Union Army's treatment of the south after the civil war (WW2, Washington)
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.
Obviously history books are skewed.. they leave out tons of history but how much do we really want to know? Most kids in history class, just want the hour to end so they can head to the next class but for the few of us who actually love history we have to look beyond the history books in school.
One resource that I found to be invaluable to me is period diaries. One diary I read several years ago was written by a young girl in Louisiana during the Civil War. Now this is just one girls account, but you get a good idea of how the south felt about the north and how the north soldiers treated the civilians...
the diary is;
A Confederate Girls Diary
Sarah Morgan Dawson
Available at Amazon for Kindle for ~$5
I guess the first diary/war-time memories that I read from the ACW/WBTS had an impact on me. This could be made into a movie I believe if it were not so divisive of a subject concerning the Confederacy.
One excerpt from her writing that can be read in the link above was touching:
Quote:
...I have in my mind, as I write, a picture that comes before me whenever I hear of the suffering of the women of the South. I was on a train, after Appomattox, and seated across the aisle were two figures, a mother and her son. She had journeyed from her far-away home in Alabama to the hospital in Richmond to find her boy and bring him back with her. She found him, sitting there waiting for her, blind and helpless, a minié-ball having passed through his head just back of the eyes, absolutely destroying the optic nerve. How she had made that journey, in weariness and painfulness with the hope deferred and the sickening terror of what awaited her at the end, we can never know. She was of the class called "poor white," her faded calico gown was worn and patched; her cheek was pale and the eyes deep-set and pitiful beyond words. At her side sat a patient figure; the hands folded in pathetic idleness; the sightless eyes closed. His life work done; his young manhood yet in its dawning!
The war is over: and he, blind and helpless as an infant, is journeying to his desolate, ruined home, one among the thousands of the wrecks from the armies of the South! But in the heart of the poor old mother there was still room for a great joy - he was blind and helpless - but - he was alive! She had him safe, and the spirit of her mother love seemed hovering over him and enfolding him with the wings of peace...
From:
A Southern Girl in '61
The War-Time Memories of a Confederate Senator's Daughter:
Electronic Edition.
Wright, Louise Wigfall, 1846-1915
The simple reality is that good generals win battles. And they take advantage of the enemy's mistakes. And modern war is waged as much against civilians as against soldiers. This was the rational in the European wars of the 20'th century as well. It can be argued that it is warfare based in brutality, but then all warfare is brutal.
It has been said that the American civil war is the first modern war, one in which war was waged against both soldiers and civilians and the technology available was used in any way possible. And Sherman was one of the most effective generals of the war. His methods were not overly different from those employed against the Nazis, except by the 1940's they had better weapons. But the general goal was the same, to break the will of the civilan population and to interrupt the functioning of the society which supports the warring party's military.
The bolded quote is basically a summary of the general intent and execution of modern warfare. The key part is the words "cripple their military resources". That is what Sherman was out to do and what other generals in later have also had as their end goals.
Mod cut: Save it for the Religions forum.
Did the Confederates treat the civilians in the North when they went North during their campaign and battle in Gettysburg, did they treat them with the same brutality that Sherman did the South? I do not think so. Please prove me wrong if I am.
“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources”
“The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war — to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact.” “We will . . . take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper.”
“. . .the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men women, and children, who must be killed or banished . . .”
“We are not fighting against enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and poor must feel the iron hand of war . . ."
This same unrestrained brutality is also expressed against Indians:
“we are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of [the railroads].”
“we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”
“hostile savages like Sitting Bull and his band of outlaw Sioux … must feel the superior power of the Government.”
“during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”
...of dubious providence and the link is to a Lew Rockwell site which caste even greater doubt on the their veracity.
I didn't check out that site because I figured it was some RWNJ and I didn't want to contaminate my computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Must admit that considering the number of white supremacist, neo-nazis, Holocaust deniers, and neo-confederate revisionist one has to admit that it is rare indeed to read the posts of a bible toting justifier of chattel slavery. That has to be a first for C-D.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47
It is correct in the intent of much of what makes up modern warfare though, to injure the ememy from both without and within. That was what I was refering to. One of the results of Sherman's methods was a line of distrupton within the enemy's territory. Which was its intent.
I think that ovcatto was questioning whether those quotes were actually made by Sherman, given that the Lew Rockwell followers are infamous for saying/claiming whatever fits their RWNJ agenda.
Letters - MP, 21 June 1863, Head-Quarters, Army of Northern Virginia, printed copy of General Order No. 72 issued by Robert E. Lee detailing regulations for procuring supplies while in the enemy's country. Wardlaw Family Papers. :: South Carolina
Letters - MP, 21 June 1863, Head-Quarters, Army of Northern Virginia, printed copy of General Order No. 72 issued by Robert E. Lee detailing regulations for procuring supplies while in the enemy's country. Wardlaw Family Papers. :: South Carolina
Here is another quote made from the same work. It shows the affection between this Confederate Senator's daughter and her constant companion, Emmeline, a black girl who died when she was 8 years old.
Quote:
There is one little figure, that stands out in positive and pathetic prominence, as I think of those old days; little Emmeline, the small negro girl who was my constant companion. She loved me with a devotion that I have never seen excelled, and in her brief life (for she died when eight years old) she made an impression which has never left me, and which I am glad to record here. When she died, after a short illness, I grieved sincerely; and to this day cannot think of her without a pang.
Mod cut: Orphaned. Did the Confederates treat the civilians in the North when they went North during their campaign and battle in Gettysburg, did they treat them with the same brutality that Sherman did the South? I do not think so. Please prove me wrong if I am.
I wasn't refering to anything biblical. In those times, especially the old testament, the usual was to kill as many of the enemy as you could, men women and children, so there were fewer to try to take back what you won. Genocide was not unusual. At least that wasn't in play in 1860.
I was refering to how, especially as the war mowed on, it became the first MODERN war. Its methods have more to do with wars that came over wars that had been. And Sherman had an objective, to break the will of the civilians, and interrupt the ability of the South to fight from this. If homes were destroyed, then it meant soldiers worred more about their families and were more likely to desert. Desertion was from the start a major problem for the south, and this escalated it. He did not see them as fellow Americans. He saw them as the enemy. He wanted to end the war and if it took a firey pathway, then it would be done.
Which is how other modern wars have been fought. We didn't bomb cities to destroy buildings, but to chip away civilian conditions. Homeless civilians do not contribute to a nation at wars war machine, they detract. Yes, it is brutal, but it is how modern wars work.
There was also the element of guerilla warfare, as locals defended their own turf. It had factored into the Revolution and even more into the Civil War. Thus, turning tactics against civilians directly became a way to discourage such attacks. They met personal violence with greater personal violence.
There was a time period when in European wars, civilians were usually left out. Those families who followed the armies of both sides would gather in a town or city which was off limits. Then there would be the battle. But with our without family and whoever won, the went home. But overall this is not the usual.
In wars someone wins and someone loses, but the incidental civilian generally always ends up a loser now and always.
Sadly what is proper and what isn't isn't really a big consideration in wars, especially civil wars. And the very nature of them, unless you were in battle back in Europe in the mid 1800's, civilizans get caught in them. The modern idea of total war, where the disruption of civilian life is as important as military control, is not new. The biblical norm was often genocide. No survivors no risk of revenge. No world court to try anyone for the acts either since it was the norm.
Sherman did what he set out to do, and in historical terms, it succeeded in its aim. That is what matters in terms of history. How wrong or right the method in a moralist way is a completly different topic.
As noted in a post somewhere in this thead, the south did make a few incursions into the north. They were not kind to the civilians either. I think if there had been more it would simply have hurried up the sort of strategies used by Sherman to end the border wars. I think it would have backfired on the south.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 11-12-2013 at 01:49 PM..
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.
