General Sherman

[SC_hunter]

Just thought I would let you know...if you hadn't seen anything on it yet...The History Channel is doing a segment on Sherman at 9pm tonight...HH all

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortround]

It is a shame if we have lost someone so knowledgeable of those times. All the history taught to children these days seem somewhat flawed. I often wish I could send some people back and ask any soldier - Union or Confederate - what the war was over and compare it to the history they teach today. The answers they get would get would shock them.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Monty]

I don't think anyone can truly describe the carnage that took place during many of the battles of the Civil War. They basically fought in the old European style of combat, by lining up in ranks and advancing on a fortified position, hoping to over run it. Net result, thousands killed or wounded. Wounded had a very high mortality rate because of infection and lack of knowledge of sanitary conditions or drugs to fight infection. And also because the wounded were often left on the battle field unattended for hours or even days at a time. More food for thought. Monty

 

[AeroMike]

Guys, can you all spare to hear some more. First, I was born (1969) and raised in Michigan. I was taught that the civil war was about slavery and that the South was trying to leave the Union. Thank the good Lord I love to read and I never believe anything I hear. I remember, but then I go and do research to either confirm or debunk the info.

Sherman was a great leader in the sense that he did exactly what the Union needed. Personally I do not think he was a monster, and you all have to remember that communication was not instant-communication back then and when you send a group of men out to forage, well, anything can happen.

Now, I have come to learn that the War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, but about a cash cow getting ready to leave. The Southerners were tired of taxation without representation. Sound familiar? it should, this is how the United States fealt with England and we had a little "Boston Tea Party". Which has brought me to this question, why was a revolt and succession ok for the United States but not ok for the Confederate States? but I digress, Sooooooooo the South was tired of all the money from their industry leaving and fueling the Industrial growth of the North. The South said ENOUGH!!! we will succeed from the union and our money will fuel our economy.

President Lincoln said he would keep slavery if it meant keeping the union intact. Oh, and how come everyone seems to forget that there were union states that had slavery too?


I feel for all the men and women of that time, it must have been horrific. I do not believe that in todays society here in the U.S. that there is absolute hatred based on birth place. Funny, I now live in the Savannah, Georgia area and work with probably the biggest info index on the South and Southern heritage. He talked a big game about "Yankee" this and yankee that but I asked him when the Twin towers where hit and 3000+ lives were lost, did he rejoice? he said hell no, and I smiled and said you really do care about Northerners, LOL.

Fact is this, there are a lot of people in the north that have southern roots and vice versa. All I can say is this; do not believe everything you hear, do your own research but in case you are lazy (lol) then believe me when I say MIKE IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!

oh and I think I see more rebel flags up north then I do on the south. I am always doing research and I am currently reading Sherman's journal he wrote. Here is an interesting fact I never knew, one day when the Union soldiers were marching to the coast, Gen. came upon a couple of soldiers off the side of the road and he noticed a dead horse and a young Lieutenant missing part of one leg. Sherman asked what had happened and they replied that the horse the Lieutenant was riding stepped on a shell that the Confederates had buried. How about that, the Confederates with road side bombs, IED's. Well Sherman just was furious and siad this was out right MURDER!!! and he ordered all the confederate POW's to the front and gave them all tools to "jab" the road with to clear out the rest of the path. Of course the Confederate soldiers pleaded but to no avail. Sherman said, the confederates buried and the confederates can be the ones to find them. There were a few more bombs found but no more casualties were reported. Very interesting also, I just finished reading a diary of a 17 year old girl from South Carolina so I was able to read how she was experiencing the war too. People, that is were you will get a real history lesson, in the personal diaries.

ok, now I really am done..........for now.

Everyone, have a great day!!!

 

[Monty]

There is no real hate left between the north and south I don't think. Most of what I hear is kidding back and forth tongue in cheek. Now what upsets the south to this day is the current politically correctness to ban the Confederate Battle flag from public display. Many many great grandfathers fought and died under that flag and not to acknowledge their sacrifice for what they believed in is like a desecration to a true southerner. You have to remember that the stars and bars was a battle flag, not the official flag of the Confederacy. I think there's very few people left even in the south that really thinks slavery wasn't an evil institution. Slavery was an issue of the civil war even though many want to think different. In the papers of secession from North Carolina, the abolishment of slavery was one of the chief issues along with other states rights. I have a book of letters, edicts, legal documents , etc. that was published just before and during the Civil War and slavery was a key issue in most of them. What I am getting out of my studies of the War is that there was the abolitionists that that flat wanted slavery abolished while many if not most politicians wanted the spread of slavery stopped and didn't want any more of the new states to come in as slave states, namely Kansas and California. Slavery itself became the key issue for going to war. Our constitution sets forth an individual right to take up arms to protect against an oppressive government true, but God help you if you lose. The South lost! Monty

 

[SC_hunter]

Just had to do this Monty..lol

 

[ivan salis]

the corwin admendment (the 13th )---was passed by 2/3rds of the congress and signed by the president of the usa at the time all that was needed was FOR 75% OF THE STATES TO RATIFY IT for it to take effect --abe lincoln upon taking office was asked about it---he said "it is the law of the land" that is what he said when asked about the corwin admendment---if all the the southern states wanted was to "keep" their slaves --then all they would have had to do was --stay in the union and vote to ratify the corwin admendment and they would have got it---the war was about much more than slavery--(which I dislike and do not approve of---since-- I believe that no one has the "right" to make me his slave ---having said that--therefore I do not have the right to do it to them)---and it would have made slavery forever legal in the southern states that had slaves in them at the time----if the "war" was about slavery as it "main" theme ---them why did it take almost a year and a half to have the "north" pass a "the slaves are free" statement---history records the civil war starting in mid 1861 and the slaves were freed jan 1,1863 why the "long wait" simple ---the north used slavery is bad as the reason for "invading" the south--they said it was to to free the slaves ( made for great pr overseas)--it sounded noble and right to the american public--- however the north at first never actually intended to free the slaves----(lincon said --it was his duty to preserve the union at all cost--if it meant some slaves states and some not --that he was ok with it--provided it kept the union intact---its a matter of public record) --the north at first thought the war would end rather quickly --as time marched on and it became plain that the war would go on a great while the north needed more troops---after the big battle at gettysburg--which was a "costly" win for the north--the "irish" draft riots happened in new york--the tired union troops that had just fought had to be sent to new york to quell the roits---the lost of these troops from the front lines weakened the north badly and with "southern troops" still in the general area---abe lincoln need "something" to get them to move south---"free the slaves"----it answered several of the norths pressing needs--- the north's need for manpower---the slaves now had a reason to care who won the war---the newly freed slaves would fight (for the union) to keep their freedom--the south would have to devert troops to the south to help prevent "runaways" and as a rallying cry "free the slaves" (uh it was about slavery right-- some "bright" folks were beginning to wonder--(it was 1 1/2 years later after all)---then why wasn't there something saying their freed yet?) and it sounds much more noble and better than "how dare the raw material producing south ---split away from the industrial north that needs it cheap labor and raw goods for its factories---so lets make the south stay weither they like it or not"---the south was being politically "manhandled" by the north--the north had more states (smaller in size but more of them) and since each state gets 2 senators per state the north controlled the senate ---with the bulk of the population in the north--(slaves did not "count" as population --the north made sure of that) and the fact that house seats were appointed by population in each state--the north also controlled the house ---with the control of both ---they bled the south to death---taxes were laid out in such a way that southern farmers had to by "northern made products" or pay dearly for foreign made stuff due to massively unfair tax imbalances ---in some cases --- lets say a wagon from england --it would cost $100 to buy in in new york---a "northern state built one" cost say $ 150 ---so they taxed in if it was "landed" in the southern ports $75 so it cost more--$175 or "they could "import" it into new york for you at a cost of $100 and then (wink,wink--nod,nod) have it shipped to you (charging you a ultra high "shipping fee")-- $50 upon which they made out like bandits-- billing the wagon as bought in new york for $100---and pocketing the differance---so pay the northern crooks $150 for the $100 wagon or buy the wagon and have it delivered straight to you ---pay the taxman $75 and buy the wagon $175 total--they had you coming and going-----states rights were really very simple---basically it was--- anything I join into I have the right to leave---to me "the civil war" was--- like a wife (the south) who's being beaten by a abusive husband (the north) filing for a divorce and the husband (the north) saying --you can't have one unless I agree to it and I will not and if you try to just leave me ---I'll force you to stay--by beating you till you give in ---Ivan

 

[Monty]

The act of freeing the slaves per se didn't come from the north at first but Lincoln found out he couldn't be reelected unless he made freeing the slaves a campaign issue. Just before war broke out and early into the war Lincoln and most of the north thought it would be a simple matter to invade the south, kick some butt and everyone would come home heros and the Confederacy would be back in the fold. A terrible miscalculatioin on his part. And because the war didn't go as expected Lincoln was in danger of not being reelected. He had to find one glaring issue to hang his hat on and that was slavery. That's why the freeing of the slaves came toward the middle and end of the war instead of the very first. Or at least that is my interpretation from all the studying I have done on the subject. My eyes have been opened to a lot of things too since I have delved into the behind the scenes. Monty

 

[ivan salis]

I find it quite odd that the truth about how the "slavery issue" was used politically at the time is not talked about--its really a "dirty little secert" that the northern folks don't want to "talk" about---the fact that the war was about "slavery" has been pushed long and hard when in fact it was basically about --control of the southern states economy--- which was making money hand over fist---the economy of the usa at the time ran off of the "cotton" money that the south made exporting cotton to europe and it accounted for a large part of our national "income"---in other words "money" was the cause of the war as usual---Ivan

 

[Monty]

I agree mike, if you strip everything down to the very basics, it was money. But there were so many other factors that lead up to the money issues. I have just started reading "The Civil War Archive", the history of the civil war in documents. The little bit I have read is already opening my eyes to issues I didn't recognize or realize from my earlier study. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the CW, especially anyone who wants to delve into the intimate detalis behind the war, and how it was carried out. The book contains hundreds of documents and letters from the president, vairious politicians, the congress, powerful businessmen, the generals who fought the war and a lot of letters from the plain old foot soldiers. The book is put out by the Tess Press and is assembled and edited by Braun,Freeman and Commager. Monty

 

[mobrigade]

Sherman was a panzy! Come live in Missouri starting about 1850. Burning houses and pulling people out of homes and putting a colt .44 in their head was a common occurance. Quantrill, Bloody Bill, Sam Hildebrand, Kansas Jayhawkers, etc...GA and SC endured a a couple of months, we dealt with pyro generals and partisans for 15 years. I still hate Kansas.

I may not like Sherman, but I admire the relationship he had with Grant, it was that type of relationship we couldn't produce in the Trans-Miss or the West, can you imagine Bragg and Johnston cooperating like that?

My two cents!

Paul

 

[ivan salis]

outlaw josey wales----fairly on the money--Ivan

 

[brnn53]

SC hunter, that license plate is missing the words "never" at the end. I remember seeing alot of them on vehicles in the 60s around here.
Mike

 

[Monty]

Getting way off topic here and hijacking someone else's post. I'm off this topic for a while. Monty

 

[gadget1961]

Both sides owned slaves. White or black . It was all about the money .that still goes on today look at the government .

 

[gadget1961]

Also the south burned there own homes and released there slaves and left so that Sherman had a lot of followers as there was no where to go . Again it's all about money . Greed

 

[devldog]

Guys, can you all spare to hear some more. First, I was born (1969) and raised in Michigan. I was taught that the civil war was about slavery and that the South was trying to leave the Union. Thank the good Lord I love to read and I never believe anything I hear. I remember, but then I go and do research to either confirm or debunk the info.

Sherman was a great leader in the sense that he did exactly what the Union needed. Personally I do not think he was a monster, and you all have to remember that communication was not instant-communication back then and when you send a group of men out to forage, well, anything can happen.

Now, I have come to learn that the War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, but about a cash cow getting ready to leave. The Southerners were tired of taxation without representation. Sound familiar? it should, this is how the United States fealt with England and we had a little "Boston Tea Party". Which has brought me to this question, why was a revolt and succession ok for the United States but not ok for the Confederate States? but I digress, Sooooooooo the South was tired of all the money from their industry leaving and fueling the Industrial growth of the North. The South said ENOUGH!!! we will succeed from the union and our money will fuel our economy.

President Lincoln said he would keep slavery if it meant keeping the union intact. Oh, and how come everyone seems to forget that there were union states that had slavery too?


I feel for all the men and women of that time, it must have been horrific. I do not believe that in todays society here in the U.S. that there is absolute hatred based on birth place. Funny, I now live in the Savannah, Georgia area and work with probably the biggest info index on the South and Southern heritage. He talked a big game about "Yankee" this and yankee that but I asked him when the Twin towers where hit and 3000+ lives were lost, did he rejoice? he said hell no, and I smiled and said you really do care about Northerners, LOL.

Fact is this, there are a lot of people in the north that have southern roots and vice versa. All I can say is this; do not believe everything you hear, do your own research but in case you are lazy (lol) then believe me when I say MIKE IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!

oh and I think I see more rebel flags up north then I do on the south. I am always doing research and I am currently reading Sherman's journal he wrote. Here is an interesting fact I never knew, one day when the Union soldiers were marching to the coast, Gen. came upon a couple of soldiers off the side of the road and he noticed a dead horse and a young Lieutenant missing part of one leg. Sherman asked what had happened and they replied that the horse the Lieutenant was riding stepped on a shell that the Confederates had buried. How about that, the Confederates with road side bombs, IED's. Well Sherman just was furious and siad this was out right MURDER!!! and he ordered all the confederate POW's to the front and gave them all tools to "jab" the road with to clear out the rest of the path. Of course the Confederate soldiers pleaded but to no avail. Sherman said, the confederates buried and the confederates can be the ones to find them. There were a few more bombs found but no more casualties were reported. Very interesting also, I just finished reading a diary of a 17 year old girl from South Carolina so I was able to read how she was experiencing the war too. People, that is were you will get a real history lesson, in the personal diaries.

ok, now I really am done..........for now.

Everyone, have a great day!!!

AeroMike, you hit the nail on the head. If you want to know factual, truthful History one needs to get off their buttocks and read and do some research for themselves. A great majority of front and center Johnnie Rebs were not slave owners. I have always been of the notion that hundreds upon thousands of Confederate soldiers would have left their homes and farms for over 4 years, risked death and injury, endured unbelievable and unimaginable hardships imposed on both armies, and separation from family and loved ones for a cause that for most didn't affect them. I am a native Georgian and like most I'm proud of my Southern Heritage as I am proud to be an American. That war was as all wars are and were....HORRIBLE. Over 620,000 American lives lost. One can do the math and see how many football stadiums it would take to reach this number. As a Southerner I don't revere the name of Gen. Sherman. I will say that I respected him as a soldier in that he understood what needed to be done to bring the war to an end, and carried this out to the utmost extreme. In bringing the war to an end quicker, more lives were saved on both sides than if the war were allowed to go on any longer. This was a good post, and good for you in doing the research

 

[alabama11]

I read an 1865 Newspaper article that interviewed a union soldier about the exploits in SC and he stated 80 percent of the destruction was to non military sites. Wishing I could post the article. Let's hope there is never another war of that scale in this country.