Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, it was built before the Civil War and survived the burning of Atlanta. A new frame was built later on.
No, it was built in 1869 - after the Civil War.
Quote:
Atlanta Catholics completed their first church building in 1848. Not yet named, it was known simply as “the Catholic Church”. This building stood on the same site as the present Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. This first church was a simple wood frame structure similar to the construction of surrounding buildings.
At the end of the war, rather than starting to repair their damaged church home, Atlanta Catholics decided to build a new church building. They moved the old wood frame building to the east onto an adjacent lot, and began construction of the new church on the same site as the original church.
The cornerstone was placed on September of 1869 by the Right Reverend Bishop Verot of Savannah . The inscription read: “Erected and blessed Sep. 1, 1869 . Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church. Matt. XVII 8”. W. H. Parkins was chosen to be architect for the project.
Oak Ridge, TN--the Manhattan Project
Alamogordo--first nuke test
Hanford, WA--built first nuke, maker of plutonium
Not a NASCAR fan, but these came to mind--
Talladega, AL -race
Daytona, FL-race
Bristol, TN-race
Indianapolis, IN-race
Pearl Harbor, HI-you know
Wounded Knee, ND--American Indian massacre
Lakehurst, NJ--Hindenburg disaster
Columbus, NM--Pancho Villa raid
Shiloh, TN--Civil War battle
Andersonville, GA--Civil War prison
Cooperstown, NY--Baseball Hall of Fame
Canton, OH--Football Hall of Fame
...by my statement; and if I think of Civil War turning points, I think of Gettysburg, Vicksburg, etc. The Battle of Atlanta wasn't even a turning point; the war had already turned in the North's favor well before Sherman entered Georgia; Atlanta wasn't the "turning point"; it was more like "the home stretch". Sorry, but the expression "Sherman's march through Georgia" carries more resonance than "The Battle of Atlanta", and it certainly doesn't take any substantial time to explain, either.
You really don't know your Civil War history, do you? Your school system failed you in that area...
You can keep trying to minimalize the importance of the Battle of Atlanta and it being the defining moment in history for the city of Atlanta, but it won't change history. Sorry.
Why is this so important to you? If you want to name your city's defining moment or synonomous event, I'm not going to argue with you about it - I would think you might know more about your city than I do. But you want to argue about a city you obviously know nothing about. It makes no sense...but people are very arrogant sometimes.
You really don't know your Civil War history, do you? Your school system failed you in that area...
You can keep trying to minimalize the importance of the Battle of Atlanta and it being the defining moment in history for the city of Atlanta, but it won't change history. Sorry.
Why is this so important to you? If you want to name your city's defining moment or synonomous event, I'm not going to argue with you about it - I would think you might know more about your city than I do. But you want to argue about a city you obviously know nothing about. It makes no sense...but people are very arrogant sometimes.
..significance to Atlanta (I don't particularly care); I contest the notion that the Battle of Atlanta was a Civil War turning point, which it clearly WAS NOT. The war had already turned in the North's favor by that point; it was pretty obvious.
In my experience (and many others), the Battle of Atlanta was not the title of the subject matter; it was always referred as Sherman's March (through Georgia, or "to the sea"), and we certainly spent more time on slavery, Gettysburg, the Emancipation Proclamation, 1864 Pres election, etc.
We also didn't refer to the Civil War as "the War of Northern Aggression", either.
Last edited by MassVt; 06-23-2009 at 07:28 PM..
Reason: word change
..significance to Atlanta (I don't particularly care); I contest the notion that the Battle of Atlanta was a Civil War turning point, which it clearly WAS NOT. The war had already turned in the North's favor by that point; it was pretty obvious.
"Turning point" actually isn't the best description for the Atlanta Campaign...the loss of Atlanta and its destruction was more of a final blow for the South, and the war ended six months later. Atlanta was the Confederacy's main supplier of war resources through the many foundries, arsenals, warehouses, factories, and it was a major railroad/transportation hub.
Quote:
With the defeat of the Rebels in Atlanta, Sherman had effectively broken the back of the Confederate war machine. The loss of Atlanta had far more devastating effects on the South than anyone had expected. News of Sherman's capture of Atlanta provoked electric and tumultuous reactions in both the North and the South. The first significant Northern victory in 1864, the fall of Atlanta assured President Lincoln's reelection in November, as well as a pledged U.S. prosecution of the war to victory. With the loss of Atlanta, Confederate defeat was only a matter of time.
In my experience (and many others), the Battle of Atlanta was not the title of the subject matter; it was always referred as Sherman's March (through Georgia, or "to the sea"), and we certainly spent more time on slavery, Gettysburg, the Emancipation Proclamation, 1864 Pres election, etc.
The Atlanta Campaign was several months long and included dozens of battles involving the seige, capture, occupation, evacuation, and destruction of the city. It is consistently included on lists of important Civil War battles and directly led to the end of the war. The March to the Sea was a continuation of Sherman's plan to divide the Confederacy. It's funny that you continue to try and belittle this factual information - I guess just to irritate me. It's not working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
We also didn't refer to the Civil War as "the War of Northern Aggression", either.
We didn't either. The only time I can recall anyone referring to it that way was Granny on The Beverly Hillbillies. It's never been commonly used title in my lifetime. That type of glorification for the South is something that existed in the years just after the war when people still had strong emotional ties to the events and the devastation. It's 2009, and at this point I can't imagine anyone being resentful or boastful about anything related to the Civil War.
Really the only reason this debate is trudging onward is because of the challenges to my assertion that Atlanta is synonymous with the Burning of Atlanta - it is the most important and defining event for this city...not only from a historical perspective, but also due to Gone with the Wind's worldwide popularity and attention (Pulitzer Prize, 30 million copies sold, one of the top 30 most popular novels of all time). Then the film (10 Academy Awards, ranked #4 in the top 100 American films, sold more tickets in the U.S. than any other film in history)was very vivid regarding the Burning of Atlanta...it was one of the most memorable scenes from the movie - Clark Gable rescuing Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Havilland, driving the carriage through the burning city.
Like the film or not, it is one of the main reasons that the Burning of Atlanta is a widely-known event and synonymous with the city.
For anyone to minimalize the importance of the Battle of Atlanta and Sherman's subsequent March to the Sea is ridiculous. Those campaigns took the will to fight out of the South. From a mental aspect, this was quite possibly the most significant military action of the Civil War.
Sherman's tactics in Georgia were different from how battles had been waged, he implemented 'Total War'. War against not only military factions but civillians as well.
For anyone to minimalize the importance of the Battle of Atlanta and Sherman's subsequent March to the Sea is ridiculous. Those campaigns took the will to fight out of the South. From a mental aspect, this was quite possibly the most significant military action of the Civil War.
Sherman's tactics in Georgia were different from how battles had been waged, he implemented 'Total War'. War against not only military factions but civillians as well.
The problem though, is that it shouldn't be a topic in this discussion. Atlanta is not known for the Battle of Atlanta!
Seriously, don't say one minute a city is known for coke and a thousand other fortune 500 companies, than come back and say it's know for a battle. Atlanta has outgrown that, unlike many other cities (Yorktown or Gettysburg) where they are known much more for their battles.
The problem though, is that it shouldn't be a topic in this discussion. Atlanta is not known for the Battle of Atlanta!
Seriously, don't say one minute a city is known for coke and a thousand other fortune 500 companies, than come back and say it's know for a battle. Atlanta has outgrown that, unlike many other cities (Yorktown or Gettysburg) where they are known much more for their battles.
Correction, youdon't recognize Atlanta for the Battle of Atlanta. That's not the case for myself, millions of history buffs and almost every native Southerner in the Deep South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not arguing about the battle's..
