Slavery, secession, Civil War issues

[alteran]

BTW: Grant's Overland Campaign reminds me of my all-time favorite general and one of the most brilliant campaigns in US history -- Nathanael Greene's two-year campaign in the Carolinas. On Dec. 3, 1780, he inherited a shattered Army and was outnumbered more than six to one by the finest troops in the British Army, commanded by the best British general to fight in the American Revolution. Two years later -- after losing every battle he fought (although his subordinate Daniel Morgan did win one battle, at Cowpens) -- Greene had reconquered both Carolinas -- an area larger than France or Germany, except for the fortified fortress city of Charleston. It's one of the most remarkable campaigns in military history.

I love Nathanael Greene for exactly the reasons you describe here. How can you not love a guy who lost every single battle but won the campaign?

If you have time, I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the modern understanding on William T. Sherman. I grew up here in NC with the thought that he was far more heartless and brutal than smart, the "total war" guy, Grant's pit bull, etc.

But I read a book awhile back called, "Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War" (by Charles Flood) and it included a much more thorough and fascinating portrait of him than I had read before. It made me feel like popular history (at least here in this part of the South) has done Sherman a disservice, moreso possibly than it has Grant. I don't know if Flood's characterization of Sherman is more typical of military historians now than what I described initially (brutal, heartless, etc.), or if Flood's characterization was an outlier.

Anyway, would love to see you (or anyone else who feels knowledgeable) weigh in, both on the topic of what current military historians think of him, and about him in general.

And to everyone, definitely enjoying and learning from this conversation. Many thanks.

[Devilwin]

Comparing what the arch raiders Sherman and Sheridan did to what the Confederate troops did while in northern territory is ridiculous. To be sure, Stuart took all the Union government issue he could get his hands on, and John McClausland burned the town of Chambersburg seeking ransom, which wasn't paid.
But Lee's troops didn't burn homes and towns (save for Chambersburg). The south was devastated by Sherman and Sheridan, and rarely did they raise their hands to stop the destruction. It's not even close.
Yes, Heth's men went there seeking shoes. Yes, they took food stuffs from the farmers there. Sometimes they paid with Confederate money, other times with Yankee greenbacks. The only payment Sherman's "bummers" gave southern civilians was a torch.
Catton spoke numerous times of pickets behaving casually to each other. I believe if we hated each other so much, there would have been trials and hangings after the war.
Lee has been denigrated here wasting his men's lives, throwing into the fight head on.
But Grant did the same thing, didn't he? He won, sure, but wasting lives is wasting lives, and he appears to have been better at it than Lee.
Olympic:
I provided a list of my favorite books. Do you want to see more?

[Devilwin]

Found some incidents of Sherman's generosity.
July 6th, 1864, Roswell, Georgia. Two cotton mills employing 400 women and children were burned, and the women and children taken prisoner. They were taken by rail to Louisville, Kentucky, where they were incarcerated til the end of the war. They were housed in a warehouse that was poorly heated, and had few lights. Their food consisted of mainly bread, water, and parched corn. A Christmas dinner was cooked by the ladies of Louisville for the prisoners, but it wound up in the hands of the guards. In one incident, a two year old child was kicked down the stairs by the camp doctor.

Mid July, 1864, Shelling of Atlanta begins. For three weeks, Sherman shells Atlanta. Telling his gunners to target homes as well as businesses. Sherman vowed to "Make Georgia howl", and promised to leave the city destroyed.
Later, he wrote general John Bell Hood and blamed him for the destruction, saying he had his defensive lines too close to the city.
Sherman refused to let the citizens barter for food and clothing from local merchants. Instead, he forced them to deal with Yankee sutlers coming down from Nashville.
Sherman had long mistrusted entrepreneurs that followed his army, especially Jews. In July 1862, he had forced the halt of all cotton sales by "Jews and speculators."
He was not alone in his bigotry. General Grant issued orders about"speculators coming south, Jews to receive special attention." Sherman forced the people of Atlanta to evacuate, and General Halleck in Washington fully approved of the order.
Many evacuees stood by helpless as Yankee soldiers loaded train cars with their furniture for shipment north.
An Indiana doctor was moved by women begging food. "They tell tales of starving children, and the sad thing is, it's true."

The destruction continued in South Carolina, although even worse. Columbia was burnt to the ground, homes, churches, everything that stood. In a small town east of Columbia, three negro girls were raped and whipped as their officers looked on and laughed.
In Virginia, Sheridan sent Custer and Merritt to burn everything in their path. Smoke could be seen twenty miles away, as the yankees set fire to buildings, homes, churches, and all the food they couldn't carry off. In Staunton, a four year old boy kicked a northern officer that had struck his mother. The child was hung by his neck for several minutes, til a yankee captain intervened. Yankee soldiers were witnessed driving a vast herd of livestock, some twenty five miles long, to northern
lines
Yes, they knew total war. And, they had to do it that way, if they wanted to win.

[Olympic Fan]

Comparing what the arch raiders Sherman and Sheridan did to what the Confederate troops did while in northern territory is ridiculous. To be sure, Stuart took all the Union government issue he could get his hands on, and John McClausland burned the town of Chambersburg seeking ransom, which wasn't paid.
But Lee's troops didn't burn homes and towns (save for Chambersburg). The south was devastated by Sherman and Sheridan, and rarely did they raise their hands to stop the destruction. It's not even close.
Yes, Heth's men went there seeking shoes. Yes, they took food stuffs from the farmers there. Sometimes they paid with Confederate money, other times with Yankee greenbacks. The only payment Sherman's "bummers" gave southern civilians was a torch.
Catton spoke numerous times of pickets behaving casually to each other. I believe if we hated each other so much, there would have been trials and hangings after the war.
Lee has been denigrated here wasting his men's lives, throwing into the fight head on.
But Grant did the same thing, didn't he? He won, sure, but wasting lives is wasting lives, and he appears to have been better at it than Lee.
Olympic:
I provided a list of my favorite books. Do you want to see more?

So Lee's troops didn't burn towns, EXCEPT Chambersburg ... what courteous and chivalrous behavior!

The disagreement between you and I is fundamental -- you see the destruction wrought by Sherman and Sheridan as a terrible thing, a crime against these poor, innocent people who did nothing more than enslave thousands of black people for more than a century. I know the blacks liberated by Sherman's army didn't complain about the crimes of his army.

And, yes, not every home or farm destroyed belonged to a slave owner, but they belonged to people who supported and prospered from the slaveocracy. What happened to them was the logical consequence of the war the South started. Just as I don't shed tears over the victims of Allied bombings in WWII, I have little sympathy for the poor victims of the rebellion started to protect slavery.

And that destruction wasn't new or revolutionary at all -- very similar military destruction was long a part of warfare.

As for Grant's losses vs. Lee's losses, we obviously disagree over the word "wasted" -- Grant wasted troops by trying to take Vicksburg by assault and with his assault at Cold Harbor, but on the whole -- including the losses in the Overland Campaign -- the troops he lost weren't wasted -- they were sacrificed in the war-winning campaign, unlike Lee, who wasted his brave troops in a series of futile and pointless attacks that led nowhere ... well, they did lead ultimately to defeat.

BTW, I've read three of the four books you list -- all except the Akers book about Stuart (and Monte Akers is hardly a prominent historian). Longstreet obviously has a point of view (although h was more honest about Lee than most Southern historians) and the two Catton books offer a very favorable view of Grant.

Not sure where your contempt for the greatest general in American history (according to JFC Fuller, who is an esteemed military historian) is coming from.

[Jeffrey]

Didnt they fail to act on the information in time?i believe i read 18 hrs to late.

McClellan was thrilled about having the information and basically said if he could not "whip Bobby Lee", with Lee's detailed plans showing the division, timing, exact routes of his troops, etc., then McClellan would quit and "go home". Even with the information, McClellan did not beat Lee because he moved to slowly (he was always paranoid of the size of Lee's army). Lee found out McClellan had the plans and quickly (much quicker than McClellan moved) recalled Stonewall to Antietam.

I'd bet serious green, Lincoln was less than pleased McClellan had the plans and blew the great opportunity to totally destroy Lee.

We are being told Lee made a major strategic blunder invading Maryland in 1862. Yet, if Lee had been handed McClellan's plans, I'd bet serious green it would have ended very differently!

[Devilwin]

So Lee's troops didn't burn towns, EXCEPT Chambersburg ... what courteous and chivalrous behavior!

The disagreement between you and I is fundamental -- you see the destruction wrought by Sherman and Sheridan as a terrible thing, a crime against these poor, innocent people who did nothing more than enslave thousands of black people for more than a century. I know the blacks liberated by Sherman's army didn't complain about the crimes of his army.

And, yes, not every home or farm destroyed belonged to a slave owner, but they belonged to people who supported and prospered from the slaveocracy. What happened to them was the logical consequence of the war the South started. Just as I don't shed tears over the victims of Allied bombings in WWII, I have little sympathy for the poor victims of the rebellion started to protect slavery.

And that destruction wasn't new or revolutionary at all -- very similar military destruction was long a part of warfare.

As for Grant's losses vs. Lee's losses, we obviously disagree over the word "wasted" -- Grant wasted troops by trying to take Vicksburg by assault and with his assault at Cold Harbor, but on the whole -- including the losses in the Overland Campaign -- the troops he lost weren't wasted -- they were sacrificed in the war-winning campaign, unlike Lee, who wasted his brave troops in a series of futile and pointless attacks that led nowhere ... well, they did lead ultimately to defeat.

BTW, I've read three of the four books you list -- all except the Akers book about Stuart (and Monte Akers is hardly a prominent historian). Longstreet obviously has a point of view (although h was more honest about Lee than most Southern historians) and the two Catton books offer a very favorable view of Grant.

Not sure where your contempt for the greatest general in American history (according to JFC Fuller, who is an esteemed military historian) is coming from.

Many, or rather MOST, of the people that Sherman touched had no slaves. I cannot believe what you said about the poor victims of the south. I find that hard to swallow. Grant was our enemy.. That's why I give him few props. I live here, born here, and hopefully will die here. But if I lived up north, I think I wouldn't trash them and their heritage.

[Jeffrey]

So now we know ... Jeffrey is Ademola "only UNC can beat UNC" Okulaja.

Your comment does not move this discussion forward in a positive manner. So, I'll move on...

[Olympic Fan]

Many, or rather MOST, of the people that Sherman touched had no slaves. I cannot believe what you said about the poor victims of the south. I find that hard to swallow. Grant was our enemy.. That's why I give him few props. I live here, born here, and hopefully will die here. But if I lived up north, I think I wouldn't trash them and their heritage.

The percentage of FAMILIES in the South that owned slaves was about 30 percent -- higher in the areas where Sherman marched and burned -- in Georgia, it was 37 percent ... in South Carolina, it was 46 percent.

Agree that's a minority ... but not a tiny minority. And it's clear that the majority of non-slave owning whites supported the slaveocracy and their rebellion.

I am a Southerner and I'm proud of a lot of my heritage ... but not the part that celebrated slave ownership and almost destroyed the union to protect that foul system.

Actually, there were places in the South that fought the slaveocracy. In western Virginia, they were able to break off and form their own slave-free state (thanks in part to the inept performance of General Lee in the opening weeks of the war). There was strong pro-union sentiment in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. And the story of the anti-confederate rebellion in Mississippi (and the brutality to which it was suppressed) is a story that few know. It's worth reading about Newton Knight and the Free State of Jones:

http://www.workers.org/2015/07/22/ne...n-mississippi/

Knight and his riders later joined up with Sherman and participated in the campaign to capture Atlanta and the March to the Sea.

For another perspective on Sherman and his campaign in the South, you might want to check out Victor Davis Hanson's Soul of Battle in which he rates Sherman's army as one of three great liberating armies in history. Check out the prologue to his book and link to a review in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/...on-battle.html

To me, the relevant passage is his comparison between what his father did in World War II, flying a B-29 over Japan, with what Sherman did in the Civil War:

[General Curtis] LeMay was not interested in shooting down enemy airplanes. He instead filled the planes with napalm well over their theoretical maximum loads. He wished to destroy completely the material and psychological capital of the Japanese people, on the brutal theory that once civilians had tasted what their soldiers had done to others, only then might their murderous armies crack. Advocacy for a savage militarism from the rear, he thought, might dissipate when one's house was in flames. People would not show up to work to fabricate artillery shells that killed Americans when there was no work to show up to. Soldiers who kill, rape, and torture do so less confidently when their own families are at risk at home.

[jimsumner]

Many, or rather MOST, of the people that Sherman touched had no slaves. I cannot believe what you said about the poor victims of the south. I find that hard to swallow. Grant was our enemy.. That's why I give him few props. I live here, born here, and hopefully will die here. But if I lived up north, I think I wouldn't trash them and their heritage.

"Grant was our enemy."

The money shot.

[Devilwin]

"Grant was our enemy."

The money shot.

Doggone right..lol
Never known a southerner in my life that thought Grant was better than Lee...

[Olympic Fan]

Doggone right..lol
Never known a southerner in my life that thought Grant was better than Lee...

Ahem ... Olympic fan raises his hand ...

[77devil]

Doggone right..lol
Never known a southerner in my life that thought Grant was better than Lee...

Lack of objectivity is a fatal flaw in your arguments.

[jimsumner]

I may have been too subtle.

Not usually one of my failings.

I'm intrigued by the comment "our enemy." Both words.

Who is "our?" I rather suspect no one on this board was actually a citizen of the Confederate States of America. (I can do sardonic.)

Is it a reference to the South? To North Carolina? There were countless southerners who not only opposed secession but fought to preserve the Union.

North Carolina lost more troops than anyone. But also had an enormous number of desertions. Some no doubt were cowards or simply crumbled under the horrors of Civil War combat. Others were moved by the very legitimate pleas of their wives.

But a good many simply were not interested in fighting and dying so someone else could own slaves. North Carolina had its own internal civil war and it was not pretty. Ever heard of the Shelton Laurel Massacre?

And I'm reasonably certain the one-third or so of North Carolinians who were either slave or freedmen did not regard Grant as "our enemy."

Ulysses S. Grant was a general in the United States Army fighting an armed rebellion. He was never my enemy.

[lotusland]

The myth of states rights as the basis for secession remains a strong narrative in southern culture. I have many college educated relatives in the south who cling unrepentantly to this belief. I know why, we all know why, but it's an impermissible discussion.

This is very true and, as a southerner myself, it has always puzzled me. Perfectly intelligent and otherwise rational folks frequently by make this argument.

I have close friends who would never be caught dead displaying a rebel flag in their home, on vehicle or their person yet argue that it should remain on the statehouse grounds to honor heritage. I don't get it.

[Olympic Fan]

This is very true and, as a southerner myself, it has always puzzled me. Perfectly intelligent and otherwise rational folks frequently by make this argument.

I have close friends who would never be caught dead displaying a rebel flag in their home, on vehicle or their person yet argue that it should remain on the statehouse grounds to honor heritage. I don't get it.

I have obviously been one of the loudest voices in this thread, displaying my contempt for the slaveocracy known as the Confederate States of America.

But I do think there is a time and place to honor Confederate war dead. I admire the brave fight they put up -- even if most of them were deluded (and misled) into fighting for a corrupt and depraved cause. I would say this, if you want to honor the brave Confederate dead, fly the official Confederate flag -- and not the more familiar battle flag, which has been adopted first by states as a symbol of their opposition to integration and by racial hate groups to celebrate their cause.

Secondly, I don't think a permanent placement near or atop a state capital building (or a city courthouse) is appropriate. As I say, a time and a place to honor the war dead ... that's one thing ... but too often the Confederate flag (usually the battle flag) has been used to make a political statement.

[ncexnyc]

So let's recap what we've previously discussed. The CSA suffer two massive disasters on July 3, 1863, they surrender at Vicksburg and lose at Gettysburg. In September we have the Battle of Chickamauga, a Confederate victory, which enables them to lay siege to Chattanooga. In November Grant saves the day again and breaks the siege of Chattanooga, during the Battle of Chattanooga. Bragg's army is driven off and the Deep South is now vulnerable to invasion.

To me this seems like a Union victory was inevitable rather than questionable. The Union had the superior manpower pool, they had a huge industrial advantage. They found the commanding general they were looking for. They enjoyed a superior strategic position having split the CSA and are poised to open the dreaded second front.

[wavedukefan70s]

This is very true and, as a southerner myself, it has always puzzled me. Perfectly intelligent and otherwise rational folks frequently by make this argument.

I have close friends who would never be caught dead displaying a rebel flag in their home, on vehicle or their person yet argue that it should remain on the statehouse grounds to honor heritage. I don't get it.

Absolutely agree.the only flags that should be there are state and country.fort sumter,Moultrie and the like would have been better locations.

[Indoor66]

What is the over/under on how long it takes this thread to devolve into a complete urine contest?

[wavedukefan70s]

Doggone right..lol
Never known a southerner in my life that thought Grant was better than Lee...

I very much think they were equal.two very intelligent generals thrust into a war niether wanted.
But yes i will side with lee as the better general 😀

[Olympic Fan]

To me this seems like a Union victory was inevitable rather than questionable. The Union had the superior manpower pool, they had a huge industrial advantage. They found the commanding general they were looking for. They enjoyed a superior strategic position having split the CSA and are poised to open the dreaded second front.

I agree that a Union military victory was almost inevitable after the twin victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg and especially after Grant's victory at Chattanooga in November of 1863.

Of course, the South didn't have to win a military victory to win the war -- they merely needed to hang on long enough and bleed the North enough to make the North quit. And there was one chance for this -- for McClellan, who wanted to make peace, to beat Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election in November.

That was not a farfetched hope -- there was a time in the summer of 1864, when Grant was engaged in the bloody Overland campaign and Joe Johnston was frustrating Sherman's drive to Atlanta, when McClellan's victory seemed possible, even probable. Lincoln himself believed that he was going to lose.

But Grant succeeded into driving Lee back to his fortifications by the end of June, marking the Overland Campaign as a success. And Jefferson Davis made the mistake of replacing Johnston with Hood, who promptly destroyed his Army with a series of disastrous attacks, and Sherman took Atlanta on Sept. 3 -- just in time to bolster Lincoln's re-election bid.

I found a Civil War message board in which enthusiasts debate the replacement of Johnston with Hood;

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/what...he-west.86436/

It's an interesting exercise in alternate history. Could Johnston have kept Sherman out of Atlanta past the November election date? Would that have cost Lincoln re-election?

At any rate, the South's defeat did not become inevitable until Lincoln was re-elected in November, 1864. At that point, there was no reasonable reason to keep fighting -- but the South did, costing thousands and thousands of needless deaths and injuries.

PS I love alternate history. I've written an unpublished alternate history novel about WWII. If I were younger and had more energy, I'd love to explore some alternate history themes of the Civil War. For instance:

-- What if Lee had accepted Winfield Scott' offer to command the Union forces at the start of the war? I know this is an impossibility -- Lee was an outspoken advocate of slavery and at the start of the Civil War, he owned hundreds of slaves, so he was going to join the slaveocracy. Still, could he have ended the war sooner and with less bloodshed than in fact ensued?

-- What if Grant and not McClellan had commanded the Union troops on the Peninsula in the late spring of 1862? I have no doubt that he would have broken Lee's Army in the Battle of Seven Days -- which suffered catastrophic losses against the cautious and defeatist McClellan anyway, and taken Richmond by the end of summer. Would that have ended the war before the blood flowed so deep that the two sides would have to fight to the death (as they did)? But like the first scenario, this one is so fanciful as to be ridiculous. No way the obscure Grant -- even after his twin victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson -- would have been given such a major command at that point in the war,.

-- What if Lee had consented after Chancellorsville to leave Longstreet and his corps to watch the shaken Army of the Potomac and taken Ewell and AP Hill's corps with him to Tennessee to link up with Johnston and relieve the siege of Vicksburg and Pemberton's Army that was besieged there? It would have been a fascinating matchup between Lee and Grant -- in a situation of numerical superiority for the South. On the other hand, Grant would have had the tactical defensive and Lee, as was his natural, unquestionably would have attacked. -- This is the scenario that I think would have made the best book.

-- I once suggested to Barry Jacobs that he might want to go an alternate history about Moorefields, the estate Barry has run just outside Hillsborough. My idea was that after evacuating Richmond, Lee manages to escape Grant's pursuit and links up with Johnston's Army to try and defeat Sherman. The battle takes place in and around Moorefields. In fact, Lee was trying to link up with Johnston, but he was aiming for Danville, Va. Of course, he never was able to break contact with Grant and ended up surrendering at Appomattox ... as Johnston then surrendered at Bennett Place, just outside Durham Station.