America Needs To Rediscover The Spirit Of The Old South.

until the last day of the month. Meanwhile all the Southern
Senators in Congress professed their willingness to adopt the Crit-
tenden Compromise, so much and so justly lauded afterwards by
General Scott himself. If at this moment, whilst they were en-
gaged in peaceful consultation with Senators from the North, the
President had despatched military expeditions to these nine forts,
it was easy to foresee what would be the disastrous effect, not
only in the cotton, but in all the border States. Its first effect
would have been to dissolve the existing conferences for a peace-
able adjustment.

This, the General's second recommendation, was wholly un-
expected. He had remained silent for more than six weeks from
the date of his supplemental "Views," convinced, as the President
inferred, that he had abandoned the idea of garrisoning all these
forts with "the five companies only" within his reach. Had
the President never so earnestly desired to reënforce the nine
forts in question, at this time, it would have been little short of
madness to undertake the task, with the small force at his com-
mand. Without authority to call forth the militia or accept the
services of volunteers for the purpose, this whole force now con-
sisted of six hundred recruits, obtained by the General since the
date of his "Views," in addition to the five regular companies.
Our army was still out of reach on the remote frontiers, and
could not be withdrawn, during midwinter, in time for this mili-
tary operation. Indeed, the General had never suggested such a
withdrawal. He knew that had this been possible, the, inhab-
itants on our distant frontiers would have been immediately ex-
posed to the tomahawk and scalping knife of the Indians. Our
weak condition in regard to troops within reach is demonstrated
by the insignificant number of these he was able to collect in
Washington on the 4th March following. This was to resist an
attempt which he apprehended would be made by an armed
force to prevent the inauguration of President Lincoln and to
seize the public property. The General was so firmly convinced
of the reality of this plot, that nothing could shake his faith. It
was in vain that a committee of the House of Representatives,
after hearing the General himself, and after full investigation, had
reported, that his apprehensions were unfounded. ★ Besides, the

____________________
★ February 14, 1861. House Reports of Committees, vol. ii., No. 79.

-169-

Page 170 --

President, relying on his own sources of information, had never
entertained any similar apprehensions. The stake, notwith-
standing, was so vast and the General so urgent, that he granted
him permission to bring to Washington all the troops he could
muster to resist an imaginary but dreaded enemy. The whole
number of these, including even the sappers and miners whom
he had withdrawn from West Point, amounted to no more than
six hundred and fifty-three, rank and file. These troops, with a
portion of the district militia, the General had posted in differ-
ent parts of the city, and had stationed sentinels on the tops of
the highest houses and other eminences, so that all was ready to
attack the enemy at the first moment of their appearance; but
never did an inauguration pass more peacefully and quietly. It
is due to President Lincolnto state, that throughout his long
progress in the same carriage with the late President, both on
the way' to the Capitol and the return from it, he was far from
evincing the slightest apprehension of danger.

Had the President attempted to distribute the General's
thousand men, as he proposed, among the numerous forts in the
cotton States, as well as Fortress Monroe, their absurd inade-
quacy to the object would have exhibited weakness instead of
strength. It would have provoked instead of preventing colli-
sion. It would have precipitated a civil war with the cotton
States without the slightest preparation on the part of Congress,
and would at once have destroyed the then prevailing hopes of
compromise. Worse than all, it would have exasperated Virginia
and the other border States, then so intent on remaining in the
Union, and might have driven them at once into hostile action.

And now it becomes our painful duty to examine the report
of General Scott to President Lincoln of 30th March, 1861.
This was first published at the General's instance, eighteen
months after its date, in the " National Intelligencer" of the
21st October, 1862. It cannot be denied that the report through-
out is an indiscriminate censure of President Buchanan's conduct
in dealing with the Southern forts. It evidently proceeded from
a defective memory prejudiced by a strong bias. It rests mainly
on vague and confused recollections of private conversations
alleged to have been held with the President several months

(In the pages posted to date, it is clear that the states in secession wanted peace as much or more than anyone. Looks like Scott wanted a war more than Buchanan. This is only the beginning of what caused the war.)

-170-

 

Page 172

before its date. These having occurred between the commander-
in-chief and the commanding General of the army, on important
military questions, pertaining to their respective official duties,
were, in their nature, strictly confidential. Were this otherwise,
it would destroy that freedom and unreserve which ought to
characterize such consultations, and instead thereof; the parties
would be ever on their guard in the interchange of opinions, often
greatly to the prejudice of the public interest. Had the General
resolved to violate a confidence as sacred as that between the Pres-
ident and a member of his Cabinet, such is the treachery of the
best human memory, he ought, at the least, to have submitted
his statements to Mr. Buchanan before he had embodied them
in his report. Had he done this, we venture to say from the
sequel that most of them would have never seen the light.

When President Buchanan retired from office, he had reason
to believe he had parted from the General on terms mutually
amicable. Although in former years their friendly intercourse
had been for a season interrupted, yet he believed all this had
been forgotten. A suspicion never entered his mind that the
General held in reserve a quiver of arrows to assail his public
character upon his retirement from office.

This report does not allege that it had been made in conse-
quence of a call from President Lincoln. From its face it ap-
pears to have been a pure volunteer offering on the part of the
General. It deals with the past and not with the future. It is
remarkable that it does not contain a word of advice to President
Lincoln, such as might have been expected from the command-
ing General, as to the manner of recovering the forts which
before its date had been already seized by the Confederates. On
the contrary, it reveals the strange fact that the General, so late
as the 12th March, and after the so-called Confederate Govern-
ment of the cotton States was in full operation at Montgomery,
had advised President Lincoln to evacuate Fort Sumter, and this
in direct opposition to what had been the well-known and oft-
expressed determination of Mr. Buchanan. We need scarcely
remark that President Lincoln acted wisely in disregarding this
counsel. It was founded on an alleged military necessity. Had
the fort been actually invested by a hostile force so superior as

-171-

to render resistance hopeless, this would have justified a capitu-
lation in order to save a useless sacrifice of life. Its voluntary
abandonment, however, to the Confederacy, would have gone
far toward a recognition of their independence.

The General, in this report, would have President Lincoln
believe, on the authority of a Richmond newspaper, that "had
Scott been able to have got these forts in the condition he desired
them to be, the Southern Confederacy would not now exist."
Strange hallucination! In plain English, that South Carolina,
which throughout an entire generation had determined on dis-
union, and had actually passed an ordinance of secession to carry
this purpose into effect, and the remaining six powerful cotton
States ready to follow her evil example, unless their adjudged
rights should be recognized by Congress, and which together
have since sent into the field such numerous and powerful
armies, would at once have been terrified into submission by the
distribution of four hundred troops in October, or one thousand
in December, among their numerous fortifications!

Very different must have been his opinion on the 3d March
following, when he penned his famous letter to Secretary Seward.
In this he exclaims: "Conquer the seceded [cotton] States
by invading armies. No doubt this might be done in two or
three years by a young and able general--a Wolfe, a Dessaix, a
Hoche, with three hundred thousand disciplined men, estimating
a third for garrisons, and the loss of a yet greater number by
skirmishes, sieges, battles and Southern fevers. The destruction
of life and property on the other side would be frightful, however
perfect the moral discipline of the invaders. The conquest
completed, at that enormous waste of human life to the North
and the Northwest, with at least $250,000,000 added thereto,
and cui bono? Fifteen devastated provinces! not to be brought
into harmony with their conquerors, but to be held for genera-
tions by heavy garrisons, at an expense quadruple the net duties
or taxes it would be possible to extort from them, followed by a
protector or an emperor." In view of these fearful forebodings,
we are not surprised that he should have despaired of the
Union, and been willing to say to the cotton States, "Wayward
sisters, depart in peace." Nor that he should have fallen back

(Extort MONEY, could this also be a cause??? )
-172-

 

I WILL!

one of these days

 

page 173

on his opinion expressed in the "Views" ( 29th October, 1860),
that "a smaller evil [than such a civil war] would be to allow
the fragments of the great Republic to form themselves into now
Confederacies."
The General, however, in the same letter to Secretary
Seward, presents his alternative for all these evils. He advises
Mr. Lincoln's administration "to throw off the old and assume
a new designation--the Union party; adopt the conciliatory
measures proposed by Mr. Crittenden, or the Peace Convention,
and my life upon it, we shall have no new case of secession, but,
oil the contrary, an early return of many if not all of the States
which have already broken off from the Union. Without some
equally benign measure, the remaining slaveholding States will
probably join the Montgomery Confederacy in less than sixty
days, when this city, being included in a foreign country, would
require a permanent garrison of at least thirty-five thousand
troops." His advice to adopt the Crittenden Compromise would
have been excellent had it been given to his Republican friends
in Congress in the previous December, before any State had
seceded, and before any fort had been seized, instead of then
recommending to President Buchanan to dispatch small bands
of United States soldiers to each of the forts. This recommen-
dation, had it been followed at the time, would at once have
defeated this very Crittenden Compromise, so much desired, and
served only to provoke the cotton States into secession. It
would have been the stone of Cadmus cast among the armed
men sprung from the dragon's teeth, and the signal for imme-
diate fratricidal war and mutual destruction. The advice to
President Lincoln was out of season, after both the Crittenden
Compromise and the measures proposed by the Peace Convene-
tion had been finally rejected by Congress, and whilst the Con-
federacy of the cotton States was in active existence.
Before we proceed to analyze in further detail the General's
report, it is curious to note the reason for its publication. This
was a consequence of the publication of his letter to Secretary
Seward, which was in its very nature confidential. At this
period, in October, 1862, when the rebellion had assumed a for-
midable aspect, and when his sinister predictions appeared to

(The idea may not have worked, but it was a better idea than sending an invasion fleet)174--

be in the course of fulfilment, he read the original draft, in his
own handwriting, to a friend. This gentleman, whilst extolling
the far-seeing sagacity and the prophetic spirit it displayed,
begged for the draft as an invaluable keepsake. This appeal
to the General proved irresistible. The manuscript was deliv-
ered to the friend, who soon thereafter read it, amid great ap-
plause, at a public meeting in the city of New, York, and whilst
a highly excited political canvass was depending for the office of
Governor. The letter thus published, implying a direct censure
on President Lincolnfor not having followed the advice it had
given, created no little astonishment, because of the prevalent
belief at the time, that the General was under many obligations
to the administration for liberal and indulgent treatment in the
face of discomfiture and defeat. The letter having thus been
first published by his friend, it was soon thereafter republished
in the "National Intelligencer," of the 21st October, 1862, un-
der the General's own authority, and in addition, a copy of his
report to President Lincoln. Why he thus connected these two
documents, so distinct and even opposite in character, it would
be difficult to decide. It has been conjectured he may have
thought that the censure of Mr. Buchananin the report might
prove an antidote to that against Mr. Lincolnin the Seward
letter. Whatever may have caused the publication of this re-
port, Mr. Buchanan has cause to rejoice that it was brought to
light during his lifetime. It might, otherwise, have slumbered
on the secret files of the Executive Department until after his
death, and then been revealed to posterity as authentic history.
And here it is proper to mention, that a few days after the pub-
lication of the report, Mr. Buchananreplied to it in a letter
published in the "National Intelligencer," of the 1st Novem-
ber, 1862. This gave rise to a correspondence between himself
and General Scott, which, on both sides, was formally addressed
to the editors of that journal, and was published by them in
successive numbers. This continued throughout the autumn.
It might at first be supposed that the errors in the report had
been sufficiently exposed in the course of this correspond-
ence; but in the present historical sketch of President Bu-
chanan's conduct, it is impossible to pass over the strictures

-174-

That is all on this subject for today

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Do It!!!!!!

Don't wait to long

 

Sherman's official report on the burning placed the blame on (Confederate) Lt. Gen, Wade Hampton III, who Sherman said had ordered the burning of cotton in the streets. Sherman later recanted this allegation and admitted lying in his Memoirs, Volume 11 page 287. He said, "In my official report of this conflagration I distinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion a braggart and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina."

Secondly, in 1867 a chance meeting of former combatants occurred in Federal Governor Orr's office in Columbia. Gen. Howard, commander of the US 15th Corps of Sherman's army during the burning, was to be introduced to Gen. Hampton in the presence of many dignitaries. Gen. Hampton said, "Before I take your hand General Howard, tell me who burnt Columbia?" Gen. Howard replied, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act." (See Edwin J. Scott, Random Recollections of a Long Life. page 185; The Burning of Columbia, Charleston, SC, 1888, page 11.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eye Witness Accounts:


"My God! I Pity Your City!"

by John T. Trowbridge
Northern journalist

Early in the evening [of February 17] as the inhabitants, quieted by General Sherman's assurances, were about retiring to their beds, a rocket went up in the lower part of the city. Another in the center, and a third in the upper part of town, succeeded. Dr. R.W. Gibbes was in the street near one of the Federal guards, who exclaimed on seeing the signals, "My God! I pity your city!" Mr. Goodwyn, who was mayor at the time, reports a similar remark from an Iowa soldier. "Your city is doomed! These rockets are the signal!" Immediately afterwards fires broke out in twenty different places.

The dwellings of Confederate Treasury Secretary George A. Trenholm and General Wade Hampton were among the first to burst into flames. Soldiers went from house to house, spreading the conflagration. Fireballs, composed of cotton saturated with turpentine, were thrown in at doors and windows. Many houses were entered and fired by means of combustible liquids poured upon beds and clothing, ignited by wads of burning cotton, or by matches from a soldier's pocket. The fire department came out in force, but the hose-pipes were cut to pieces and the men driven from the streets. At the same time universal plundering and robbery began.

The burning of the house of R.W. Gibbes, an eminent physician, well-known to the scientific world, was thus described to me by his son:

"He had a guard at the front door; but some soldiers climbed in at the rear of the house, got into the parlor, heaped together sheets, poured turpentine over them, piled chairs on them, and set them on fire. As he remonstrated with them, they laughed at him. The guard at the front door could do nothing, for if he left his post, other soldiers would come in that way.

Columbia, South Carolina, as it looked the morning after a visit from Sherman's fire fiends. "The guard had a disabled foot, and my father had dressed it for him. He appeared very grateful for the favor, and earnestly advised my father to save all his valuables. The house was full of costly paintings, and curiosities of art and natural history, and my father did not know what to save and what to leave behind. He finally tied up in a bedquilt a quantity of silver and gems. As he was going out the door the house was already on fire behind him -- the guard said, 'Is that all you can save?" "It is all I can carry,' said my father. 'Leave that with me,' said the guard; 'I will take charge of it, while you go back and get another bundle.' My father thought he was very kind. He went back for another bundles, and while he was gone, the guard ran off on his lame leg with all the gems and silver."

The soldiers, in their march through Georgia, and thus far into South Carolina, had a wonderful skill in finding treasures. They had two kinds of divining-rods," negroes and bayonets. What the unfaithful servants of the rich failed to reveal, the other instruments, by thorough and constant practice, were generally able to discover. On the night of the fire, a thousand men could be seen in the yards and gardens of Columbia by the glare of the flames, probing the earth with bayonets.

The dismay and terror of the inhabitants can scarcely be conceived. They had two enemies, the fire in their house and the soldiery without. Many who attempted to bear away portions of their goods were robbed by the way. Trunks and bundles were snatched from the hands of hurrying fugitives, broken open, rifled, and then hurled into the flames. Ornaments were plucked from the necks and arms of ladies, and caskets from their hands. Even children and negroes were robbed.

Fortunately the streets of Columbia were broad, else many of the fugitives must have perished in the flames which met them on all sides. The exodus of homeless families, flying between walls of fire, was a terrible and piteous spectacle. Some fled to the parks; others to the open ground without the city; numbers sought refuge in the graveyards. Isolated and unburned dwellings were crowded to excess with fugitives.

Three-fifths of the city in bulk, and four-fifths in value, were destroyed. The loss of property is estimated at thirty millions. No more respect seems to have been shown for buildings commonly deemed sacred, than for any others. The churches were pillaged, and afterwards burned. St. Mary's College, a Catholic institution, shared their fate. The Catholic Convent, to which had been confided for safety many young ladies, not nuns, and stores of treasure, was ruthlessly sacked. The soldiers drank the sacramental wine, and profaned with fiery draughts of vulgar whiskey the goblets of the communion services. Some went off reeling under the weight of priestly robes, holy vessels and candlesticks.

Yet the army of Sherman did not in its wildest orgies forget its splendid discipline. "When will these horrors cease?" asked a lady of an officer at her house. "You will hear the bugles at sunrise," he replied; "then they will cease, and not till then." He prophesied truly. "At daybreak, on Saturday morning," said Gibbes, "I saw two men galloping through the streets, blowing horns. Not a dwelling was fired after that; immediately the town became quiet."

Some curious incidents occurred. One man's treasure, concealed by his garden fence, escaped the soldiers' divining-rods, but was afterwards discovered by a hitched horse pawing the earth from the buried box. Some hidden guns had defied the most diligent search, until a chicken, chased by a soldier ran into a hole beneath the house. The soldier, crawling after and putting in his hand for the chicken, found the guns.

A soldier, passing in the streets and seeing some children playing with a beautiful little greyhound, amused himself by beating its brains out. Some treasures were buried in cemeteries, but they did not always escape the search of the soldiers, who showed a strong distrust of new-made graves.

Of the desolation and horrors our army left behind it, no description can be given. Here is a single instance: At a factory on the Congaree, just out of Columbia, there remained for six weeks a pile of sixty-five dead horses and mules, shot by Sherman's men. It was impossible to bury them, all the shovels, spades, and other farming implements of the kind having been carried off or destroyed.

Columbia must have been a beautiful city, judging by its ruins. Many fine residences still remain on the outskirts, but the entire heart of the city is a wilderness of crumbling walls, naked chimneys, and trees killed by the flames. The fountains of the desolated gardens are dry, the basins cracked; the pillars of the houses are dismantled, or overthrown; the marble steps are broken. All these attest to the wealth and elegance which one night of fire and orgies sufficed to destroy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTINUED BELOW......

 

Hanging more negroes?

 

More Eye Witness Accounts:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Burning of Columbia - February 17,1865
The Last Confederate Soldier to Leave Columbia
By Lieutenant Milford Overley
9th Kentucky Cavalry

I was one of Hampton's rear guard, and was probably the very last Confederate to leave the city, yet I saw no cotton burning in the streets of Columbia, nor did I hear any order from any one to fire the cotton, but I did hear one just the reverse. It was given to a detachment, three companies, from the 9th Kentucky Cavalry that was ordered back to Columbia as a provost guard after the Confederates had evacuated the place and before Sherman entered it. I asked and obtained of Col. Breckinridge, the Brigade Commander, permission to accompany the detachment, and was present and heard this order given the officer commanding: "It is Gen. Hampton's order that you return to Columbia, bring out any straggling Confederates you may find, and see that no cotton is fired." Having no time to lose, the detachment immediately proceeded on its mission, passing down in front of Sherman's skirmish line, which was in plain view, and entering the city in advance of him. In the suburbs we met Mayor Goodwyn and other municipal officers in carriages, with a white flag, going out to surrender the city. During the parley, which, however, was a brief one, we hastily visited different streets in search of straggling Confederate soldiers, but found none, neither did we find any cotton burning. Falling back as the Federals advanced along the street, the detachment passed out toward the east. I remained in the city after the detachment had gone, just keeping out of the enemy's reach by falling back from street to street till pushed out by the advancing infantry (they had no mounted men in the city at that time), yet I saw no cotton burning in Columbia. Basing my conclusions on what I saw (the Federals, in possession of the city), on what I failed to see (any cotton burning in the street), and on what I heard (the order to see that no cotton was fired), I can safely say that the Confederates had no hand in the burning of Columbia, Gen. Sherman's official report to the contrary notwithstanding."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Debauchery... Afflicted on the Negroes"

by Dr. Daniel Trezevant
Columbia, South Carolina

The Yankees' gallantry, brutality and debauchery were afflicted on the negroes.... The case of Mr. Shane's old negro woman, who, after being subjected to the most brutal indecency from seven of the Yankees, was, at the proposition of one of them to "finish the old (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)," put into a ditch and held under water until life was extinct....

Mrs. T.B.C. was seized by one of the soldiers, an officer, and dragged by the hair and forced to the floor for the purpose of sensual enjoyment. She resisted as far as practical- held up her young infant as a plea for sparing her and succeeded, but they took her maid, and in her presence, threw her on the floor and had connection with her....

They pinioned Mrs. McCord and robbed her. They dragged Mrs. Gynn by the hair of her head about the house. Mrs. G. told me of a young lady about 16, Miss Kinsler, who... three officers brutally ravished and who became crazy from it....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS IS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?

 

So in other words, you can no longer defend your position with legitimate arguments, so instead you attack me personally. Well done, Woogs, you strike me as an exemplar for all Confederate apologists.

So I belong in the SA? If you want to go there, we can go there. Let's take a look at how Hitler operated then. the Nazis were not evil pod people from Mars. They were ordinary people with human motives and human failings, the same as you and I. They did not think of themselves as being evil, in fact they were generally absolutely convinced that they were doing the right and just thing. And in point of fact, they had quite legitimate grievances on many of the issues that propelled the Nazis to power - certainly more legitimate then the Confederacy's grievances. The Treaty of Versailles was undeniably a travesty of justice, for example. The descent into madness and evil occurred in large part because the Nazis believed so strongly in the righteousness of their cause. They were Right and everyone else was Wrong, so they were morally justified in whatever the did to make sure that Right triumphed. They were the Good Guys, so whatever they did was by definition right. Their sense of personal identity and self worth was so tied up with being on the side of Right that it became impossible to even consider that they might be in the wrong.

Now, is this how I behave? Or do I freely admit where the US, the North, and my own ancestors were in the wrong? Do I admit that slavery did indeed exist in the North and it was wrong and immoral? Do I own up to when I make mistakes and admit I was wrong and change my position?

How about you? Why are you so determined to defend the Confederacy? The Civil War was a century and a half ago, all its participants long since dead. given that neither slavery nor secession are issues today, the events of that period really do not bear directly on the politics of today. It almost sounds as if you personally identify with the Confederacy. Why is it that you refuse to admit the Confederacy was ever in the wrong about anything? I'm pretty sure you have yet to acknowledge that slavery was wrong and should have been ended. Why is it that you refuse to even consider viewing the Confederacy as anything other then the Good Guys? In real life conflicts are very rarely simple enough to be reduced down to good guys and bad guys.

-------

Is it fair to summarize what you were saying about doing the wrong thing for the right reason as, "The ends don't justify the means"? That I agree with completely. But by the same token, the means most certainly don't justify the ends. Even if we assume for the sake of argument there is such a thing as a right of secession, that does not justify secession in order to protect slavery. Slavery was wrong and evil, and even using legal means to defend it was morally wrong.

Although I have to say the notion of a right of secession to be totally absurd. If a state has the right to secede from the country, does then a county have a similar right to secede from the US? How about a city? A borough? A neighborhood? Do I have the right to secede from the US and declare my house an independent nation in which US law does not apply and I can do whatever I want? Or does all this simply amount to an attempt to say that you ought to be able to pick and choose what laws to follow?

The idea that if the constitution does not specifically forbid the states from doing something, they then have a right to do that is just silly. Before the 14th Amendment, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the states from committing genocide or ethnic cleansing. No part of the constitution was ever meant to be an exhaustive list of anything, the founders assumed that people in the future would have at least a little bit of common sense. Yet more evidence that the founders were only human, I suppose. In any case, the Constitution very clearly vests sovereignty in the federal government, and prohibits the states from acting as independent nations, as we previously discussed. Furthermore, the Constitution purposefully does not provide any mechanisms for its own annulment, clearly indicating it was intended as a permanent compact. All of this adds up to one thing - there is no right to secession, and there never was.

And saying that the South just wanted to be left alone is absolutely not true. They wanted to be left alone to continue to hold 3.5 million people in slavery. And they wanted to be left alone to expand slavery into new territories. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot separate the Confederacy from slavery, as the Confederates themselves said, their cause was wholly identified with the institution of slavery.

All that wrapped up in a neat little package of blathering circular logic, eh? Then prove it. Circular logic is demonstrable, so demonstrate it. I dismiss things that I see as tangential, irrelevant, illogical and nonsensical even on its own terms, and things clearly contradicted by the facts. That being said, although I do my best to answer arguments fully and completely, I do make mistakes. Sometimes I get distracted, or miss the point of something, or put off doing the research only to have the conversation move on, and even just plain forget. I apologize for the times I've done those things, and if I neglected to answer something you think is important, feel free to press me on it.

 

What coercion are you talking about? Not completely surrendering to all of the South's demands? Not allowing an illegal insurrection to continue?

And what would that have to do with Article IV? It deals with full faith and credit, extradition, the admission of new states, and the guarantee of a republican form of government in the states.

The captain of the USS San Jacinto acted without orders, and the Confederates were released. In any case, the interpretation of international law in this sort of circumstance had been in dispute for some time. Lincoln's comment on the affair:

"I fear the traitors will prove to be white elephants. We must stick to American principles concerning the rights of neutrals. We fought Great Britain for insisting … on the right to do precisely what Captain Wilkes has done. If Great Britain shall now protest against the act, and demand their release, we must give them up, apologize for the act as a violation of our doctrines, and thus forever bind her over to keep the peace in relation to neutrals, and so acknowledge that she has been wrong for sixty years."

What more do you want? And how did Lincoln do anything to violate the Constitution? He ordered the prisoners released, for crying out loud.

A1S9C2: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety shall require it.

The Constitution specifically authorizes the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of rebellion. I don't really approve of the suspension, but considering that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law as well, this hardly paints the North as oppresors or the South as champions of freedom.

War was never declared since the US never recognized the Confederacy. It was a domestic insurrection, not a war with a foreign nation, so Lincoln was well within his authority as commander in chief.

No, Congress admitted WV, not Lincoln, as per A4S3. Afte VA passed its ordinance of secession, the people of what was to become WV called a convention in Wheeling that declared that, since the Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were void, and that all who adhered to it had vacated their offices. They then promptly proceeded to establish their own state government, resulting in two competing governments of VA. The VA government based in Wheeling then approved the separation of WV.

I happen to agree that the legal basis of all this is shaky at best, however, the matter predictably wound up in court, and the Supreme court ruled in favor of WV in 1870.

I assume you're talking about Clement Vallandigham? Vallandigham was arrested by the military and convicted by a tribunal of "uttering disloyal sentiments" and attempting to hinder the prosecution of the war. He was sentenced to a military prison. This was upheld by a federal circuit judge as a valid exercise of the President's war powers. Lincoln then commuted his sentence and exiled him to the Confederacy. Like I said before, I don't like Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, but it was legal.

Again, Lincoln was exercising his power as commander in chief to suppress a rebellion, in accordance with his oath of office.

I assume this is still about habeas corpus?

To my knowledge, Lincoln never took any real action on the fugitive slave law one way or the other. The 1850 fugitive slave act was still in force for slaves fleeing masters loyal to the union in border states until Congress repealed it 1864

 

So, if the ordinances of secession weren't declarations of war, and the US never recognized the Confederacy, much less issued a declaration of war, does that mean you're contending there was no war?

The other states of the Confederacy didn't issue declarations of causes at all. However, as vice president, I think it's fair to take Stephens as speaking for the whole confederacy. You know, the bit where he said that slavery was most certainly the occasion of secession? Or do you need me to beat you over the head with a line by line take of the text before you'll admit that, yes, it does actually say what it clearly says, that slavery was the cause of the war?

 

A whole different subject, but no the Secession documents were not declarations of war. let me finish what I am currently doing and I'll address those concerns.

I have already addressed Stephen's on this forum. If you wish to revisit that issue go back and read. Beat me over the head, do you mean continue to post the same thing over and over? Take off -- do your best, we are well aware of your tactics of spamming a board. While you are doing that I will continue to post more on Sherman and show you which side is more like Nazi Germany.


You advocate the rape and murder and rape of American civilians.

George Purvis.
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 30 (Part III)
Page 694

HEADQUARTERS FIFTEENTH ARMY Corps Camp on Big Black, Miss., September 17, 1863. Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief, Washington, D. C.: DEAR GENERAL: I have received your letter of August 29, and with pleasure confide to you fully my thoughts on the important matters you suggest, with absolute confidence that you will use what is valuable and reject the useless or superfluous.

Page 696
Fourth, the young bloods of the South, sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players, and sportsmen, men who never did work nor never will. War suits them, and the rascals are brave; fine riders, bold to rashness, and dangerous subjects in every sense. They care not a son for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, land, or anything. They hate Yankees per Se, and don’t bother their brains about the past, present, or future. As long as they have good horses, plenty of forage, and an open country, they are happy. This is a larger class than most men supposed, and are the most dangerous set of men which this war has turned loose upon the world. They are splendid riders, shots, and utterly reckless. Stuart, John Morgan, Forrest, and Jackson are the types and leaders of this class. This class of men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace. They have no property or future, and therefore cannot be influenced by any- thing except personal considerations. I have two brigades of these fellows to my front, commanded by Cosby, of the old army, and Whitfield, of Texas, Stephen D. Lee in command of the whole. I have frequent interviews with the officers and a good understanding. Am inclined to think when the resources of their country are exhausted we must employ them. They are the best cavalry in the world, but it will tax Mr. Chase's genius of finance to supply them with horses.

697
The people, even of small and unimportant localities, North as well as South, had reasoned themselves into the belief that their opinions were superior to the aggregated interest of the whole nation. Half our territorial nation rebelled on a doctrine of secession that they themselves now scout, and a real numerical majority actually believed that a little State was endowed with such sovereignty that it could defeat the policy of the great whole. I think the present war has exploded that notion, and were this war to cease now, the experience gained, though dear, would be worth the expense. Another great and important natural truth is still in contest and can only be solved by war. Numerical majorities by vote is our great arbiter. Heretofore all have submitted to it in questions left open, but numerical majorities are not necessarily physical majorities. The South, though numerically inferior, contend they can whip the Northern superiority of numbers, and therefore by natural law are not bound to submit. This issue is the only real one, and in my judgment all else should be deferred to it. War alone can decide it, and it is the only question left to us as a people. Can we whip the South? If we can, our numerical majority has both the natural and constitutional right to govern. If we cannot whip them,


698
they contend for the natural right to select their own government, and they have the argument. Our armies must prevail over theirs. Our officers, marshals, and courts must penetrate into the innermost recesses of their land before we have the natural right to demand their submission. I would banish all minor questions and assert the broad doctrine, that as a nation the United States has the right, and also the physical power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain, and that we will do it; that we will do it in our own time, and in our own way; that it makes no difference whether it be in one year or two, or ten or twenty; that we will remove and destroy every obstacle if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper; that we will not cease until the end is attained. That all who do not aid are enemies, and we will not account to them for our acts. If the people of the South oppose, they do so at their peril; and if they stand by mere lookers-on the domestic tragedy, they have no right to immunity, protection, or share in the final result.

700
Excuse so long a letter. With great respect, W. T. SHERMAN, Major- General. SEPTEMBER 17, 1863.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Woogs, proof Sherman thought Might makes Right

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Putting your knowledge on public display? Don't have much to play with do you?

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

(Raises an eyebrow) I post the same thing over and over and spam the board? You're one to talk, considering how much room you take up shouting the same nonsense over and over, and putting up huge sections of meaningless primary documents. If I repeat myself it's because you keep repeating the same fallacies over and over, completely ignoring historical facts and even common sense.

Primary documents such as personal letters and diaries are invaluable to understanding an era - to an historian. There are a huge number of such documents from the period of the Civil War, and to meaningfully use them you have to understand them in context, realizing that these were written as personal points of view, not as objective historical accounts. Using them to understand the Civil War is rather like using a data dump of the contents of the internet over the last few years to understand the war on terror. Email, tweets, facebook postings, etc... I'm sure that will all be an invaluable resource to future historians. But thinking you can just grab a handful of them (especially cherry picked ones to present a certain point of view) and get an accurate impression of the period is just silly. Using such sources appropriately takes years of hard work, sifting through volumes of material, and comparing them with harder sources of information to put them in perspective. So I do wish you guys would quit spamming the thread with this stuff - it doesn't prove a thing.

So I'm advocating the rape and murder and rape of American civilians, am I? So Sherman would rape someone, kill them, and then rape then again? The guy must have had stamina, then. And you're forgetting how he'd eat babies and sew the skins of defeated enemies into his clothes and drink from a human skull. You're just making stuff up.

Yes, bad things happened during the Georgia and Carolina campaigns. Bad things also happened during Lee's campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and in every other campaign of the war, and for that matter, in ever other military campaign in human history. That's what war is - death and destruction and suffering and cruelty. That's what the decision to go to war means. There is no such thing as a moral war. There are simply times when going to war is the least bad choice. Civilians always are going to die in war, no matter how hard you try to spare them. How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last ten years? That hardly means the US Army has been targeting them. The question is how many civilians die, how, and what the purposeful policies of the combatants are.

When Sherman ordered the evacuation of Atlanta, the city council appealed to him to rescind the order. He replied thus:

Sherman simply did what was necessary to end the war. That's pretty much the job description of a general, you know. He set out to destroy the Confederacy's ability to make war, and to that end he targeted infrastructure, not civilians. Very few civilians were killed during the campaign, and the damage Sherman's armies did was almost entirely limited to property. In fact, his campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas probably saw less bloodshed then any other major campaign of the war.

Even if you believe that the only proper type of wars is armies fighting armies in set battles, the blame still falls on the South, not Sherman. Sherman smashed the Confederate Army of Tennessee in the Atlanta campaign, and for all intents and purposes it simply ceased to exist as an effective fighting force. In the face of utter defeat on the battlefield, if you wish to have a limited war, the proper course of action is to negotiate a surrender. Instead, once Sherman set out from Atlanta, the state legislature called for Georgians to "Die freemen rather than live [as] slaves" and then fled for their lives, leaving only old men and young boys to face Sherman's battle hardened army.

As for Columbia, the assessment of James McPherson, one of the most eminent historians of the Civil War, was that, "The fullest and most dispassionate study of this controversy blames all parties in varying proportions—including the Confederate authorities for the disorder that characterized the evacuation of Columbia, leaving thousands of cotton bales on the streets (some of them burning) and huge quantities of liquor undestroyed ... Sherman did not deliberately burn Columbia; a majority of Union soldiers, including the general himself, worked through the night to put out the fires." Sherman himself said that, "f I had made up my mind to burn Columbia I would have burnt it with no more feeling than I would a common prairie dog village; but I did not do it." In other words, had Sherman decided to destroy Columbia, he'd have done a much more thorough job of it.

The bottom line is that those who sow the wind have no room to complain when they reap the whirlwind. The Confederacy chose their course when they decided on secession, when they fired on Ft Sumter, when they refused to surrender in the face of certain defeat. To cast aspersions on those (*)(*)(*)(*) Yankees for having the temerity to win is simply childish.

So yeah, Woogs, as a matter of fact, that is the moral high ground.

 

Just a couple more items about your moral high ground....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"All the property of rebels [is] forfeited to the treasury of the country," and "slave property [is] subject to the same liability as other property to be appropriated for war purposes" (The War Powers of the President [Boston: John L. Shorey, 1862], pages 28, 107). Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, elaborated on this premise in a dispatch to Brigadier-General Rufus Saxton on 25 August 1862: "The population of African descent that cultivate the lands and perform the labor of the rebels constitute a large share of their military strength, and enable the white masters to fill the rebel armies and wage a cruel and murderous war against the people of the Northern States. By reducing the laboring strength of the rebels their military power will be reduced" (Official Records of the War of the Rebellion: Armies, Series I, Volume XIV, pages 377-378 ). Consequently, the invading Northern army began to seize Southern slaves and conscript them into service to the United States, often against their will. In a 26 February 1864 dispatch from Huntsville, Alabama, General John A. Logan wrote that "a major of colored troops is here with his party capturing negroes, with or without their consent.... [T]hey are being conscripted" (ibid., Series I, Volume XXXII, Part II, page 477). On 1 September 1864, Captain Frederick Martin reported from New Berne, North Carolina, "The negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them.... I expect to get a large lot to-morrow" (ibid., Series I, Volume XLII, Part II, pages 653-654). General Rufus A. Saxton reported, "Men have been seized and forced to enlist who had large families of young children dependent upon them for support and fine crops of cotton and corn nearly ready for harvest, without an opportunity of making provision for the one or securing the other." On at least one occasion, "three boys, one only fourteen years of age, were seized in a field where they were at work and sent to a regiment serving in a distant part of the department without the knowledge of their parents...." (ibid., Series III, Volume IV, page 1028 ). It was also reported that, "On some plantations the wailing and screaming were loud and the women threw themselves in despair on the ground. On some plantations the people took to the woods and were hunted up by the soldiers.... I doubt if the recruiting service in this country has ever been attended with such scenes before" (ibid., Series III, Volume II, page 57).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.....and another

"Oh! The Horror of That Night!"

by Mrs. Nora Canning

Savannah, Georgia



About the 24th of November we heard that Sherman's army was in possession of Milledgeville and was on its way to Savannah, burning and destroying everything in its course. Our home being directly on the wagon road from Milledgeville in Savannah, we of course expected them to lay everything in ashes that they could find.

On Sunday, the 28th of November, we heard that the destroyers were encamped just above our upper plantation, about four miles from our home. That night the heavens The man who waged war on the elderly, women, and children of the Southlooked as if they were on fire from the glare of hundreds of burning houses. About noon, just as we were ready to sit down to dinner, a little negro boy came running in half breathless from fright.

"Marster," he cried, "dey's coming down de lane."

"Who is coming.?" asked his master.

"Two white man's wid blue coats on," the little negro answered.

Hundreds of the "Bluecoats" could be seen everywhere. One could not look in any direction without seeing them. They searched every place. Some of the men insisted that my husband should go down to the swamp with them to show them where some syrup was hidden. He told them he was old and feeble and was not able to walk so far. One of them thereupon went and brought a mule to put him on it and three of them started with him to the swamp.

While my husband was absent the destroyers set fire to the ginhouse, in which were stored over two hundred bales of cotton and several bales of kersey, which we had hidden between the bales of cotton. The granary, in which were several hundred bushels of wheat, was also set on fire.

One man, who had been particularly insulting, came up to me and laughed harshly. "Well, madam," he said, sneeringly, "how do you like the looks of our little fire? We have seen a great many such within the last few weeks."

Just then I saw my husband coming up on a bareback mule with a Yankee soldier on each side of him holding him on. He was brought up to the piazza, lifted from the mule and brought into the house. They took him into a small room and I followed. He turned to me and requested me to give the men his watch.

"Why?" I asked. "They have no business with your watch."

"Give it to them," he repeated with a gasp, "and let them go. I am almost dead."

I got my husband to his room as soon as possible. Imagine my horror, when he revived sufficiently to talk, to hear that the fiends had taken him to the swamp and hanged him. He said he suspected no harm until he got about two miles from the house when they stopped the mule, and said, "Now, old man, you have got to tell us where your gold is hidden." He told them he had no gold. They cursed him and told him that story would not do, then they said they had brought him to the swamp to make him tell where it was. He repeated his first statement, and told them he had no gold. They then took him to a tree that bent over the path, tied a rope around his neck, threw it over a projecting limb and drew him up until his feet were off the ground. He did not quite lose consciousness when they let him down and said: "Now, were is your gold?" He told them the same story, whereupon they raised him up again, and that time, he said, he felt as if he was suffocating. They again lowered him to the ground and cried out fiercely: "Now, tell us where that gold is or we will kill you, and your wife will never know what has become of you."

"I have told you the truth. I have no gold," he again repeated. "I have a gold watch at the house but nothing else."

They then lifted him up and let him fall with more force than before. He heard a sound as of water rushing through his head and then a blindness came over him, and a dry choking sensation was felt in his throat as he lost consciousness.... When he was able to sit up they placed him upon the mule and brought him to the house to get his watch.

Oh! the horror of that night! None but God will ever know what I suffered. There my husband lay with scorching fever, his tongue parched and swollen and his throat dry and sore. He begged for water and there was not a drop to be had. The Yankees had cut all the well ropes and stolen the buckets, and there was no water nearer than half a mile.

Saturday morning we looked out upon a scene of desolation and ruin. We could hardly believe it was our home. One week before it was one of the most beautiful places in the state. Now it was a vast wreck. Gin-houses, packing screws, granary -- all lay in ashes. Not a fence was to be seen for miles. The corn crop had not been gathered, and the army had turned their stock into the fields and destroyed what they had not carried off. Burning cotton and grain filled the air with smoke, and even the sun seemed to hide its face from so gloomy a picture.

I remember well the distress of one of the negro women. She was sitting on her doorsteps swaying her body back and forth... and making a mournful noise, a kind of moaning, a low sorrowful sound, occasionally wringing her hands and crying out. As we approached her, she raised her head.

"Marster," she said, rolling her eyes strangely, "What kind of folks dese here Yankees? Dey won't even let de dead rest in de grave."

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"You know my chile what I bury last week? Dey take em up and left em on top of de groun for de hog to root. What you tink of dat, sir?"

Her story was true. We found that the vandals had gone to the graveyard and, seeing a newly made grave, had dug down into it and taken up the little coffin containing a dead baby, no doubt supposing treasure had been buried there. When they discovered their mistake, they left it above ground, as the poor mother had expressed it, "for the hog to root."

We soon discovered that almost everything we had hidden had been found, and either carried off or wantonly destroyed. All around the grove were carcasses of cows, sheep, and hogs, some with only the hind quarters gone and the rest left to spoil. There were piles of carcasses all around where the army had camped. Some of them had been killed and left without being touched. The question of getting anything to eat was a very serious one. The stores were all burned, not one being left within thirty-five miles. The mills were all destroyed, or partially so, railroads were torn up, bridges broken, all our stock carried off and our fences burned. There seemed to be nothing left to live on during the winter. Oh! the first of December, 1864, is indelibly impressed upon my mind.

 

Sherman's official report on the burning placed the blame on (Confederate) Lt. Gen, Wade Hampton III, who Sherman said had ordered the burning of cotton in the streets. Sherman later recanted this allegation and admitted lying in his Memoirs, Volume 11 page 287. He said, "In my official report of this conflagration I distinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion a braggart and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina."

Secondly, in 1867 a chance meeting of former combatants occurred in Federal Governor Orr's office in Columbia. Gen. Howard, commander of the US 15th Corps of Sherman's army during the burning, was to be introduced to Gen. Hampton in the presence of many dignitaries. Gen. Hampton said, "Before I take your hand General Howard, tell me who burnt Columbia?" Gen. Howard replied, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act." (See Edwin J. Scott, Random Recollections of a Long Life. page 185; The Burning of Columbia, Charleston, SC, 1888, page 11.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to the part of your post I highlighted ( In other words, had Sherman decided to destroy Columbia, he'd have done a much more thorough job of it), here is a link to photos of Columbia. Looks like a pretty thorough job to me. http://www.wadehamptoncamp.org/hist-boc.html

Before you go relying on one historian too much, I suggest you take notice of Sherman's own words reposted here. You might also take a look back at post #381 and see the account of John T. Trowbridge.

Yeah, I see your moral high ground.

 

Yeeees, this is what happens in an urban center when a fire gets out of control and the fire response system is compromised. You have made a big deal of how efficient Sherman was at destroying infrastructure - if he had decided to destroy Columbia as a whole, do you really think there'd have been a single structure left standing? Why would Sherman order his troops to burn the city and then order them to fight the fires? Yes, you posted that anecdote about Gen Howard before, and I don't think there's any doubt that Union soldiers set some fires. That does not automatically translate in a major city wide fire. It certainly doesn't mean they had orders to raze the city. And it doesn't even mean they had orders to burn anything at all.

This is what war is. This is what war has always been and will always be. Deal with it. The destruction Sherman caused is minor compared to the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. If you don't want people to suffer and die, if you don't want property damage and refugees, you don't go to war in the first place. Statements like offering to soak up all the blood spilled with a handkerchief show what complete fools the Confederate leadership were. The fact that the chose to keep fighting even when it became obvious just how bad the fighting would be showed they were willing to visit this sort of destruction on the country. And the behavior of the Georgia state legislature shows they were cowards, and cared nothing for the suffering of their people, only their own political power.

Posting anecdotal accounts out of context shows only that war is always a terrible thing, nothing more.

 

These are some of the dumbest statement I have ever read--- but considering the source thay are par for the course.

So you still think killing Amewrican women and children is fine. Isn't that the same way the 9/11 terrorist think??

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

I am posting Sherman's entire letters and orders wxcept as noted; nothing is being taken out of context.

Is there really any difference in Sherman than any other Nazi general? We already know Hitler and Lincoln are a close match.

You know maybe if you spent more time reading and less time trying to twist documents of the period to fit your needs, you just might learn something. But then again I doubt it.

Remember you are the one who supports the atrocities committed American citizens.

George Purvis

 

The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part III)
Author: United States. War Dept., John Sheldon Moody, Calvin Duvall Cowles, Frederick Caryton Ainsworth, Robert N. Scott, Henry Martyn Lazelle, George Breckenridge Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph William Kirkley

page 162 KY., SW. VA., TENN., MISS., ALA., AND N. GA. [CHAP. LI.

HDQRS. MiLITARY DIVISION OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Allatoona, Ga., October 9, 18647.30 r. m. Lieutenant-General GRANT, (Received 11 a. ni. 10th.) City Point, Va.: It will be a physical impossibility to protect the roads, now that Hood, Forrest, and Wheeler, and the whole batch of devils, are turned loose without home or habitation. I think Hoods movements indicate a diversion to the end of the Selma and Talladega Railroad at Blue Momitain, about sixty miles southwest of Rome, from which he will threaten Kingston, Bridgeport, and Decatur, Ala. I propose we break up the railroad from Chattanooga, and strike out with wagons for Mil- ledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. 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. By attempting to hold the roads we will lose 1,000 men monthly, and will gain no re- sult. I can make the march, and make Georgia howl. We have over 8,000 cattle and 3,000,000 of bread, but no corn; but we can forage in the interior of the State. W. T. SHERMAN, Major- General, Commanding.





Title: The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part II) Page 132

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Big Shanty, June 21, 1864. General Lorenzo THOMAS, Chattanooga:

It has repeatedly come to my knowledge, on the Mississippi, and recently Colonel Beckwith, my chief commissary, reported officially that his negro cattle drivers and gangs for unloading cars were stampeded and broken up by recruiting officers who actually used their authority to carry them off by a species of force. I had to stop it at once. I am receiving no negroes now, because their owners have driven them to Southwest Georgia. I believe that Negroes better serve the Army as teamsters, pioneers, and servants, and have no objection to the surplus, if any, being enlisted as soldiers, but I must have labor and a large quantity of it. I confess I would prefer 300 Negroes armed with spades and axes than 1,000 as soldiers. Still I repeat I have no objection to the enlistment of Negroes if my working parties are not interfered with, and if they are interfered with I must put a summary stop to it. For God’s sake let the Negro question develop itself slowly and naturally, and not by premature cultivation make it a weak element in our policy. I think I understand the Negro as well as anybody, and profess as much conviction in the fact of his certain freedom as you or any one, but he, like all other of the genus homo, must pass through a probationary state before he is qualified for utter and complete freedom. As soldiers it is still an open question, which I am perfectly willing should be fairly and honestly tested. Negroes are as scarce in North Georgia as in Ohio. All are at and below Macon and Columbus, Ga. W. T. SHERMAN, Major- General, Commanding.





Title: The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part II) page 503

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, September 28, 1864,

Major-General SHERMAN, Atlanta, Georgia.

GENERAL: Your communications of the 20th in regard to the removal of families from Atlanta, and the exchange of prisoners, and also the official report of your campaign, are just received. I have not had time as yet to examine your report. The course which you have pursued in removing rebel families from Atlanta, and in the exchange of prisoners, is fully approved by the War Department. Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so. Moreover, I am fully of opinion that the nature of your position, the character of the war, the conduct of the enemy (and especially of non-combatants and women of the territory which we have heretofore conquered and occupied), will justify you in gathering up all the forage and provisions which your army may require, both for a siege of Atlanta and for your supply in your march farther into the enemy's country. Let the disloyal families of the country, thus stripped, go to their husbands, fathers, and natural protectors, in the rebel ranks; we have tried three years of conciliation and kindness without any reciprocation; on the contrary, those thus treated have acted as spies and guerrillas in our rear and within our lines. The safety of our armies, and a proper regard for the lives of our soldiers, require that we apply to our inexorable foes the severe rules of war. We certainly are not required to treat the so-called non-combatant rebels better than they themselves treat each other. Even herein Virginia, within fifty miles of Washington, they strip their own families of provisions, leaving them, as our army advances, to be fed by us, or to starve within our lines. We have fed this class of people long enough. Let them go with their husbands and fathers in the rebel ranks; and if they won't go, we must send them to their friends and natural protectors. I would destroy every mill and factory within reach which I did not want for my own use. This the rebels have done, not only in Maryland and Pennsylvania, but also in Virginia and other rebel States, when compelled to fall back before our armies. In many sections of the country they have not left a mill to grind grain for their own suffering families, lest we might use them to supply our armies. We most do the same.

I have endeavored to impress these views upon our commanders for the last two years. You are almost the only one who has properly applied them. I do not approve of General Hunter's course in burning private homes or uselessly destroying private property. That is barbarous. But I approve of taking or destroying whatever may serve as supplies to us or to the enemy's army.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General, Chief of Staff






From the OR's --The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part II)
page 132 KY., SW. VA., TENN., MISS., ALA., AND N. GA.

MILITARY DIVISON OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Big Shanty, Ga., June 21, 1864. Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:

[CHAr. LI. ate in our midst the class of men that we all know to be conspiring against the peace of the State, and yet who if tried by jury could not be convicted. Our civil powers at the South are ridiculously impotent, and it is as a ship sailing through seaour armies traverse the land, and the waves of disaffection, sedition, and crime close in behind, and our track disappears. We must make a beginning, and I am will- ing to try it, but to be effectual it should be universal. The great diffi- culty will be in selecting a place for the malcontents. Honduras, British or French Guiana, or San iDomingo would be the best countries, but these might object to receive such a mass of restless democrats. Madagascar or Lower California would do. But one thing is certain, there is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order, even as far south as Tennessee. I would like to have your assent and to name the land to which I may send a few cargoes, but if you will not venture, but leave me to order, I will find some island where they will be safe as against the district of my command.

Looks like Sherman is making his biggest fana liar.


GP

 

Burrell Hemphill


Trust of ancestor remembered by great-granddaughter
General William T. Sherman left Columbia 130 years ago headed north toward Chester County and Blackstock. The main body of his troops did not reach Chester County, but turned east and then north again, heading for North Carolina. Raiding parties, or foragers, as they were more nicely known, came into the southern and eastern parts of the county. Burrell Hemphill was a slave, left by his master to guard the Hemphill homestead near Blackstock. He encountered a Union foraging party with tragic results.
Hettie Jean Hemphill Holmes, 83, is the great-granddaughter of Burrell Hemphill. She lives near the old Hemphill place and for decades the story of her grandfather has been handed down from one generation to the next. "He gave his life before he would tell where the silver was hidden,” Mrs. Holmes said. “He wouldn’t betray his master’s trust.”
Burrell Hemphill was a trusted slave of Robert Hemphill, a bachelor property owner who was said to be benevolent and kindly toward his slaves. Robert Hemphill’s plantation spanned 2,200 acres, near Hopewell Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
"The Yankees asked him to tell them where the silver was hidden. They watched him to see if he would show them where it was hid. But he wouldn’t tell where the silver was so they hanged him.”
Tradition has it that as Sherman’s troops made their advance from Columbia northward, Robert Hemphill headed toward North Carolina, leaving in charge Burrel Hemphill.
Sherman’s plan was to head north making it appear that he was heading for confrontation with General Beauregard’s troops amassed at Charlotte. He then would wheel his army eastward toward Fayetteville, N.C. to connect by water with Union troops in Wilmington, N.C. Troops crossed the Wateree/Catawba at Rocky Mount, near Great Falls, rather than crossing further into Chester County. Sherman’s troops were in the area until February 1865. The left wing of the army was at the Rocky Mount section and the right wing crossed the river at Peay’s Ferry on February 23rd. The right wing built a pontoon bridge across the Wateree at Rocky Mount but it was swept away because of the flooded conditions of the river and all the troops did not get across until February 28. Raiding parties, however, made it to the Hemphill plantation some 10 miles away. There they encountered Burrell Hemphill.
Sherman’s army generally burned many homes and other pieces of property in their path as they marched northward from Savannah. The foragers were supposed to be searching for food for the troops, but generally they hunted for and took the valuables that were left behind by fleeing refugees. As the Yankee foraging party rode up to the two-story home, Burrell Hemphill pleaded with the soldiers to spare the lives and the property of the plantation. The Union soldiers demanded that Hemphill take them to the silver and valuables buried on the property. When he refused, they tortured him, tying him to a horse and dragging him from the Hemphill home to the church which is about a half mile or more. Torture would not entice Burrell to reveal the whereabouts of the valuables. The soldiers took him behind the home, secured a rope on the limbs of a blackgum tree and hung him. They were not satisfied just to hang him, however. The soldiers repeatedly shot him, leaving his body riddled with bullets. As chilling a death as Burrell Hemphill suffered, his 12 year old grandson, Charles, was a witness to the horrifying events.
His dedication and bravery are remembered on a granite marker in the church yard at Hopewell A.R.P. Church. Hemphill is not buried there, Mrs. Holmes said. Family members have said that they do not know exactly where he is buried, although Mrs. Holmes said that she has heard that there was a slave cemetery near Hopewell church’s cemetery but she has never seen it. Her family has lived on land near the Hemphill place for generations. She grew up in a family with eight children, although her father, who was married three times, had a total of 33 children, Mrs. Holmes being the last. She grew up, like so many children in the rural South, working in the fields.
The family members still remember what Burrell Hemphill did, although the details are fading from everyone’s memory as the years pass.
The stone in the Hopewell church yard honors his loyalty with this inscription.
In memory of
Burrell Hemphill killed by Union soldiers Feb. 1865
Although a slave, he gave his life rather than betray a trust. He was a member of Hopewell
(This article originally appeared in the Chester News and Reporter, February 17, 1995.)

 

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 38, Part 5 (The Atlanta Campaign)
Page 104

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE CUMBERLAND,
July 10, 1864.

Major-General SHERMAN:

The Roswell Factory hands, 400 or 500 in number, have arrived at Marietta. The most of them are women. I can only order them transportation to Nashville, where it seems hard to turn them adrift. What had best be done with them?

GEO. H. THOMAS,
Major-General.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, near Chattahoochee, July 10, 1864.

General THOMAS:

I have ordered General Webster, at Nashville, to dispose of them. They will be sent to Indiana.

W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.


Looks like ole W.T. is scared of a few women.


George Purvis

 

My God...what does it take to get through to you????

I posted Sherman's OWN WORDS from his memoir on the burning of Columbia, with page number cited. I also posted a second account, again with source cited. And you want to go on and on trying to dismiss them as "anecdotal accounts out of context"?

You have just shown yourself to be the personification of a true apologist. Not only that, you've chosen to defend quite possibly the worst of the worst as far as committing atrocities goes. Sherman would have been right at home among Hitler's SS and you have enough nerve to get on a public forum and defend him. LMAO....

Since you're so eager to defend terrorists, try defending Turchin and what he did in Athens, Alabama.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In April, 1862 Union General John Basil Turchin unleashed his troops on Athens, Alabama. Turchin told his troops, "I shut mine eyes for two hours. I see nothing". What followed was a spree of looting, raping and pillaging. When news of this brutality reached General Don Carlos Buell in June, he launched an investigation and had Turchin relieved of his command on July 2. Charges stemmed from not only the brutal behavior but also from Turchin's having his wife accompany him in the field. Turchin was court-marshaled, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal from the Army in August, 1862.

President Lincoln set the order aside and promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, retroactive to July 17.

From ...Encyclopedia of the American Civil War P. 1984

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. You wanna try explaining Lincoln's actions regarding this while you're at it?

 

Funny, last time I checked, cotton gins and railroad ties were not considered American citizens. Although, I dunno, I wouldn't put it past the Confederacy to have given cotton a higher legal status then human slaves.

As for comparing Sherman to a Nazi general, it depends on which Nazi general you're talking about. Erwin Rommel was a good man, and any comparison to him would only be favorable in my view. Actually, Rommel reminds me a lot of Lee - a good man fighting for a bad cause out of duty, honor, obligation, and patriotism.

Hitler is only a good match for Lincoln in your imagination. Your only real complaint about Lincoln is that he won the war. The only charge you can level against him that has any basis in reality is the suspension of habeas corpus. And even there you want to turn the truth of events into such a distorted version that they're barely recognizable. Lincoln's initial suspension only applied to Maryland, and was in response to riots and militia actions. Considering that the alternative supported by his generals was to bombard Baltimore, I'd say Lincoln took the high road. Congress later passed an act retroactively authorizing the suspension, and Lincoln extended it to the entire Union, but only in cases involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or military personnel. This was not a hammer used to silence opposition - the very copperhead editorials that you yourselves have posted here and that continued to be published throughout the war attest to that. So does the fact that Lincoln stood for election in the middle of the Civil War, an election he seemed certain to lose for a long time. These are hardly the actions of a would be dictator.

So, if my statements are so stupid, it should be a trivial exercise for you to show how they're stupid and counter them, right? Yet you just sit there calling me names and trying to smear the names of good men like Lincoln and Sherman. I twist documents to fit my needs? Ha! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one constantly spamming the thread with huge posts of material that you clearly haven't read in the hopes of making it look like you have a case and that no one will actually read any of it.