Dear Atlanta: Burn. Love, Wm. T. Sherman

[TUSooner]

While browsing the innerwebs on the occasion of William Tecumseh Sherman's February 8 birthday, I came across this gem, and thought it might strike a chord or a nerve with the Confederacy loving history revisers on the SO.

In September 1864, Sherman ordered the city of Atlanta to be evacuated and burned. Citizens of Atlanta appealed, noting that there were elderly and pregnant women whom it would be difficult or perilous to move. Sherman's decision was final, as he explained to the mayor and city council members.
And since we haven't had a good civll war argyment in awhile, flame away, Uncle Billy!


Gentleman: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,

W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding

[Mixer!]

Politics-free Saturdays, anybody? ;)

[bri]

Wouldn't that be History-free Saturday?

I kind of wish Sherman posted here. That'd be fun. :D

[Okla-homey]

Uncle Billy had the moral high ground over the rebellious slave-ocrats and he knew it.

Afterall, as he wrote, they started the dang thing when they poured cannonfire on old Ft Sumter. Then, the Johnnies headed into loyal states a whoopin-and-a-shootin' and thought that good sport. Now that the tables had turned, the Johnnies had the unmitigated gall to beg for mercy.

"As a man sews, so shall he reap"

put another way, "He who sews the wind, shall reap a whirlwind."

[JohnnyMack]

IBTSicEm

[olevetonahill]

Dayum Yankees!

[BigRedJed]

Most civil-tongued beatdown ever.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Over time, Atlanta will rebuild.

[Rogue]

Most civil-tongued beatdown ever.
Yup. WTS was a gentleman and I admire his way of refusing to believe that there is any way to fight other than all-out and for victory.

TUS wins the thread title of the day award too.

[Flagstaffsooner]

You gawddamned yankees are gonna git it when we rise again. Homey, consider yourself a squeeelin pig in a Burt Reynolds movie.;) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6786827303105231870&q=the+night+they+drove+old+dixie+down&total=89&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[SoonerBorn68]

Uncle Billy had the moral high ground over the rebellious slave-ocrats and he knew it.



...but the real irony of this is during his "march to the sea" he claimed freed slaves as "contraband" and pressed them (unpaid) into service for his army.

[Okla-homey]

...but the real irony of this is during his "march to the sea" he claimed freed slaves as "contraband" and pressed them (unpaid) into service for his army. I'm sorry but I must disagree. He did not.


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.

– William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.

In fact, as Sherman's field order excerpt above states, black folks were permitted to accompany the columns if those people could do work in order to justify the expenditure of supplies for their benefit. There was no unpaid "pressing" of black folks into service.

Moreover, Sherman's columns were moving through some very lean lands, and in the above excerpt, he reminded his commanders their first priority was to ensure their soldiers were fed. Numerous first-person accounts written by Sherman's subordinates indicate they turned way thousands of blacks who begged to accompany the column because 1) these folks would have slowed the force, and 2) they couldn't feed them.

[swardboy]

I never cease to be amazed at the depth of thought in the speeches and writings of that era. We may feel superior in our technology, but the speeches of today's politicoes are third grade exercises in comparison.

But then again, look who they're having to appeal to.....

[Tiptonsooner]

It's ironic how this relates to what is going on in the middle east. What TU bolded, very well applies.

[Scott D]

IBTSicEm

whose comprehension of political science is only surpassed in terms of lack of by the following subjects. War, Women, Sex, and Life. :)

[SoonerBorn68]

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.

– William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.

No where in this quote does it say the negros would be paid AND leaves it up to the individual commanders' digression on whether to take them in. In first hand accounts I've read from my Civil War Times collection from the 1950's & 1960's (sorry I'm on the road so I can't get them out and quote them) Sherman's army pressed these people into service and in turn turned them loose onto the Southern populace as foragers. They would take back their findings to the Union Army & would get a share. They were also pressed into service as mule skinners, wagoneers, & human cargo trains.

I'm sorry to disagree. He did (or chose not to enforce it).

[Okla-homey]

No where in this quote does it say the negros would be paid AND leaves it up to the individual commanders' digression on whether to take them in. In first hand accounts I've read from my Civil War Times collection from the 1950's & 1960's (sorry I'm on the road so I can't get them out and quote them) Sherman's army pressed these people into service and in turn turned them loose onto the Southern populace as foragers. They would take back their findings to the Union Army & would get a share. They were also pressed into service as mule skinners, wagoneers, & human cargo trains.

I'm sorry to disagree. He did (or chose not to enforce it).

If you feed and clothe a person who is working for you, is that not payment? Remember, by this time in the war, draftees in the US Army were paid only $21 dollars a month. That was up seven dollars from the $14 they got until Lincoln's re-election.

Now, if a person wanted to high-tail it off massuh's plantation to help Uncle Billy, and Uncle Billy gave him shoes, clothes, vittles and a safe place to sleep at night which he otherwise would be without, that's not slavery. That's paying with subsistence in kind. Further, Uncle Billy couldn't pay cash to these folks because they were'nt enlisted in the Army and they were'nt under contract. Moreover, he was traveling light and didn't have wagonloads of cash on hand anyway. In sum, I think he generally did the best he could for them under the circumstances.

[SoonerBorn68]

Spin it however you want homey...The same could be argued for American sailors who were pressed into service by the English in the early 19th century.

[Rogue]

It's ironic how this relates to what is going on in the middle east. What TU bolded, very well applies.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

It applies to AQ, OBL, and Kuwait could use it in regards to Saddam.
The application comes up short in several ways if you try to apply it as the US saying it to 'the Iraq.'

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I never cease to be amazed at the depth of thought in the speeches and writings of that era. We may feel superior in our technology, but the speeches of today's politicoes are third grade exercises in comparison.

But then again, look who they're having to appeal to.....Well, yeah!

[soonerscuba]

I never cease to be amazed at the depth of thought in the speeches and writings of that era. We may feel superior in our technology, but the speeches of today's politicoes are third grade exercises in comparison.

But then again, look who they're having to appeal to.....

Ken Burn's take on this is interesting in that we increasingly live in an era of new media, as opposed to back then in which there was one form of communication, that being the written word. So naturally, people were more skilled at writing as opposed to graphic design or programming.

On this note, I believe that the ex-pat movement of the 1920's might have been the novel's last gasp.

The rebs were lucky that the North decided to only burn their cities and steal their assets, I would have hung them for treason. Yes, all of them.

[Tiptonsooner]

It applies to AQ, OBL, and Kuwait could use it in regards to Saddam.
The application comes up short in several ways if you try to apply it as the US saying it to 'the Iraq.'


I was implying to terrorism in general. I don't believe Iraq is the target, just the battlefield.

[Rogue]

I was implying to terrorism in general. I don't believe Iraq is the target, just the battlefield.

Got it. I guess both (or all) sides of a conflict believe they have the moral high ground. Evil dictators even.

[Tiptonsooner]

Got it. I guess both (or all) sides of a conflict believe they have the moral high ground. Evil dictators even.


eggzachary

[Okla-homey]

Spin it however you want homey...The same could be argued for American sailors who were pressed into service by the English in the early 19th century.

Not the same. Those sailors didn't want to go aboard the British vessels to which they were compelled to serve. In this case, I sincerely doubt any of these newly freed slaves wanted to hang around on the plantation after Shermans columns passed through.

Contrast Confederate use of slaves (ordered by Richmond and the state governments,) to dig trenches and throw up earthworks for the Cornfed army. You can bet those workers were'nt motivated by anything other than the lash to perform their assigned tasks.

At the very least, in the case of those who may have been "pressed" into federal service, they were hedging against their re-enslavement if the North lost.

IOW, "You have everything to gain by helping us. If you decide to sit it out and we lose, you will only suffer continued enslavement."

[olevetonahill]

If you feed and clothe a person who is working for you, is that not payment? Remember, by this time in the war, draftees in the US Army were paid only $21 dollars a month. That was up seven dollars from the $14 they got until Lincoln's re-election.

Now, if a person wanted to high-tail it off massuh's plantation to help Uncle Billy, and Uncle Billy gave him shoes, clothes, vittles and a safe place to sleep at night which he otherwise would be without, that's not slavery. That's paying with subsistence in kind. Further, Uncle Billy couldn't pay cash to these folks because they were'nt enlisted in the Army and they were'nt under contract. Moreover, he was traveling light and didn't have wagonloads of cash on hand anyway. In sum, I think he generally did the best he could for them under the circumstances.

Uh Homester . I gots a ?
Isnt what you descibe here and Slavery =
Just askin .

[SoonerBorn68]

But the point still remains. Sherman's troops treated negros as contraband & many didn't have a choice. I realize the Confederates used the slaves, well--as slaves, but the Federals were no better. You're hedging your argument by using quotes you made up so I'll make one up:

"Hey, I'd rather see that negro pushing that heavy wagon through the mud than me. In fact we just freed him so he owes us. C'mon over here and push this!"

[Frozen Sooner]

Uh Homester . I gots a ?
Isnt what you descibe here and Slavery =
Just askin .

Do you consider the people who were drafted into the Viet Nam war slaves?

[SoonerBorn68]

Do you consider the people who were drafted into the Viet Nam war slaves?

No because they part of the US military & were paid for their services. Think human easement.

[BigRedJed]

Are we going to have to start having no Civil War Fridays people?

:kelvin:

[SoonerBorn68]

Pssst Jed, it's Sunday. ;)

[BigRedJed]

Sorry, I've been drinking since Thursday afternoon and lost track of time.

[Frozen Sooner]

No because they part of the US military & were paid for their services. Think human easement.

Were the former slaves not paid for their service in food and clothing?

I fail to see how it's materially better to be conscripted to dodge bullets vs. being conscripted to push wagons out of the mud.

And I'm not arguing that those who were drafted were slaves. But the claim that conscription for a limited time is comparable to slavery without the hope of manumission is a bad one to my mind.

[SoonerBorn68]

You're right, slavery is reprehensible & I'm not comparing the two. But, to claim Uncle Billy held the moral high ground when he did the same thing even short term is rewriting history.

[Frozen Sooner]

I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. If you've conscripted members of the general populace to serve a genuine and limited military need, you've probably committed a smaller offense than enslaving people in order to serve an ongoing economic purpose.

That's just my opinion, and of course I don't think either is morally right, but I think the former is much more morally defensible.

[SoonerBorn68]

Agree to disagree.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fair enough.

Now I'm going to burn down your house. ;)

[BigRedJed]

Not eloquent enough, Froze. Needs work.

[Frozen Sooner]

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for two men to disagree over the distinction between enslavement and conscription, then it should become self-evident that the conflagration that burns in the words between them should eventually erupt into the domicile of one or the other.

Verily, it can be said that the principle of "he who hath smelt it did deal it" can be judiciously weighed and discarded in this case, for no expulsion of gas was detected, and one cannot be sure why this was even brought up in the first place.

It is with heavy heart and troubled mind that I do affix my seal and signature to this affirmation of the necessary enflammation.

[Frozen Sooner]

Better?

[BigRedJed]

Anyone who can make farting sound like it belongs in the Gettysburg address is OK in my book.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Put Sherman in the pro-Surge column.

[Rogue]

Put Sherman in the pro-Surge column.

I dunno about that. I think if WTS were in the surge though, he wouldn't apologize for collateral damage, but rather shrug it off with a "war is hell" kind of rationalization.

The real irony here is that, by burning Atlanta, he was in effect burning down a city that the war's purpose was to bring back into the union of states. If his side won, it would be rebuilt (it was) and during the time it was out of commission the revenues the great city could have contributed were lost to the union. That's what doesn't quite make sense about the whole burning thing. It was more of a way to terrorize Johnny into submission. That's right, I said WTS is a terr'ist. The ends justified the means, to his way of thinking, if I understand his position properly.

[Scott D]

I dunno about that. I think if WTS were in the surge though, he wouldn't apologize for collateral damage, but rather shrug it off with a "war is hell" kind of rationalization.

The real irony here is that, by burning Atlanta, he was in effect burning down a city that the war's purpose was to bring back into the union of states. If his side won, it would be rebuilt (it was) and during the time it was out of commission the revenues the great city could have contributed were lost to the union. That's what doesn't quite make sense about the whole burning thing. It was more of a way to terrorize Johnny into submission. That's right, I said WTS is a terr'ist. The ends justified the means, to his way of thinking, if I understand his position properly.

or you could view it from the perception that Sherman viewed Atlanta as having the capacity to continue to support the 'insurgency' as it may be via supplying. By burning Atlanta he was in essence helping to reduce the South's ability to continue to wage war by disrupting it's flow of supplies.

[olevetonahill]

Do you consider the people who were drafted into the Viet Nam war slaves?
What the Hell does that have to do with My ? to Homey ?

[TUSooner]

or you could view it from the perception that Sherman viewed Atlanta as having the capacity to continue to support the 'insurgency' as it may be via supplying. By burning Atlanta he was in essence helping to reduce the South's ability to continue to wage war by disrupting it's flow of supplies.
But that's only if you read the letter and believe what he ACTUALLY SAID VERY PLAINLY IN IT. Just sayin' :)

[Scott D]

What the Hell does that have to do with My ? to Homey ?

silence slave! ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

What the Hell does that have to do with My ? to Homey ?both are temporary involuntary servitude for perceived military necessity. If one is slavery then it follows that the other is. I'm curious where the distinction, if any, lies for you. Personally, I don't think that either is slavery and a case for military necessity could be made in either case.

[olevetonahill]

silence slave! ;)
Yassah Massa

[olevetonahill]

both are temporary involuntary servitude for perceived military necessity. If one is slavery then it follows that the other is. I'm curious where the distinction, if any, lies for you. Personally, I don't think that either is slavery and a case for military necessity could be made in either case.

My ? to the Homester was .
Isnt what He described the same as Slavery ?
The Answer is Yes . All the Freed people Got out of the deal was some food and clothes ?
And Please dont even try to tell me that the Yankees Treated em with Dignity and Respect .
AS far as the Draft goes
Im all for it . Every One should do 2 yrs In the service Of this country .
As far as you sayin slavery and the Draft are the same . Have another Cup of coffee

[Frozen Sooner]

Again, both were involuntary. How does it matter how well they were treated? A house slave had all sorts of comforts-but he was still a slave. The key difference was that the period of involuntary servitude would END.

I most assuredly did NOT say that the draft and slavery are the same. In fact, I made a clear qualitative and moral distinction between the two.

[olevetonahill]

If your enslaved for a Minute or a lifetime , youve been enslaved
My whole ? to Homey was made 1/2 in Jest .
He describe the Former slaves as being Paid for thier work with Food and clothes .
Didnt Massah Pay em the same way ?

[Okla-homey]

But the point still remains. Sherman's troops treated negros as contraband & many didn't have a choice. I realize the Confederates used the slaves, well--as slaves, but the Federals were no better. You're hedging your argument by using quotes you made up so I'll make one up:

"Hey, I'd rather see that negro pushing that heavy wagon through the mud than me. In fact we just freed him so he owes us. C'mon over here and push this!"

Ever read that passage in the Gospel where Christ tells folks if they are asked to walk a mile, then they should walk two? (Source of the expression "go the extra mile" BTW.)

That stems from the Roman law requiring compliance by any person asked by a soldier to help lug his gear. People had to comply, but only had to hump the gear for one mile. The Roman law took into account at the end of that mile, there would be some other luckless person around to take up the burden and continue onward for the next mile. Lather, rinse. repeat.

The folks in Palestine really bristled at that, especially when asked to do so on the Sabbath. That's why Christ told His followers to chill and walk "an extra mile" to show all and sundry they were the right sort.

Now, I ask ya, were those folks enslaved for that mile when they were lugging soldiers' gear? Methinks not. Inconvenienced yes. Not exploited or enslaved.

Thank goodness now we just get taxed to buy trucks, helicopters and airplanes for the lugging of GI's gear huh?

[Okla-homey]

If your enslaved for a Minute or a lifetime , youve been enslaved
My whole ? to Homey was made 1/2 in Jest .
He describe the Former slaves as being Paid for thier work with Food and clothes .
Didnt Massah Pay em the same way ?

yes, but with Uncle Billy, they got a bonus. When they were done doing what he asked, they got...

FREEDOM!



Marching Through Georgia (1865)

Verse 1
Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along
Sing it as we used to sing it, 50,000 strong
While we were marching through Georgia.


Chorus
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.


Verse 2
How the darkies shouted when they heard the joyful sound
How the turkeys gobbled which our commissary found
How the sweet potatoes even started from the ground
While we were marching through Georgia.

Verse 3
Yes and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching through Georgia.

Verse 4
"Sherman's dashing Yankee boys will never make the coast!"
So the saucy rebels said and 'twas a handsome boast
Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the Host
While we were marching through Georgia.

Verse 5
So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train,
Sixty miles of latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain
While we were marching through Georgia.