| ||||
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: Sun Sep 2nd, 2007 02:39 am |
|
21st Post |
|
ole Member 
|
It's a gross misrepresentation to hold that slaves didn't know what liberty was. They'd watched their masters at liberty all their lives. They knew that liberty meant working for themselves and doing without. They knew that they would be required to work harder for themselves than they would have to for the master. They knew that with liberty their families wouldn't be torn apart. They knew. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 2nd, 2007 02:39 am |
|
22nd Post |
|
susansweet Member 
|
Javal it was all the big words you used. They are confusing . Johan good list of books to read. I can't believe than anyone would think slaves did not want to be free. Look at all the slaves that followed the Drinking Gourd North to Freedom. Susan
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 02:05 am |
|
23rd Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
As someone who lived in Africa, I see something Liberty is forgetting. Many slaves did indeed know what freedom was. They WERE free in Africa before they were taken captive and shipped to the Americas. Surely they did not easily forget what was so brutally stolen from them. Last edited on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 12:18 am by CleburneFan |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2007 07:56 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
younglobo Member 
|
ok I have some southern views on this forum as most know , but a slave not wanting or understanding his freedom come on thats like i dont know.... a duck that dosn't waddle. Javal.... maybe slavery should become one of those unmentionable topics, seems it has caused a very heated discussion(especially when the reciepiant is a new member ) course it is one of the major reasons for the war so might be a bad idea to ban the subject. I sure wouldnt want to be in a former slaves position. IE... living conditions, work hours, status ect and not look at my white conterparts and want what they had . Yikes .. think David said it best in his first post.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2007 09:28 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
YB, I understand your point, but no, for now I won't ban the subject. As for your other point, I'm aware liberty is a new member. But no one should expect to join a discussion board and as a first post state that slaves didn't desrve liberty because they had never experienced it. And I would point out that, the way I read it anyway, he wasn't saying "according to 19th-century" standards - it certainly sounded as if he was saying that he believed that now - in the 21st century. That to me is disturbing. My point is that if you join for the sole purpose of being controversial, don't expect to be treated with kid's gloves. Thanks for your input.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 12:59 am |
|
27th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member 
|
To me, the question of slavery is pretty much black and white (yikes. Did I just say that?) But I'm not being flippant here. The definition of a slave, according to Websters Unabridged Dictionary, is "...a human being who is owned and wholly subject to the will of another, as by capture, purchase or birth." Digest every word of that definition. Having said that, it is totally inconceivable to me, whether I live in the 21st century or in the 19th century, whether I'm black or white, that any human being, much less antebellum African Americans, would find happiness in that particular condition and "love" their masters. It's bondage, clear and simple. Liberty, if the slaves loved truly their masters, then there should have been no need for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. How do you explain the nearly 100,000 blacks who sought freedom via the Underground Railroad? Why did 180,000 blacks — many of them former slaves themselves — fight for the Union to secure the freedom of their brothers in bondage? "Love," indeed. Are you not paying attention to your American history, or are you just revising it? As for Sherman, you must understand that his march was a military expedition. His was an army of invasion, not an army of liberation, and thus was not prepared to accept and care for huge numbers of refugees. This is especially true while deep in Confederate territory when he could expect to be engaged in combat at any moment. What do you do with noncombatants then? Perhaps another view of Sherman is that his march across Georgia and into the Carolinas may have actually shortened the war, thus ultimately saving lives. States' rights? What states' right are you referring to? It must be the one to maintain slavery and export it to the territories. One of the best single-sentence descriptions I've seen to explain the Civil War comes from an editor of one of the monthly Civil War publications you can find on any newstand. He noted that "the Civil War was about secession, and secession was about slavery." I don't think it gets any more succinct than that.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 01:59 am |
|
28th Post |
|
ole Member
|
What an excellent series of posts. I am most gratified to see that even our staunchest CSA sympathizers don't use the "slaves were better off" argument. Fan brought up a point that isn't often mentioned: A few slaves, especially the older ones, were snatched from freedom in Africa. (And don't believe for a minute that they were savages. They may well have been more civilized than our own aboriginal people in that they lived in permanent villages and survived by farming.....an agrarian economy. Is that ironic, or what?) Given the tradition of oral history, those born in this country certainly heard tales of the old country; the work and the play; the communities and the families; and, perhaps, the occasional conflict with a neighboring people. And the freedom. Bama also brought up a good point. There were some freedmen who returned to the certainty of a slave existence rather than face the uncertainty of making a go of it in a hostile world. (Sound at all familiar?) Slave states also had rules governing the humane treatment of slaves. Without enforcement, they held about the same weight of current laws that are unenforced and ignored. But, although off-topic, the capper was: "the Civil War was about secession, and secession was about slavery." I don't think it gets any more succinct than that. Bravo, guys and gals! It is such discourse that makes coming here coming home. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:08 am |
|
29th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
PVT Clewell- Slavery was certainly the catalyst issue that propelled north and south into war. The Founding Fathers could not resolve the slavery issue in the 18th century because the southern states were needed to help get the Constitution ratified. The issue was left to fester for more than half a century as positions on both sides gradually hardened. Many foresaw the conflict as inevitable. Some sought to buy time by various compromises. Many, no doubt, didn't want to think about it at all. As the 19th century progressed, the cultural differences between north and south grew more profound. The north became less agricultural , and more industrial. Great immigrations came into the country due to wars and other conditions in Europe. Most of these immigrants flooded into the northern states raising northern population levels more significantly than southern ones. The north became more urban, and less and less like the south. As time passed, the attitudes of people in the two regions diverged more and more. You could say that the two regions developed different mindsets. (Or at least more different than they had had originally). By 1860, many influential southerners viewed the northern region as attempting to destroy the: "peculiar institution" that they felt was vital to their economic interests. Some were willing to accept restrictions on expansion to the territories, and others were not. Most did not believe Mr. Lincoln's statements that he would not interfere with the institution where it already existed. They believed that there was no longer any benefit to them in the : "marriage" that they had with the northern region. To them, it was time for a : "divorce." The Civil War was indeed about secession, which southerners believed that they had a Constitutional right to do. I'll even agree that secession had much to do with slavery. But it was only part of a larger argument. The main question behind it all was how much authority the Constitution gave the federal government over the states. It can be said in general that northerners were more inclined to favor a stronger central government, while southerners tended to favor stronger state governments. I would venture to say that even in the middle of the 19th century, if asked where they were from, more southerners would name their state, rather than saying that they were: "Americans." Many felt no kinship to a faraway national government that they thought did not represent their interests. I have lived for many years in both the north and the south. I would maintain that even today, more than 140 years after the Civil War ended, that there is still a divergence in thought between most in the north and most in the south. One has only to look at the electoral maps of the last two presidential elections, and that of the Election of 1860 to see similarities. The question of secession has been settled by force of arms. One could even say that one reason that the Confederacy lost is that they were like eleven little feudal kingdoms. Sometimes they fought each other almost as ferociously as they did the yankees. But even today many in the south still resent the central government, which they feel is attempting to exercise more and more control over their lives. The question of the extent of the authority of the federal government over the states was not settled in 1787. It was not settled in 1860. It wasn't even settled in 1865. It continues even now. No longer will opposing armies attempt to resolve it. Instead there will be posturing and pontificating politicians doing battle in Washington DC. I suspect that it will always be so.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:26 am |
|
30th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member
|
TD (could that also stand for 'Touchdown?') I occasionally think about of some of some those things you mentioned. I guess it's why our form of democracy is sometimes characterized as an ongoing experiment. Hey, don't they occasionally try to secede in Vermont, too? It's not just the south...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:31 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
PVT Clewell- I hope that you aren't implying that there are lots of saps in Vermont. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:31 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
susansweet Member
|
Joe I spent some time reading all the blogs associated with Liberty. SHE is a member of a fundamentalist church in Michigan area it seems from what I gleamed. I finally hit the right website. One of preachers used the Bible to justify the Confederate flag. Read that posting and you can see where she got her information. Reading blog after blog and digging deeper and deeper it got pretty scary that there are groups like this still out there . I salute all of you my friends for your knowledge and strength and great post on this issue. Susan Last edited on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 03:30 pm by susansweet |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 05:27 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
Fuller E Pluribus Unum 
|
Taken from the well known slavery song "Oh Freedom" And before I'd be a slave, I'd be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be free Later in May of this year some remains of two USCT soldiers were buried in a reinterment ceremony on the grounds near the Corinth Interpretive Center in Mississippi. Calcav is a Ranger there and he had the honor of helping with the ceremony and the burial. There were several hundred spectators for the event but he said the most stirring part of the day is when several USCT reenactors stood around the graves and sang the song I mentioned above after the crowds had dissipated. The only word that comes to mind really is Reverence. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... Pursuit means to chase, strive towards, seek to attain. I think the happiness we feel is taken for granted.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 07:23 am |
|
34th Post |
|
Kentucky_Orphan Member 
|
Even among northern statesman, the idea to rid the Americas of slavery was a minority opinion at the constitutional convention. Both north and south viewed it as a sort of neccessary evil, and later it morphed it a necessary good in the southern states. The southern states, other than this attitude change towards slavery (albeit negligible seeing that the belief in the institution of slavery was still present) the south changed very little-in fact it can be argued that their worldview and how they percieved the country, as well as their attitudes toward the role of government, were closer to that of the founding fathers than that of the northern states. Even the strongest proponents of a strong Federal government in the late 18th century would probably agree more with the south than the north in terms of the role of government. Of course, saying that, they would probably be simply appalled of how our government operates today. The idea that the south alone was to blame for slavery and the conflict is lazy, naive, a regional-centric biggotry and ignorant. All of America was to blame, and 600,000 people died in a struggle that began to settle that wrong. In the great scheme of things was the war about slavery? Absolutely! Was it the reason that most individual soldiers north or south took up a rifle and stood in the firing line in combat ? No. Did some slaves develop attachments to masters that treated them well? Yes.Did slaves want to remain in bondage? Of course not! All slaves wanted freedom-regardless of how else they were treated in addition to having their freedom denied. Some of it off-topic a bit I know,and I apoligize for, but felt compelled to add my opinion to this ever-morphing thread.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:25 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
calcav Member
|
I'll even agree that secession had much to do with slavery. But it was only part of a larger argument. The main question behind it all was how much authority the Constitution gave the federal government over the states. TD, Can you elaborate on that statement and maybe support it with some documentation or other facts. I would agree that the debate over the Constitutional authority of the federal government was at the heart of the matter but only so far as its authority in matters of slavery and "personal property". I live in Mississippi and this state made it very clear what their resons for secceeding were: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Fuller, Being a part of the internemnt ceremony was one of the memorable moments of my Park Service career. The USCT soldier we buried, though an unknown, was undoubtably recruited into the 1st or 2nd Alabama Infantry of African Descent (later designated the 55th and 110th USCT). These regiments were raised from the population of the Corinth Contraband Camp, a community of runaway slaves organized on the east side of town. This information runs contrary to the postings of our friend "Liberty". Imagine a contented slave running away from bondage to an unknown future and then taking up arms and uniform to secure liberty for others. One such slave does not put too much of kink in her theory; but 180,000 does.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:30 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Doggone it, TD and Orphan! You guys are no fun. Leaving me nothing to argue about....grumble, mutter, grumble, grouse. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 03:27 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
David White Member 
|
TD:It can be said in general that northerners were more inclined to favor a stronger central government, while southerners tended to favor stronger state governments. I would venture to say that even in the middle of the 19th century, if asked where they were from, more southerners would name their state, rather than saying that they were: "Americans." Many felt no kinship to a faraway national government that they thought did not represent their interests. I would tend to argue the other way and it was the fact that the central government was not strong enough for southern tastes that led to seccession more than any state supremacy on certain matters. Look at the Declarations of Seccession and it is a list of grievances against the Federal government and northern states for not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and protecting the institution of slavery. Other complaints were about the Federal govenrment not protecting the citizens from terrorists like John Brown and in our state not protecting the citizens from the Commanche. Other grievances included not protecting southerner's right of sojourn in northern states with their slaves and the Federal/northern govenrments not getting their abolitionists under control. In one case, there was even a complaint that Maine was allowing free blacks to vote in their elections (that was certainly not very state's rights loving of them was it?) There was actually a very good essay on this point on this website a few years ago. I looked for it to post it but can't find it. Perhaps Javal knows where it is and can post a link. Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 03:11 pm by David White |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 04:09 pm |
|
38th Post |
|
ole Member
|
I would tend to argue the other way and it was the fact that the central government was not strong enough for southern tastes that led to seccession more than any state supremacy on certain matters. You are so right, David! But I think the examples you give are specific rather than general. It does remain a puzzle that the sectionalism is purported to have developed (aside from the slavery issue) over centralizing federal power, while the contemporary complaints were that the abhorrent power was not being used to favor southern interests. I generally figure that the "federal power struggle" position is whitewash. The disaffection between south and north was societal, but the idea that it was political is putting lipstick on the pig. The disaffection, in my mind, was based primarily on the diverging lifestyles of -- not industrial vs agrarian -- but progressive vs status quo. I have no other word in my immediate vocabulary other than "aristocracy." There was, in the small but politically powerful, planter class, an elitism that felt itself above or otherwise superior to the government and constitution. When push came to shove, and my way or the highway, that miniscule part of the entire south chose the highway. And that minority managed to pull off a rebellion of catastrophic proportions. Nothing noble about it. A double-handful of elitists managed to plunge a nation into civil war. Dang! The soapbox just collapsed. As does this post. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 05:08 pm |
|
39th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Calcav, The original question was whether some concept of union of the former colonies predated the states, or if the country was simply a confederation of sovereign states. Thomas Jefferson emphasized states rights and a right to revolution. Southerners in general saw the federal government as having limited powers, and the states and people having the balance, as per the Tenth Amendment. You could call it a : "Strict Constitutionalist" view. In the early days of the Republic, the southern states held their own in terms of political power, but as the 19th century progressed, this began to change. As southerners saw it, the Congress began to favor northern interests at the expense of the south. To them, the gradual loss of political power meant the loss of economic power. Then, as now, money made the world go around. Southerners saw federal tariffs and restrictions on their property (cotton and other raw materials) as being unfair. Certainly, slavery was part of this equation- as an economic, rather than as a moral issue. (To southerners, at least). Southerners saw themselves as the: "Conservatives," trying to preserve traditional rights and values. They saw the federal government as being oppressive, in a way similar to the British government before the Revolutionary War. That is why some referred to the war as the: "Second War for Independence." Rather than go into greater detail on these complex issues, I'm sending a link to an essay that I mostly agree with. A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War Your attention is particularly invited to the statements given by John C. Calhoun citing the southern view , and by the NEW YORK EVENING POST editorial giving the northern view. This is followed up by statements from Charles Dickens and Karl Marx. My view is that the regions had become two separate worlds. If the Union was to be preserved, as Mr. Lincoln said, we had to become: "All one thing, or all the other." The northern position prevailed at the point of a bayonet, but I would argue that even after all this time, we are not: "all one thing." To some lesser degree, the conflict continues.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 06:26 pm |
|
40th Post |
|
Albert Sailhorst Member 
|
WOW! Y'all make some very good points! I am of the belief that the War tested the Constitutionality of secession, with slavery as the catalyst. Has anyone noticed that "liberty" has yet to further join in the discussion? Albert Sailhorst, Scott's Battery
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:15 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 |
