Civil War Terror: Sherman's March To The Sea

[Warph]

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:

[srkruzich]

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.

[Bullwinkle]

     I guess the south never committed any of the atrocities of WAR. 

[srkruzich]

     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.   

[Bullwinkle]

      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.

[srkruzich]

      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!

[Bullwinkle]

      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.

[srkruzich]

      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.

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.

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.   

[Bullwinkle]

     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.

[srkruzich]

     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.

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.

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 

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.

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.