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.
Largely historical gibberish. E.g., Sherman's march to the sea was child's play compared to the actions of the U.S. in WWII when millions of civilians, including children, were targeted for certain slaughter.
Are you arguing that Franklin D. Roosevelt, his Cabinet, and his generals, such as Dwight Eisenhower, all were war criminals?
Neo-Confederates and their sympathizers will go to any length to muddle history in order to excuse slavery, a bloody and illegal secession, segregation, etc.
Do you deny these facts? Where's the "gibberish" part?
Intentionally destroying the property of civilians is a war crime regardless of what decade it takes place in. Do you not agree?
Here's the defintition if you need a refresher: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
If you want to debate WWII history you can start a new thread.
Surely you realize by now that when your team wins, people have a way to excuse what it took to do so.
<< Prior to the Civil War, racism and white supremacy had been common attitudes in both the North and the South. After the Emancipation Proclamation, when Union troops began to fight for the abolishment of slavery, Northern attitudes shifted slightly, and many felt that blacks deserved equal legal rights and equal protection, even if they were not considered socially equal.
In the South, however, white supremacists did not believe blacks should have any such rights. During Reconstruction, white supremacists formed political and social groups to promote whites and oppress blacks, and to enact laws that codified inequality. The Ku Klux Klan (founded in 1865) and the Knights of the White Camellia (1867) were secret groups, while members of the White League (1874) and the Red Shirts (1875) were publically known. All four groups used violence to intimidate blacks and Republican voters. Their efforts succeeded, and with the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white supremacy became the reality of the South.
>>
In the 20th century, when many Confederate statues were erected, their champions also were celebrating Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement of blacks, and "separate but equal" segregation policies.
Where are any statues in the South that compare with the 19th century Soldiers & Sailors Monument in Cleveland that celebrated the elimination of slavery and the reality that Lincoln armed African Americans to fight for their freedom against the Confederate defenders of slavery.
<<5. Though Scofield’s inclusion of a black solider was unique for the time, the depiction of African-Americans inside the monument was even more controversial, given the rampant racial intolerance and segregation present throughout the country in 1894. In a bronze relief depicting the emancipation of slaves, Abraham Lincoln is shown lifting the shackles from a black man kneeling before him. “Now here’s the part that’s really extreme,” Evans says. “He is giving him a Springfield musket rifle with a full cartridge box so he can defend and fight for himself.”>>
Even you should understand the difference between this historical monument and statues celebrating Confederate leaders.
Neo-Confederates who argue that Confederate statues honoring the defenders of slavery teach history are pathetic. These statues are not "beautiful," as described by President Trump, for this reason alone, not even considering that these Confederate leaders in pursuit of their depraved cause instigated a Civil War inflicting an epic bloodshed on the nation.
You're confusing history with modern day events. If white supremist started rallying around a statue of Thomas Jefferson, would you suggest they take it down? Robert E. Lee specifically was a very influential figure in US history and a cultural icon in the South. It makes sense there'd be some statues of him somewhere.
As a side note, as far as racism goes, I think it's actually on the decline. It might appear to be in the upswing because everybody has gotten so loose with the term, they use it to try and disparage opposing opinions and destroy dialog, so now everybody's labeled a racist if they do anything from defend history to watching Dukes of Hazard reruns.
Either way, taking down statues doesn't do anything to diminish racism and speaking out against racism doesn't make you less racist if you weren't racist to begin with. Destroying history is barbaric. We didn't like it when the Taliban and ISIS does it and we shouldn't make excuses to do it ourselves. This country lately has a real talent for fabricating ways to get offended and finding more ways to divide itself. People who weren't offended before now are under pressure to feel offended because everybody keeps telling them they should feel that way. Throwing the term around "neo-Confederate" as a way to try and group everybody's opinions alongside some sort of supremist movement is an example. Most regular people on the street think the sudden statue outrage is stupid. That doesn't make them racist.
I think the war was started by southern elitists who got their pantys in a wad when they lost an election and saw that the artificial out sized political influence they had enjoyed since the signing of the constitution was eroding away. They led their fellow countryman in rebellion against the legitimate government and got everything they deserved.
What you've noted here is borne out by the legislative history of the 36th Congress:
Quote:
...In the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[7] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[8] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[8] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[9]...
6. Jos. R. Long, "Tinkering with the Constitution", Yale Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 7, May 1915, 579
7. Ewen Cameron Mac Veagh, "The Other Rejected Amendments", The North American Review, vol. 222, no. 829, December 1925, 281-2
8. Russell L. Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention (Oxford University Press, 1988), 56
9. Orville James Victor, The History, Civil, Political and Military, of the Southern Rebellion (NY: James D Torrey, 1861), I, 463
It's worth considering the legislative record as part of a Country's history. A peoples' history is not complete if only concerned, or primarily concerned, with just its military adventures.
Do you deny these facts? Where's the "gibberish" part?
Intentionally destroying the property of civilians is a war crime regardless of what decade it takes place in. Do you not agree?
Here's the defintition if you need a refresher: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
If you want to debate WWII history you can start a new thread.
Surely you realize by now that when your team wins, people have a way to excuse what it took to do so.
Your arguments were gibberish because their sole intent was to argue that the Union leaders were as immoral as the Confederate leaders. They were gibberish because "war crimes" no longer seem to encompass "total warfare," which Sherman practiced on a very, very limited scale compared to modern standards.
My point was that if by some definition of war crimes, including the destruction of civilian property, the U.S. in WWII committed massively greater war crimes compared to Sherman's march to the sea. The U.S. in WWII intentionally killed millions of civilians, including women and children, such as in its atomic bomb attacks and the fire bombing of Tokyo.
And we today maintain a nuclear warfare capability with the capacity to turn the entire planet into a desolate wasteland.
If Union leaders during the Civil War were war criminals, as you maintain, then the U.S. leaders of World War II also war criminals who committed much more onerous war crimes. Yet you don't want to deal with this obvious fact.
Sherman's soldiers did not overtly kill women and children. There were few charges of murder or even rape. Do you believe Sherman shouldn't have destroyed the Confederate railroad network, certainly civilian property?
<< “No doubt many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence were committed by these parties of foragers …,” Sherman acknowledged, but maintained that their crimes were generally against property, not individuals. “I never heard of any cases of murder or rape.” Indeed relatively few charges of rape were made, and military medical records showed little sexual disease....
When Joe Wheeler’s horsemen also began destroying property and looting, the psychological shock of Confederates abusing their own people was hard for the Georgia civilians to take....
Almost miraculously, damage and destruction immediately ceased. Sherman allowed Hardee’s army to escape the city, although he could have crushed it. Soldiers became model gentlemen, no longer foraging, but paying for what they wanted or needed. Sherman had his favorite regimental band present a concert for the city and brought supply ships from the North to help the city and its people regain a sense of normality. The general himself was a model of deportment. In escaping Savannah, several Confederate generals left their wives and children to Sherman’s personal protection, and he took this responsibility seriously, despite laughing that Confederates were willing to leave their families in the care of someone they considered a brute. >>
You raised the issue of the Union's alleged war crimes to obfuscate the moral outrage, well recognized even in 1861, of the Confederacy's foundation as a government grounded on the institution of slavery and a belief in racial subjugation. Confederate leaders initiated a war of rebellion to defend slavery and the most onerous form of racial superiority. And this rebellion to protect slavery inflicted immense carnage on the nation.
Your arguments were gibberish because their sole intent was to argue that the Union leaders were as immoral as the Confederate leaders. They were gibberish because "war crimes" no longer seem to encompass "total warfare," which Sherman practiced on a very, very limited scale compared to modern standards.
My point was that if by some definition of war crimes, including the destruction of civilian property, the U.S. in WWII committed massively greater war crimes compared to Sherman's march to the sea. The U.S. in WWII intentionally killed millions of civilians, including women and children, such as in its atomic bomb attacks and the fire bombing of Tokyo.
And we today maintain a nuclear warfare capability with the capacity to turn the entire planet into a desolate wasteland.
If Union leaders during the Civil War were war criminals, as you maintain, then the U.S. leaders of World War II also war criminals who committed much more onerous war crimes. Yet you don't want to deal with this obvious fact.
Sherman's soldiers did not overtly kill women and children. There were few charges of murder or even rape. Do you believe Sherman shouldn't have destroyed the Confederate railroad network, certainly civilian property?
<< “No doubt many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence were committed by these parties of foragers …,” Sherman acknowledged, but maintained that their crimes were generally against property, not individuals. “I never heard of any cases of murder or rape.” Indeed relatively few charges of rape were made, and military medical records showed little sexual disease....
When Joe Wheeler’s horsemen also began destroying property and looting, the psychological shock of Confederates abusing their own people was hard for the Georgia civilians to take....
Almost miraculously, damage and destruction immediately ceased. Sherman allowed Hardee’s army to escape the city, although he could have crushed it. Soldiers became model gentlemen, no longer foraging, but paying for what they wanted or needed. Sherman had his favorite regimental band present a concert for the city and brought supply ships from the North to help the city and its people regain a sense of normality. The general himself was a model of deportment. In escaping Savannah, several Confederate generals left their wives and children to Sherman’s personal protection, and he took this responsibility seriously, despite laughing that Confederates were willing to leave their families in the care of someone they considered a brute. >>
You raised the issue of the Union's alleged war crimes to obfuscate the moral outrage, well recognized even in 1861, of the Confederacy's foundation as a government grounded on the institution of slavery and a belief in racial subjugation. Confederate leaders initiated a war of rebellion to defend slavery and the most onerous form of racial superiority. And this rebellion to protect slavery inflicted immense carnage on the nation.
Sherman's march is already heavily debated and well documented, that's why I didn't even bother mentioning it. My examples therefore included everything I posted. I forgot about the banishment of Congressmen if thy opposed the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham
Sherman's March is well documented in history books. The other events I posted are a bit more alarming from a constitutional standpoint and curiously are glossed over or omitted in mainstream historical text. As a result it's apparently become blasphemy to criticize.
The Civil War is unique in that it's the only major war in the US that both the winners and losers are in the same country. Asked if fire bombing Tokyo and Germany was wrong but necessary, most Americans will agree punishing the enemy's civilians was necessary. I wouldn't go screaming that from the rooftops in Germany and Japan though. People are entitled to their perspectives. You don't get to be the one perpetrating the crime and say "well it was for the best" to the victims.
Your arguments were gibberish because their sole intent was to argue that the Union leaders were as immoral as the Confederate leaders. They were gibberish because "war crimes" no longer seem to encompass "total warfare," which Sherman practiced on a very, very limited scale compared to modern standards.
My point was that if by some definition of war crimes, including the destruction of civilian property, the U.S. in WWII committed massively greater war crimes compared to Sherman's march to the sea. The U.S. in WWII intentionally killed millions of civilians, including women and children, such as in its atomic bomb attacks and the fire bombing of Tokyo.
And we today maintain a nuclear warfare capability with the capacity to turn the entire planet into a desolate wasteland.
If Union leaders during the Civil War were war criminals, as you maintain, then the U.S. leaders of World War II also war criminals who committed much more onerous war crimes. Yet you don't want to deal with this obvious fact.
Sherman's soldiers did not overtly kill women and children. There were few charges of murder or even rape. Do you believe Sherman shouldn't have destroyed the Confederate railroad network, certainly civilian property?
<< “No doubt many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence were committed by these parties of foragers …,” Sherman acknowledged, but maintained that their crimes were generally against property, not individuals. “I never heard of any cases of murder or rape.” Indeed relatively few charges of rape were made, and military medical records showed little sexual disease....
When Joe Wheeler’s horsemen also began destroying property and looting, the psychological shock of Confederates abusing their own people was hard for the Georgia civilians to take....
Almost miraculously, damage and destruction immediately ceased. Sherman allowed Hardee’s army to escape the city, although he could have crushed it. Soldiers became model gentlemen, no longer foraging, but paying for what they wanted or needed. Sherman had his favorite regimental band present a concert for the city and brought supply ships from the North to help the city and its people regain a sense of normality. The general himself was a model of deportment. In escaping Savannah, several Confederate generals left their wives and children to Sherman’s personal protection, and he took this responsibility seriously, despite laughing that Confederates were willing to leave their families in the care of someone they considered a brute. >>
You raised the issue of the Union's alleged war crimes to obfuscate the moral outrage, well recognized even in 1861, of the Confederacy's foundation as a government grounded on the institution of slavery and a belief in racial subjugation. Confederate leaders initiated a war of rebellion to defend slavery and the most onerous form of racial superiority. And this rebellion to protect slavery inflicted immense carnage on the nation.
Wars basically don't end without some action that causes severe losses for the losing country and its people.
War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.
Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.
The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?
Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. The Islamic countries of the Middle East do not want a Jewish state of Israel.
For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
You don't get to be the one perpetrating the crime and say "well it was for the best" to the victims.
It's not so much that being the victim of war is good for the victims. The point is it wasn't going to end well for the people of a seceding, renegade republic either way. Someone was going to get badly hurt.
Swimming back around to the thread's original topic...why the South lost the war...they lost because of a long chain of events which built upon one another until they were no longer capable of mounting a credible defense. It would be simple minded to select any one unfortunate occurrence and state that "this is where the war was lost" because it required all of the events which in reality combined to put the Confederacy out of business.
Consequently, it might do to trace things back to the first truly bad and critical decision made by someone on the rebel side. I don't mean secession itself, or the decision to open fire on Fort Sumter, those were events which got the war started. Rather, once the war was under way, what was the first event which set matters on a course that led ultimately to the defeat of the CSA?
I would argue that it was made by Bishop Leonidas Polk in September of 1861.
Kentucky had a governor who was sympathetic to the South, and a legislature which was firmly pro union. At the outbreak of the war, recognizing that whichever side they joined would immediately turn the state into a battleground, Kentucky declared itself neutral in the dispute, supporting neither side. While both sides claimed the allegiance of Kentucky, both also recognized that whichever side was the first to violate the neutrality, that would send Kentucky into the opposing camp. Consequently, while both sides sent men across the border on recruiting missions, neither dispatched any combat troops into Kentucky.
Enter Bishop Polk. He had been a West Point graduate in July of 1827, but resigned his commission just six months later to pursue a career as an Episcopal bishop. Polk had no active combat experience of any kind, but rose to become an influential figure in religious circles. Polk was also a former classmate and close friend of Confederate president Jefferson Davis. It was this connection which got Polk appointed to command in the west. (At this point, future western commander A.S. Johnston was still making his way from California to the east.)
It was evident to all that a Union attack on Tennessee would utilize the three avenues of invasion which were available, the Mississippi, the Tennessee and the Cumberland rivers. Polk was aware of the importance of keeping Kentucky neutral for the moment, but upon hearing reports that the Union was planning on occupying Columbus, Kentucky on the Mississippi, and recognizing that area as well suited for defending the river, Polk, without consulting the rebel government, decided to advance north and occupy Columbus first.
It was an extremely foolish decision for reasons beyound just violating Kentucky's declared neutrality. The actual defensive position which was critical wasn't Columbus, rather it was Paducah which was located at the point where the Tennessee river emptied into the Ohio. Occupying Paducah set the Union up for utilizing the Tennessee and the Cumberland to the east, to make swift strikes into western and central Tennessee. Once such strikes were made, it would leave Columbus outflanked and isolated, forcing its evacuation without a fight.
This of course is what happened, Grant moved swiftly to take advantage of Polk's foolishness, occupying Paducah. As expected, Kentucky viewed Polk's advance to Columbus as a violation of their neutrality, and looked to the north to defend the state. Grant went on to capture the forts defending the Tennessee and Cumberland, and once those rivers were opened, Columbus had to be evacuated by Polk.
Had Kentucky gone over to the Confederate side, it would have represented an enormous strategic advantage for the south. The North would not have been taking Tennessee in the first half of 1862, it would have been on the banks of the Ohio fighting to regain Kentucky. What followed would certainly have been very different from what did occur, and the alternatives were not favorable to the north.
So, I submit that the first error which led ultimately to the defeat of the Confederacy, was Polk's foolish decision to occupy Columbus, it had a massive impact on all that followed. Polk, as Civil War buffs well know, went on to establish that as a general, he made a fine bishop. If there was a Confederate "Hall of Defeat" dedicated to those who contributed the most to the failure of the Confederacy, you'd have exhibits devoted to generals Hood, Pemberton, Pillow, Floyd and Bragg, but the first portrait anyone should see when they walked in should be Bishop Leonidas Polk.
Wars basically don't end without some action that causes severe losses for the losing country and its people.
War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.
Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.
The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?
Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. The Islamic countries of the Middle East do not want a Jewish state of Israel.
For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.It's not so much that being the victim of war is good for the victims. The point is it wasn't going to end well for the people of a seceding, renegade republic either way. Someone was going to get badly hurt.
While I can appreciate expediency in warfare, I wouldn't advocate commiting war crimes to do it. At the end of a war it's in the best interest of the winner to not sow the seeds of animosity if they want actual normalcy to return and prevent a sequel to the very war they just fought.
So, I submit that the first error which led ultimately to the defeat of the Confederacy, was Polk's foolish decision to occupy Columbus, it had a massive impact on all that followed. Polk, as Civil War buffs well know, went on to establish that as a general, he made a fine bishop. If there was a Confederate "Hall of Defeat" dedicated to those who contributed the most to the failure of the Confederacy, you'd have exhibits devoted to generals Hood, Pemberton, Pillow, Floyd and Bragg, but the first portrait anyone should see when they walked in should be Bishop Leonidas Polk.
Fascinating post. As most know the war in the West went a lot better than war in the East. I wonder whether Virginia would have been amenable to not seceding if it was allowed to remain neutral. I have always thought that Virginia's secession and entry into the war guaranteed that the war would turn into a bloodbath. Virginia was about the only economically viable part of the Confederacy.
While I can appreciate expediency in warfare, I wouldn't advocate commiting war crimes to do it. At the end of a war it's in the best interest of the winner to not sow the seeds of animosity if they want actual normalcy to return and prevent a sequel to the very war they just fought.
But maybe most wars don't get a "winner" otherwise. Japan has certainly been quite the ally notwithstanding the Tokyo firebombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
