on this thread who confused Mobile, AL with Columbia, SC. You continue with all this irrelevant refrain about a : "Working democracy." As I have told you previously, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. If our system was like that of ancient Athens, then Samuel J. Tilden would have been elected president in 1876, since he got 51% of the vote. The majority does NOT always rule in our system. The: "Partnership" of the states established the Federal Government (Not the other way around). The governing document was the US Constitution, and nowhere in it does it say that states are required to remain forever in the Union. It might seem: "Logical" to you that they would be so, but I don't see that in the document. In fact, the Constitution would never have been ratified if such a clause had been included in it. Like people in the different regions in 1860 and 1861, we obviously interpret the Constitution differently. I will rely on what the Tenth Amendment actually says. You can rely on your: "Logic." The states that founded the Federal Government did not give it unlimited powers. They gave it limited and enumerated powers. The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the new Federal Government, but not to limit the powers of the states. (Except in those limited areas where power is granted to the Federal Government). In promoting the ratification of the new Constitution, James Madison in 1788 stated in The FEDERALIST No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and INDEFINITE (my emphasis)." This idea is seen in the Tenth Amendment, which says that if a power is not given to the Federal Government, or prohibited to the states, that the power is retained by the states. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to forbid the states to leave, nor is that right prohibited to the states. Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The text of the 10th Amendment is included in this source. As I have said previously, Mr. Lincoln would never have allowed secession, no matter what any court might have decided. For him, the mission of :"Saving" the Union overrode any other legal and political considerations. This is clearly seen by his willingness to usurp or nullify the powers given to other branches of the Government in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln was not forced to make the choice to fight a war to prevent the southern states from leaving, but that was always going to be his decision. The only thing we agree on is that the choice of secession did not work out for the CSA. But this does NOT mean that secession was not legal under the Constitution in 1860 or 1861. It only means that the CSA was extinguished by a superior military force. Last edited on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 08:57 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 1st, 2013 11:43 pm |
|
94th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender I have no idea how the 10th amendment can be interpreted to allow secession of any state – at will. Again no government, federal-state or state-federal can have any power to govern if partners can unilaterally withdraw from the government at any time and without any consequences. This defies all logic! And you were the one who brought up texas vs white – I read it, the USSC found in that decision, that secession was illegal in 1861. The legality of secession was a subject of discussion and debate for many years before the war. Believing something to be legal, did not and does not make it so. The reasonable way to address the legality of an issue, such as secession, is though a political/legal process. You use the same arguments that were used by southerners in the years prior to the Civil War. This “drunk on principles” thinking lead to a most unfortunate war. Your rehashing of these old ideas seems to seek justify this very bad decision. You seem to be a respectful man, but you use minor facts to seek to embarrass me rather than illuminate the discussion. Is this because your arguments are weak? Last edited on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 11:57 pm by MildMan |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 1st, 2013 11:54 pm |
|
95th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member
|
For the sake of argument, let's say seccession were legal...In my opinion, the prudence of any State government would allow that seccession is not something to be taken lightly....That is to say, I doubt any State would decide to secceede at the drop of a hat. Personally, I believe in the right to secceede.....Any territory that becomes a state would otherwise be stuck in the Union, without the ability to allow for the governance thereof based on the will of the people.....In a sense, if things got bad, they would be "trapped" into remaing a state......I say the lower 48 states should "rape" Alaska, take it's gold, it's oil, it's natural resources and use them fortheir benefit and there would not be a damn thing the people of Alaska could say about it.....Far-fetched??.....Yes....But the point is what possibilities are available to potentially happen?.....I think the right to secceede would add to our system of checks and balances...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:21 am |
|
96th Post |
|
MildMan Just Testing Ideas
|
Texas Defender and I have been arguing this though another post so, shall we say, we have a history. I can see situations where a state would be justified in wanting to secede - but let me stick to 1861. I simply argue that it would have been wiser to secede legally or though a joint political decision. What the south did was to unilaterally secede, then intentionally start a war! My argument is that even if the north were not inclined to allow peaceful secession, in reality the south could have made the north sufficiently miserable that secession would be inevitable. What steeled the will of the north was the firing on fort sumter – without this act many in the north would have said, let them go. Texas Defender says that Lincoln would not allow this, as if the day he arrived in the white house he had the power of a dictator. I argue he was not so powerful until the south started the war, which allowed Lincoln to assume and skillfully use war powers. In 1861 Lincoln was a county lawyer, elected by just 39.8% of voters with limited political connections. No sumter = no war = peaceful secession.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:29 am |
|
97th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member
|
Mildman, You make some good points, which I'll agree with.... If I may respectfully ask, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by "in reality the south could have made the north sufficiently miserable that secession would be inevitable."...... Thanks!! I appreciate the stimulating conversation!!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:32 am |
|
98th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
MildMan- You are the one who wants to continue to go over the same ground. As for the USSC decision Texas v. White, I will tell you again and for the last time that the 1869 decision made secession unconstitutional in 1869 and thereafter. In 1861, there was no ruling on the question and therefore it was not a crime to do it in 1861. The Federal Government could not go back and punish anyone for doing it in 1861 based on the 1869 USSC decision. I will tell you again and for the last time that southerners believed (as do I) that secession was their right and that they did not have to appeal to the federal court system for validation. I will tell you again and for the last time that Mr. Lincoln would not have accepted secession no matter what Chief Justice Taney's court (or any other) might have decided. Mr. Lincoln said before he took office that he would not allow secession. As for : "Minor facts" that seem to be of little importance to you- to me if you are continually careless about facts, then it tends to damage the credibility of the totality of what you say. For example, misquoting me by saying that I presented the USSC decision" US v. Texas" as validating secession when it did not and I did not is not a : "Minor" issue to me. Apparently, you either can not or will not address the text of the 10th Amendment. Let me again and for the last time spell it out for you. The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, lets get to the crux of the matter. I'll issue you a challenge: 1) Show me where in the Constitution that it grants the Federal Government the authority to forbid secession. (You won't be able to- because it doesn't). 2) Show me where in the Constitution it says that the states are prohibited from seceding. (You won't be able to- because it doesn't). I will tell you again, and for the last time, that I find the text of the 10th Amendment more compelling than your: "Logic." You say that you: "Have no idea how the 10th Amendment can be interpreted to allow secession of any state." To me, that: "Defies logic," and makes it clear to me that it is a fruitless exercise to continue to discuss the issue with you. Last edited on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 01:02 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:37 am |
|
99th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member
|
The way I interpret "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."....is to mean that seccession has not been addressed, and therefore it is a possible option, to be exercised as it is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." .....Again, in my opinion, an option not to be taken lightly.....
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 12:39 am |
|
100th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
For the sake of argument, I can (almost) see the original 13 colonies claiming the right to secede. Their argument being they were originally sovereign and entered into a contract (the constitution) with the other states. But, how does that apply to Florida? Florida was ceded to the United States in 1821 via treaty. How about Louisiana and Arkansas? They’re part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 from France to the United States. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee? They are all part of territory granted to the US via various and messy treaties involving Spain, England and France, organized as territories by Congress and granted statehood. In all these cases, there is no ‘voluntary’ joining the union – the land is acquired (similar to Alaska) by the United States which then creates states as it sees fit…
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:20 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| 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 |
