Perhaps the originator and the first practitioner of what the twentieth century
came to know as "total war," William Tecumseh Sherman in 1864 commanded
the Union armies of the West in the decisive drive from Chattanooga to Atlanta
and the famous "March to the Sea" across Georgia.
#1 of 5:
#2 of 5:
#3 of 5:
#4 of 5:
#5 0f 5:
How can it be a war when it was civilians, women children and old men that were slaughtered and raped and butchered? Thats not war, thats nothing more than a out of control horde.
I guess the south never committed any of the atrocities of WAR. ::)
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2012, 12:02:52 PM
I guess the south never committed any of the atrocities of WAR. ::)
No they didn't. Sorry to disappoint you! But the southern people were not mass murderers or rapists or any of the evil things sherman was. THey were honorable God fearing men. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson (prayed continuously for his fellow man), Jeff Davis was also man of convictions. Every one fought in a field of honor not attack civilians and wounded.
Even the revisionist history written by the north has never shown the south to commit atrocities.
I think the black slaves would disagree with you. I guess the KKK was just a group of boy scouts. Unless you were there, you can make no such claim. War is just that, WAR, and people do things they normally wouldn't when put in that situation.
Sorry to correct you, but your "honorable" God fearing southerners did as they pleased, until they got their butt's handed to them.
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2012, 02:08:33 PM
I think the black slaves would disagree with you. I guess the KKK was just a group of boy scouts. Unless you were there, you can make no such claim. War is just that, WAR, and people do things they normally wouldn't when put in that situation.
Black slaves? Do you not realize that the blacks served in the confederate army? THey fought for the south just the same as the white folks.
The klan was not formed til after the war, and it wasn't to persecute the blacks. GEEZE learn your history! You most certainly do not know a damn thing about southern history!
I have , it would seem, a much better knowledge of southern history than you. Blacks also served in the Union army. What's that got to do with what your "honorable " men did to them. If you have been led to believe that looting and rape didn't happen among confederate soldiers, it is you that needs a history lesson. Try visiting the battlefields for starters, and not just those in the south.
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
I have , it would seem, a much better knowledge of southern history than you. Blacks also served in the Union army. What's that got to do with what your "honorable " men did to them.
yes the buffalo soldiers did serve in the union army in a segregated branch. They were never allowed to mingle or have anything to do with white solders of the union. THe confederate army blacks served alongside white soldiers as well as fought and died for the south. They served volentarily. Your assumption that the southerners were all slave owners is a lie propagated by the north. MOST of the southerners were too poor to own slaves to begin with, and couldn't afford the price the NORTHERNERS were charging for slaves. IT was the Northerners that supplied slaves to the north and the south.
Slaves of the north were not freed when lincoln wrote his emancipation proclamation, and furthermore it was never about slavery to begin with. IF THAT were true, then explain why the south refused lincolns offer to end the war if the south just returned to the union paid taxes and kept theri slaves?
Slavery was on its way out anyway, it was becoming too costly to upkeep slaves and with the invetions of the cotton gin, and other mechanical equipment to do harvesting and planting slaves were no longer needed. MOST crops were harvested by white folks in the south. Not slaves.
"The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.QuoteIf you have been led to believe that looting and rape didn't happen among confederate soldiers, it is you that needs a history lesson. Try visiting the battlefields for starters, and not just those in the south.
I lived in the battlefields. From kennessaw and stone mountain to Antitam to Gettysburg. Thee was no atrocity on the magnitued of shemans actions in the war. Thee was no excuse for his actions, he had the duty to refuse that order given by lincoln to do what he did. Lincoln and Sherman were traitorous bastards. BUT thats what happens when a "president" usurps authority and violates constitutional law. He violated the constitution on a regular basis from prohibiting free speech to quartering troops in homes without permissioin, to denying states rights to 13 states to starting a war with a sovereign nation unjustly in order to occupy it.
They left the union. No protection under the Constitution. They were the " traitorous bastards". Since Lincoln has been memorialized in our nations Capital, I would say your opinion is in the minority.
You don't know who was able to "mingle" with who. It was African slave dealers who sold their own to whomever paid the price, not the North. Slaves in the union states did not need to be "freed", they were already free here. Yeah, go find the few that stayed with their masters, Paltry.
So you lived in the battlefields, all of them. Hmmm. ::) No atrocities of the "magnitude" of those by the North, Hmmm ::)
The only ethnic group that has claimed being damaged by others in this country in such magnitude, are the blacks. Where did they march with Martin Luther King ? Where did they protest their treatment ? Where was King assasinated ? Oh yes, they were treated so well in the South, NOT! Thanks southerners for starting a social war that has gone on for at least two generations with blacks wanting to be compensated for what happened to their ancestors. The native tribes were exterminated and put on reservations, but we don't hear them bemoaning their plight , nor do we hear the Chinese claiming to have been damaged, but you can't go a day without hearing how the blacks have been maligned, thanks to the southern elitists. Have another mint julep and go salute the stars and bars.
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2012, 04:02:19 PM
They left the union. No protection under the Constitution. They were the " traitorous bastards". Since Lincoln has been memorialized in our nations Capital, I would say your opinion is in the minority.
They were a sovereign nation. Lincoln had no right to start a war with a sovereign nation unless the Union were attacked. Read the constitution IT specifically states military is for defense, not offense.
QuoteYou don't know who was able to "mingle" with who. It was African slave dealers who sold their own to whomever paid the price, not the North. Slaves in the union states did not need to be "freed", they were already free here. Yeah, go find the few that stayed with their masters, Paltry.
Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, "An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory."[1]
It appears that your wrong ;) This was supported by northern states. UHm You are definately wrong about slaves being freed in the north. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.
Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
So you lived in the battlefields, all of them. Hmmm. ::) No atrocities of the "magnitude" of those by the North, Hmmm ::)
QuoteThe only ethnic group that has claimed being damaged by others in this country in such magnitude, are the blacks. Where did they march with Martin Luther King ? Where did they protest their treatment ? Where was King assasinated ? Oh yes, they were treated so well in the South, NOT! Thanks southerners for starting a social war that has gone on for at least two generations with blacks wanting to be compensated for what happened to their ancestors. The native tribes were exterminated and put on reservations, but we don't hear them bemoaning their plight , nor do we hear the Chinese claiming to have been damaged, but you can't go a day without hearing how the blacks have been maligned, thanks to the southern elitists. Have another mint julep and go salute the stars and bars.
well you can thank the racists jesse jackson, and al sharpton, as well as the naacp for all that.They keep it alive and well.
As I stated, you can find a handful who stayed with their benefactors.
We have "honorable" southerners like Gov. George Wallace and the like ( KKK ) for giving Sharpton, Jackson, et al. a leg to stand on as to the poor treatment of blacks.
The poor treatment of blacks and whites began in Reconstruction. It was your yankees who required that blacks
and whites be separated. And it was the yankees (Fed's) who who created the hatred among the blacks and whites.
By the way, the orginal KKK was OK prior to its abandonment in about 1877. The latter day KKK is not connected to the first KKK
and the latter day KKK is much more northern.
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 10, 2012, 08:37:46 AM
As I stated, you can find a handful who stayed with their benefactors.
I don't call over 80,000 blacks that fought for the south a handful. thats 1/3 of the confederate army. Get real there bullwinkile.
QuoteWe have "honorable" southerners like Gov. George Wallace and the like ( KKK ) for giving Sharpton, Jackson, et al. a leg to stand on as to the poor treatment of blacks.
LOL, you really believe the hype. Sheesh. Jackson is a millionaire yet has no job. How did he get it? OFF the backs of the blacks, promoting race warfare. Sharpton as well. Wallace didn't do 1/10th of what sharpton and jackson has done to promote racism.
General Sherman's right wing commander was General Oliver Otis Howard for whom the town of Howard was named. Howard commanded the Army of the Tennessee during the March to the Sea.
Quote from: W. Gray on July 10, 2012, 10:39:09 AM
General Sherman's right wing commander was General Oliver Otis Howard for whom the town of Howard was named. Howard commanded the Army of the Tennessee during the March to the Sea.
Oohh oh...
Quote from: Warph on July 10, 2012, 07:30:36 PM
Oohh oh...
LOL well howard wasn't much of a military man. he fubar'd two campaigns pretty bad from very stupid decisions. One of the worst was leaving his rear unguarded or defended by a barrier. Confederate soldiers kicked his ass in gettysburg as well as his western campaign.
he also let hood escape through his ranks causing sherman to go on a rabbit chase. LOL
Nobody know as for sure how many blacks actually served in some capacity for the confederates because records were/are very sketchy and are/were often extracted from articles about other things, but included information that could be used to estimate numbers. About 65,000 is a commonly accepted number. Now, how they came to be used is something else.
Some were taken with their masters to serve for and with them. Some went willingly because they were promised their freedom and in some cases land. Some were freed and paid to go. Many were already freemen and took their trades to the battlefield with them. Many were armed ,some were not. Different states did different things.
Some did fight. Many worked as support behind the scenes. Some saw it as a chance to better them selves and didn't care who won. Some were fiercely loyal to the south, regardless.
Another side to all this was what were the women doing. Again, a lot of romantic stories not supported by history. Some were against the confederacy and most all, both black and white, slaves or not, had to work very hard to survive. The shortage of men affected their lives most severely.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 11, 2012, 02:22:30 PM
Nobody know as for sure how many blacks actually served in some capacity for the confederates because records were/are very sketchy and are/were often extracted from articles about other things, but included information that could be used to estimate numbers. About 65,000 is a commonly accepted number. Now, how they came to be used is something else.
Because the revisionist history writers wanted to downplay it. the records have come out from journals that are being recovered every year that tells more. You have to remember people still hold these journals because the "history writers" lied. They don't want the truth to be hidden and lost.
QuoteSome were taken with their masters to serve for and with them. Some went willingly because they were promised their freedom and in some cases land. Some were freed and paid to go. Many were already freemen and took their trades to the battlefield with them. Many were armed ,some were not. Different states did different things.
They had a choice. they didn't have to fight for the south, they could have stayed home or they could have ran to the north but then face return when the northerners caught them. Remember the north didn't free their slaves til after the war was over.
QuoteSome did fight. Many worked as support behind the scenes. Some saw it as a chance to better them selves and didn't care who won. Some were fiercely loyal to the south, regardless.
Oh come on, quit diminishing their bravery and their accomplishments diane. To here you talk you just think of them as a bunch of dumb nigger slaves. They were fighting for their home and families just like every other man in the south. They went volentarily into Nathan forrests brigade. do denigrate the blacks just because they served as support or servants is quite racist. Tells me you think they didn't have a brain in their heads. They were there VOLUNTARILY not forced into service.
want examples.... these are FIGHTING MEN, VOLENTEERs, fought from DAY 1.
The Louisiana Native Guards demonstrate what free blacks, from Louisiana, thought about the Confederacy. The Louisiana Native Guards was a militia regiment comprised of 1400 black men and officers, "who offered their services to Dixie" in April of 1861 [3]. The following year 3000 black men and officers organized themselves into the 1st Native Guard of Louisiana. These pro-Confederate blacks formed for the protection of New Orleans. After parading through the city they were described in the newspaper as "rebel Negroes...well drilled...and uniformed" [4]
QuoteAnother side to all this was what were the women doing. Again, a lot of romantic stories not supported by history. Some were against the confederacy and most all, both black and white, slaves or not, had to work very hard to survive. The shortage of men affected their lives most severely.
Wanna post the proof? women did support their men and their country. There might have been a couple that were against ,but i'll tell you they kept it to themselves. Only 1/3 of this country fought against the british in 1776 too. The rest sat on their collective asses and waited for whoever to win before they declared their loyalty.
Thats where we get liberals from you know.
Now look here, Mr. Marshmallow for brains...I never said anything to you in any negative form ABOUT YOU.
Perfect deflection on your part. Ya can't attack the issue, so you childishly call me, the poster, nasty names. What does that get you? Nobody is impressed, I promise you. You've obviously forgotten what I told you about my family and the Underground Railroad, which I suppose you think is all lies, since those well treated slaves would never want to run away, now would they?
You know so little you don't even know you don't know! Many people here had already given up slaves and moved on long before the Civil War. The Quakers started changing in the 1700's. Read it for yourself. I'm not going to do the work for you.While you are at it read about indentured servants and how that worked You are so full of hot air you could make a balloon rise! Some southern history writers lie so much they believe their own righteousness! and tell tales that eventually go from tale to truth.The war was a terrible thing, but we got past it...except for a few who have made it personal to keep retelling the truthful parts and embellishing the lies.
The south did their share of horrible things too. Ya ever hear of Andersonville? Ever go there? I know the stories from my own family, who had soldiers on both sides. It was ugly for sure. Now try this out.
They fought (the slaves)for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves.They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better...they hoped to be rewarded."
That, my dear, is your own quote from Prof. Ed Smith.Thank you for helping me prove my point. No slaves ,not even the well treated ones wanted to be slaves.They wanted freedom, even if it was to stay right there on the same soil. They wanted to make their own choices, get educated, keep their families together and learn/and or practice trades as well as farm. Most didn't have a choice to stay home during the war. I don't who suckered you into believing that, especially as the south ran out of healthy white men...except for the female slaves. Mostly, they stayed home and helped the families try to survive. At that point they were better off marshaling their forces to survive together rather than trying to make it own their own.
Can you tell me you don't know about the southern food riots where those wonderful manly southern gentlemen merchants raised the prices of food until the women, in desperation to keep their families alive, rioted and took it way from them? Oh yes, those women just loved those Confederate men. Prove it? Go read it for yourself! and no, they didn't keep quiet about it.
Sure, the women of the south supported their troops just as the women of the north did. It was those civilian "southern gentle men" that weren't to be trusted. It has also been found that some of "New"journals ,and I suspect on both sides, are fakes or were written by people who were told stories from other people and can't be verified. Everybody wants to make a buck. Ya say you've been to Gettysburg? When? How long ago? Why were you there?
As for Nathan Forrest...has a rep as quite a fighter, took his own slaves with him and others joined him figuring it could help them.They couldn't be much worse off, now could they?
By the way, you should work on your grammar and spelling. Snap!
WAY TO GO DIANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AMEN.
Screech, the WAR IS OVER !
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 12, 2012, 03:53:14 PM
Many people here had already given up slaves and moved on long before the Civil War.
well mine never oned one slave! But still fought for the south and states rights.
QuoteThe south did their share of horrible things too. Ya ever hear of Andersonville? Ever go there?
Yep been there, fact of war when you have POW camps. Ohhh but Andersonville wasn't the only one. Try Emlira or Fort Deleware. Those were worse than Andersonville espcially when the northerners cut the rations of the prisoners to punish the south even more.
At least the union solders were fed until they started running out of food to feed them.
QuoteThey fought (the slaves)for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves.They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better...they hoped to be rewarded."
Like I said nothing but a dumb nigger who has no clue as to what hes fighting for. They couldn't possibly believe in the souths culture and beliefs and the protection of the states rights now could they. They couldn't possibly know anything about their families being threatened by northern troops. kinda like the fact that shermans troops took the dumb slaves and forced them into labor for the campiagn as well as letting around 10000+ starve to death that were following his troops.
QuoteMost didn't have a choice to stay home during the war.
ROTFL yeah right.... No choice huh. The facts are they fought side by side with the white soldiers. There was no coercion and force. Some were lent to the military by owners but not many.
QuoteAs for Nathan Forrest...has a rep as quite a fighter, took his own slaves with him and others joined him figuring it could help them.They couldn't be much worse off, now could they?
By the way, you should work on your grammar and spelling. Snap!
Bedford was a brilliant fighter and honorable man. His slaves were freed upon the end of the war. But more importantly his "slaves" stayed on with him because he was a honorable man.
BTW your spelling nazi side is showing...
Quote from: ELK@KC on July 12, 2012, 05:53:33 PM
WAY TO GO DIANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You didn't answer my question. Do you or do you not think that tthe veterans deserve honor?
Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 12, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
AMEN.
Screech, the WAR IS OVER !
you trying to say something? I usually don't pay attention to childish behavior.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 12, 2012, 03:53:14 PM
As for Nathan Forrest...has a rep as quite a fighter, took his own slaves with him and others joined him figuring it could help them.They couldn't be much worse off, now could they?
Did it occur to you that slaves fought for the South for same reasons as any other Southerner? Whether slave or free, they fought for the Constitution and that's not where your interest is.
you trying to say something? I usually don't pay attention to childish behavior.
I don't usually pay attention to the fabrications of idiots myself, especially one who believes the Civil War isn't over.
the south never surrendered in full and are still at a state of war with the union. There are 3 colonies established, one of which is rumored to be lost :) but not really.
How can a southern state supposedly defend the constitution and then demand to leave the union. The constitution wouldn't apply to them any longer! No more federal taxes to support poor southern states, no education funds or subsidies. No more national park support in those states. No more military bases in the south for employment and the local economy boosts they provide. No representation in DC. No federal firefighters, no infrastructure help, no federal medical help and on and on.
Go ahead and leave, how would things be better? Makes no sense to me. No one could demand that some treatment they received is unconstitutional.. It wouldn't apply to them.
As for the slaves fighting for the constitution...since it was for a time illegal to educated them, it was at the whim of the master as to what they were told. Most couldn't read it. There were many oral reports taken down after the war from slave interviews. They are very mixed in nature. Most just wanted their freedom any way they could get it. One of the big objections was the splitting up of their families.
As far as Civil War prisons, they were all horrible, including our Fort Delaware, better known to us as Pea Patch Island. It's a state park now and nobody holds back on the truth when visitors come from all over the world. It's all historically interesting but it's all in the past and should stay there.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 13, 2012, 10:12:03 AM
How can a southern state supposedly defend the constitution and then demand to leave the union. The constitution wouldn't apply to them any longer! No more federal taxes to support poor southern states, no education funds or subsidies. No more national park support in those states. No more military bases in the south for employment and the local economy boosts they provide. No representation in DC. No federal firefighters, no infrastructure help, no federal medical help and on and on.
Because the United States of America did not exist until afte 1865. :) It is a legal fiction a corporation. The south defended the original constitution before lincoln violated constitution authority with his suspension of habeas corpus and use of torture against northern and southerners. one of his favorite tools is water boarding. Hmmm he violated 1st amendment, 4th and 5th amendments, 9th,10th amendments all through his term. Then after lincoln johnson i think it was manipulated and added the 13th amendment and 14th admendment illegally, by throwing out senators that refused to ratify those amendments and replacing them with northerners that supported the addition. This type of tyranny was just one of the things that were perpetrated on the south along with the authorized theft of southerners land, and resources.
QuoteGo ahead and leave, how would things be better? Makes no sense to me. No one could demand that some treatment they received is unconstitutional.. It wouldn't apply to them.
Sure it is. YOu obviously haven't read the Confederate states constitution now have you. :) It is the constitution before lincoln modified it to fit his agenda.
QuoteAs for the slaves fighting for the constitution...since it was for a time illegal to educated them, it was at the whim of the master as to what they were told.
who said they fought for the constitution? I never said that i never said that the south fought for the constitution, i said they fought for states rights and sovereignty.
QuoteMost couldn't read it.
Does it matter? Most could not read the bible yet they knew it book chapter and verse by memory.
QuoteThere were many oral reports taken down after the war from slave interviews. They are very mixed in nature. Most just wanted their freedom any way they could get it. One of the big objections was the splitting up of their families.
Then why did 80-90k slaves fight and die for the confederacy volentarily. HOW do you explain the The Louisiana Native Guards and the 1st native guard? No white man owned them and no whites forced them into fighting. They volenteered of their own free will. This happend all over the south.
QuoteAs far as Civil War prisons, they were all horrible, including our Fort Delaware, better known to us as Pea Patch Island. It's a state park now and nobody holds back on the truth when visitors come from all over the world. It's all historically interesting but it's all in the past and should stay there.
No one holds back on the prisons. Andersonville was a tragedy that broke not only the hearts of those men in it but the ones that held them too. The conditions didn't happen by choice, they had no real choices. When the food ran out then there was real problems.Lincoln declared medicine a contriband of war and denied medicines for those held in prisons. NOW whos more to blame? The food ration to the prisoners held there was exactly the same as was given to the Confederate soldier, including the guards at Andersonville. yet the North refused to allow food to be sent to their own men. Again, it is seldom pointed out that there was a food shortage in the South, particularly when Sherman was pillaging Georgia. As a matter of fact, the death rate amongst the Confederate guards at Andersonville was higher than that of the prisoners.
Quote from Diane:
No more federal taxes to support poor southern states, no education funds or subsidies. No more national park support in those states. No more military bases in the south for employment and the local economy boosts they provide. No representation in DC. No federal firefighters, no infrastructure help, no federal medical help and on and on.
The "poor" southern states, Kansas included, would probably be better off. We would keep the kazillion dollars we send to DC that is collected as Federal fuel tax. Instead of sending in your federal income tax, give it to your state. Bet in the long run the states would be much richer. Of coarse Pakistan and every other starving ass nation in the world would probably be pissed off when the states didn't send them billions every year to arm our enemies. The down size would be how would we know if motorist swerved to run over a snake but also swerved to miss a turtle unless some university got big buck to do a study---or how much methane gas a farting cow emits ?
What's a federal firefighter ? Don't think I ever saw one of them in Elk County.
Sure, the States and the people would be better off if their State left the Union.
Stay right in there Jarhead, you're right.
Meanwhile, this afternoon I'm going on a tour of 150th Anniversary of Forrest Raid on Murfreesboro.
General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great Confederate General and one of the greatest American generals.
Quote from: jarhead on July 13, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from Diane:
No more federal taxes to support poor southern states, no education funds or subsidies. No more national park support in those states. No more military bases in the south for employment and the local economy boosts they provide. No representation in DC. No federal firefighters, no infrastructure help, no federal medical help and on and on.
The "poor" southern states, Kansas included, would probably be better off. We would keep the kazillion dollars we send to DC that is collected as Federal fuel tax. Instead of sending in your federal income tax, give it to your state. Bet in the long run the states would be much richer. Of coarse Pakistan and every other starving ass nation in the world would probably be pissed off when the states didn't send them billions every year to arm our enemies. The down size would be how would we know if motorist swerved to run over a snake but also swerved to miss a turtle unless some university got big buck to do a study---or how much methane gas a farting cow emits ?
What's a federal firefighter ? Don't think I ever saw one of them in Elk County.
Amen there jarhead. IF she also read about andersonville and elmira and fort deleware, she would also know that all the prisoners of andersonville said that they were treated the best they could be under the conditions. ANd many times the south asked lincoln to take the sick and injured with no prisoner exchange whatsoever and lincoln and grant denied them. As a contrast there were more deaths in the union pow camps of confederate soldiers, mostly due to the attitude of the leaders stating they wouldn't waste medicine on any confederate. One doctor boasted that he had killed more rebs than any union troop.
Andesonville was a awful tragedy, one that rested fully on lincolns shoulders. it was his actions that caused it.
Quote from: redcliffsw on July 13, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
Sure, the States and the people would be better off if their State left the Union.
Stay right in there Jarhead, you're right.
Meanwhile, this afternoon I'm going on a tour of 150th Anniversary of Forrest Raid on Murfreesboro.
General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great Confederate General and one of the greatest American generals.
Is this the raid where thomas went up against him and couldn't get across the duck river?
My people did not serve under Gen. Forrest nor were they in the same battles so I have not studied him much.
Maybe I'll learn sometime here today and I'll report back later.
Jar, the Fed. firefighters are part of the smoke jumpers etc. fighting the fires in CO and the other states out there. Kansas wouldn't ever be likely to need them.
As far as Fed taxes go, Delaware would be better off too. We never get back as much as we pay in.
Then there is still the business of the Civil War prisons. I haven't even scratched the surface of the exchange and so called parole systems that were in place before the real prisons existed, (The Dix-Hill Cartel) and the terrible treatment of the union black soldiers,even the free blacks, who were captured and treated as run away slaves by the southern military.They were rarely exchanged or paroled .Many were just executed. So much for human decency.
President Lincoln did get involved with that and had to make some serious threats to put a stop to it.
Red, hope you enjoy your history tour. I suspect you'll learn a lot.
The slave experts in this topic might be interested in a new movie coming out in 2013 titled "Twelve Years a Slave."
A free married black and highly literate businessman living in upstate New York in 1841 traveled to Washington, DC, on business and was waylaid and kidnapped by slave traders, taken to Maryland, a slave state, sold there, and shipped to the deeper south as a slave. No one would believe his story but he managed to escape by going through the legal system, twelve years later.
After regaining his freedom, he wrote a successful book, "Twelve Years a Slave," about his experience. The book I read many years ago had comments added by a Union Army officer. The officer had read the book before the Civil War and was on duty in the South area where the black man was kept as a slave. The officer attempted to determine if the events and facts in the black man's book were true and even found the plantation and talked to his former slave wife and other slaves who knew him.
A TV movie was made several years ago but seemed to me to stray from the book even though my only reading of the book was in the late sixties.
One of the stars in the new movie is Brad Pitt.
The real life black man, the last I heard, had faded from history and there has been no recorded events found of what happened to him.
Thank you Mr.Gray for possibly bringing this thread back to the good old days.
Quote from: W. Gray on July 13, 2012, 03:46:05 PM
The slave experts in this topic might be interested in a new movie coming out in 2013 titled "Twelve Years a Slave."
A free married black and highly literate businessman living in upstate New York in 1841 traveled to Washington, DC, on business and was waylaid and kidnapped by slave traders, taken to Maryland, a slave state, sold there, and shipped to the deeper south as a slave. No one would believe his story but he managed to escape by going through the legal system, twelve years later.
After regaining his freedom, he wrote a successful book, "Twelve Years a Slave," about his experience. The book I read many years ago had comments added by a Union Army officer. The officer had read the book before the Civil War and was on duty in the South area where the black man was kept as a slave. The officer attempted to determine if the events and facts in the black man's book were true and even found the plantation and talked to his former slave wife and other slaves who knew him.
A TV movie was made several years ago but seemed to me to stray from the book even though my only reading of the book was in the late sixties.
One of the stars in the new movie is Brad Pitt.
The real life black man, the last I heard, had faded from history and there has been no recorded events found of what happened to him.
I don't doubt that happened. Especially around maryland and north of there. Northern slave traders were runing rampant all through there to the new england states. And when they brought anyone south, they were slaves as far as anyone there knew. There were plenty of freeblacks in the south, and it wasn't uncommon for them to be kidnapped when they ventured into the slave trader areas.
Quit while you're behind , Screech.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 13, 2012, 02:29:56 PM
Jar, the Fed. firefighters are part of the smoke jumpers etc. fighting the fires in CO and the other states out there. Kansas wouldn't ever be likely to need them.
As far as Fed taxes go, Delaware would be better off too. We never get back as much as we pay in.
Then there is still the business of the Civil War prisons. I haven't even scratched the surface of the exchange and so called parole systems that were in place before the real prisons existed, (The Dix-Hill Cartel) and the terrible treatment of the union black soldiers,even the free blacks, who were captured and treated as run away slaves by the southern military.They were rarely exchanged or paroled .Many were just executed. So much for human decency.
President Lincoln did get involved with that and had to make some serious threats to put a stop to it.
Red, hope you enjoy your history tour. I suspect you'll learn a lot.
Dix-hill wasn't even honored after 1862. Lincoln refused to trade. Ignored everything the south tried to do to send the sick home. Like i said they even offered to send them home with no prisoner exchange at all and lincoln refused. He put Grant in charge of it and Grant didn't give a rats ass about the prisoners in Andersonville.
You are still talking about white soldiers.You never mention the blacks except to say how many there were and that they volunteered to go. You've never told about black captives. Lincoln supposedly stopped trading prisoners because the black prisoners weren't included, weren't traded, even if they were free men, were treated as runaway slaves and were often killed. I'll have to pull out some old books and look for more detail.
The "slave catchers" did indeed roam around through the slave states sometimes even kidnapping slaves from their owners property and writing them up as if they had been caught trying to run away. Awful people! Usually they stayed on the move, weren't even residents of the the states they were poaching in, and would fence the captives to anybody who would buy them.... Just like thieves and burglars today. If nobody was willing to buy the slaves, the market would have dried up.
True runaways who were caught were sometimes taken back to their owners for a finders fee, but other times were sold at an even higher price to a new owner. War doesn't bring out the best in people and there are always those skunks who will take advantage, just as today.
Waldo, thanks for your information.
Yeah the slave traders which were primarily from New York City, were doing that. Though they didn't get to run through the south like you say they were, they primarily ran through border states catching runaways and freemen, then taking them to port and selling them to brazil, rio, cuba, mobile.
Their average haul was around a million dollars per ship. As far as the assertation that black pow's in the south were just killed to be killed, that might be true but i can find no records of it that aren't northern claims. We can find however the northerns own records stating they executed blacks for "desertion" from the CSA. Some did desert from being conscripted into service by their owners. Most did not and those that did run and desert, were usually killed by the black soldiers not the white soldiers. THe blacks were much harsher than their white counterparts.
Slavery was legal back then.
Union blacks were expendable and were placed out front to charge the Confederate lines.
http://www.murfreesboropost.com/black-confederate-in-gen-forrest-s-raid-cms-31818
Winbush's grandfather attended 39 annual national Confederate veterans conventions just like many other black Confederate veterans.
Nowadays blacks and whites do not have much understanding of the stand their Confederate ancestors made. The South was
right.
What does it matter? The south lost! How about moving on and working on improving our country of today, both north and south? Do you want apartheid? We are not South Africa.You know the history of Australia? You want to try that? Ya want a bunch of little violent banana republics? I can't figure out what you are after.
The north defeated the USA - the USA lost the war. It matters.
It was your yankee people who promoted separation after the War during Reconstruction. The northern
Republicans wanted the blacks and whites apart.
The black slaves were freed from the plantations and private ownship only to be exchanged into enslavement by the Feds.
You must have a heavy dose of Federal indoctrination because you don't have a clue.
Interestingly enough, at the time of the Civil War, I had nobody living in any traditionally "Yankee" states except my Great Grandfather Amberg who took someone else's place from New York and joined the Union Army from there. The rest were in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama,Texas, and more were further south than that. We had people fighting on both sides, as I've said before, which for some reason you refuse to acknowledge. I have lots of "clues".
I at least know the war has been over for a very long time. Reconstruction was a terrible time for many states, but I claim nobody involved in that. By then my people were farmers and ranchers and railroad people and Grandpa went into the 7th Cavalry when it was formed and was later transferred to the 5th. I still say slavery is wrong. I will never accept any excuse for it. People have no business making a living off the backs of others unless the people are free workers and are paid, even if its poor wages.
So was Yankee Amberg fighting to abolish slavery or to make the States remain in the Union by force?
so Diane does that mean sweat shops are o.k.?
Red, I never met him, he died before I was born. The family said he was very much against slavery, but I can't verify how he felt about the other.
No, sweat shops are not OK. But, I can't control what other countries do except choose not buy their products if I know about their working conditions. Of course, starving to death isn't alright either. Some have to make that choice I guess.The world can be very ugly sometimes.
Missouri was a slave state.
When Lincoln "freed" the slaves, the proclamation had no bearing on the slaves in Missouri or any of the other Union states having slaves, it was business as usual until the Constitution was amended.
Below is a photo of the first courthouse for Jackson County, Missouri, built in 1827 at Independence, the county seat.
There were several bidders involved when the new county advertised for a courthouse.
All the bidders had slaves as their laborers. The winning bid was $150, which is equal to around $6,500 today.
Slaves built the building and it has been in continuous use since that time housing a county government office or a nonprofit office of some type.
(http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad256/waldoegray/P1010202.jpg)
Yankees in Missouri had slaves.
Jackson County was in a belt of counties lying on both sides of the Missouri River across the state known as Little Dixie. All of the slave owners in this area migrated from various southern states.
When I was in high school, two large impressive plantation houses similar to something like Tara still existed. They were both in bad shape and have since been torn down to make way for progress.
Some smaller ones are still around but no one talks much about them. One is used as a business along Highway 40 in Independence.
In the 100 block of north Main Street once stood a slave auction house.
A resident of Independence was Hiram Young, a freed slave. He ran a wagon making business and employed slaves. He was supposed to have turned out several hundred wagons a year. He bought each one of his workers from a slave owner and employed each until they worked their cost out. They were then free to leave or keep working for wages.
Even though this was a successful wagon making operation the location was banned to a distance of one-half mile out of town.
Young could build a wagon but he could not read or write. He had a business relationship with a local slave owner and town businessman to represent him in legal dealings. I suspect this businessman was a "car dealer" and sold the wagons in town for the great westward migration.
That's a good example of the indentured servant.Nice information, thank you. Did the people of MO consider themselves Yankees or did confederates label them that way? Why are those labels so important to some people? Who really cares anyway?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 24, 2012, 10:39:21 AM
That's a good example of the indentured servant.Nice information, thank you. Did the people of MO consider themselves Yankees or did confederates label them that way? Why are those labels so important to some people? Who really cares anyway?
You dont know that missouri was a confederate state? :O
Missouri's Ordinance of Secession
"AN ACT declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.
WHEREAS, the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia whilst legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capital, and attempting, through the instrumentality of domestic traitors, to usurp the State governement, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and,
WHEREAS, the present administration of the government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof; Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
That all political ties of every character now existing between the government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
Passed by the Senate, Oct 28, 1861
Passed by the House, Oct 30, 1861
Signed by Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson, Oct 31 1861.
Missouri was admitted to the Confederacy and had a provisional rebel government headquartered in Neosho.
But Missouri stayed with the Union.
Here is some additional information about Missouri, and particularly the area where I am from (after Howard):
"Order No. 11 was the most drastic and repressive military measure directed against civilians by the Union Army during the Civil War. In fact, with the exception of the hysteria-motivated herding of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War II, it stands as the harshest treatment ever imposed on United States citizens under the plea of military necessity in our nation's history." Albert Castel, Missouri Historical Review 57, State Historical Society of Missouri, July 1963, 357-368.
President Abraham Lincoln personally approved Order Number 11. The Union army commander in Kansas City issued the order on August 25, 1863, against a predominantly enemy population in Jackson and two other area counties. The order imposed a total depopulation of men, women, and children in the affected area.
Most people in Jackson County were sympathetic to the rebel cause and provided aid and assistance to the Missouri Bushwhackers, an irregular and particularly vicious rebel fighting group. Bushwhackers sometimes included Jesse James, William Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, and others. Order number 11 was an attempt to dissolve the aid.
The order had no direct effect on the citizens of Independence or those living within a mile of Independence, but for the vast majority of those living in Jackson, Cass, and Bates counties; these people without exception had to vacate their homes and farms.
Those who could prove their loyalty to the nearest Union commander received a certificate of such loyalty. A "certified" loyalist could then move into Independence or another military district such as Hickman Mills, Pleasant Hill, or Harrisonville. Loyalists also had the option of moving to the state of Kansas west beyond its eastern column of counties.
It is not that Independence did not have any southern sympathizers, it did. By one account nine-tenths of the people in Jackson County were aiding and abetting the Bushwhackers with food and shelter, ammunition, and Union military movements. However, Union forces occupied Independence and presumably had the rebel population under control.
Those people living in the area of the order who could not or would not prove their loyalty had to move out of the affected counties to wherever they could find. Those who remained were subject to military punishment—forced shipping as far south as Arkansas.
Whether a family was loyal or not, all hay and grain had to be taken to the nearest military district and vacancy completed within fifteen days of the order. If not, the hay and grain were to be destroyed in place by Union forces and those people remaining shipped south.
A story of the Missouri Bushwhackers was most recently told in the 1999 Ang Lee movie "Ride with the Devil" starring Tobey Maguire.
Order number 11 generally had the opposite effect to what was intended.
Bushwhackers could go to any of the vacated farms where they found plenty of hay and grain and much to eat. The hens kept laying and abandoned livestock were roaming at will.
As long as the Bushwhackers stayed ahead of the Union soldiers, who were methodically burning each farm, they had plenty to eat and feed their horses.
Order Number 11 was partially rescinded a few months later in November 1863 by allowing those who had pledged loyalty and those who would pledge an oath of allegiance to the Union to return and rebuild their farms and homes.
Here is another photo of mine showing a wall plaque on the wall of the sheriff's office in the 1859 Jail at Independence, Missouri.
(http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad256/waldoegray/P1010222.jpg)
Steve, my question was based on what Red had said about MO Yankees having slaves. I know what I thought I knew, but that confused me. Waldo, thanks for the information. Nicely presented.
MEMOIRS OF GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN
By William T. Sherman
THE MARCH TO THE SEA--FROM ATLANTA TO SAVANNAH--NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1864
CONTENTS
Volume II
ATLANTA CAMPAIGN-NASHVILLE AND CHATTANOOGA TO KENESAW—MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY, 1864
ATLANTA CAMPAIGN—BATTLES ABOUT KENESAW MOUNTAIN—JUNE, 1864
ATLANTA CAMPAIGN—BATTLES ABOUT ATLANTA—JULY, 1864
CAPTURE OF ATLANTA—AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1864
ATLANTA AND AFTER—PURSUIT OF HOOD—SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1864
THE MARCH TO THE SEA--FROM ATLANTA TO SAVANNAH--NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1864
SAVANNAH AND POCOTALIGO--DECEMBER, 1864, AND JANUARY, 1865
CAMPAIGN OF THE CAROLINAS--FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1865
END OF THE WAR--FROM GOLDSBORO' TO RALEIGH AND WASHINGTON--APRIL AND MAY, 1865
CONCLUSION--MILITARY LESSONS OF THE WAR
AFTER THE WAR
CHAPTER XXI.
THE MARCH TO THE SEA FROM ATLANTA TO SAVANNAH.
NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1864.
(http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/memoirs/georgia-map.jpg)
On the 12th of November the railroad and telegraph communications with the rear were broken, and the army stood detached from all friends, dependent on its own resources and supplies. No time was to be lost; all the detachments were ordered to march rapidly for Atlanta, breaking up the railroad en route, and generally to so damage the country as to make it untenable to the enemy. By the 14th all the troops had arrived at or near Atlanta, and were, according to orders, grouped into two wings, the right and left, commanded respectively by Major-Generals O. O. Howard and H. W. Slocum, both comparatively young men, but educated and experienced officers, fully competent to their command.
The right wing was composed of the Fifteenth Corps, Major-General P. J. Osterhaus commanding, and the Seventeenth Corps, Major-General Frank P. Blair commanding.
The left wing was composed of the Fourteenth Corps, Major-General Jefferson C. Davis commanding, and the Twentieth Corps, Brigadier-General A. S. Williams commanding.
The Fifteenth Corps had four divisions, commanded by Brigadier-Generals Charles R. Woods, W. B. Hazen, John E. Smith, and John M. Gorse.
The Seventeenth Corps had three divisions, commanded by Major-General J. A. Mower, and Brigadier-Generals M. D. Leggett ad Giles A. Smith.
The Fourteenth Corps had three divisions, commanded by Brigadier-Generals W. P. Carlin, James D. Morgan, and A. Baird.
The Twentieth Corps had also three divisions, commanded by Brigadier-Generals N. J. Jackson, John W. Geary, and W. T. Ward.
The cavalry division was held separate, subject to my own orders. It was commanded by Brigadier-General Judson Kilpatrick, and was composed of two brigades, commanded by Colonels Eli H. Murray, of Kentucky, and Smith D. Atkins, of Illinois.
The strength of the army, as officially reported, is given in the following tables, and shows an aggregate of fifty-five thousand three hundred and twenty-nine infantry, five thousand and sixty-three cavalry, and eighteen hundred and twelve artillery in all, sixty-two thousand two hundred and four officers and men.
The most extraordinary efforts had been made to purge this army of non-combatants and of sick men, for we knew well that there was to be no place of safety save with the army itself; our wagons were loaded with ammunition, provisions, and forage, and we could ill afford to haul even sick men in the ambulances, so that all on this exhibit may be assumed to have been able-bodied, experienced soldiers, well armed, well equipped and provided, as far as human foresight could, with all the essentials of life, strength, and vigorous action.
The two general orders made for this march appear to me, even at this late day, so clear, emphatic, and well-digested, that no account of that historic event is perfect without them, and I give them entire, even at the seeming appearance of repetition; and, though they called for great sacrifice and labor on the part of the officers and men, I insist that these orders were obeyed as well as any similar orders ever were, by an army operating wholly in an enemy's country, and dispersed, as we necessarily were, during the subsequent period of nearly six months.
[Special Field Orders, No. 119.]
HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI
IN THE FIELD, KINGSTON, GEORGIA, November 8, 1864
The general commanding deems it proper at this time to inform the officers and men of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Twentieth Corps, that he has organized them into an army for a special purpose, well known to the War Department and to General Grant. It is sufficient for you to know that it involves a departure from our present base, and a long and difficult march to a new one. All the chances of war have been considered and provided for, as far as human sagacity can. All he asks of you is to maintain that discipline, patience, and courage, which have characterized you in the past; and he hopes, through you, to strike a blow at our enemy that will have a material effect in producing what we all so much desire, his complete overthrow. Of all things, the most important is, that the men, during marches and in camp, keep their places and do not scatter about as stragglers or foragers, to be picked up by a hostile people in detail. It is also of the utmost importance that our wagons should not be loaded with any thing but provisions and ammunition. All surplus servants, noncombatants, and refugees, should now go to the rear, and none should be encouraged to encumber us on the march. At some future time we will be able to provide for the poor whites and blacks who seek to escape the bondage under which they are now suffering. With these few simple cautions, he hopes to lead you to achievements equal in importance to those of the past.
By order of Major-General W. T. Sherman, L. M. DAYTON, Aide-de-Camp
[Special Field Orders, No. 120.]
HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI
IN THE FIELD, KINGSTON, GEORGIA, November 9, 1864
1. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings viz.:
The right wing, Major-General O. O. Howard commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, Major-General H. W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.
2. The habitual order of march will be, wherever practicable, by four roads, as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points hereafter to be indicated in orders. The cavalry, Brigadier-General Kilpatrick commanding, will receive special orders from the commander-in-chief.
3. There will be no general train of supplies, but each corps will have its ammunition-train and provision-train, distributed habitually as follows: Behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; behind each brigade should follow a due proportion of ammunition-wagons, provision-wagons, and ambulances. In case of danger, each corps commander should change this order of march, by having his advance and rear brigades unencumbered by wheels. The separate columns will start habitually at 7 a.m., and make about fifteen miles per day, unless otherwise fixed in orders.
4. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for his command, and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass; but, during a halt or camp, they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging-parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage, at any distance from the road traveled.
5. To corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc.; and for them this general principle is laid down:
In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested, no destruction of each property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility.
6. As for horses, mules, wagons, etc., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit; discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor and industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging-parties may also take mules or horses, to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts; and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance,
7. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along; but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one, and that his first duty is to see to those who bear arms.
8. The organization, at once, of a good pioneer battalion for each army corps, composed if possible of negroes, should be attended to. This battalion should follow the advance-guard, repair roads and double them if possible, so that the columns will not be delayed after reaching bad places. Also, army commanders should practise the habit of giving the artillery and wagons the road, marching their troops on one side, and instruct their troops to assist wagons at steep hills or bad crossings of streams.
9. Captain O. M. Poe, chief-engineer, will assign to each wing of the army a pontoon-train, fully equipped and organized; and the commanders thereof will see to their being properly protected at all times.
By order of Major-General W. T. Sherman,
L. M. DAYTON, Aide-de-Camp.
CONTINUED at:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/memoirs/general-sherman-march-sea.htm