Question then.
Facing secession of the Southern States; what SHOULD have Lincoln done instead?
(Note: there is never a justification of the atrocities of War…and you don’t have to go back to the 1860’s to see them.)
Mufasa
Headhunter:
There is nothing in the historical record to even remotely suggest that Lincoln advocated rape. Sherman’s scorched earth policy was essentially an exaggeration of Lincoln’s policy of total war. And whether or not the South was part of the Union or not is simply harping on technicalities. The point is that the South and the North were at war with one another. Sherman’s responsibility was to the men fighting WITH him, not against him.
The policy of total war meant to destroy the economical, industrial and civilian infrastructure, but it did not advocate rape or murder of civilians. Sherman went overboard, I admit it. Actually, I take that back; it wasn’t even Sherman’s idea to go overboard, as evidenced by the orders he gave to his troops. Remember that Sherman was cut off from all supply lines and forms of communication with Washington during the March to the Sea so foraging was a necessity in order to protect the safety and lives of his soldiers.
"The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day’s provisions for the command and three days’ forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted 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.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.
VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms. …"
â?? William T. Sherman , Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.
As you can see, Sherman clearly did not advocate rape in any way shape or form. What some of the Northerners did was certainly reprehensible, but please do not think for one moment that Sherman advocated such atrocities or that Lincoln was a direct party to this either.
So let’s take YOUR children and send them to war in the South in 1864-5. How would you react after they were killed and their bodies mutilated by Confederate soldiers when the war could have been ended before your children were put in harm’s way if all NECESSARY steps (rape not being a necessary step) to win the war had been taken by the North from the outset?
Again, more revisionism. To say that Lincoln and Sherman advocated “raping southern women and stealing the food from the mouths of babies” is 100% inaccurate. That it happened is not.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There WAS no revolt. Revolt means you want to topple the national government. The South simply wanted to leave, with the national government just fine and dandy.[/quote]
Well, you’re part right - it wasn’t a revolt in the sense that it wasn’t a justified revolution. But with no justified secession and no justified revolution, you have nothing to argue.
The South wanted to leave - that is in dispute. The question was - could the South leave? The answer was no, absent a constitutional convention.
It’s in the Constitution to suppress insurrections and rebellions. When a state goes into rebellion, in order to suppress, and I am pretty sure - yep - that you’d need to send in a military force to effectuate said suppression.
You say you’re a big, big fan of the Constitution - do yourself a favor and actually read it.
You’re just brainlessly repeating some nonsense you heard. Post-Lincoln, the era of the 1880s through the turn of the century is the Shangri-La of “lib-uhh-turr-eean” wet dreams - it is always referred to as the laissez-faire “good old days”. If Lincoln was the Great Fascist Centralizer, how can the era right after his administration be libertarian heaven?
When it comes to history, the libertarians are as bad - and guilty of the same idiotic sins - as the Marxists.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Note: there is never a justification of the atrocities of War…and you don’t have to go back to the 1860’s to see them.)[/quote]
Agreed. But then, Sherman’s March was light on such atrocities. The hype surrounding the “numbers killed!” is always overblown. That Sherman wrecked both the material and the psychological infrastructure supporting the war and - a brilliant strategy that saved countless lives going forward, as the Civil War would have raged at the borders of the Union and Confederacy for years to come, and the same strategy enacted at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - is not evidence of “atrocity!”.
Note also the crocodile tears of those Confederates (and their sympathizers) that - sniff - had their delicate sensibilities irreparably offended by the thought of someone razing a city to end a war - “egad, the rank atrocity and inhumanity of total war!” - while treating human beings as chattel slavery and denying an entire race their natural rights.
I’ll also say this, and I can’t believe I didn’t say so earlier. While there were certainly civilian deaths and rapes, the loss of civilian life by all contemporary accounts was minimal. To say that Sherman simply marched around Georgia and South Carolina with the specific intent to rape and murder civilians is Southern revisionism and to say that the loss of civilian life was extensive is as well.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Note: there is never a justification of the atrocities of War…and you don’t have to go back to the 1860’s to see them.)[/quote]
Agreed. But then, Sherman’s March was light on such atrocities. The hype surrounding the “numbers killed!” is always overblown. That Sherman wrecked both the material and the psychological infrastructure supporting the war and - a brilliant strategy that saved countless lives going forward, as the Civil War would have raged at the borders of the Union and Confederacy for years to come, and the same strategy enacted at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - is not evidence of “atrocity!”.
Note also the crocodile tears of those Confederates (and their sympathizers) that - sniff - had their delicate sensibilities irreparably offended by the thought of someone razing a city to end a war - “egad, the rank atrocity and inhumanity of total war!” - while treating human beings as chattel slavery and denying an entire race their natural rights.[/quote]
Cheerio!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Agreed. But then, Sherman’s March was light on such atrocities. The hype surrounding the “numbers killed!” is always overblown. That Sherman wrecked both the material and the psychological infrastructure supporting the war and - a brilliant strategy that saved countless lives going forward, as the Civil War would have raged at the borders of the Union and Confederacy for years to come[/quote]
The South was toast at the time of Sherman’s March. There is serious doubt it, the South, could have waged war for years to come. That is nothing more than sheer rationalization put forth simply to excuse something that contrary to your assertion was heavy on atrocities. Even Lincoln was disappointed that W.T.S. had gone too far.[quote]
…Note also the crocodile tears of those Confederates (and their sympathizers) that - sniff - had their delicate sensibilities irreparably offended by the thought of someone razing a city to end a war - “egad, the rank atrocity and inhumanity of total war!” - while treating human beings as chattel slavery and denying an entire race their natural rights.[/quote]
There is no excuse for slavery but there is also no excuse to justify one atrocity with another. That’s a bird with lead wings. It aint gettin’ off the ground.
[/quote]
Actually the South was hardly on the verge of defeat. The entire reason for Sherman’s march was because it was an attempt to circle around and outflank Lee’s forces, which had been at a stalemate with Grant’s forces for months. Sherman’s march ended up breaking this stalemate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Agreed. But then, Sherman’s March was light on such atrocities. The hype surrounding the “numbers killed!” is always overblown. That Sherman wrecked both the material and the psychological infrastructure supporting the war and - a brilliant strategy that saved countless lives going forward, as the Civil War would have raged at the borders of the Union and Confederacy for years to come[/quote]
The South was toast at the time of Sherman’s March. There is serious doubt it, the South, could have waged war for years to come. That is nothing more than sheer rationalization put forth simply to excuse something that contrary to your assertion was heavy on atrocities. Even Lincoln was disappointed that W.T.S. had gone too far.[quote]
…Note also the crocodile tears of those Confederates (and their sympathizers) that - sniff - had their delicate sensibilities irreparably offended by the thought of someone razing a city to end a war - “egad, the rank atrocity and inhumanity of total war!” - while treating human beings as chattel slavery and denying an entire race their natural rights.[/quote]
There is no excuse for slavery but there is also no excuse to justify one atrocity with another. That’s a bird with lead wings. It aint gettin’ off the ground.
[/quote]
What’s not getting off the ground is your comparison of Sherman’s march to slavery.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The South was toast at the time of Sherman’s March. There is serious doubt it, the South, could have waged war for years to come. That is nothing more than sheer rationalization put forth simply to excuse something that contrary to your assertion was heavy on atrocities. Even Lincoln was disappointed that W.T.S. had gone too far.[/quote]
Completely false. The South remained belligerent and could continue to drag the war on the border. Further, there was a race westward - new theaters were opening up instead of theaters closing down. The Union could not maintain border integrity with its military victories as long as the west remained available to create new theaters. Third, foreign powers were getting excited about the prospect of more aid to the Confederacy in order to bust up control of the continent.
Sherman was the closer. Both he, Lincoln, and Grant were of a mind that you don’t simply “hope” an enemy learns its lesson and, aw shucks, what are the chances of them regrouping anyway? - you unconditionally defeat your enemy, and then wage an easy peace.
Setting aside that your plaints of “atrocity” are exaggerated - how many Southerners were killed on the March? - the two “atrocities” aren’t unrelated: one helped birth the death of the other.
test - my post isn’t showing up
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You’re just brainlessly repeating some nonsense you heard. Post-Lincoln, the era of the 1880s through the turn of the century is the Shangri-La of “lib-uhh-turr-eean” wet dreams - it is always referred to as the laissez-faire “good old days”. If Lincoln was the Great Fascist Centralizer, how can the era right after his administration be libertarian heaven?[/quote]
Because it wasn’t libertarian heaven.
Post Civil War America? Really?
I’d be interested to know where you got that from.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Completely false. The South remained belligerent and could continue to drag the war on the border. Further, there was a race westward - new theaters were opening up instead of theaters closing down. [/quote]
Completely false. The South’s infrastructure was gone. It’s ability to make ammunition and provide even simple basic supplies to its soldiers was severely damaged. It did not control the Port of New Orleans and Vicksburg and many other key cities and sites. In addition, key ports like Mobile were blockaded.
The patient was all but dead on the operating table. It had a pulse but was practically unconscious.[quote]
The Union could not maintain border integrity with its military victories as long as the west remained available to create new theaters. [/quote]
The South could barely supply its troops in the South much less those in the west.[quote]
Third, foreign powers were getting excited about the prospect of more aid to the Confederacy in order to bust up control of the continent.[/quote]
Nope. Your timetable is wrong. Foreign powers by that time had written off the South. It was the fourth quarter and the score was 42 - 7. They weren’t interested in backing a loser.[quote]
Sherman was the closer. [/quote]
No doubt. That is not in dispute. With a 42 - 7 score and 59 seconds on the clock he came in and successfully passed the ball until he scored another touchdown. Then he went for two instead of kicking the extra point.[quote]
Both he, Lincoln, and Grant were of a mind that you don’t simply “hope” an enemy learns its lesson and, aw shucks, what are the chances of them regrouping anyway? - you unconditionally defeat your enemy, and then wage an easy peace. [/quote]
You are surely correct here. He made sure the “enemy learned its lesson.” And herein lies the foundation for my part of this facet of the discussion.
See, the question is not whether Sherman was effective. It’s whether his actions were necessary. And just. And I don’t give a flyin’ fuck about analogies with imperialist Japan. The Japanese were not Americans. Japan was not the 49th State. Remember, the justification given for the Northern invasion was precisely that the South was made up of Americans and shouldn’t be allowed to leave the Union.[/quote]
Uhh…you and TB are not so far apart as it would seem. Here, I borrow from James McPherson Tried by War.
Regarding the strategic value of the March to the Sea, It was Grant whom Sherman had to convince. Grant still considered Tennessee vital and at risk; Sherman was acting strategically on local conditions. Gen. John Bell Hood, who had abandoned Atlanta, had then moved north along the Union’s supply line to Tennessee (which was in the Western theater, in the logic of the time). Sherman was not about to be put on the defensive, abandon Atlanta, and cede control of the rail lines which supplied food and material to the southern forces in Virginia and the Carolinas. Sherman propose to divide his forces, sending George Thomas to Tennessee to deal with Hood, and Sherman continued the march to the sea, with the strategy to march through Carolina and threaten Lee’s forces from the rear. Sherman telegraphed Grant, “We cannot remain on the defensive…if we can march a well-appointed army right through [Jefferson Davis’] territory it is a demonstration to the world, foreign and domestic, that we have a power which Davis cannot resist. This may not be war, but rather statesmanship.”
Grant was reluctantly convinced; Lincoln preferred Sherman’s offensive strategy. To those on the ground at the time, Lee’s forces in the East were still a threat–most assuredly not yet defeated–and had Sherman turned around, supply, and the war, would have bled on for longer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Completely false. The South’s infrastructure was gone. It’s ability to make ammunition and provide even simple basic supplies to its soldiers was severely damaged. It did not control the Port of New Orleans and Vicksburg and many other key cities and sites. In addition, key ports like Mobile were blockaded.[/quote]
Absolute nonsense. Lee had bogged down with Grant in Virginia and there was a bloodletting. On Sherman’s campaign to Atlanta, Sherman engaged in no less than 16 battles in Confederate territory. After succeeding in Atlanta, the plan was not only to wheel around and close off Lee from behind after securing that path to the coast, but the oft-forgotten secondary plan of going after Hood in Nashville-Franklin (the Battle of Franklin being one of the bloodiest in American history).
Not only did the Union need to break Lee’s hold in Virginia, but the Union had to force Hood out of the mid-South in order to regain control of the West (which it was losing).
Strange how the Confederacy was “depleted” but major strategic initiatives were required on no less than two substantive fronts in order to break the Confederacy. Someone forgot to the tell the Confederates that they should lay down their weapons because their “infrastructure” was “all but gone” - apparently, the hard-fighting Confederates in the butchery in Virginia and at Franklin didn’t get Push’s memo.
And you say the Confederacy’s capabilities were “severely damaged” - well, yeah, and the next move is to finish them off. That is the object of war. That your enemy is on the ropes isn’t a sign of victory.
[quote]The patient was all but dead on the operating table. It had a pulse but was practically unconscious.[quote]
Horseshit. See above. There was plenty of fight left if the Union didn’t quash it.
Your string of bad metaphors isn’t helping you - apparently, so “uninterested” were the foreign powers late in the Civil War that right after Appomattox, Sheridan was sent to the Mexican border with 50,000 troops because Napoleon had French troops occupying Mexico and winking at the Confederates. Secretary of State Seward even filed a formal protest of the French occupation.
[quote]You are surely correct here. He made sure the “enemy learned its lesson.” And herein lies the foundation for my part of this facet of the discussion.
See, the question is not whether Sherman was effective. It’s whether his actions were necessary. And just. And I don’t give a flyin’ fuck about analogies with imperialist Japan. The Japanese were not Americans. Japan was not the 49th State. Remember, the justification given for the Northern invasion was precisely that the South was made up of Americans and shouldn’t be allowed to leave the Union.[/quote]
How noble and just. One problem: the Americans were shooting at the other Americans. While the Japanese are assuredly not Americans, the one thing they had in common is that they, for their part, were trying to win their side of the war by killing guys on the other side.
Doesn’t matter the label - you fight wars to win them. You want a certain mercy rule because the guy shooting back at you was a fellow countryman until he engaged in rebellion instead of an alien from a faraway place? Knock yourself out. As for me, I am thankful we didn’t have such naivete on the part of Sherman and the Union - treat the men shooting back at you as warriors until the conflict is over.
That wins wars and prevents more and more people from getting killed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Both he, Lincoln, and Grant were of a mind that you don’t simply “hope” an enemy learns its lesson and, aw shucks, what are the chances of them regrouping anyway? - you unconditionally defeat your enemy, and then wage an easy peace. [/quote]
You are surely correct here. He made sure the “enemy learned its lesson.” And herein lies the foundation for my part of this facet of the discussion.
See, the question is not whether Sherman was effective. It’s whether his actions were necessary. And just. And I don’t give a flyin’ fuck about analogies with imperialist Japan. The Japanese were not Americans. Japan was not the 49th State. Remember, the justification given for the Northern invasion was precisely that the South was made up of Americans and shouldn’t be allowed to leave the Union.[/quote]
Last, an historical quibble.
Sherman stands accused as a bloodthirsty villain, exercising rapacious violence solely for the sake of punishment: so “the enemy learned its lesson.”
Let’s look at the facts, as they evolved after the “strategic success” of Sherman’s campaign.
Having chased him into North Carolina, Sherman concluded an armistice with General Joseph E. Johnston on 21st April, 1865. This upset Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, when he realized that Sherman had signed an agreement that recognized existing Confederate state governments, guarantees of property rights, and a universal amnesty. There was nothing in the surrender document that confirmed the emancipation of the slaves or the rights of freemen.
George Boutwell, a Radical Republican, was so angry that he called for Sherman to be court-martialed. Even his brother, the Congressman, John Sherman, expressed dismay at what he had done. Eventually General Ulysses S. Grant had the job of telling Sherman that the agreement was unacceptable to the government. He later recalled how he “was hurt, outraged, and insulted at Mr. Stanton’s public arraignment of my motives and actions”.
Sherman, for whom war was not a popularity contest, was nevertheless lenient on his defeated enemy; the status of slaves and governments was not his primary concern. The concern was to end the war and the rebellion not to inflict suffering for its own sake; the strategy was horrifying nonetheless, true, but the rest was policy.
Lest we forget;
None of this ended well for President Lincoln.
Mufasa