| ||||
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: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 05:26 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 07:51 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 07:58 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 10:48 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 01:40 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: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007 11:50 pm |
|
65th Post |
|
susansweet Member 
|
***Deleted with permission of the poster****
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 04:21 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 04:25 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 04:44 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 05:06 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 06:15 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
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 07:13 pm |
|
71st Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
Interesting how we justify history and the actions of others to promote our current belief structures. Slavery, while an not acceptable by today's standards was socially acceptable in the 1700's. After all even the founder of our nation kept slaves. And my the way not all slave owners tortured their slaves, many actually treated them well. Also not all slaves were dark skinned. Slavery in this country should have been banned in 1776 we declared "All men were created equal". With that said we need to look at the real reason behind the Civil War and it was not slavery. If anyone is interested in discussing those reasons and not just giving the standard answers, I am interested in starting the conversation.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 07:48 pm |
|
72nd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
TAD99- There was no way for slavery to be banned throughout the colonies in 1776. There was no recognized federal authority that had the power to do so at that time. The Continental Congress would never have claimed that authority, even if it felt inclined to do so. (Which it didn't). Individual states began to abolish slavery after 1776, but the southern states had no inclination to consider the idea. Just The Beginning Foundation : State and Federal Efforts to End Slavery When the Federal Government came into being after the Constitutional Convention, it was clear that the Founding Fathers could not completely solve the problem of slavery and still be able to get enough states to ratify the new Constitution. Some compromises were made regarding the slave trade, but the southern states would not have gone along with a total abolition nationwide. As time passed, the two sections became more and more different in their structures. Compromises on slavery and other issues were made for the next 70 years, but eventually the differences became more profound and the additional stresses caused by western expansion in the end reached a point where further compromises could no longer be found.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 08:10 pm |
|
73rd Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
That's the point. From the beginning we had, for lack of a better description, two countries under one government. Much like the problems with today's policy, the argument of State's rights/rule vs. a central government have gone on from the beginning of this country and before. The industrialized north had the desire and interest in business in the south. The south however had little interest in the business up north. They operated more on the "Good Old Boy" style of business and therefore excluded many people/businesses they didn't know. Case in point, William Driver (person of Old Glory fame) was a partner in his brothers (Stephen) shoe business. They decided there was a business opportunity in Nashville so Stephen left and opened up a shop down there. Business was very bad so William followed and worked as a silent partner. The business ultimately failed and William spent the rest of his life living off savings and died there in Nashville. This example is just one of many examples of the problems between the two business communities. As the friction between the two regions increased and the south increasing turned to Europe to sell its goods, their politics and beliefs on politics split even more. Enter Lincoln and his close companions. One a banker from Chicago, one a real estate man and the other who delt in business investments. One wanted an opportunity to deal in land transactions in the South, another wanted more opportunities for his bank and the third wanted, along with other reasons, to free the slaves. The problem was that he just wanted them free so they could be sent back to Africa. Doubt this theory? Look at history. Carpet baggers and bankers over ran the south after the war. Now Sherman and his activities had an alternate mission; destroy as many of the southern land ownership records as possible. Yes he was a master at what he did but did you ever wonder why so many towns and homes were destroyed? War may be hell but what Sherman did was not acceptable. If Lee had sponsored that kind of action in the north we would have a whole different view of their actions.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 08:35 pm |
|
74th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
TAD99- You were doing pretty well there for much of your response. But I really doubt that General Sherman concerned himself specifically with destroying records in the southern states to make things easier for carperbaggers and bankers coming south after the war. General Sherman's objective was to end the war as soon as possible by making things so difficult for the southerners that they would lose the will to continue the fight. In order to accomplish this objective, his troops destroyed property in a manner that would have pleased the ancient Vandals. However, I don't believe that his actions were influenced by desiring to promote future economic opportunities for carperbaggers and bankers. If you somehow believe that this was his purpose, feel free to present source material to substantiate that theory.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 09:43 pm |
|
75th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
Read some of the articles and books by Steven Oates for one. Don't just take his work as truth but follow his information. Look at the goals, desires and actions of some of Lincoln's advisors and you will find more about what motivates them than what you read about their lives. For instance, Lincoln didn’t approve of slavery but knew the Federal government had no power to regulate it in states designated as slave states. Sherman by the way approved of slavery; he just knew that it was one of the bases the southern economy was built on. Sherman may not have been the promoter of but he was the match that did destroy many of the family records that included land ownership, marriages, births, deaths and slave ownership. Why would he destroy them as part of his campaign unless they were part of a military target or part of the support structure. He was given authority to destroy military related items not civilian ones. Even his own men didn’t approve of much of the destruction that was inflicted on civilian assets. Even with the wars of today, civilians and their property are not targeted as part of a military action. Most of the Union solders under Sherman had the same fears about their families and farms and hoped that they would return home not to find them in the condition they were leaving behind them. Not all history has been written in our school supplied history books. You will find more history by studying family histories than you could ever imagine. TAD99
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 11:07 pm |
|
76th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
TAD99- As I say earlier, General Sherman's objective was to end the war as quickly as he could. For this purpose, he maintained that he had a right to destroy any property that could be of use to the CSA war effort. Differentiating between military and non-military assets was an issue that often was not carefully considered. General Sherman said that he was fighting not only a hostile army, but a:" hostile people." He felt that he had to make the southerners: "So sick of war that generations would pass away before it would again appeal to them." By his massive destruction of property, he not only destroyed physical assets, but also waged a psychological war by demonstrating to the southerners that they could no longer defend their own territory. General Sherman was quite content to welcome the southerners back as long as they were willing to submit to federal authority. Re-asserting this authority was his mission. You might well complain about his methods in going about it, but ascribing to him a motive of seeking economic gain for himself or others is an absurdity. You may say that the general policy of the U.S. military nowadays is to respect civilian lives and property as much as possible, but that is often not the case with many of our opponents. In addition, it has not always been the case for the U.S. military and its allies, even in relatively recent times. For example, I would cite the strategic bombing campaigns of WW II. In Europe, the Germans used: "The Blitz" in 1940 and 1941 to try to break the will of the British to fight. Large scale bombing of civilian targets became the norm. The British responded by bombing German cities at night, including causing mass casualties by firebombing Hamburg and Dresden. In the Pacific, the U.S. conducted an extended campaign of firebombing Japanese cities, causing major damage to some 67 of them, and killing perhaps half a million civilians. In spite of all this damage, the war was only brought to an end by the two atomic bombs, which finally broke the will of the Japanese Government (Or at least the Emperor) to continue the war. I am one who believes that the atomic bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese. If I had been in President Truman's position, I would have made the same decision he did to try to save millions of lives by taking a smaller number of them. You could even say that General Sherman was ahead of his times in a way. By conducting his March, he did indeed make the southerners: "...feel the hard hand of war." He said that he could not:" change the hearts and minds of the southern people," so he had to: "Make war so terrible" that they would become unable to continue. Last edited on Tue Dec 25th, 2012 11:13 pm by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 11:19 pm |
|
77th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member 
|
Well said, Texas Defender. Sherman also hated politics and most politicians.....
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 25th, 2012 11:47 pm |
|
78th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Albert Sailhorst- General Sherman certainly hated Edwin Stanton. I have read that when both were on the reviewing stand at the Grand Review in WDC after the war, Sherman refused to shake hands with Stanton and turned his back on him. He remembered that Mr. Stanton had interfered with the initial surrender terms negotiated between General Sherman and General Johnston in April of that year. I don't think that I have much in common with General Sherman, but I do share with him a particular enmity towards: "Journalists." General Sherman was quoted as saying: "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 01:09 am |
|
79th Post |
|
TAD99 Member
|
Interesting, but I still maintain that one of the secret goals of the march was to destroy public records. After all even the march was conducted as a secret mission that even the President didn't know the full details about. Question; if you could ask those who fought for Tennessee (CSA) after the war when the then Northern sponsored Gov. attempted to get the 14th amendment passed. Ask them how fair they though they were dealt with when the firing squad was told to fire! Granted they were not shot (sound a lot like water boarding to me) and then forced to attend so they could be counted but not allowed to vote (summer 1866 post Civil War). Or ask the widows who were raped and then killed during the war or during the march. Or ask the families of those who were captured during the reconstruction period, forced or asked to take an oath to the USA only to be executed afterwards. Not everyone agrees that Sherman was such a noble fighter. Just one example you can find if you search for it came from Wikipedia: "Sherman's scorched earth policies have always been highly controversial, and Sherman's memory has long been reviled by many Southerners. Slaves' opinions varied concerning the actions of Sherman and his army. Those slaves who welcomed him as a liberator left their plantations to follow his armies. Jacqueline Campbell has written, on the other hand, that some slaves looked upon the Federal army's ransacking and invasive actions with disdain. They felt betrayed, as they "suffered along with their owners". These particular slaves often remained loyal to the Southern way of life, and continued to care for the land and families to which they were tied. As for the fate of those slaves who chose to flee their plantations and follow Sherman's army, a Confederate officer estimated that 10,000 followed, and hundreds died of "hunger, disease, or exposure" along the way." From this I would say that Sherman was not so noble nor honest. After asking slaves to join his army, when the going got rough (short supplies etc...) he abandoned then to starve or go back home. As far as methods of war and what is acceptable and not, most of the examples you cite have been used of examples of armies that have been out of control. I really don't think I would use Hitler or his army as an example of acceptable methods of war. I would also say that the USA is not guilt free either but using their past actions to justify behavior is very dangerous. After all following the urban terrorism example of Sherman the KKK terrorized the people of Arkansas in order to promote and force their will on the general public. And what about the problems in Texas with Lee and Peacock. 7 Years post war and the North was still trying to control the South. In 1871 when Grant requested Federal troops to again fight the south, the north was not for it. If Sherman was successful, then why was the fighting still going on 7 years later? TAD99
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2012 01:55 am |
|
80th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
TAD99- You seem to be one who likes to throw charges about, but offer no substantiation of them. This claim about General Sherman having a keen interest in destroying land records is an example. Perhaps you can't show any proof because General Sherman was so good at keeping it: "Secret." All of a sudden now you have moved from Sherman's March to postwar TN where you now claim that one atrocity or another was committed, but give no sources to substantiate your claims. That approach won't impress many in this forum. Of course General Sherman's methods were controversial then and remain so now. He was doing what he thought would end the war as quickly as possible, which was pretty much to destroy anything and everything in his path. That wasn't likely to endear him to residents of the region. I don't think that General Sherman asked slaves to join his army. Actually, they were a great nuisance. As far as: "Abandoning" them goes, perhaps you are referring to the incident at Ebenezer Creek where General Jefferson C. Davis pulled up his bridge leaving the slaves on the other side of the creek. New Georgia Encyclopedia: Sherman's March to the Sea That incident is mentioned here. The examples I cited from WW II were not: "Armies out of control." Actually, it was just the opposite. The strategic bombing was done under the complete control of the governments involved. You are the first one I have ever heard who has compared General Sherman's actions to the methods used by the KKK after the war. The KKK was not a military force, but an organization of white supremicists doing all they could to try to restore the: "Rightful" social order that had been upset by the war. General Sherman I am sure did not approve of the KKK. What General Sherman was successful at was hastening the end of the war. The capture of Atlanta was vital in getting Mr. Lincoln re-elected. When that happened, it was clear that there would be no ending to the war except the military defeat of the CSA. Using various incidents that took place during Reconstruction to try to make the claim that General Sherman was not successful during the war is ridiculous. The CSA ceased to exist in 1865. Last edited on Wed Dec 26th, 2012 02:04 am by Texas Defender |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:52 am | 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 |
