ENOUGH!!!!!!!

[SouthernByGrace]

Thanks littlecanoe for the compliment. A friend steered me in the direction of GBO and I kinda like it. I'm thinking of giving a "Daily Tidbit" or a "Did You Know?" in my posts from this point on. Sort of a mini lesson in Civil War history. What do you guys think? It COULD get interesting. I'll start with just a small example here, just to test the waters...

Did You Know?   The legal definition of the term "civil war" is: When you have two or more factions in armed conflict with each other, the purpose of which, is for one faction to defeat the other (or others) for the purpose of gaining control of a central government and its territory. By this definition, the armed conflict we know as The American Civil War (1861-1865) was NOT actually a civil war. The Confederate States of America actually LEGALLY seceded from the U.S.A. and created their OWN separate government with a legally binding Constitution. The goal of the CSA was not to overthrow the USA, or take any of its territory. We use the phrase "civil war" today as a generalization of the war. Some of the names used for the war include: The War For Southern Independence (sanctioned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans), The War of Northern Aggression, The War Between The States, and many more.

[SHOOTALL]

We call it the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION !

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey SHOOTALL, I know lots of others that prefer that title as well. That's why I listed several of them. There are a number of them that are accepted, and it just depends on your personal preference, I guess. Most anybody knows what you're talking about, no matter which one is yours. :-) The only one I ABSOLUTELY disagree with is the one ironfoot uses, "the rebellion to preserve slavery". My thing is this; I doesn't much matter to me what you (meaning, people in general) believe about the Civil War, and all that surrounds it, as long as you are willing to read and research the TRUE history of it. I don't see how ANYONE can look at the massive amounts of documented evidence unknowingly compiled by the Federal Gov't. during and after that time, and NOT see what we see. This has long been one of my greatest passions. That's why I decided to sit down and look at it from every viewpoint.  And, If we don't learn these things for ourselves through the help of others, we're certainly not going to be taught any of it by the same government that preserved it all FOR us to see. Keep checking back, because if the little "column" I'm putting on here goes over well, you ain't seen the last of me...lol. You gotta love it.

[littlecanoe]

I'm by no means a scholar.  Barley a fledgling student on this matter.  The more that I learn leads me to see a vast amount of parallel between the Revolutionary War and TWONA. 

Look forward to the articles............

[Skunk]

I don't see how ANYONE can look at the massive amounts of documented evidence unknowingly compiled by the Federal Gov't. during and after that time, and NOT see what we see. And, If we don't learn these things for ourselves through the help of others, we're certainly not going to be taught any of it by the same government that preserved it all FOR us to see.

Welcome to the forum SBG. Have a question for you and I ask it with all respect. If you're using the Federal Government as your source of information, how do you know they aren't lying out their butt holes concerning what really took place during the Civil War, like they often lie about other matters? For example, if you looked at the Fed's historical documentation about the white man's war with Indian tribes, would you discover all the dirty little secrets that an independent (preferably a Native American Indian) researcher would find? I guess I'm saying that I have a problem with your source of information if you are relying entirely on the Government as your means of research. 

[Dee]

Skunk the "dirty little secrets" are not actually secrets and never have been. They are more often referred to as "factual history" that know one in this era really cares about, but a choice few.
For example the "Trail of Tears". Very well documented event. My great great grandmother was 5 years old when the United States Government decided to go with the white northerners wishes and kick the Cherokee off their farms, and plantations. Why? Because the Cherokee had no wish to sell these successful enterprises to these scoundrels from the north.
The Cherokee were and are a very progressive people. They have their own alphabet, and were excellent "capitalists" often beating the white man at his own game. The government's solution was to round them up at gun point and make them WALK from Georgia, the Carolina's, and parts of Alabama. This meant old folks, women, and children. The impatient soldier whom where riding horses and wagons would not only, not allow the weak, sick, old or young to ride, but, if they could not keep up, they were left on the trail to die. Thus the title: ''TRAIL OF TEARS". There are stories abounding in states like Arkansas where settlers found young children wandering half starved in the woods. Much of their culture was lost, and when the white man decided that the Cherokee needed a white man's education, they were not allowed to speak their own language, and were forced to cut their hair.
My deceased father talked much at times of the stories HIS great grandmother told of this walk, and her and others' treatment by the soldiers.
Even as late as the fifties I was not allowed to go to town on Saturday nights when visiting our family in Oklahoma because of the way some whites and the police treated the Cherokee.
Dirty little secrets? Didn't seem to damn secret to me. Your distrust of SBG's sources I find laughable. You see, SBG has educated himself and you have questioned his educational sources, without yourself being first educated to the subject. The government has not hidden these facts. They just don't talk about them anymore, and they leave them out of the history books. But there is plenty of information out there, government and other wise. Educate yourself before you criticize someone whom has, on a subject you have little education on.
By the way. The Cherokee now have their own hospitals, doctors, schools, cultural centers, and they provide jobs, and housing to any tribal member that is in need. And it is all free to the tribal member. And here is the best part. Much of it is made from the white man's weakness of gambling. A white vice transformed into a Cherokee blessing, not by the government, but by the Cherokee.

[Skunk]

Skunk the "dirty little secrets" are not actually secrets and never have been. They are more often referred to as "factual history" that know one in this era really cares about, but a choice few.

Dirty little secrets? Didn't seem to damn secret to me. Your distrust of SBG's sources I find laughable. You see, SBG has educated himself and you have questioned his educational sources, without yourself being first educated to the subject. The government has not hidden these facts. They just don't talk about them anymore, and they leave them out of the history books. But there is plenty of information out there, government and other wise. Educate yourself before you criticize someone whom has, on a subject you have little education on.

Dee, decent review of Trail of Tears. I read that one a few years back and gave it to my mother-in-law as a present, after I was finished with it. Agreed, it tells it like it really happened. However, being placed on reservations, being treated as less than human, and the American Indian's struggle for Civil Rights, was far from the "dirty little secrets" that I was questioning. I was alluding to the all out attempt of Genocide or Holocaust, whatever you want to call it, against the American Indian tribes. Not that I know for sure if it really ever happened or not, but I've heard it mentioned many times, and I was just wondering that if it did really happen, would you find any reference to it by the sources provided by the Federal Government? I find it very doubtful that you would.

You say that you find my distrust of SBG's sources "laughable?" Well, I find it "laughable" that you would question my distrust of the Federal Government for being a reliable source of factual information - especially after reading some of the numerous rants that you have provided this website about your distrust of the same.

And as you also mentioned, perhaps "SBG has educated himself" and yes, I have "questioned his educational sources (not all though, just the Fed Gov)." However, you know nothing of what my "education" on the subject might consist, and I suggest to you, like you suggested to me, that you might get yourself a little more educated on a topic that you "have little education on." Besides, although a self taught education can be the best education available, it means absolutely nothing if the sources for that education are questionable. Leave it to you Dee, to take a simple question and twist it into a controversy and then provide one of your little fatherly lectures like you do on so many of your posts.

SBG: I obviously wasn't criticizing you personally like the judge here as implied; but I'll will admit I'm a bit skeptical about the Feds. The only way to find out for sure, or at least to my satisfaction, is to go there (LOC) and check it out for myself. I will do just that based on your good recommendation of it. I applaud your excellent interest in history and I'm already enjoying your "Daily Tidbit" column. In the spirit of passing along good information and interesting tidbits, I look forward to reading more from you. Again, welcome to the forum.

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey Skunk. Thanks for your input. Good question. Better answer... when I refer to the Fed, I am not using their "information" by any means. What I'm referring to is the MASSIVE amounts of documentation the Gov't. has compiled from BOTH sides of the Civil War. Some of these include official dispatches from officers to and from the President (Davis & Lincoln) and other officers in the field, personal letters and notes to and from military personnel and their families from both sides, personal journals kept by most of the people of the time(North & South) on their beliefs and interpretations of the war and the realization of thousands of Union soldiers that they had been lied to about conditions in the South, as far as slavery was concerned. I have personally read over 200 of these letters.
One of my favorite sources of information on the Civil War is from the very people affected by it most, the former slaves. That's right, the slaves themselves. In the late 1930's and early 1940's the Federal Writer's Project set out to actually interview the still living former slaves, in an attempt to document the "horrible conditions" under which they lived and worked. This project was called the "Ex-Slave Narratives". The writers sought out and interviewed over 2500 former slaves and... they RECORDED over 400 of those interviews on real-to-real tape, now digitally preserved in the Library of Congress. I have listened to every one and read over half of the transcripts of the ones not recorded. You can't GET a better source of information than that. Every single interviewer was from the North, so as not to sway the results of the interview. This was all done by the Federal Gov't. If the Fed wanted to manipulate its information on the Civil War, it certainly wouldn't knowingly do it in favor of the South. That the Fed would actually be preserving the TRUTH never crossed their minds. One of the biggest revelations I got from the Narratives is this; Of more than 2500 former slaves interviewed, LESS than 6% had ANYTHING negative to say about their lives as a slave, or about their former masters. In fact, it was just the opposite. Not praising them but showing their true admiration for them. It also pointed out that, after the War, blacks went to the North in droves, not out of fear of the Southerners, but fear of the "Yankees 'dat done come down hear ta ruin ebbythang". I use that quote with the UTMOST RESPECT. Rest in peace, sister Sarah.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not ignorant enough to think that being a slave was all well and good, and to think some slaves weren't mistreated. But not all were. Some children are mistreated, but not all are. Does that make all parents child abusers? No.
Jefferson Davis had a WRITTEN covenant with his slaves that allowed anyone accused of wrongdoing to have a jury of his/her peers (other slaves) and by which, if sentenced, Davis could not increase the punishment but COULD grant a pardon if he felt the punishment too harsh. (Documented by the Fed.) He went against Confederate Law and actually taught his slaves to read and write. He had schools on his plantation for this purpose. He openly stated that "In order for a slave to be made fit for freedom, he has to be made unfit for slavery. This can only be accomplished through education." (letter to Gen. Lee in 1862, discussing his belief in the inevitable and necessary freedom of the slaves  - kept in Lee's personal belongings after the war. Preserved by none other than the Lee Family and not discovered until late 2007, in one of 3 trunks in a bank vault in Richmond, along with over 10,000 other such documents.) What a PRIZE for the South!!
I hope this gives you just a little insight into how I get my information. Again, thanks for your input. I appreciate your candid and honest questions. As you can see, I LOVE this topic...  Look for my "Tidbit" post later today or tomorrow. It'll have a few interesting points to ponder.

[Skunk]

Excellent post SBG! That was a very interesting "tidbit" in itself.

Well SBG, I have the LOC opened in another window and it has taken me only about two minutes to realize that you are absolutely correct about its value for researching, especially after one learns how to search it properly. Oh my goodness, it covers virtually everything and makes it possible to read it all online. And my skepticism about government bias has all but vanished after seeing that most of the articles seem to originate from scholarly journals. I'm feeling like a little kid at the candy shop. Thanks for the excellent link to a superb resource. I truly haven't realized what I've been missing.

Looking forward to your "tidbit."

[SouthernByGrace]

Thanks for the comments, Skunk. You're right about having to learn how to navigate through the LOC site. I guess that's a built-in design; remember, it IS the Fed. They gotta make it that way to keep us from learning too much.  :-/

"Did You Know?"   This one is a DOOZY !
I often get asked by people from the north, (some are friends, others are total strangers) "Why do Southerners absolutely HATE William T. Sherman, while their feelings toward Ulysses S. Grant almost border on admiration?" After all, Southerners wanted to shoot or hang Sherman while, at the same time, helped to elect Grant to the highest office in the land. It put me to thinking. Soooo... you know me. I set out to find the reason(s). I knew MY personal reasons but I wanted to see what other people thought. I went to some of the oldest people in my family (one of the absolute best sources anybody can have) and asked them their thoughts, if they remembered stories, ect. What I learned was that my feelings were right on the money. LITERALLY.
Let me start off by giving you a little background on my family situation so you can see why I'm so passionate about this. I'm only 42 years old. My father was the youngest of 16 children, the oldest of his siblings being born in 1898, my father being born in 1940. My Grandfather was born in 1876. His father was born in 1842. So, you see, I'm only 3 generations removed from the war. Most people my age are 7 and 8 generations removed. This gives me somewhat of a unique perspective. The things I'm about to describe happened to my Great Grands, Great uncles and aunts, not great-great-great, like most people.
The difference in our attitudes toward these two men, though both were enemies at the time, was so simple. History books teach us from childhood of what a great man Sherman was, mainly because of his infamous "march to the sea". Ask ANY Georgian (one of which I'm proud to be) how great they think he was. Then stand back. WAY back. When you actually sit down and LOOK at the difference in what we're Taught, and what was actually the case, you have to come to the same conclusions most Southerners do.  It ALL boils down to this... and I'm NOT trying to ruffle any feathers, facts are facts.
The reason Most Southerners don't feel so harshly towards Grant, even though he killed thousands of our ancestors, he did it on a battlefield. After all, it was war. I'm not saying he was a saint by any stretch. Yeah, he's still our old enemy.  But one that conducted war, not murder. Before any of the readers from the North get so bent out of shape you have an aneurysm, let me explain... because I'm sure you've never looked at it this way.
It is my solemn belief that if Sherman was alive today, he'd be tried for war crimes. War is conducted when soldiers are killed in battle. What he did was not war, but murder. When Sherman came to Georgia in 1864 he had very few military oppositions after Atlanta. His attention turned to the civilian population, including the slaves, which numbered near a half million. We've all heard how he burned houses, destroyed cities, etc. But let's take a closer look. Most of Georgia's militia was fighting in Virginia with Lee and that left Georgia with practically NO defense between Atlanta & Savannah. The only battle between Atlanta and Savannah that could remotely be called a military confrontation was when one section of Sherman's forces came through Macon. His only resistance there was a military academy full of 14 - 15 year olds and very elderly instructors. ALL of the destruction Sherman caused between Atlanta and Savannah was to the civilians. Nobody can show me a single military target destroyed in this region. Not only were houses burned, but crops, businesses and much more was destroyed. He actually ordered the destruction of farm equipment so the "people could be starved into submission". When a military force numbering in the thousands comes up to your farm and your family brandishes firearms of every sort to defend their homes and lives,(remember, these are civilians) and your family is shot down, leaving mostly women and children to fend for themselves, your valuables such as furniture, jewelery, antiques, etc., were hauled off, not to be sold and the money used for the military, but allowed to be kept by the soldiers as spoils of war, your farm burned, your equipment (plows, tools, etc.) thrown into that fire to render them useless, preventing you from even growing basic food for survival (remember, it was late fall and early winter), your animals and grain are taken to feed these "liberators", and the very slaves under your care and guidance, that we're taught that the North was fighting to free were literally left to die of starvation and disease because they have just been thrust back to the stone age; my friends, that's not war, it's MURDER! This was not "collateral" damage. It was a direct assault on the civilian population that had no defense against what happened.This is only ONE farm. This happened to thousands!

According to the 1860 census, Georgia had the 3rd highest Gross National Product in the WORLD. Remember, before the War, each state was sovereign and it's economy stood on it's own, and there was no centralized Federal Government. Because of Sherman, It was not until 1968, 108 years later, that Georgia's economy returned to prewar levels. That still made Georgia over 100 years behind in regards to economics.

So, you see, NOBODY can explain away Sherman's actions by saying to me that "war is hell". Yes, it is, but MURDER is something entirely Different.

 

[Skunk]

Good stuff there SBG, but from a Yankee's point of view, I'll have to do a counterpoint here. 

I'll agree from what I've read, in the South, Sherman is often equated with the Antichrist, and that association is probably due at least in part to his infamous 300-mile march from Atlanta to Savannah in late November and December of 1864.

However, to say that "because of Sherman, It was not until 1968, 108 years later, that Georgia's economy returned to prewar levels" is a pretty big stretch. It's probably true that the deeds of Sherman had an effect on the future of Georgia's economy, but to give Sherman full credit for all of Georgia's future economic misery might be a bit off the mark. Paskoff (2008), in his article, Measures of War: A Quantitative Examination of the Civil War's Destructiveness in the Confederacy, argues that there were more important causes for the South's economic woes during the decades following the Civil War:

1) the general deterioration of property due to neglect during the war.
2) a combination of cotton market forces, specifically global conditions of Supply and Demand and
3) the economical, social, and political upheaval in the southern society following the war, as a result of emancipation.

To address your points about Sherman's destruction to civilians and their property, I'll mention a few points that I found in a book review of the book, William T. Sherman and the Savannah Campaign, by Anne J. Baily, as reviewed by Downs (2005). According to Downs, Baily points out that actual evidence of complete devastation to civilian property is at best limited. Sherman's desire was in fact to avoid the incessant bloodshed characteristic of Grant's campaign in Virginia. Sherman sought to use an unorthodox military undertaking as a means to end the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of bloodshed. After all, "battles were not always as important as the intimidation of the civilian population."

Baily notes that Sherman's technique was an attempt to break the morale of the Southern populace by making it "feel the effects of the war and see how the Power of the United States can reach him in his innermost recesses." Now I'm not trying to say that all of the civilians who crossed paths with Sherman fared well, but if we go with scholarly research rather than word of mouth, three generations removed, we find that the devastation caused by Sherman falls substantially short of the "scorched earth" policy often associated with his march to the sea. According to Baily, today, there are still numerous homes belonging to the civil war period that still stand directly on the path that Sherman took on his march to Savannah that provide evidence to the contrary.

References

Downs, A. (2005). War and ruin: William T. Sherman and the savannah campaign. Civil War History. 51, 3, pg. 333.

Paskoff, F. (2008). Measures of war: A quantitative examination of the civil war's destructiveness in the confederacy. Civil War History. 54, 1, pg. 35.

SBG: I'd like to suggest that your "Tidbits" column is too beneficial and too good to be stuck deep at the back of an already long thread and that you should make a separate entry for your tidbits out on the main floor Civil War forum. In fact, in the future, I think it would be pretty cool if you made a separate thread for each tidbit. It would help make them standout better, and would also make them easier to find and to comment on for everyone.

[littlecanoe]

Great discussion fella's.

I'd like to add that Sherman's mentality carried over to the Reconstruction era.  That has to be factored in to the economic future of the south post-war.  The mentality of oppression of fellow countrymen that followed the war is despicable. 

I spoke with a Lady in Calhoun, GA some 11 years ago.  We discussed the effects of Reconstruction on her family.  She has, in her possession, letters written from family in Eastern, TN to those in the Calhoun area.  She was in near tears as she relayed the hardship and near starvation that these fine people endured at the hand of the Victors.  So, here we have first hand accounts in the form of documents that lend evidence to history.

I'm going to go with SouthernbyGrace here and say that Sherman tore down barriers that allowed those who followed indulge in the same abusive behavior that he exemplified.  Sherman was a bad, bad boy!! 

[Dee]

Sherman was not by himself in his scorched earth policy. Jackson had the same attitude toward Indians, and made no secret of it.

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey Skunk. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one...
Of course the "actual evidence of complete devastation to civilian property is at best limited." The evidence was BURNED. Now I don't know about up north, but down here where I've seen temperatures soar to 85 degrees on Christmas Day, and well over 105 in July and August, ashes and cinders don't tend to keep too well, especially for 144 years. Archaeologists could barely find that kind of evidence.
In your segment of Ann Bailey's review, she mentions the "numerous homes belonging to the Civil War period that still stand directly on the path that Sherman took on his march to Savannah that provide evidence to the contrary". I couldn't disagree MORE. You don't actually think General Sherman and his Officers lived in tents, do you? ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!  They lived in these "numerous homes", directly violating the Constitution. She also QUOTED Sherman when she wrote, "battles were not always as important as the intimidation of the civilian population". This partially proves my point. It's not word of mouth 3 generations removed, it's from SHERMAN'S OWN MOUTH !!!

I have a review of this same book I'd like to share; and a complimentary review I might add;

CITATION DETAILS :
Author : James H. Birdseye   Publication : Journal of Southern History   Date : 02-01-2004   
Publisher : Southern Historical Association    Issue : 1       Page: 161(2)

To most Americans, Sherman's "march to the sea" is just a footnote to the nations history. To some in Georgia, however, it is as if the march occurred just a few years ago, as they are constantly reminded of it by monuments in their town squares and stories told by their grandparents. To many native Georgians, it was a lurid tale of death, destruction, mayhem, and cruelty conducted by a heartless beast. To "dispassionate" historians, Sherman's Savannah campaign is an example of the escalation of military strategy from the polite prerogative of gentleman to the modern age of total war. But, as Ann J. Bailey points out in "War and Ruin", neither view is entirely accurate.
Baily spends a great deal of time addressing the destructiveness of the march and Sherman's policy toward plundering or "foraging" (p.46).  Unconcerned with the Fourth Amendment and due process, Sherman's policy clearly sanctioned such actions and -- as it was passed on to the troops with a nod and a wink -- targeted the property of known secessionists.  "Sherman turned a blind eye to pillaging and looting," writes Bailey, "feeling that such punishment should follow when Southerners resisted" (p.78).  Overall, Bailey has an excellent, provocative study of Sherman's march to Savannah.
James H. Birdseye
Augusta State University

Now, I want to give an excerpt from my great grandmother's personal journal that she had kept for 3 years before the war and up to 15 years after the war (22 years) where she describes in detail some of what happened on that march.

November 19, 1864
I have only just returned from Valmont (a neighboring plantation) and from what I saw there, I don't care to see again as long as I live. Destruction beyond any words I can utter. I counted three dead negros in the fields. Teenage brothers, shot in the back by the Yankees for trying to escape them. I knew each of them. Better yet, I know their mother, Maggie. That poor soul. How can she ever face another day? The main house was burned to the ground, as were most of the cabins where the negros of Valmont made their homes. What is to come of them? I convinced Mrs. Whitley to come home with me and bring poor Maggie. After some time she finally agreed. I asked Dr. Marion to give Maggie some laudinum to help her sleep. I keep hoping I will wake up tomorrow and this will all be a bad dream, but it's not. I have a mountain of work ahead of me if I'm to keep anything from the Yankees, lest they come to Oak Grove.

November 21, 1864
I was in complete resolve that the events of the past few days could not get any worse. That is until this morning. I have learned through my conversations with Mrs. Whitley that the man in charge of all this devastation is a General Sherman. He wanted to set up his headquarters in her home and when she refused he told his men to burn everything in sight and to shoot anyone that resisted. Now the evil has befallen Oak Grove. Where once stood a stately home, built by my Thomas and me with the help of our first negros, now only ash and cinder remains. My Lord. A lifetime of work, gone. I managed to be in the peach orchard burying some of my fine things when I heard the sound of horses. Lots of horses. It took four years to build our farm and only two hours for the Yankees to take nearly everything we had in the way of livestock and feed stores and burn every building in sight. And for what? If they are trying to make a point that  I nor my people are as strong and powerful as they, then the point has come across well. I shall like to see this General Sherman in person. I should wonder what a man looks like who possesses no soul. What have we to do with politics and the like? We are farmers, or were farmers, and now, we are reduced to nothing. These people claim they are here to liberate our negros. Now they leave them in ruin, without food, shelter, or any provisions whatever. If this is how they set out to liberate a people, I shall not want to see how they hurt somebody. I have no more tears left in me and I fear I won't for a long time.       
-----------
So much for scholarly research and word of mouth 3 generations removed. She was there.

[Dee]

The women of Savannah Ga. met Sherman at the city limits and asked him not to treat Savannah in the same manner he had Atlanta, which was to burn it.

[Skunk]

So much for scholarly research and word of mouth 3 generations removed. She was there.

SBG,

Written documents like those provided by your Great Grandmother's personal journal could very well be consider "scholarly." She had the dedication to document her thoughts which should make her journal as reliable a source as any of the other personal documents that so many historians use to produce their papers.

Now, you guys (SBG, Little Canoe, and Dee, and everyone else on this forum ), have probably forgotten more about Civil War history than I'll ever know. I'm pretty new to this topic but you guys and this forum went and got me all interested in it. See, you guys already know all this stuff and can fire off your arguments from the tops of your heads; I on the other hand have to do the research first, so it's going to take me a little longer to give you a decent response. In the mean time, I'll be reading the posts by you folks and thinking about what you are saying. Keep those tidbits coming and we'll take it from there.

[CannonKrazy]

Well all I can add in this conversation is it's very interesting to me. I didn't care for the text book history lessons taught in school. Now that you men have put it here in print brings new life to something everyone should see.You may not realize it but each of you giving your personal thoughts and knowledge helps everyone to see this from different views. I for one enjoy visiting this topic and reading each night. With that being said you guys keep me up way past my bedtime. Keep it up.

[littlecanoe]

Skunk,

I can't take that kind of credit.  I'm a larnin' too!

After Reading SBG and DEE,  I'm convinced that I have a lot to get behind my belt.  Most of what I have come to think was arrived at as an adult.  I just started thinking about history as taught and compared it to what I see.  Big differences start to appear.

It's really hard to stand in the face of first hand reports.  Thanks for sharing that Family history SBG.

BTW, Lived around Savannah for about 4 years.  Wife is from that area.  We were in Springfield, Effingham, Co.  That area just drips history.

[SouthernByGrace]

CannonKrazy, I know what you mean. Some of my posts are well after midnight. Sometimes I get completely consumed by this topic, as you well know... Call me.

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey Skunk. I applaud your willingness to learn more about the truth of the War of Northern Aggression ( I got it right this time, Dee ;-)  ).         
Sometimes when discussing this topic I might come across as being angry or defensive. That is certainly NOT my intention. My defensive mode is just like yours, or anybody else's. We Southerners have been in defensive mode as it pertains to this topic for 144 years. It's a hard habit to break. We don't know any other way to be. After all, it was the North that wrote the "history" we are taught in school, and our own true history is being denied and left out of the textbooks. I can't blame any Northerners today for this, except in the context of those refusing to look at the truth for themselves. Most people, North and South, believe that "if it's in my child's history book it has to be true because the government said so". And they don't question what's NOT in that history book, because they most likely don't know about it. So It's left up to US as true historians to bring it to the forefront.
I'm still learning for myself and I agree with you; every time I run across something I didn't know, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
You mentioned earlier about me putting my tidbits on the front page. I don't know how. I've only been here for... less than two weeks. I haven't even had time to read many of the other topics in the Civil War forum. I agree, it would be easier to get to. If you know how I can do that, please let me know. I'm dumb about something like that until I can learn it from somebody else. :-/
I'll see y'all later today with the tidbit.

[Dee]

Well Skunk, I must apologize for my bluntness, but you must understand that I am indeed that crotchety old man that you read about and see in the movies. Although 90% of the time I don't mean anything by it, 95% of the time it comes across badly. Written conversations are a tricky thing at best.
I grew up in an area of Texas that was to understate PRO SOUTH. The gentleman depicted on a 60 foot stature on our Court House lawn IS NOT! I REPEAT! IS NOT! Abraham Lincoln. The granite memorials on the court house lawn are also from the Daughters of the Confederacy.
If you would go back and watch the movie, The Outlaw Josie Wales (taken from the book, Gone to Texas) your would hear mentioned in a store by the owner to Clint Eastwood, a man by the name of Captain Bob Lee down in Fannin County Texas.
Captain Bob Lee was not a fictional character. He lived and died less than 8 miles from by back porch. I love the south, and the manners, and traditions, and moral stands, that the south represented even in the fifties when I was growing up, and I miss them.
People were more polite, and if they weren't there was a price to be paid, for rudeness in public, and in private dealings.
My father and grandfather bought and sold on their word. Even I, bought and sold horses with a hand shake, and could write a check if need be for a horse, and tell the banker on Monday, and he would make the check good until the horse was sold. Now all the paper work must be done in advance.
I told a story on another thread recently of a young man in my home town, making an off color remark about one of my GREAT Grandfather's daughters back in the fifties. My GREAT Grandfather whom was in his middle to late 60s, insisted on dealing with the offender whom was much younger (20s as I recall). My Grandfather and my Father stood by, while he administered punishment to keep the man's friends from getting involved. This was on a Saturday, on the square, and a crowd watched, and understood. No one blamed my Great Grandfather. They respected him. Things have changed, and I am afraid I have not. I have become the opposite of political correctness with out even trying.
Anyway, enough of my boring story. You get the picture of my South.

[AtlLaw]

Years ago, before I retired from private practice, it was common for prospective clients to flat out ask if you were any good (at lawyering).  My standard answer was "I could get the charges against Sherman reduced to trespassin' in an Atlanta Court!"  Everybody knew exactly what I meant!     Well, maybe not the yankee transplants... 

[Dee]

Which is to say that you could "manipulate the law" to say what you wanted, and miss-construe and confuse the facts effectively.

[AtlLaw]

Naw Dan, it was to say that (most) everybody in Georgia thinks, or used to think, Sherman was a war criminal.   

As far as "the law" goes, although it is constantly evolving, a state's statutes are pretty well defined by case law from the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.  With regard to "the facts," the facts are what the trier of fact -the Judge or Jury- decide they are and it is an attorney's duty to present them in a light most favorable to his client.

If this election goes as I fear it may, I KNOW I'd be able to get ol' "burn it down Sherm" off!   

but we digress...   

[Dee]

Naw Dan, it was to say that (most) everybody in Georgia thinks, or used to think, Sherman was a war criminal.   

As far as "the law" goes, although it is constantly evolving, a state's statutes are pretty well defined by case law from the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.  With regard to "the facts," the facts are what the trier of fact -the Judge or Jury- decide they are and it is an attorney's duty to present them in a light most favorable to his client.

If this election goes as I fear it may, I KNOW I'd be able to get ol' "burn it down Sherm" off!   

but we digress...   

Well AtlLaw, I will say this although we have drifted off topic. I spent 20 years in the Criminal Justice system on the opposite side of the fence from you. The facts "ARE THE FACTS". I have seen many a defense lawyer go after a victim or investigator and their credibility in an effort to get a guilty as sin client off the hook for what he or she had done. I have seen many a defense lawyer challenge many a "voluntary confession" by attacking the person taking the confession. That's why we started videoing confessions. Gettin a rapist, child molester, murderer, thief or drunk driver, off the hook, is not presenting the truth in the light most favorable to the client. It is mis-representing and distorting the truth for personal gain.
I once had a very prominent lawyer tell me in a casual conversation about a lawyer's attitude toward justice: If your want justice write me a check. I will give you all the justice you can afford. After 20 years of law enforcement I determined that in many cases he was right. Getting someone guilty of a crime off, is not a version of the facts. It is a travesty of justice.
As far as Sherman being a war criminal in an "illegal war", I would be more likely to say that he was a "whore to the north" in punishing "innocent non-combatants" by burning their property. Justifing his actions toward AMERICAN civilians would have to be handled by a lawyer. I simply don't have the stomach to do so.
As far as gettin "ole burn it down Sherman" off. Why would anyone want to? No answer required. He simply did, what many are afraid Obama will do metaphorically speaking, which is to trample rights. He too is a lawyer, and will "tell it in the light most favorable to himself". Should we be mad when he does, since the shoe is now on the other foot?
With that said, I will withdraw from this particular topic, as it will if continued, prove to be non-productive, and is off topic anyway.

[SouthernByGrace]

TIDBIT For Today   (or, lesson, if you wanna call it that. Either way, it's really interesting.)

Skunk, this would be a perfect research project for you to read up on. This project will put to rest the question of the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories. I will let this question be answered by none other than...
Jefferson Davis, himself.
Jefferson Davis gave a speech in the Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, February 2, 1860. It is a list of Resolutions on The Relations of States. All 6 Resolutions were Resolved by the Senate and became a permanent record of his stance on this topic.
I will list only one of those Resolutions here, then tell you how to find the entire speech. I encourage you to go and read them all, especially #2 and #5, which is listed here.

Resolution # 5.
That the inhabitants of an organized Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a Constitution to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the first time, like the people of a State when forming a new Constitution, DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction; and if Congress shall admit them as a State, "they shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, AS THEIR CONSTITUTION MAY PRESCRIBE at the time of their admission."

The link to this will only tell you the site is under construction, so just do a search for "The Papers of Jefferson Davis" and you can scroll down to the one from Rice University. From there, just scroll down to the Resolutions On the Relations of States. This is a very good site.

While you are on this site, go to Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address. It is his resignation from the U.S. Senate. Print it so you can study it. We are forced to learn Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in school, but this speech is a literary masterpiece, in my opinion. Although the Gettysburg Address IS a GREAT speech, it lacks the passion in which Davis conveys in his resignation, for his country, his fellow Americans, and his anguish at having come this far for things to end this way. It's a Very Good read. Let me know what you think of both of these.
See y'all later. Keep "readin' and a l'arnin' "   :-)

[Skunk]

SBG, out on the main floor of the Civil War forum, the top of the page sort of looks like how I typed it in below. Just follow the upper line over to the right until you get to "New Post" and click on it (New Post). Then, when the new page opens up, just type your comments in like any other post. Also don't forget to fill in the subject line with your topic's subject. And that is how you make a post out on the main floor.

                                                         Mark Read  |  Notify  |  New Topic  |  Post new poll
 
Subject     Started by     Replies     Views     Last post

SBG, being from the North, the mistake I've made right from the start was to automatically try to take the viewpoint of a Northerner without weighing all the facts. I find this to be true especially after reading some of the other threads on the Civil War forum. The problem is that I'm not so sure I'd even want to defend a guy like Sherman without knowing more about what really happened. What it really boils down to is that I'm not really qualified enough to even attempt it. I'm going to read with interest all of your tidbits, but I'm sure as heck not going to try arguing with you Southern Gents about something you folks have been living for over a century. After seeing how passionate you fellows get about this subject, I can sure understand where my implying that "word of mouth, third generation removed" somehow might not stand up to the test, would indeed get your dander up. I apologize for that. Anyway, this is really interesting material to talk about, and I see you already posted a new tidbit, so I'll get busy digesting that one in addition to Sherman.

Dee, I'm the last person to whom you would ever need to apologize, however, it's a very nice gesture on your part and I appreciate it kindly. But if you weren't the way you are, we might never achieve a sense of reality on these forums. And rest assured, I'm beginning to get a much better understanding of how especially the Civil War has effected the South not only in terms of economy and physical devastation, but in mental anguish as well. Obviously, there is way more to this North vs. South topic than meets the eye. That's why I can't with a good conscience take the North's point of view without first completely hearing and understanding the Southern Man's side of the story. For example, compare what Georgia went through during the Civil War compared to what my home state, Wisconsin, endured. Aside from the obvious loss of lives, Wisconsin, it appears, did nothing but thrive during that era due to the creation of jobs from transportation needs, and the high price that wheat fetch to feed the Northern soldiers. Hardly a comparison in devastation there, and it sure puts me in no position to tell the Southerners to stop living in the past like many so called experts from the North often do. By the way, when I first got out of High School, years and years and years, ago, my brother and I decided to go do something cool so we packed up and moved down to San Antonio for a few years. I loved it down there. It was a lot like you described Texas. Couldn't believe you guys had palm trees and were mowing your lawns in January.

Little Canoe, maybe we should start us a Civil War study group or something. 

[littlecanoe]

I'll try to relay a point of epiphany that I went through about 11 years ago.  This really made a an impact on my thinking and exposed the effects of the War even to this modern day.  SBG has given an angle on this, here is another.

My Great Great Grandfather was in the 7th KY Volunteer Cavalry.  Union.  That side of my family, to hear them speak, would be taken for modern day Democrats with an attitude about those who have achieved in life being almost evil for their success.

While living in North GA, I met a fellow who had been a county Extension Agent.  He was in his 80's during the Clinton term when the Monica thing came out.  I would call this man a "Sam Nunn" Democrat.  Conservative, Southern, Traditional but staunchly democrat.  This was about the time that Coke stock was splitting in the late 90's so he was constantly watching CNN when I would visit, trying to see when the stock would double.  Of course, Billy was in the news and this led to some discussion of Politics.  It took me a while to understand why this man was a Democrat and why he backed Clinton when there was so much sleaze around the man.  Clinton WASN'T a Republican!

As we talked more, it became apparent that this man's grandparents had lived through the war and Reconstruction.  Those two things were brought to the south by the Republican party.  While a conservative, he couldn't be a Republican because of what he knew that "they" had done to his family and country. 

As I considered this fella and my grandfather, who were about the same age, I saw Southern Conservatives who couldn't be Republicans and Northern Liberals (here, my family and mildly, based on mentality, not the Modern definition of Liberal) who couldn't be Democrats.  This was given to them by Grandparents who were affected by the war and it's spin-off.  A big light came on then and this was the beginning of my coming to a right understanding of Mr. Lincoln.

Do any other of you Southern boys see this in your family?  Conservative southern democrats who may never have become Republicans in the modern day, or those who struggled with it deeply before making that change?

Mr. Lincoln brought a lot of grief to this country.  If he'd have been patient, things would have been a whole lot better.   He had to get mule-lipped though!

[littlecanoe]

Hey Skunk,  I believe that our lessons have begun. 

Dee is the Principle/Head master and SBG is the Professor.

I just wish that I had a little more time to study right now.  I'll have to stick to reading this thread for now.

[Skunk]

This project [Resolutions regarding the Relations of States] will put to rest the question of the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories. I will let this question be answered by none other than...Jefferson Davis...

SBG, I read with great interest the resolutions on State's relations set forth by Jefferson Davis. This stuff is getting better by the minute. You said that these resolutions should "put to rest the question of the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories" and if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the South through Davis is not advocating for slavery. But as I read the resolutions, I agree that he is not directly pushing for slavery, however, it sure appears that he is at least indirectly advocating for the same and that he clearly succeeded at achieving the following list of objectives:

1. protecting the rights of slave owners to continue to own slaves;
2. to not receive any hassle by other States or new Territories for the ownership of slaves;
3. that the Federal government should intervene if a slave owner's slave rights are violated;
4. that slaves are simply property and should be treated as such;
5. that since 15 States have slavery, the territories should not be discriminated against from also having slavery if they so desire;
6. but if the territory is opposed to slavery, it should still not have the ability to stop a slave owner from taking his property to that territory to use as a slave, and;
7.  That if a slave should escape, the territory (or State) that the slave escapes to should by all means continue to be slave catchers due to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 and 1850.

But on the other hand, it appears that the Senate had no problems at all resolving his list, so was clearly not all alone in his thinking. I also appreciate his position of State's rights and that the Feds should keep their nose out of the State's business unless the State really needs them for something. Finally, from this legislation, it shows me that at around 1860, there appears to not yet be much consideration going on in the Senate in regard to the moral and ethical questions of slavery.

Here is the link to the resolutions for anyone else interested in reading them:

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=1501

Now, it's on to Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address.