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 am saying the general consensus from the reputable books out, from reputable historians, eyewitnesses, and various participants (i.e. officers from both sides) say that the civil war, relatively speaking when talking about a war that took the lives of 600,000, was "civilized". At least compared to 21st century wars.
Now you can find books and blog posts out there on the internet I am sure that explain also that the world is flat, and there is a certain segment of wannabe historians that devote themselves to history revision (take the holocaust deniers for instance). But the fact is these are not reliable. If they were, there would be some historical re-evaluation. There isn't. Just out of curiousity I reviewed your above link, and also what other things the author - Michael Climo - had written. The guy fancies himself as some amateur historian I guess, but his article is extremely poorly written - no referenced sources or footnotes. Full of "and then Sherman went here and murdered and raped here...". That is not history. You can also see his other articles which mix some new world order fear politics into history. The guy comes off as a crackpot. He also calls Lincoln a war criminal.
Now that's not to say that bad things didn't happen that go above and beyond the rules of war. Kansas for instance - atrocities occurred on both sides, mostly by civilians to other civilians or civilian militias. Prison camps - the most infamous occurance was Andersonville, but that was a confederate civil war camp. But you also have to realize the desease mortality rates even in troop camps, not prison camps, was atrocious. Murder of prisoners - again the most infamous case would probably be Fort Pillow - but again that was confederate troops murdering Union "colored" troops after surrender.
But why are you focused on this? I already told you it was irrelevant to your discussion in your OP on politics, or "why the south stayed democratic". It seems you have a hidden agenda here. The civil war ended 150 years ago, stop trying to fight it. Or...discuss the topic from a perpective of knowledge and not hearsay.
^ that reminds me. I recently read a short story written by a confederate soldier who was imprisoned in Rock Island prison camp during the civil war. I have a keen interest in this camp and stories because I have a 3rd great grandfather who spent the better part of 2 years in the Rock Island POW camp.
Anyway, the one thing that was written about in this story besides the typical famine, disease and lack of clothing to keep warm was the random night time shootings that occurred. Prisoners would risk being shot to death during the night, especially after reports of a Southern Victory. You took a huge risk at night if you had to get up and go to the latrine.
I am not one to stand up and argue that Rock Island was worse or the same as Andersonville. I am sure there are similarities and like I said, my only interest in Rock Island derives from my 3rd great grandfather. Which, by the way, he survived the the camp and the war, if he had not.. perhaps I would not be here!
Walter Cisco is an ardent neo-Confederate from South Carolina. His entire career is dedicated to "defending South Carolina's position in the Civil War and highlighting the acts of South Carolinians in the struggle for state's rights". He is published, but he is not an academic. He is an amateur historian with a certain slanted view.
rense.com? Serisously? You do know that rense.com is one of the internets foremost conspiracy theory sites, right? I'm surprised you didn't link to their "expose" on how the Jews controlled Lincoln and he only beat the south because of the intervention of the Atlantians from Nibiru who are the ones really behind the New World Order...
examiner.com is a collection of paid bloggers. There is nothing fact checked, nothing verified. They get paid by getting traffic driven to their pages, so they blog about all sorts of things.
None of the links you posted are to an evenly remotely academic source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
I am saying the general consensus from the reputable books out, from reputable historians, eyewitnesses, and various participants (i.e. officers from both sides) say that the civil war, relatively speaking when talking about a war that took the lives of 600,000, was "civilized". At least compared to 21st century wars.
Now you can find books and blog posts out there on the internet I am sure that explain also that the world is flat, and there is a certain segment of wannabe historians that devote themselves to history revision (take the holocaust deniers for instance). But the fact is these are not reliable. If they were, there would be some historical re-evaluation. There isn't. Just out of curiousity I reviewed your above link, and also what other things the author - Michael Climo - had written. The guy fancies himself as some amateur historian I guess, but his article is extremely poorly written - no referenced sources or footnotes. Full of "and then Sherman went here and murdered and raped here...". That is not history. You can also see his other articles which mix some new world order fear politics into history. The guy comes off as a crackpot. He also calls Lincoln a war criminal.
Now that's not to say that bad things didn't happen that go above and beyond the rules of war. Kansas for instance - atrocities occurred on both sides, mostly by civilians to other civilians or civilian militias. Prison camps - the most infamous occurance was Andersonville, but that was a confederate civil war camp. But you also have to realize the desease mortality rates even in troop camps, not prison camps, was atrocious. Murder of prisoners - again the most infamous case would probably be Fort Pillow - but again that was confederate troops murdering Union "colored" troops after surrender.
But why are you focused on this? I already told you it was irrelevant to your discussion in your OP on politics, or "why the south stayed democratic". It seems you have a hidden agenda here. The civil war ended 150 years ago, stop trying to fight it. Or...discuss the topic from a perpective of knowledge and not hearsay.
Excellent post. Both sides certainly committed atrocities against the other. One thing that I want to add to this/point out again is that large armies on the march in this era needed to forage for supplies to sustain themselves. Whether Union or Confederate, they both did it. The Confederates did it heavily in Tennessee and Pennsylvania. The Union did it heavily in Georgia, the Carolinas and Vriginia. This is just the way war was conducted. It was not done to "punish" civilians, but it certainly created hardships for them.
When the union Army made it's way south, they looted homes and businesses of all food and valuables (like gold and jewelry). They also raped the women, both white and black. If there were men or boys who may have been of age to fight, they were shot. If any southerner tried to stop the looting, they were shot. When they left, many homes had no livestock, no grain, and no crops in the soil. These were told to my grandparents by their parents who survived the attacks. General Sherman not only knew his troops were doing this, but he approved of the total destruction and did nothing to stop even the raping.
Your oral history is at best, confused and exaggerated. Let's start out with the fact that Sherman's March occurred during the Civil War and NOT after it. Furthermore, one of the most notable aspects of the Civil War, including Sherman's March, was actually the absence of wide-spread rape by either side despite the fact that large armies marched through undefended territory all through the war. It happened, but it wasn't a common thing which you are implying. Rape during the Civil War was much more likely to be perpetrated by bushwackers (partisans) or by deserters rather than by regular soldiers.
As for shooting boys, at the Battle of Oconee River Bridge, in November, 1864, schoolboys from the Georgia Military Academy took part in the battle along with the First Kentucky Brigade, and some of the boys were wounded and killed. Cadets from the Arsenal Academy and the South Carolina Military Academy (now The Citadel) fought at the Battle of Tulifinny during the Savannah campaign. Sherman didn't burn the Georgia Military Institute or the SC Military Academy but the Arsenal Academy, in Columbia, SC, went up in flames with the rest of the city. That's the only school that was burned during Sherman's March.
The lack of schools in the South after the Civil War was certainly not caused by Union troops burning them during the war since the South didn't have that many schools before the war. In fact, the first public schools in much of the South were established during the period of Congressional Reconstruction.
The burning and looting of civilian wealth was a strategy intended to force the South to surrender by limiting the ability of the Confederates to supply their armies and by demoralizing Confederate soldiers into deserting. Sheridan cleaned out the Shenandoah Valley in October, 1864, and Sherman made "Georgia howl" in November/December of 1864. Within six months, Lee surrendered in Virginia and a couple of weeks later, Johnston did the same in North Carolina, so I guess it worked. As I said in my first post in this thread, the South brought that economic disaster down on themselves. Nobody forced the South to secede.
Finally, there were areas of the South where there was literally a civil war within the formal Civil War. These areas included western Virginia (including the newly minted state of West Virginia), East Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Arkansas, and much of Missouri. In these areas, the presence of large numbers of pro-union or pro-confederate residents resulted in considerable violence by partisans on both sides. Some of these groups just used the war as an excuse for murder, plunder and terrorism, most notably William Clarke Quantrill and his raiders along the Kansas Missouri border.
None of the stories I have read in "When I was a Slave", which are transcripts from actual slaves, tell any stories of atrocities by Union soldiers after the war. There are plenty of tales, understand, just none that feature cruelty by Union soldiers toward anyone, white or black.
On another note, after the war, Mississippi was "taught a thing or two" about who was who. The Army's XVI Corps, 1st Brigade U.S. Colored Troops were left in Mississippi and expected to maintain the peace until they were sent home in August, '65. At that time 9,122 of the 10,193 soldiers were black. Major Barnes, commander of the U.S Colored Infantry, urged blacks to defend their rights even to the "click of the pistol and point of bayonet."
Mississippi was a hard place to live in after the Civil War, but I've never found stories of Union soldier atrocities.
None of the stories I have read in "When I was a Slave", which are transcripts from actual slaves, tell any stories of atrocities by Union soldiers after the war. There are plenty of tales, understand, just none that feature cruelty by Union soldiers toward anyone, white or black.
On another note, after the war, Mississippi was "taught a thing or two" about who was who. The Army's XVI Corps, 1st Brigade U.S. Colored Troops were left in Mississippi and expected to maintain the peace until they were sent home in August, '65. At that time 9,122 of the 10,193 soldiers were black. Major Barnes, commander of the U.S Colored Infantry, urged blacks to defend their rights even to the "click of the pistol and point of bayonet."
Mississippi was a hard place to live in after the Civil War, but I've never found stories of Union soldier atrocities.
And since the CS forces in that theatre surrendered in May, the Black troops were there, postwar, for all of three months. Big deal.
So you agree the looting took place and write it off to feed the troops even though it left towns and families with young children with no food?
No I do not agree with that statement of yours. Not that it matters to you, since it appears you have your mind made up. But this is an excerpt from Sherman's orders regarding "Sherman's march to the sea":
"VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., 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 or 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."
And since the CS forces in that theatre surrendered in May, the Black troops were there, postwar, for all of three months. Big deal.
Union troops, primarily black, returned to Mississippi and other former Confederate States in 1866/1867 when Congress took over Reconstruction. The last Union troops left the South in 1877.
I suggest that instead of relying on grandpappy's fables and watching reruns of Birth of a Nation, that you pick up a book and actually read about the conduct of both armies as they waged warfare across the south, because confederate forces were just as quick to destroy anything that might assist Sherman's army as it marched to the sea.
As for Sherman condoning of rape and looting, take note of Special Field Order No.17 which ordered that;
"The only proper fate of such miscreants is that they be shot as common enemies to their profession and country; and all officers and privates sent to arrest them will shoot them without mercy on the slightest impudence or resistance"
The only documented variance with this policy was when Sherman's Army entered South Carolina which he singled out for special treatment, but upon entering North Carolina quickly move to restore order to the Army.
By the way, while thinking about this whole Southern pity meme, I further suggest that the Confederacy, and it's modern day apologist get down on their knees and pray to their god that the 4 million former slaves showed far more Christian charity to their former slave masters than anywhere else on the planet when the former oppressed freed from the shackles of that oppression showed such forbearance upon their former oppressors.
Actually both armies used foraging as a means of supply. A farm was just in as much risk of a southern unit coming in and cleaning them out of food. It was the standard method of feeding troops as well for many armies. Civilians are always the ones who lose no matter who wins.
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.
