America's War Between the States

[Jeb]

Yeh its a really good documentary with great pics from the time and some good stories by the late Shelby Foote. I could listen to him tell stories all day. But.........its very apparent Ken Burns was reading alot of those U.S. history books himself.

[bigben]

Here is a great film about the Civil War.  One of the narrators, Shelby Foote, does an excellent job.  Makes you feel like he was there and you are hearing first hand recollections of that terrible war.   Over 600,000 died. 

The Civil War: A film by Ken Burns

I have been slowly watching through it on netflix.  I agree a good documentary.  and good post's CCP. 

[George Ackley]

You southerners boyz bumped your heads! 

[slagmaker]

Hey all this is a fine and dandy discussion but Pat posted a good quote

"History is written by the victors.” - Winston Churchill

[THO Game Calls]

From CCP.......On January 1, 1863, after no state returned to the Union, Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that once the Union won the war, all slaves would be freed in the entire country.

Actually, Lincoln did no such thing.  This is what he did......

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Snippity Snip......

"order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. "


It is a common misconception that Lincoln freed all of the slaves.  He did no such thing.  He freed only those slaves from the states or parts of states mentioned above.  It is also true that most northern states had of their own accord, done away with slavery, but Lincoln certainly did not free them all.

Here is the transcript of the actual Emancipation Proclamation

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

[THO Game Calls]

I did not realize that the last of my post above was cut off when I posted.....

As for weather Lincoln was for or against slavery, his letter to Horace Greeley might shed some light.   You can read the full text here

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

But an excerpt from that letter says, Lincoln speaking here: 

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Lincoln says his chief aim was to save the Union. 

However, his condoning the scorched earth policy of Total War by Grant and Sherman in the sacking and burning of Atlanta, and in Sherman's March To The Sea have often made me wonder why we consider him such a great President.   

Today, we might call what Lincoln did, State Sponsored Terrorism.   

[George Ackley]

the only person that had anything to do with the burning of Atlanta was Sherman, Lincoln or anyone ells  had anything  to do with it
no orders no dissuasion  with any of the higher ups.

WAR IS HELL!

Sherman thought he could shorten the war if he would bring terra to the south.

No matter how you boys in the South see thing ,or some of you blue coats see thing ,
it was all over MONEY!

with the poor paying the highest price.

PS
the cows are home so i have to leave this conversation

[THO Game Calls]

George,

While there might not be any written record ordering Sherman to burn Atlanta, you have to look at how his march to the sea came about.  Grant wanted him to go a different way.  Sherman laid out his plan, and had to convince Grant that it could be done.

Now, dig a little deeper, and find that Lincoln insisted that the march to the sea not start until after the elections in 1864. 

Both Grant and Lincoln had to have known what Sherman was going to do, because he had to convince them to let him do it, and Lincoln ordered him to wait. 

Your comment that War is Hell holds no water.  Sherman was a West Point Grad and surly knew what war crimes were.   Taking what he needed to feed his troops would have been one thing, and was his original plan, but destroying what they didn't take was simply criminal, and Sherman would have known that.   The whole point of the march to the sea was to demoralize the people of the south and show them that their government could not protect them from invaders, but leaving them to starve was simply uncalled for.   If you believe Sherman acted on his own,  why did he spare the people of Atlanta, why did he spare the churches and hospitals, (yes he was asked to spare them by a preacher) but are those not the acts of an Officer and a Gentleman?   Why then, just weeks later, would he throw that away and wreck everything in his path, with no regard for the people, leaving them to starve in the dead of winter?    Maybe it was his idea, maybe he never told Grant what his true intentions were.   Maybe Lincoln never knew.   Or perhaps they did, and simply turned a blind eye to it, or perhaps they ordered it.   

I do agree the war was more about money than anything else. 

[George Ackley]

So when the south burned down our own BigBens neighborhood following the burning of Atlanta who ordered that,,

yea i know the south paid them some moneys before hand and asked them to leave there home before they burned it down . but does that make it right . is the fact that the north didn't pay up to Atlanta first the problem.

was the bombs dropped in Tokyo to  demoralize the people of that county .

war is Hell and man can to scary thing in battle that they wouldn't ever think doing at any other time.

i would like to see were you copying and pasting from and who the author of it is . 

[THO Game Calls]

Lincolns letters, as well as Shermans Diaries are all on line.    Google them.   The only thing i copied and pasted were the Emancipation Proclamation and the letter to Horace Greeley.  Sherman's march to the sea, as well as his rise in the Union army due to his friendship with Grant are well documented, as are the major battles George.   Most of what I wrote is off memory, as at one time in my life they were required reading.    I'm a yankee George, but there is no doubt that Sherman did was simply criminal.  It has to make you wonder why one day he could have compassion, telling the people of Atlanta to evacuate, and then when confronted by a preacher from Atlanta, spare the churches and hospitals, and then the next day lay waste to anything in his way.  Like I said, he was a West Point Graduate, and they considered themselves Gentlemen and professional soldiers.   While history might not support it, I think he had orders to do some of what he did, if not all of it.  Either that, or he got swept away in the moment, but that is unlikely in my mind.    Read how he treated his troops who engaged in what we call war crimes today earlier in the war.   Some of them were hung for the very things they did on the march to the sea.   What changed his tactics and personality?  I'm of the opinion it was orders, from either Grant, or Lincoln or both.

The bombing of Tokyo in Doolittle's Raid was an attack on Military Targets George.   As surgical as we could be at the time with the technology we had.  They did not go in and bomb neighborhoods.   It was done to show the Japanese Military that we could still strike back, and would, and yes, to demoralize them and let them know they had not crippled us as much as they thought they had.

war is Hell and man can to scary thing in battle that they wouldn't ever think doing at any other time.

Which is why there are places like West Point, and why we have leaders, professional war fighters, rules of engagement, and places like the Hague.  Men do what they have to do to survive in battle, but there is still compassion, still right and wrong, at least on the American side.   Which is why we react so violently to acts of terrorism against civilians in this country.

There is no doubt Sherman was an advocate of total war, but someone knew what he was doing, condoned it, or at least turned a blind eye to it.   

[George Ackley]

al you said "They did not go in and bomb neighborhoods. "


google Hiroshima , is was a little bigger bomb then what Doolittle was dropping


professional war fighters and west point,

I am guessing you mean  guys like  Lieutenant Colonel Custer  from west point
and what he did at places like  Washita.

[THO Game Calls]

I don't need to google Hiroshima, I've been there.  Stood as close to ground zero as you can get George.   Let me just say, it is a moving experience.   

I agree with you, we have done some horrible things in the name of what we thought was right George.   

[CCP]

The only person that had anything to do with the burning of Atlanta was Sherman, Lincoln or anyone else  had anything  to do with it
no orders no dissuasion  with any of the higher ups.

If Lincoln or anyone else had nothing to do with it and new nothing of it or did not condone it then there would have been something done to Sherman and his rouge troops after the fact.

Putting Sherman’s march and Hiroshima even remotely in the same context or discussions would relay I know nothing of either.

Sherman should be labeled a terrorist along with all those condoning his actions.

George I believe Coal and Steel is the largest industry in PA? If the government decides to put a higher tax on all coal and Steel leaving PA and not on PA’s competitors outside the state and country, what economic impact would it have on PA? Now if PA doesn’t agree to pay the higher tax, then the federal government bans mechanical machinery and only in PA what effect would it have?

Sounds kind of crazy? Well it isn’t this is basically what the federal government did to states producing the highest amount of commodity.(Cotton)

If you believe the Government should not be able to impose unjust taxes or force their will and agenda upon your country men creating financial hardship on your countrymen and there lively hood and willing to fight for this then you just might be a Confederate no matter where you were born. North, South, East or West.

If you feel the Federal government should be able to impose unjust taxes or force their will and agenda upon your countrymen creating financial hardship on your countrymen and there lively hood then by all means continue to wave your 35 star Union flag in the spirit of Sherman.


THO I applaud you in looking at the Civil War with eyes of an individual, not just North and South lines on a map. Many men from the Union went to fight with the Confederacy and some the opposite. While some no matter there personal opinion stayed where they were to fight for there homes.

[George Ackley]

Putting Sherman’s march and Hiroshima even remotely in the same context or discussions would relay I know nothing of either.

Rich  maybe read it again, the context in witch I put was to imply that man will do evil thing and both acts were done in hope to end the war.

I haven't chosen sides in this conversation if you read my post just stating my conception of what happen in that time

let me say I am a Northerner 100% and proud to be so , southern's don't have the Patton on being proud of were your from and your history.

So you know I am from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the state 

[THO Game Calls]

George,   I did google this, I knew it was out there, but could not find it in my old books so I resorted to the internet.   It is Lincolns letter to Sherman after the fall of Savana, 


Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift â€" the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that 'nothing risked, nothing gained' I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce. And taking the work of Gen. Thomas into the count, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantage; but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole â€" Hood's army â€" it brings those who sat in darkness, to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army â€" officers and men.


I think this shows that Lincoln had some knowledge of what was going to happen, and did nothing to stop it.   When combined with the fact that he had them wait until after the elections so there would be minimal political fall out, it points to his culpability.   

I have to agree with CCP, Sherman was a domestic terrorist.   What is interesting is to read Shermans orders for the march, and then read his word of the aftermath.   Two completely different things.

In his orders he says

and you can find them here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_Special_Field_Orders,_No._120

Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass,

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.



Those were the official orders, but Sherman reported that

the campaign had inflicted $100 million (about $1.378 billion in 2010 dollars)[10] in destruction, about one fifth of which "inured to our advantage" while the "remainder is simple waste and destruction."[9] The Army wrecked 300 miles (480 km) of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills.


and before he left Atlanta, he stated  "I will make Georgia Howl" 

Read that again, 80% of what they did was simply waste and destruction.  It is in complete disagreement with is orders to his men for the march.

The point I am trying to make George, is that in the military, there are orders, and then there are "orders", and someone higher up the food chain gives the unwritten "orders" and fully expects them to be carried out.   

While I will agree with you that "war is hell" even today, we are taught not to follow what General Sherman did, for today, more than 150 years later, he is still reviled as one of the most evil men to have ever walked the earth by those who live in the South.   And maybe rightly so.

[FOsteology]

Gentlemen,

I've read this thread with interest, and have kept silent, but feel a couple of points need to be clarified.

First, the war was not about slavery (at least, not in the point of view most are coming from....). Nor was it about money. It WAS about power and control.

Secondly, it was not the "Civil War". On the contrary, it was the War of Northern Aggression.

[FOsteology]

To boil it down to simple terms..... the North won and we gained an "Empire", but we lost our souls and our freedom.

However one wants to define or call it (The Civil War / War Between the States / War of Northern Aggression) the war was the second American Revolution.....

and America lost. 

[CCP]

the war was the second American Revolution.....

and America lost. 

You are correct SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[George Ackley]

 

First, the war was not about slavery (at least, not in the point of view most are coming from....). Nor was it about money. It WAS about power and control.

Secondly, it was not the "Civil War". On the contrary, it was the War of Northern Aggression.

you got it,, and the middle east conflicts isn't over rich men's oil.
George Bush jr was really on leave from the nation guard for a really long time.
Ted Nugget was really a collage student during Vietnam .
Sam Houston went to texas becouse he like the weather not that he was running from debt and he realy didnt leave his wife an kids behind to fend for themselfes.
And  Dick Cheney hunting incident was really the fault of the guy that got shot

[FOsteology]

George my friend, you need to look at the BIGGER picture....

When I was in Elementary School, I was taught that the Civil War was fought to end slavery and that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
When I was in High School I was taught that the Civil War was fought over States rights and to preserve the Union.
When I was in College, I was taught that the Civil War was actually fought to determine if the industrialized North could dominate the rural South.

As I have grown older (and hopefully wiser) and I actually look at what is going on around me, I have determined that the Civil War was actually fought over "slavery"..... but NOT in the context that most seem to argue and debate. No, "slavery" as in power and control irregardless of race and ethnicity....

It has been determined and postulated that one man cannot enslave another. Yet, the Federal Government has enslaved the ENTIRE country.
The Federal Government can do anything it wants because it has the POWER. They proved that when they killed 600,000 of their own citizens to preserve the Union and prevent Southern citizens from exercising their God given right to self determination.

They said, "If you try to leave, I'll kill you". And they backed it up with actions. Deeds speak louder than words.....