Channel Serf

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Not the Sherman I recall studying about. The show also painted “Fightin’ Joe Wheeler” as a more dispicable character (torpedo mines, shooting forgerers) than Sherman and history didn’t teach me that!

By landsaf

April 23, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

I don’t know, The show was good, but it actually made me think less of Sherman as a person. He was brilliant in some aspects of military leadership, but the show made him out to be a coward when it came to controlling his own men. It must have made him feel more like a man to have his troops rob, steal and vandalize the southern women. THAT is not a classy leader. That basically throws any credibility out of the window. I have read about his rampages through the south, but it painted a different picture to see it acted out on TV. I used to feel bad about the poorly encamped Union soldiers. Now, not so much. The southerners were just downright angry at this point.

ok, I vented. It was a good show. Good entertainment, but I wonder just how accurate it was.

By Leah

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

I didn’t see the entire show, but what I did see made no mention of what Sherman did to the factory workers at the Roswell mills. In my opinion, that one act alone definitely constitutes an egregious war crime, and it wasn’t the only one.

I agree with landsaf, and felt that the show tried to place much of the blame on Sherman’s men, when in fact a good leader would have had better control over his forces.

By Ian

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Spend and evening reading the Constitution, followed by a re-reading of the Tenth Amendment. Then read the accounts of how Sherman’s troops treated the civilian population and how brutal they were with the former slaves. By that time, you will think the show was way more than kind to Sherman.

By Bruce

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Being a Sherman descendant, these are the stories I have been told all my life. It seems only in the South where the impression has always been of a tyrrant. I’m proud to have this ancestry and I’m proud that some of the misinformation has been righted, if only through a TV program.

By GMAN

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

This was an attempt to rewrite history by a bunch of Yankees. The white women and white children of Georgia from that era see Sherman’s March a little differently than the show producer did. To try to paint Sherman as something lesss than a murderer and butcher is an out an out lie. His soldiers ran wild destroying anything they couldn’t carry off, unlike the behavior of Lee’s troops when they invaded Maryland and Pennsylavania. Sherman’s actions actions did however lead to brutal retaliation by Confederate raiders into the north in late 1864. Real Southerners, wspecially Georgians will never forget the brutality and TOTAL war that Sherman and his thugs brought to Georgia.

By Barbara

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

There seems to be a different teaching of history mindset when it comes to the Civil War. Being from North Carolina and living in Atlanta for 28 years, I can honestly say, Northerners really don’t have a true concept of what happened down here. Nor have they heard the term, “carpetbagger”. Amazing there’s history can be taught so differently within the same country. Then again, just ask anyone who the first born of English decent was in this country, and nobody, except perhaps from NC and VA, can tell you. Absolutely amazing.

By lovelyliz

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

One’s view of the Sherman and others of that era quite often is formed by which side of the Mason Dixon you were raised on.

Unfortunately, war is hell and it tends to bring out the worst in everybody, sometime the best.

By Mike

April 23, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

Pure, insulting hogwash. Reminded me of that recent stupid “documovie” done on Clinton and the terrorists. Some Hollywood idiot maybe wanted the country to think, “oh, Sherman was just misunderstood all this time.” It was a made up piece of trash. Laughable, really. Guys like this bozo would never have been a Captain, much less General. Heartwarming…that’s what it was….heartwarming.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

White southerners deserved what they got and if anything, Sherman was probably too kind to them. These people took up arms against the American government. This is treason, punishable by death and many of them got exactly what they deserved. DEATH!

It is rather funny and sad that while southerners complain about their treatment at the hands of Sherman, that they turn a blind to how they treated their “property”, African slaves. The beatings, lynchings, rapes.

If anything, Sherman did not go far enough. He should have burned more of the south to the ground, then executed Robert E. Lee, Jackson, the Confederate Congress, the Southern state governors, and all military personnel with a rank of captian and above.

By Doug

April 23, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Sad to say But Yankees are still marching to the sea down I-75/I-95 everyday :>)

I wonder why they think the Interstates only run South ?

By Bob

April 23, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

The comment about leaders having control over thier men sparked an interesting thought….Did Lincoln know what was going on in Georgia. After all, he was the commander-in-chief and did assign the “Madman” the task. The history I have studied has never mentioned this fact.

By PD

April 23, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

Sherman was evil. After destroying the south, he went out west to destroy the indians…he used the term “final solution” to the indian problem; his solution - extermination. Great guy…enough of the revisionist history crap. Don’t get your history from hollywood or the history channel.

By Keith Turner is stupid

April 23, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Keith you are an idiot. Yes the actions of Southerners (slave owners) were atrocious back in those days. Was that the fault of all Southerners? I think not. The fact that Sherman came down and burned everything, took what he wanted, and destroyed many peoples lives in the process should not be shed in a good light as you are trying to do. Just like “slave ownong” should not be shed in a good light.

The bottom line is that some people are victims of circumstances. Do you really think that everyone that lived in Georgia agreed with having slaves? THat is ridiculous. What are the women going to do? Go against the wishes of their husbands back in those times. You need a big reality check compadre. Yes the South lost the war and I think the country is better for it, but that does not mean that Sherman should be put on some sort of pedastal for what he did. Many other cities were “conquered” by the North in the war and did not need to be burned to the ground. Before you write in these columns again I suggest you take your racial bias somewhere else.

By Keith Tanner is stupid

April 23, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Keith you are an idiot. Yes the actions of Southerners (slave owners) were atrocious back in those days. Was that the fault of all Southerners? I think not. The fact that Sherman came down and burned everything, took what he wanted, and destroyed many peoples lives in the process should not be shed in a good light as you are trying to do. Just like “slave ownong” should not be shed in a good light.

The bottom line is that some people are victims of circumstances. Do you really think that everyone that lived in Georgia agreed with having slaves? THat is ridiculous. What are the women going to do? Go against the wishes of their husbands back in those times. You need a big reality check compadre. Yes the South lost the war and I think the country is better for it, but that does not mean that Sherman should be put on some sort of pedastal for what he did. Many other cities were “conquered” by the North in the war and did not need to be burned to the ground. Before you write in these columns again I suggest you take your racial bias somewhere else.

By Rob

April 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

I always find the carping about Sherman’s march to the sea ironic and naive. The “war is hell” approach brought a horrific war to a quicker end. Let’s not forget that the Civil War started when Confederate troops fired on Federal troops at Fort Sumter in part over anger of the election of Lincoln. Imagine if 13 states seceded after the 2000 Bush/Gore election and attacked U.S. troops and employees: we would call it treason.

By PD

April 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Keith…Jackson was already dead when Sherman marched through Georgia! Read a history book.

By ctmoore

April 23, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

It takes a lot of arrogance to call the War for Southern Independence “treason”. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, it has been and still is the constitutional right of any state to leave the union as voluntarily as they joined it. The North did not own the South but forced its will on us militarily.

As far as Sherman is concerned. I think he rates somewhere below Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden.

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Sherman was a terrorist in his tactics - no better than Osama bin Laden.

By Knappy

April 23, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Hey, Tanner, how would you have had Sherman execute Jackson? Dig up an armless corpse and hang it? And, since you are do big on condemning “traitors,” you must also despise Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. According to your definition, that’s bunch of treasonous rabble.

By Southerner

April 23, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Anyone who reads the detailed correspondence reports from both the Union and Confederate commanders during the period in question can only come to one conclusion. Sherman should have been hung and some of his soldiers and officers should have been imprisoned for life for the atrocities committed on the civilian population.

By julie

April 23, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

Why, Keith Tanner, bless your heart. you sound like an ignoramus.

By KatyWatts

April 23, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Regardless of what we think of Sherman as a person we must ask ourselves this. As a professional soldier obviously sick of war, did the end justify the means? The south’s treatment of blacks was wrong but back in the day, ignorance was commonplace. Further, slavery was not the sole reason the south seceded. The south, just like Japan during WWII, would have kept fighting until and unless someone came along and broke the emotional back of their cause. We will never know what went through his mind during this time but I’m glad I have never been put in such a position.

By Raleigh Do

April 23, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

The great Shelby Foote, who knew more about the Civil War than anyone in the world, called it a great and horrible catastrophe, a huge national tragedy. If it comes down to a matter of pride, read the Greeks. Read the Bible. Pride and falls go together. When we talk about the Civil War, we should talk about it gravely and with sorrow, not as a matter of pride or chest thumping. Whether we in the South like it or not, Sherman got it right: “War is hell.” 150 years later, let’s move on and rejoin the Union once and for all.

By Steve

April 23, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

History is written by the victors… in this case it is revised by them. If Sherman did what he did in 1864 today, he would be charged with war crimes. My favorite part of the documentary is when an expert is talking about how “this was military custom and completely legal under the rules the war” while the reenactment shows a georgia woman being used as a human shield by a yankee soldier who is confronted by some of Wheeler’s troops. Another scene shows yankee troops shooting at an unarmed woman who just buried her family treasure, only to have it pillaged later. The bottom line is, Sherman might have been a good general and his soldiers may have loved him but what he did to this state was a crime.

By Titan

April 23, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Vejnolka, as some interesting questions, but even more interesting is the her disposition of history. I think her questions uphold the reality that southerners have never gotten over having to reap what they had sowed. The history that has been taught in has been a great disservice—such that when real facts are presented, they are automatically dismissed by individuals who would rather things remained as they were. As an Black male, I am forever grateful for the outcome of the civil war, “By all means necessary”. Sherman obviously recognized this also. I am forever indebted to him an those brave Union Soldiers.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

ctmoore, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE A STATE CAN LEAVE THE UNION.

Remember, the south started this war, and us Yankee’s finished it. You sounds like those dirtbag trailer park dwellers, who are flying the Confederate (nazi) flag, that is bigger than their rusting pickup trucks. Generally, they have about the same number of teeth as they do years of education…..ABOUT 8 OR 9.

War is Hell, Sherman crushed and humiliated the South, just like any other great leader who CRUSHES AN INSURGENCY.

By Richard

April 23, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

They show tended to focus upon the immediate effects of Sherman’s destruction of cities, personal effects and families. In that day, this was unheard of. We are used to it now - civilians being killed and homes destroyed to “punish” them. He was the first to destroy population centers, churches, schools and homes. There was also not enough attention paid to the rapes and outright murder of civilians that occured wholesale due to his lack of control or endorsement.

In short, Sherman was a midget of a man and commander compared to another who was a better soilder, better commander and better man - Robert E. Lee.

By Mel in Midtown

April 23, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

As a serious student of Civil War hsitory, and one who has read voluminously from the “Official Records” and contemperaneous accounts, the History Channel presentation of Sherman’s March was accurate.

Regarding controlling troops - this happens in ALL wars - look at Abu Ghraib and the murders of civilians in Iraq by US Forces, Me Lai in Viet Nam, etc. You must remeber that Sherman’s men were “volunteers” and as such were not as disciplined as the “regulars” of the period. Add to that the fact that Sherman’s Army was spread out over a 60 mile front with no communication between the commander (on horse back) and the foragers.

What was NOT mentioned was that Sherman spared many towns along the route - most noticablly, Madison, GA. The mayor of Madison was the college roomate of Sherman’s brotrher, Sen. John Sherman of Ohio. The mayor sent a message to Sherman and Sherman ordered his gtroops to not enter and bypass trhe town.

The incident at the Burge plantation did not include the fact (from Dolly Burge’s diary) that she appealed to a Federal officer and he posted guards at her home to protect it until the army had passed.

Those native southerners would rather believe the stories passed down than the actual historical record.

To actually think that the South seceeded on any issue other than the protection oof slavery also shows a mis-understanding of history.

By carlton

April 23, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

It was an okay show. Probably an hour’s worth; not 2. For more interesting info, visit Kennesaw Mountain and the Cyclorama.

By Today's war

April 23, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

I did not like Shermen before last night. Now, I absolutely despise him. But, I realize that if you are at war with another nation (or side) you are at war with everyone who lends support to the enemy in any way. This is the lost military lesson that hog-tied the U.S. in Viet Nam, and it is the ignoring of which has the U.S. hog-tied in Iraq. To win any war it must be a “total” war.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Funny, all these “fine” yankees so hate the south, southerners with our “Confederate (nazi) flag, our rusting pickup trucks and the same number of teeth as they do years of education…..ABOUT 8 OR 9” then WHY DO THEY LIVE HERE? IF THE NORTH IS SO GREAT, GO BACK HOME TO YOUR RUST BELT, LACK OF JOBS AND RACIAL TENSIONS!

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Mel in Midtown most of these “PRO-CONFEDERACY” southerns are racist idiots.

Their demonic ancestors committed TREASON and attempted to destroy the U.S.A. They got what they deserved. After the war, they created all sorts of heroes and villians, told lies, made up stories, etc. They fought a LOST AND EVIL cause and they had to come up with LIES to feel good about themselves.

Just look at how they treated newly freed Blacks after the war. This will give you a clear insight into how EVIL these people were.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

33rd Ilinois, we come here to do the jobs that you southerns are too stupid to do.

By Joe Brown

April 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Mr. Tanner, The irony is that WE asked to go in peace and YOUR President refused (Please read about the Star of the West and Fort Sumter prior to posting). That would be the whole “A house divided…” speech.

Ultimately, the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. If one side, does not honor the contract then the other party has to have the ability to enforce the contract on the other party or void the contract. The States wished the contract voided as stated in the Letters of Successions.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

And pray tell, how did the “good ol’ God fearin’ North treat the freed slaves? What year did the ‘fine, bluebelly yankees give them the right to vote? How did the north treat their migration up there? Why do most blacks CHOOSE to live in the south?

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

So, Joe Brown….WHERE???? Where in the consitutuion does it say a state can leave the Union? I can tell you what is does say, that all men are created equal. The south could not abided by the constitution and wanted to treat human beings as cattle, break up their families, kill them, beat them, rape them, etc.

The South paid the price. They deserved misery and death and they got it.

By ReggieDawg

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Regardless of your feelings about the Confederacy, the fact is what Sherman did were in violation of the laws of war. You can’t indiscriminately target and burn civilian structures. If this occurred with today’s media, Sherman would be vilified as a war criminal. For history to soften his image and call it “strategy” is mealy-mouthed nonsense.

By Mark

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

To Keith: Did you ever study US history? Only 5 - 10% of southerners owned slaves at the beginning of the war. The overwhelming majority of men and boys in the south fought against an invading and marauding, out of control army. They fought to protect their homes and families. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the import of slaves from Africa…something the US Constitution did not do. Lee did not own slaves…but US Grant did. Geez…where did you go to school!?

By ReggieDawg

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Regardless of your feelings about the Confederacy, the fact is what Sherman did was in violation of the laws of war. You can’t indiscriminately target and burn civilian structures. If this occurred with today’s media, Sherman would be vilified as a war criminal. For history to soften his image and call it “strategy” is mealy-mouthed nonsense.

By Firebrand

April 23, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

That anyone would try to justify the acts of a madman, even in wartime, is inexcuseable in any circumstance. Had he been a modern military leader, Sherman would have been tried and convicted for war crimes. He was called mentally unstable by his own men, who felt he needed to be institutionalized. The appointment of he and an alcoholic like Grant at positions of leadership illustrates the desperation and blatant disregard Lincoln the hypocrite had for humanity - all he was concerned about was, as he called it, “the math of the situation.” Sherman is burning in Hell today, and he feels right at home.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith, was that after you ruined the jobs up north? were you all too stupid to figure them out?

By mark

April 23, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Does Keith not know that all of the original 13 states had slaves at one time or another…many making it illegal just a few years before the Civil War?

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

I bet Keith Tanner’s family owned slaves and he doesn’t even know it.

By JD

April 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

No matter how greatly Sherman is portrayed and the number of good things he did for the union, all the dumb hicks of GA still won’t like him.

By David

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

History always favors the victor, because it is always told by the victor. Up until this time in history, civilians were not targeted by combatants. Sherman allowed his men to take from women and children. Sherman’s slash and burn tactics forced old men and children into combat and cripled the south for years. This may have ended the “war”, but it bred a hatred not soon forgotten. I think it will be a very long time before you see any statues of that scally wag in Georgia.

By jabster

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith—

Delta is ready when you are!

By Cynthia Ward

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Boy, reading these posts are hilarious. Please make some changes in your lives. Stop the hating. Now, here’s something about Sherman that you may not know.

On January 16, 1865, Forty Acres and a Mule was inacted by General Sherman.

In the midst of his ‘March to the Sea’ during the Civil War, General William T. Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton met with 20 Black community leaders of Savannah, Georgia.

Based partly to their input, Gen. Sherman issued Special Field Order #15 on January 16, 1865, setting aside the Sea Islands and a 330-mileinland tract of land along the southern coast of Charleston for the exclusive settlement of Blacks. Each family would receive 40 acres of land and an army mule to work the land, thus “Forty Acres and A Mule.” Gen. Rufus Saxton was assigned by Sherman to implement the Order.

On a national level, this and other land, confiscated and abandoned, became the jurisdiction of the Freedman’s Bureau, which was headed by Gen. Oliver Otis Howard (Howard University). In his words he wanted to “… give the freedmen protection, land and schools as far and as fast as he can.” However, during the summer and fall of 1865, President Johnson issued special pardons, returning the property to the ex-Confederates. Howard issued Circular 13, giving 40 acres as quickly as possible. Upon his knowledge, Johnson ordered Howard to issue Circular 15, returning the land to the ex-Confederates.

By Ken

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I’ll always remember W.T. Sherman as that “Damn Yankee Demon”. In fact, I find myself passing this sentiment on to my children. I do this at bedtime by reminding them that Sherman’s gonna getcha if you don’t go to sleep.

By AJB

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, people like you are the entire reason why the South fought for her independence. Why would a region, any region, want to be associated with evil, vindictive, and punishing hatred such as you?

The South left because they were being economically abused by an “elitist-thinking” group. They did not ask for war, nor did they wish to tell the rest of the land what to do. They simply wanted to be let alone. Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.

People like Sherman are slightly below Hitler and Stalin. The misery, destruction, and rape of a foreign people shoule be condemned throughout history. Arguing that the War Between the States was about slavery is like saying the Revolutionary War was about not wanting to pay taxes on tea.

By Shermy

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

It probably all depends on where you were born - North or South. War is not pretty. Never has been, never will be. You can’t fight by rules. That is not war. Sure people should not rape and pillage. But then most pople who have opinions on this have probably never been under the stress and duress of war, so it’s easy to pass judgement. I am sure that Hitler could paint bad stories or Allied forces, but he still needed to be defeated.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith, “Where in the consitutuion does it say a state can leave the Union?”

WHERE IN THE MAGNA CARTA DID IT SAY THE COLONIES COULD LEAVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

By M. D. Cain

April 23, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, you would have made a good little loyal Tory during the Revolutionary War. I’m sure you think all our Founding Fathers were traitors too. Remember some of them were slave owners too. If ignorance is bliss you must be in a perpetual state of happines.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Good post AJB,

“Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.’

As has happened today. The “Rust Belt” comes down here to carpetbag OUR jobs and complains about OUR “rusted pickup trucks”. Have you ever seen the cars in Cleveland, Detroit or Flint? Rust buskets…….

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Good post AJB,

“Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.’

As has happened today. The “Rust Belt” comes down here to carpetbag OUR jobs and complains about OUR “rusted pickup trucks”. Have you ever seen the cars in Cleveland, Detroit or Flint? Rust buckets…….

By mark

April 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Hey Cynthia…That does sound like something old Sherman would do. He gave lincoln the city of Savannah as a Christmas present. I’m sure he did confiscate land and gave it out to whomever he pleased…not realizing that he had no jurisdiction or legal right to do such a thing. Most of the land he gave away belonged to poor southern farmers (not slave owners) who just tried to get out of his way. His actions were a lot like Fidel Castro’s when you think about it…

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

HEY AJB??? YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE ECONOMICALLY ABUSED….IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL THE NORTH NOT ALLOWING YOU TO KEEP YOUR SLAVES? LOL, MAN, THAT’S THE CRAZIEST THING I EVER HEARD.

THAT’S LIKE SAYING THAT IF I’M A PIMP “THE MAN” IS ECONOMICALLY ABUSING ME, CAUSE HE FREED MY UNDERAGED GIRLS.

By Keith Helms

April 23, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Sherman was a war criminal equal to Hitler or any other German. So was Grant who was the sorriest man elected President before 1992.

By Jota Te

April 23, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Some of you are perfect examples of why we need a modern day General Sherman. Georgia is full of trash from the people in government to the trailer parks. After being burned to the ground, the city of Atlanta’s reconstruction was planned poorly and we need to start over once again!

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Anyone else notice that southerners are WARMONGERS. The same PRO-CONFEDERACY nut jobs on this board are the same ones that support BUSH/CHENEY, as they send THOUSANDS more people over to Iraq to die.

By mitch

April 23, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Thought this would be enlightning. Really forced myself to watch the whole thing. Sherman was their “Uncle Billy” because they got away w/ plundering an already defeated (not morally but economically)South. Will not waste my time watching that again. When did the History Channel pick up on re-writing history like the Russians?

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Keith:

You are just as bad as the ignorant trailer-parking’ people you harp on. You and your ilk are why there is STILL friction between North and South 140 years after the Civil War ended. If the South is as bad as you say it is, what are you doing here? personally, If I despised “trailer parkin’, gap-toothed southern people” I wouldn’t choose to live in the same region. We southerners feel the same way about “nasal talkin’, whiny, condecending yankees” who think they are morally superior to us. As information, bozo, racial hatred is not indigenous to the south. If I remember correctly, most of the major race riots of the 1960’s took place in cities such as Detroit, Newark, Los Angeles….hardly south of the Mason Dixon line. What about the Boston race riots of 1974-75 when the Boston Board of Education tried to INTEGRATE the Boston public school system….last time I check the only place you can go further north than Boston in this country is Maine….hating someone because of their race or where they are from is WRONG. Sherman was a tyrant and a disgrace to the uniform he wore.

By Travis

April 23, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

As a history teacher, I think it reinforced what good modern history has taught while giving some insight that I was not aware of.

By Sparta Man

April 23, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

I already thought Sherman was a fine fellow and this special just reinforced it. He knew there was a constitution somewhere that had a lot about freedom, etc. etc. Unlike good ole Robert E. Lee and the other confederates who were holding their fellow man in bondage, while they were supposedly fighting for “a noble cause.” Talk about HYPOCRISY!!! Sherman should have circled back and run a number 6 (slash and burn) on the entire confederacy

By M. D. Cain

April 23, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, every posting you make just reinforces the fact that you are a bitter ignorant member of the “blame America first” crowd. Like I said you would have been a great little loyal Tory years ago.

By will

April 23, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Now, should we expect an “apology” from the northerners and their descendants?

By Augusta

April 23, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Mel in Midtown: You may be a “serious student” of the War, but you still have a lot to learn. As a PROFESSIONAL 19th Century U.S. historian, I can say with absolute certainty that the History Channel show was riddled with inaccuracies and bias. For example, the entire show portrayed was from only a Northern perspective…Dolly Burge was the only Southerner given more than a mention, while Sherman, Grant, Upson and Hitchcock were featured Unionists. Historian John Marsezelak said Grant was “unfairly” accused of being a drunk, yet at one point in Grant’s life HE WAS A DRUNK. The program showed Union soldiers shooting at an unarmed Southern woman (Dolly Burge), who was running away, yet made no attempt to express the immorality of such action. The show also said foraging was an “acceptable” activity in wartime. HOGWASH: What many of Sherman’s bummers did was far beyond simply taking the food they needed. They deliberately stole & destroyed personal property that had no military value, often leaving the civilian population (both black & white) on the verge of starvation.

The show portrayed Camp Lawton as a horrible POW camp (which it was), but without giving any indication that compared to many other POW camps in BOTH the North & South Camp Lawton was actually not as bad (even if this was primarily because it was not as large as other camps). The show expressed several times that Sherman’s men were near starvation as they approached the Georgia coast. HOGWASH, they were never even remotely close to starving. The show indicated the battle for Fort McAllister would be a close call…HOGWASH. The fighting was over in 15 minutes (with only one division of Sherman’s army taking it), as even the show later admitted. The show said Sherman did not order or desire Columbia to be burned, then contradicted itself by admitting that Sherman had no remorse for its burning BY UNION TROOPS!

Toward the show’s end Union troops were portrayed as caring and humane for being “forced” to execute even one Confederate soldier in retaliation for Wheeler’s brutal murder of 18+ Union men. HOGWASH…the killing was cold and brutal on both sides! And the show’s image of Joe Johnston in North Carolina was of a unkempt man, when Johnston was immaculately well groomed.

Finally, the telling of the incident at Ebenezer Creek was HORRIBLE. Why did they not mention that numerous Union soldiers turned back against Gen. Davis’s orders to help rescue some of the drowning slaves? And why did the show not even mention that the incident resulted in a political firestorm in Washington, DC, that tarnished Sherman’s image? All in all this was a terrible program…TERRIBLE!

By robi

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Considering that the Confederacy wanted to protect the institution of slavery, I was disappointed that Sherman wasn’t as cruel and vicious as some of the stories I have heard. It’s a shame that he saved some of the worst abuses for the former slaves.

Of course, having seen Andersonville, Sherman’s army could hardly be blamed for taking revenge on evil, inhuman Confederates.

By jon drake

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

I once heard a lecture by some Confederate historical society, and they mentioned the locals started burning whatever was behind them before Sherman hit Atlanta. Good points from above - ‘war is hell’, and not controllable, and the issue of how the locals complained, yet mistreated their slaves. History is interesting - The first man in the Colonies to own African slaves was - a black African. [Anthony Johnson, 1651] In the 1700’s, 75% of the world’s males - and all women - were slaves of some sort - owned, mistreated, not in control of their lives, not able to freely leave. The root of Slavic is ‘slave’. Guess how that region got named?

By Mr. Peabody

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

After watching the show the only conclusion I have is that Sherman was an expert in ignoring wrong-doing and absolutely everybody involved got F’d. The North, South and the Slaves. A total shame.

By UNAMUSED SOUTHERN PATRIOT

April 23, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

KEITH TANNER. Sugar, you really need to have a history lesson from an unbiased book and teacher. As for the SUPERIOR ECONOMY-yes, dear, the South paid 80% of the taxes that were collected for the USA. When asked why he would not just allow us (the South) to leave in peace as we wished, Lincoln, replied “But who then, shall pay the taxes?” Look in the New Orleans Crescent newspaper, circa 1859 for that quote.

As far as where we are allowed to seceed-read the Declaration of Independence.I believe it reads something like…”That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Does this sound familiar? Probably not to you. The South was legally entitled to remove itself from the USA in a peaceful manner. Had we tried to over throw the government of the USA, THEN we would be guilty of treason. As it was, we basically said “this is not working for me, so I think I will do my thing and you can do your thing, never the 2 to meet again”. As far as Fort Sumter goes, yeah, we fired first after being provoked, and telling the feds to just leave us alone and go home. They poked at us constantly, and we lost our collective tempers.

You are a self righteous, ignorant person, Keith Tanner, if one goes by your writing. There was wrong on both sides, but it all boiled down to the North being greedy and not wanting to let the South go its own way because of the money our luxury goods provided.

Read a book by Donald Kennedy called the South was Right. He gives the honest truth-the good the bad and the ugly on both sides, without emotion, but by using points of law.

As far as us deserving hell- I don’t believe it.

By Swatguy

April 23, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

I agree with Keith Tanner. Those who raped black women for generations, kept a people in bondage, humiliating and murdering the men as well as those which supported, should have been left with NOTHING. Sherman did not go far enough. You people should know, the southern slave system was as horrific as the holecaust. The Confederacy was Evil. It is why it was destroyed. Only by the grace of GOD was the lovers of Dixie totally Burned including the treasoning, slave owning people. This society can never pay back to black people what white people stole.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Keith just for your information, it is the Declaration on Independence that states that revolt against a government is sometimes needed and neccessary.

As a student of the War, whatever you want to call it, Sherman’s march was brilliant in it’s ability to destroy the South’s capabiltiy to wage war. He destroyed complete infrastructures, railways, shippping, warehouses, bridges, farms for providing food for an army and a populace. He basically used the same scorched earth policy that the Russians used to defeat Napolean. I would not go so far as to say evil. Determined, yes.

After the war when we were having a flare up with the Spanish over Cuba in the 1870’s, predated the war in 1898, Sherman recommended that if we went to war with Spain to employ Nathan Bedford Forrest as a military commander. This is the same man that he said would be worth a million dollars to have the man killed during the Un-Civil war.

How much better off would this country be if the war had dragged on even further. I think alot of these points would be moot if McClellan had destroyed Robert E. Lee’s army at Antitiem/Sharpsburg. That would have ended the war in September 1862.

I am a southerner and proud of it. I have ancestors that fought on both sides of that awful war and I honor both. But I consider myself an American first. I quit studying this war after 9/11 because I could not stand the idea of Americans fighting Americans. There is an enemy out there that wants to kill all of us because we are free. Count me in as a nutjob there Keith because I see the terrorists as something worth fighting no matter where they are. Somewhere there is an American soldier fighting and possibly dieing so you can have your right to post on this blog. If you don’t like the war at least honour the soldier.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Actually, in response to the poster who said that the south took up arms against the US and it was treason… Lincoln originally started calling up troops to invade the south to the tune of 30,000+. Also, the south seceded. The south never wanted to overthrow the US government - it just chose not to be a part of the US anymore. In other words, the several states that voluntarily joined the union were choosing to voluntarily leave it and Lincoln would not allow that…. so he was preparing to use military force. The first line of the Constitution - We the People in order to form…. Well, some of those “we the people” decided that it was not a perfect union and wanted to leave. And since you mention slavery. Well the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves - just southern slaves. Slavery existed in the north for a few years AFTER the war…. In fact, do a little research and you find some interesting reading on the slave auctions that were still be held in non-southern states AFTER the war.

By Scared black person

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

This blog is hillarious and scary. You would think that Sherman was the devil marching through a church known as the South. Yet, so many of my relatives were hung, raped, beaten and killed in so many horrific ways. Mr. Tanner takes a beating for telling the truth. I’m truly amazed at how all the southern Christians defend the horrors performed by the South and then criticize Sherman for his acts. I’m still trying to figure out why they cause this the Bible Belt. I’m not sure that anyone here has actually read it or any other book. Who else would spend time re-enacting a war that they lost???? The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it. I pray for all of you! Where are the real Christians?

By CSA

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Swatguy:

Yep, white folks “stole” your ancestors out of Africa….maybe they should have left all of you there so you could participate in the vicious tribal wars in that wonderful country, not to mention sharing in such afflictions as Ebola, Lassa Fever, AIDS, as well as starvation and famine that plagues that continent.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

sorry, Declaration of Inedpendence. It got past me.

By Friendly black person

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

CSA…..Why do you think Black people should be slaves?

By beege

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

My Great Grandmother told me that when she was a young girl that she saw slaves crying because they had to leave their plantation hom, she said their master was good to them and they didn’t know where they’d go or how to support themselves. Sad that some people only saw the bad side of the southern people.

By Chris

April 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

I’m not from this country so I really don’t have a bias either way. The fact is that: “History is written by the victors (American-Indian Wars, The Civil War)” and “Treason/Rebellion is fine as long as you win (the American Revolution). So you can all keep bashing the North or South but the ends will always justify the means. That is the nature of human conflict throughout history.

By Christian

April 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

“The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it.”

REAL christians don’t insult, call names or sterotype people. They love their enemies & pray for those who mistreat them.

“Judge not lest ye be judged”…the Bible

By larry

April 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner and Swatguy are both nincompoops who have no knowledge of history. The Emancipation Proclamation had the effect of “freeing” the slaves in places like Nashville and Atlanta until the Yankees conquered those cities. At that time, the “freed slave” reverted back to slavery until the passage of the 13th Amendment after the war was over.

Sherman’s victories did save Lincoln’s presidency which was under heavy attack from General MacClellan until Atlanta fell.

Sherman was intent on punishing the South as just about every, single contemporary account, Northern or Southern, points out. This punishment was meted out by a bad/evil man and his rapine troops.

Also, just about every contemporary Constitutional scholar, Northern and Southern, felt that secession was justified under the United States Constitution. Lincoln waged an illegal war of conquest and the aforesaid nincompoops should look up the definitions of treason, rebellion and the like. They are both without a clue.

Finally, if is true that slavery was a horrific institutiona and is happily gone (hopefully) forever; but only 3% of Southerners (including several hundred black Southerners) owned slaves. The war was not about slavery. People should read Lincoln’s first inaugural address where he states not only does he not have the power to abolish slavery; but, he has no inclination to do either.

The War proved various things and established certain of them into law; but, like so many other wars, all these things were established by conquest, not by exercising Constitutional force.

By J ELDER

April 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Well, hate is alive and well. It’s all a shame, it’s all so sad. Mr. Tanner, your very core seems to be full of hate. I daresay if you were raised down here you would be driving a rusty pick up with the Rebel flag and damin’ them Yankees.

By Friendly black person

April 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Beege:

Battered, uneducated women who’ve been beaten for 20 years say the same thing. Are you surprised?

By rayburnette

April 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

I thought the program depicted Sherman far, far to kindly and the way the Union troops devistated Georgia was far more severe than the way it was portrayed. Griswaldville near Macon was destroyed as boys and old men tried to defend it and the Union troops massacred them for no real reason and it was opon the order of Sherman. There was no reason for the slaughter that took place and the destruction that was caused.

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Scared black:

Race hatred is not indigenous to the south. Apparently you are either too young or too ignorant to remember the racial unrest in the NORTH back during the 1960’s. Seems to me that white northerners are just as intolerant as white southerners are. The Boston riots of ‘74-75 prove this, WHITE Bostonians didn’t want their kids going to school with blacks…remember, this was BOSTON, not Birmingham or Atlanta. Hating someone because of their ethnic background is WRONG no matter where you are from.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

“The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it.”

As Lewis Grizzard would say, if things are so great up north, Delta is ready when you are. Have you back there by dark.. Why would anybody want to live amongst so much stupidity… I guess it makes you feel morally superior to us stupid southerners to grace us with your presence and all-knowing knowledge. As far as reading the Bible… I far one will go head-to-head with you on that one… I have not only read the Bible, I have read it in virtually all versions - except for that black version that was popular in Chicago a couple of decades ago - something about Christ going up the to the Disciples and saying, Yo, what’s hangin’ just did not sit very well with me!

By Gene

April 23, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

WOW! YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HOW THE SOUTH JUST WANTED ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. “MOST SOUTHERNERS WERE AGAINST SLAVERY” YOU SAY. BULL!!! THE WAR HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST TOO EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT IT! YOU THINK THAT BY MAKING THE CRY THAT THE SOUTH WAS TRYING TO RESTORE ITS ECONOMIC FREEDOM YOU ARE SOMEHOW JUSTIFYING IT. YOUR MAIN DEFENSE IS “READ THE HISTORY BOOKS!” WELL, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE HISTORY BOOKS IS ACCURATE, THEN I HAVE SOME BEACHFRONT PROPERTY IN KANSAS I’D LIKE TO SELL YOU! SHERMAN SHOULD BE HAILED AS A HERO FOR CRUSHING THE SOUTH AND BRINGING IT TO ITS KNEES. AND I SAY THIS IS A BORN AND RAISED SOUTHERNER. SHERMAN JUST DID TO THE SOUTH WHAT SOUTHERNERS WERE DOING TO SLAVES FOR CENTURIES. SO TAKE YOUR REBEL FLAGS AND YOUR RACIST THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES AND DEAL WITH IT! THE SOUTH LOST THE WAR! GET OVER IT!

By Unbiased Southern Black Man

April 23, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

As a southern black man, I am proud to be from the south. We all know that racism exists throughout the United States, so the south is no worse than anywhere else. If the white people down here want to celebrate the Civil War, even though they lost, that’s fine by me….just as long as we don’t bring back Slavery. Fortunately, I don’t think many southerners know the history of the confederacy or what the flag stands for. Like most people, they saw their parents celebrate it and they celebrate it. I’ve even seen black people wear the flag, because they didn’t know what it stood for.

People will say it stood for pride in the southern way. And, of course the southern way was built largely on slave labor, which is not popular among black people.

So, I think we need to clarify why southerners are so proud of the confederacy. Would they have wanted Slavery to exist today? Why are you celebrating a war that you lost? These are the questions held by most of America (white and black). I’m not here to bash any body….just asking questions to understand.

By CSA

April 23, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Friendly black person:

Absolutely should no person EVER own another person. I am NOT defending slavery, far from it. However if blacks had NOT been brought over here at all, stayed in Africa, look at the mess they’d be in. My ancestors came over as indentured servants….scots owned by the British…hell, I’m just glad they got over here.

By Friendly black person:

April 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

CSA: Being hung in America is better than being killed in Africa? Just asking…

By Scott

April 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Ended the war plain and simple. For that reason he is a genuis

By GaDawg53

April 23, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

I am probably one of the few people around now who has heard a first hand description of what Sherman did in Georgia. My great-great grandmother was 14 when he came through Resaca, and lived until 1959. Sherman and his men left her, her sisters and her mother homeless, without food or other provisions. They didn’t or never did “own” slaves. Her family never left the union and a brother was in the Union army. One fact not mentioned is the wagontrain of “freed” female slaves that traveled behind Sherman’s army.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

WOW! YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HOW THE SOUTH JUST WANTED ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. “MOST SOUTHERNERS WERE AGAINST SLAVERY” YOU SAY. BULL!!! THE WAR HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST TOO EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT IT!

Most southerners did not own slaves and were indifferent to it. What they were not indifferent to was having their states invaded… that old states rights thing where the power of the federal government is derived from the several states… Of course, with democrats - the power of the states is derived from the federal government… and as Walter Williams, a BLACK economist has point out, slavery was dying out IN THE SOUTH and would have probably be extinct in a decade without the war… Cotton gins and other agricultural developments are cheaper to operate and maintain than a family of slaves… while in the industrial NORTH, slavery was growing - cheap factory labor, kept in the squallor of the mill houses, having to purchase everything from the ‘company store’…. basically, even if they could have left, they could not afford to go anywhere… Several good points have been made here - slavery existed and was growing in the north; contemporary race riots were predominantly a non-southern thing; and lastly, many of the lynching of blacks after the war occurred outside of the southern states….

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Unbiased:

Thanks for a thoughtful and introspective post. The South lost and that’s as it should be, this country could never have survived under the conditions of that day. The reason the Anti-North sentiment still persists 143 years later is due in part to how Sherman overran his authority, the Radical Republicans harsh treatment of the South during Reconstruction, and some ignorance tossed in, plus a good dose of misguided sould like Keith Tanner. Slavery is not right. Neither is racial hatred. But as I said before, you have this in ALL parts of this country, not just the South.

By beege

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Oh….Swatguy….can the (Egyptians) ever pay back the Israelites (Jews) that built their pyramids? Can the blacks ever pay back for selling their own people into slavery? Tell me Tell me

By mark

April 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

To Keith, Swatguy, friendly black person, etc… Do you not understand? Nearly all of the people who fought for the South were poor farmers who had no interest in slavery? They were simply protecting their homes and families. This is historic fact. You all depict southerners at that time as evil. Ask yourself this question: “Would I put my life on the line so rich people can keep their domestic help?” Most likely you would not…and neither did the 90% of the southerners who fought for the Confederacy. When you are presented with facts, figures, quotes, laws, etc that point out the error in your judgement, you label us “hicks,” “racists,” “non-Christians,” etc.

Just THINK about it. READ history and learn..don’t make emotionally charged arguments based on your misconceptions. To argue without knowledge is , well, idiotic.

By Gman

April 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

I didn’t get a chance to see the show due to a wedding weekend, but I do want to see it to form my own opinion of Sherman’s portrayal in the documentary (though in the “making of” special I saw there is not a Southerner in sight). Sherman flanked his way around Joe Johnston all the way through Atlanta b/c Johnston wouldn’t fight for various reasons (size of Sherman’s army mostly according to him). The basic route was the railroad from Chattanooga (or present day I-75) for obvious resupply reasons.

Sherman was not a great general, he did nothing spectacular to win his campaign, if this documentary presents him that way it is simply wrong, the entire campaign was simply meant as a diversion in the first place, so Johnston could not send reinforcements to Lee up in Virginia…..Joe Johnston did even less for the Confederacy, even though his men loved him much more than John Bell Hood, Johnston’s successor on the eve of the Battle of Atlanta July 22nd.

AS far as his burning of Atlanta, he did it b/c he couldn’t leave men to hold the city, and felt once he continued on to Macon the Confederacy would turn around and go right back into Atlanta and start up the factories and fix the railroads. Lincoln knew what Sherman was going to do as well. The looting and pillaging ocurred, against the official Union army orders, and was certainly not an accepted practice. But to be honest, 5 Points downtown was the rail hub for all Southern soldiers coming from all points around the region, full of brothels, gambling, runaway slaves and bars…….that area was looted more times than you can count by both sides. However, no Confederate army ever raped, looted and pillaged on a scale like Sherman’s army, an army that had almost no food b/c Sherman decided they could “forage” what they needed from fields and residents thru south georgia.

Also, if General Hood had held Atlanta longer (the city was surrendered Sept. 2nd, at the present day intersection of northside dr and marietta st),through the presidential elections was the goal, it was very likely that Lincoln would not have been re-elected (it was an election year)and George McClellan would have won the day on his anti-war platform, due to the perception in northern cities that they were losing the war, citizens in all cities from New York to Chicago were rioting due to heavy conscription (involuntary draft) requirements and the feeling that too many northern men were dying in a war that they themselves didnt believe in and were losing to boot.

Anyways, I do want to see this documentary, but I have a feeling already how it was made and how I will view it. Coupla facts for folks in the ATL:

The Cyclorama at the Atlanta Zoo depicts the Battle of Atlanta (also called the Battle of Decatur), July 22nd, 1864. The painting was created in the 1880’s by erecting a tall tower, on which the artists spent the next six months or so on top of said tower, sketching a 360 degree view of the battlefield. This tower was erected right next to what is today the intersection of Moreland Ave and Dekalb Ave. The Troup - Hurt house, (the big house depicted in he middle of the painting), is located just up the road on Degress Ave, just off Dekalb Ave.

Sherman watched the Battle of Atlanta from on top of the present day Carter Center

5 Points downtown was the center of everything in Atlanta during the Civil War, shops, bars, railroad terminal, etc

General Hood and Confederate officers watched the Battle of Atlanta where present day Oakland Cemetery sits.

When the Confederacy decided they had to vacate the city due to Sherman’s actions around Jonesboro, Hood sent word to get all his ammunition trains rolling towards Macon. 5 locomotives, 81 boxcars, 5 thousand rifles and 3 million rounds of ammunition sat in those trains. The quartermaster in charge of said evacuation got loaded that nite and didnt execute Hood’s orders, so the trains were stuck where they were, where the present day Fulton Cotton Mill lofts stand, b/c Sherman had cut the rail lines going both east and west. So, the Confederates did what they had to do - they blew it all up on the spot so the Union forces couldn’t use anything. Eyewitness accounts say it was like the 4th of July there was so many explosions……the Rolling Mill (which manufactured weapons and ammo) was also destroyed, and the Cotton Mill was built on that spot about 20 years later…..

A great (and histroically accurate) book to read on Sherman’s march is called Decision in the West, by Albert Castel. It is written in present tense, and a very interesting read……

Also, I love Keith Tanner’s posts, he is the type of guy that could find a way to work in his hatred for Southerners, Conservatism and most espcially George Bush in a blog about the Braves. How y’all enjoy the post……

By Black Southerner (UGA grad)

April 23, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

GaDawg53

Just to clarify. Slaves did not want anyone (black or white, male or female) to die in the war. They just didn’t want to be slaves….

What’s your point about the wagontrain?

Thanks.

By ray

April 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

u all make it seem like sherman did something not commonly found in any u.s. led invasion i take it yall arent big iraq fans because we havent really change are policies too much. i dare anybody to read the constitution and find anything that made slavery legal “all men are created equal”hmmm. it was an ugly war, but show me a pretty one.

By Southerner

April 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Slavery wasn’t legal????

By CONCERNED CITIZEN

April 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

KEITH TANNER..GENE….too bad they don’t admit the truth in what you all said. The South and it’s Racial/Slave issues can be, and should be, looked into by way of a GREAT book: “In The Matter Of Color” By A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. A former federal judge who breaks down the South like you have never seen before. The book has won 5 prestiges awards, great reviews from the NY Times, Harvard, amd others. ISBN# 0-19-502745-0

I am not saying Sherman did all innocent acts, but the South calling him bad is like the pot calling the kettle black! Even to this day the South and it’s Judges ruin the lives of color-blind issues, making race an issue, clandestinely. The Southern Media like the Macon Telegraph loves to gives racially tainted views, along with Middle Ga tv stations. The Klan is alive and well my people. Stop being duped into think we non-whites are not subject to daily racism. We are.

I guarantee you, if you get that book ($20) you will see the truth about the South.

Obviously Sherman didn’t do enough, cause these red neck confederate flag flying, 360 degree hang a negroe by their neck dying, still are lying, and we are still dying, and or jailed unconstitutionally.

www.HESINNOCENT.COM

By heather

April 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Who sold the slaves to the slave traders?

Many african slaves were sold to the slave traders by other africans!

And all you yankees who act as though you’re better than those from the south… Remember all the terrible race riots that happened in Detroit and Newark.

and…

take your stupid yankee a*******es back north if it’s so great up there.

By Unbiased Southern Black Man

April 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Let’s stop the hatred. Let’s all admit that slavery was wrong. Let’s all admit that not all white people owned slaves and not all white people are racist. Let’s all admit that we are not the Christians we should be. But, most importantly, let’s all admit that we care enough to change the future since we can’t change the past!

I want my black kids to love all those white kids who had nothing to do with the confederacy or slavery and vice versa!

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Heather:

Totally agree. The population of the metro area has nearly tripled since 1971. Guess where all that growth came from? It can’t be too damn bad down here if these northerners are descending on us like lemmings….ever heard the term “carpetbagger”?

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Absolutely Unbiased!

I have always taught my children that any form of racial bigotry is wrong. As a former Pastor of mine used to say, “Don’t hate your black brother…you MIGHT wind up living next door to him in Heaven. God has a sense of humor.” We need to realize we are all fallible humans forgiven only by the grace of God. Sorry if anything I put on this post seemed to reflect hate. I just get incensed when people from somewhere else come here and try to tell me how I should do things.

By RMS

April 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I thought the show was centered around casting Sherman in a more favorable light. Typical politically correct historical revision. Sherman’s march was brutal, unrelenting and without remorse. He left nothing standing in his path, for the most part.

Years ago, I interviewed a man whose grandmother stood face to face with Sherman in Orangeburg, SC. She appealed to his gentler side, having met him before the war at a social in Charleston. She asked him if he was still the gentlemen she had met back then, he responded that he was. She and her family were allowed to stay in their plantation house and he ordered his men to leave them alone. The house still stands today with all of its original Civil War era furniture. That would have bolstered the position taken by the documentary last night.

I couldn’t help thinking as I watched the show, what if we could send a General Sherman to Irag and Afghanistan? How long would it take to end those conflicts? Just a thought….

By CobbCoian

April 23, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Wow - from these posts it seems like we are still fighting the war…. I am a “Yankee” who moved down here recently, and was amazed to find that people still talked about the Confederancy like it was still around, I was even amazed that I got called a “Yank”… I would have thought we as a country got past all this.
Civil war was a part of HISTORY, it is not still going on! It is something we should learn from, and learn about, but we aren’t going to change any it! Shermans March was a pretty good show, it did leave out facts about both sides. But I think the point was, Total War. Yes, all Wars are bad and bad things happen on both sides, but it did help to bring the war to an end. Similiar to what we did to Japanese at the end of WWII.

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

CobbCoian: You are just another yankee who thinks he knows it all. Learn about your city and don’t take it for granted.

By ray

April 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

people say that the union soldiers raped women and pillaged the towns. but did you know that all slave owners in america raped there slave girls when they started there cycle in a process called “breakin em in” they did it so much they created a new shade of black people “millato” 2 wrongs dont make a right, but what can be with a society that accepts the rape of 12 year old girls. yes he was an evil man but i doubt very few people who demonize sherman would do the same to there ancestors who created a man made hell for 400 hundred years you people have no idea of how dark that era in american history is or would really want to know it would change the way you see black people today if you think i am wrong then search willie lynch and if you arent changed even slightly then you stand shoulder to shoulder with this demon

By Bilbo

April 23, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Many of you seem to miss the fact that some of the slave states took up arms against the US government. You probably would be the first ones to tie me to a board and pour water up my nose if I attempted anything similar. I do not now nor have I ever seen any justice in the rebel cause. They insisted on having an armed rebellion when they could have obtained everything they sought without it. Their bullheadedness made Sherman inevitable, because they preferred war to diplomacy, and got more war than they bargained for (a la Bush).

By transplant

April 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I am a transplant from OH and I feel the show made Sherman out to be much kinder and gentler than he really was. I would be upsent if I was a native Georgian. I believe this show has been Hollywoodized. More entertainment than historical facts.

By CobbCoian

April 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I find it hard to take anyone seriously when they call me a Yankee. The Yankees are a baseball team… not me. I don’t think you would like it if i called people native to Georgia southern rednecks.

By scribe

April 23, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

As a historian, there is good and bad in Sherman. yes, he and his men committed war crimes. both sides committed war crimes (such as the Andersonville prisoner camp). So he was no different than many Generals on either side. He also was intelligent enough to know that by ripping the heart out of the confederacy with his march, he ripped up the southern “infrastructure” and ended the war quicker. Remember there was no “Geneva Convention” protecting soldiers and civilians rights back then. So to cast him as either is unfair. He was both, good and bad.

By R King

April 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Can’t we all just get along?

By CSA

April 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

CobbCo:

We wouldn’t. But a good many of you whatchamacallits DO call us rednecks. As far as still fighting the war is concerned, this goes on because of some of you misguided Northerners moving here and then trying to get us to change our lifestyle to fit you. Ain’t gonna happen. If you don’t like it, go home.

By j elder

April 23, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

You know, I don’t think there are truly many people down here who use the term “Yankee” in a derogatory way. It just means you’re from a state higher up. I think all this war of words is just territorial fighting. We are all proud of where we came from whether it’s New York or Alabama. Nobody’s proud of slavery, none of us owned slaves, none of us were slaves. We can’t change the past. Everybody committed atrocities. Let’s learn and go from here.

By dobbin

April 23, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

While it is true that the majority of Confederate regulars did not own slaves—however, they were fighting to uphold slavery. The majority of German soldiers did not personally murder jews but they fought for a government that supported the extermination of the jews. That any person could defend the South during the time of slavery is incredible. That anyone can ignore the treatment of blacks in the south following the Civil War is even more ridiculous. While as Southerners, we have many things to be proud of, the Confederacy was not one of them. If Sherman slit the throat of every Rebel personally, I’d still be grateful for his efforts to destroy the Confederacy.

By Claude

April 23, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Sherman was ahead of his time. There’s a saying now that armies don’t go to war, countries go to war. War isn’t just about the people wearing uniforms. Civilians contribute heavily to a war effort, and limiting or stopping that contribution is a big part of winning a war. Sherman wasn’t a gentleman and he wasn’t trying to be a gentleman.

By GA Peach

April 23, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Wow, wasn’t this just supposed to be a forum on stating if you liked the documentry or not? How does it go to this whole other level of craziness? I am a Georgian and proud of it. But it makes me really sad to see the mindset of my fellow Georgians. Whether we like it or not we all live in this great state together. If people want to move to GA why not? I didn’t think that you needed a passport to get here. I’ve never understood why people are so proud of the Confederate flag. I would like to know why a flag that represented such an evil way of life is so celebrated? The north doesn’t fly the Union flag, so why does the South fly the Confederate flag? The atrocites that occured during the Civil War happened on both sides. Has anyone ever heard of Andersonville? There is no higher ground in the bad things that occured during the war, but good things came as a result. The Civil War was not started over slavery. But because of the outcome of the war, slavery did end. America as a nation became wealthy off of the backs of slaves in both the north and south. Presidents owned slaves. Have you ever been to Mount Vernon or Monticello? When wars are fought, people die. Wars are generally ended by any means necessary. America is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb on another country, but we are the ones that want to police the use of nuclear weapons. Sherman’s March to Atlanta didn’t have the lasting effects that the people of Hiroshima are still experiencing due to radioactive poisoning.

So next time there is a forum to say yes I liked this or no I didn’t like this, can it not result in insulting one another? How cowardly to insult each other anonymously over the internet.

By Merrie

April 23, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

With all the money that was spent on both sides of the war, why didn’t Lincoln (if he wanted to end slavery) just buy all the slaves and free them? It would have been a bargain.

By mark

April 23, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Dobbin….I guess that is the point of contention. You say all southerners fought to uphold slavery. My point is that they did not care a hill of beans about slavery. Slaves were for the rich folk! Southerners (most of them) fought for independence, fought against the tyrannical taxes imposed on them for years by the US and to protect their famiies and land. No revisionist history can change that. I am glad the south lost so the US was restored, but to make it a “good vs. evil” war is completely wrong and historically inaccurate.

By John

April 23, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Merrie:

Why didn’t the south free the slaves? Was it against their religion or something? Oh, I forgot. They were Christians!

By DiverDown

April 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Once point that needs to be made and made clearly. The war was an economic war, not one on civil rights. The main division was States Rights to govern VS Federal Interviention. The Southern States wanted to succeed because they saw their independance slipping away. The slavery issue, (where as slavery is bad) came along as secondary good PR point to promote.

Also remember there is not one society or race that has not practiced slavery. It is abundant throughout history. Mainly because it served the economic purposes of the time. This does not however justify slavery.

Lastly, just a though. Are we now in an economic slavery position here in the U.S. Where the CEO make millions of dollars while the common worker toils. They ask questions like, are you married, do you own a home. Here take this credit card and max it out. Being “in debt” is a different type of shackle. It keeps the working class living from paycheck to paycheck.

By Taxpayer

April 23, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

I’m tired of paying high taxes. Can I revolt against the US or is that Treason? Please let me know soon. I missed the April 17 deadline.

By mark

April 23, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Mark,

You aren’t avery impressive critical thinker. If someone fought for the Confederacy, they fought in support of slavery because the Confedaracy supported slavery. I am sure that for each individual Rebel, the reasons for fighting were different and personal. However, they wore the uniform and flew the flag of the Confederacy and, by extension, fought to support, among other things, slavery. I am sure that you would prefer not to think of it in those terms—obviously, you seem to want to be sympathetic to the average foot soldier who may never have even seen a slave, let alone owned one. That doesn’t change the fact that fightig for the Confederacy was the same thing as fighting for slavery.

By Gman

April 23, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

CobbCoian:

Get used to being called a Yankee, it will occur for the rest of your stay south of Dixon……it surprises me that u r suprised to be called that. As a native Southerner, I have been called much worse every time I venture into the northern or western states of our county, mostly centering around my intelligence, my ability to play the banjo and which of my cousins are married…..racism has nothing to do with a region of the country or world, or the color of your skin or economic status. It exists everywhere; centering on your particlar home region, since most northerners cannot fathom the fact that yes, they too have racists amongst them, read about MLK’s attempt to bring the civil rights movement to Chicago, or any other northern city for that matter….

By jabster

April 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Yes, I know about Andersonville. Do you know about Elmira, NY (aka Hellmira)? Where the commander sent funds for taking care of CSA prisoners back to the US Treasury instead of buying food and blankets, letting the prisoners freeze and starve to death? The CSA had no money to stock Andersonville—the CSA offered to trade prisoners, but the Feds said no.

The #1 port of entry for slaves? New York City. (NEW YORK CITY?!?!) Even during the war when Charleston, etc. were blockaded.

The WBtS was about federalism and tariffs, and not primarily about slavery except as an appeal to the media and the dumb masses. Deal with it.

Want to know why we “keep fighting the ‘Civil’ War”? It’s because all of you damyankees insist on your 140 year victory dance. I hereby apologize to all of the Bulldog fans that I have dissed over the years for living on faded glories. You damyankees take the cake.

By Lloyd

April 23, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Interesting show. A lot of spin. The documentary tried to justify all of his tactics. They made a big deal about Sherman’s “military” accomplishments. A 60,000 man, well equipped army against a bunch of unorganized militias, civilians and an occasional Confederate regiment. Pillaging was justified as a means to “feed his army”. Burning homes and property was just an every day thing. Kind of reminded me of “scorched earth” policy in World War II. Anyone remember who ordered that?

By Mark

April 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

To Mark: Whoa..That’s some incredible logic there pal. So, by the same token..all of the Revolutionary soldiers, Minutemen, etc. fought to uphold slavery because at that time all of the 13 colonies had slaves while England did not. Is that correct? Surely the logic would be the same.

By Unbiased

April 23, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

**Let’s stop the hatred. Let’s all admit that slavery was wrong. Let’s all admit that not all white people owned slaves and not all white people are racist. Let’s all admit that we are not the Christians we should be. But, most importantly, let’s all admit that we care enough to change the future since we can’t change the past!

I want my black kids to love all those white kids who had nothing to do with the confederacy or slavery and vice versa! **

By CL

April 23, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

As an Atlanta native I thought the documentary was pretty good and held fairly close to the history as I had learned it. A few things stick out though. As is keeping with most documentaries dealing with the Civil War, slavery is portrayed almost solely as the cause for the war. While it is a big part of the struggle and one that morally wrong but economically necessary for the growth of the Union (that doesn’t make it right). Both side owned slaves (the south, becasue of its agricultural base obvioulsy had more slaves than the northern states) and not all slaves were tortured and mistreated. And all was not rosey in the north. Racism thrived there too and In many cases, freed slaves found it better to stay on as employees of the farm owners they had been owned by. I did learn something in the show that had escaped me through the years - Lincoln’s Amancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the colonies that rebeled against the Union. This just added more gas to fire of an already seething Confederacy that felt like they were not getting enough of the revenue from the taxation of there crops and were greatly lacking in representation in the Federal Government (sound familar? Taxation without representation? Revolutionary war? Anyone?). This point was even made by one of the “experts” on the show (the black professor - I think in economics)that was quoted several times. He said that the freeing of the slaves took away 40 billion (billion with a B)of wealth from the south and that no group of people would except that kind of legislation without a fight. Sherman was a warrior ahead of his time. Many were still fighting a “Gentleman’s” war but Sherman (I am not sure if this was an actual wuote or artistic license) sumed it up in the show - “war is brutal and the more voilent it is, the sooner it will end.” SO TRUE and should be considered whenever we try to fight a PC war.

By dobbin

April 23, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, and I wouldn’t call it “incredible logic” (unless, like you seem to be, I am afraid of the truth). The Minutemen, et al, fought the British to establish a new nation—a new nation that supported slavery. Therefore, they fought, among other things, for slavery. It would take another 100 years for this new nation to resolve the issue of slavery. You seem to have trouble reconsiling historical truth with your romanticism of history.

BTW, jabster, check your history, sir. Atlantic Slave Trading was illegal in 1805 and essentially the importation of slaves topped in the middle of the 19th century—well before the Cival War. So, NYC was not the hotbed of the slave trade during the Civil War, as you claim. the population of slaves in this country, at that time, was self-supporting.

By dobbin

April 23, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Yes, and I wouldn’t call it “incredible logic” (unless, like you seem to be, I am afraid of the truth). The Minutemen, et al, fought the British to establish a new nation—a new nation that supported slavery. Therefore, they fought, among other things, for slavery. It would take another 100 years for this new nation to resolve the issue of slavery. You seem to have trouble reconsiling historical truth with your romanticism of history.

BTW, jabster, check your history, sir. Atlantic Slave Trading was illegal in 1805 and essentially the importation of slaves stopped in the middle of the 19th century—well before the Cival War. So, NYC was not the hotbed of the slave trade during the Civil War, as you claim. the population of slaves in this country, at that time, was self-supporting.

By landsaf

April 23, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

I hate the fact that most people proclaim that the Civil war was started over slavery. The slavery issue was always taught to me to be secondary issue; which IMO is an issue brought up to “motivate” war hungry soldiers. That war made our country what it is today, whether one likes it or not. As a southerner, I might be ashamed to know my ancestors owned slaves, but as a northerner, I would also be ashamed that Sherman did not have the gonads to discipline his soldiers when they went beyond the legal boundaries of “foraging”. That makes Sherman look like an loser.

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

FACTOID:

IN 1790 THERE WERE MORE SLAVES IN NEW YORK CITY THAN IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF GEORGIA !

LOOK IT UP !

SOURCE 1790 US CENSUS

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

WHEN SLAVERY WAS GRADUALLY ABOLISHED IN THE NORTH, DO YOU THINK THOSE PIOUS, ENLIGHTENED NORTHERNERS FREED THEIR SLAVES ?

NO ! THEY SOLD THEM TO THE SOUTH !

THATS WHY CANADA WAS THE DESTINATION ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

WHEN SLAVERY WAS GRADUALLY ABOLISHED IN THE NORTH, DO YOU THINK THOSE PIOUS, ENLIGHTENED NORTHERNERS FREED THEIR SLAVES ?

NO ! THEY SOLD THEM TO THE SOUTH !

THATS WHY CANADA WAS THE DESTINATION ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

By Keon

April 23, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

By ctmoore

April 23, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

It takes a lot of arrogance to call the War for Southern Independence “treason”. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, it has been and still is the constitutional right of any state to leave the union as voluntarily as they joined it. The North did not own the South but forced its will on us militarily.

As far as Sherman is concerned. I think he rates somewhere below Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden.

This is so ridiculous yet still the conversation is intriguing. As someone already stated war is hell! Ethics tend to go out the window in war time. Sometimes it’s luxury the contenders in the war cannot afford. Was it right to drop the bomb over Hiroshima? I asked a historian and they surprisingly said it was. Why?! I asked. Because the Japanese as an extremely proud people would not have surrendered any other way. We had already lost more than enough soldiers and equipment and the American government did not want to risk going in the STREET war with the populous defending their island and emperor/god. Why did I mention this? Because that was the same with Sherman’s march to the sea. The South was ALREADY decimated and was still fighting… They would not give up. Lee’s troops in Virginia were basically decimated and were STILL trying to fight. Lincoln and the rest of the country were tired of the war. All efforts of diplomacy had failed. Sherman wanted to MENTALLY and PHYSICALLY break the south and he largely succeeded. Based on opinion…there are some who say he was too easy and some you had opposite views.

Regarding rebelling against the U.S. That has been determined to be Illegal. In relation to constitutional law, I don’t believe that it is mentioned. So to say it was a constitutional right is not correct. However I don’t believe there is a constitutional provision declaring it ILLEGAL! Touché! However civil war was a stupid emotional response brought on by a bunch of spoiled, selfish southern planters that cost them DEARLY and the people under them economically and socially. Secession has been declared illegal in premise and unfeasible in almost all attempts in this country and the Civil war was just the apex to this discussion and on top of that they chose a STUPID reason to do it. Because, their guy didn’t win!? We can’t forget the Whiskey Rebellion of Pennsylvania, We can’t for get the state of Franklin in East Tennessee, We can’t forget the call for secession under southern president Andrew Jackson! You can’t join the U.S. and decide as a state to leave because you didn’t get your way. You can’t expect to claim/seize FEDERAL property in your state either.

Pompous arrogant wealthy white men. There you have the root of the problem. If we feel that the war was unfair to poor white people who didn’t have slaves then we must blame the founder of the great lost, unjust cause. The aristocratic white southern planter…and this is not just coming from me an African American…but from the racist

By jabster

April 23, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

I stand corrected. My point was, was that the North was the nexus of importation and trading of slaves, while it was legal. There was also a lot of northern “bootlegging” of slaves even after importation was outlawed.

And before this gets brought up, let me say that I don’t think that anyone on this blog thinks that slavery was ever OK by any measure.

By Memnon

April 23, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

White southerners deserved what they got and if anything, Sherman was probably too kind to them. These people took up arms against the American government. This is treason, punishable by death and many of them got exactly what they deserved. DEATH!

It is rather funny and sad that while southerners complain about their treatment at the hands of Sherman, that they turn a blind to how they treated their “property”, African slaves. The beatings, lynchings, rapes.

If anything, Sherman did not go far enough. He should have burned more of the south to the ground, then executed Robert E. Lee, Jackson, the Confederate Congress, the Southern state governors, and all military personnel with a rank of captian and above. ^^^^^^ Well said. The other ignorant posters replying to you are mad that their evil ancestors got their butts handed to them. Sherman could have burn the entire south. The slaves got freed and you punks are still mad. Be men, there is no need to wear you sheets behind a computer screen

By Zebra

April 23, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

CSA, so you think black folks were better off to live in hell with y’all rather than stay in Africa & deal with all her issues.

Hell is Hell, Africa has problems, but SLAVERY was HELL!

By Uncle Billy

April 23, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

SHERMAN HAD NO USE FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS !

HE HAD NONE IN HIS ARMY !

SEVERAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW HIS ARMY WERE HORSEWHIPPED !

By Uncle Billy

April 23, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

SHERMAN HAD NO USE FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS !

HE HAD NONE IN HIS ARMY !

SEVERAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW HIS ARMY WERE HORSEWHIPPED !

SLAVE WOMEN WERE RAPED BY HIS SOLDIERS !

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

WHEN SLAVERY WAS GRADUALLY ABOLISHED IN THE NORTH, DO YOU THINK THOSE PIOUS, ENLIGHTENED NORTHERNERS FREED THEIR SLAVES ?

NO ! THEY SOLD THEM TO THE SOUTH !

THATS WHY CANADA WAS THE DESTINATION ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

This blog just goes to show that there are still alot of misconceptions about the late war. Everyone remembers Andersonvile. Few know about Elmyra and Point Lookout. The Beauregard flag has been used by the Klan and thus is looked upon by black Americans as a symbol of hate. The Klan also uses the Protetstant Christian flag and the US flag, but they are not looked upon the same way as the Beauregard flag.

I think that anyone who moves from up North to the South is fine with me. I live in Augusta and it is as far north as I care to live. I can’t stand winter. I have lived with our summers all my life ant they do not bother me. I do not mind being called a Southern redneck. That is what I consider myself anyway. I love hunting, fishing and cooking a pig on the grill for festive gatherings including Independence Day.

I believe in the words of the Reverand Martin Luther King Jr. when he said he looked forward to the day that his children were not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I do not care if you are black, white, brown, yellow or even polka dotted. It is your character that matters.

By beFair

April 23, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Keith Tanner “Be men, there is no need to wear you sheets behind a computer screen”

Will you take off YOUR black glove & beret??????

By 54TH MASS

April 23, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

we dun wun da war,

we gotz our ass kicked at fort wag’nuh;

dserted da field at Oluztee,

and dug da latreenz fo da white sol’jahz.

I be so happy in da lan ub da free

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

If there had been mass executions of Confederate leaders and officers you would have seen an insurgecy for the next 50 years that would have made Iraq look like a playground. When asked by Grant what should be done in the postwar he said let em up easy, let em up easy. Lincoln said in his second inaugural address about what should happen in the postwar atmosphere, “With malice toward none and justice for all.” Lincoln was a great President who saw beyond the war. Unfortunately for the South, a madman ended his postwar dream.

By Rebel03

April 23, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Golly Y’all, it sure looks like a lot of you folks believe the propaganda and fiction written about the late War for Southern Independence. Blacks have really been duped. Google “Haley’s Roots hoax”, read how that was all made up and plagiarized from a work of fiction. There were over three and half million Blacks, free and slave, in the South during the war and the vast majority were loyal to the South. They served in and with the CS Army, but the biggest contribution was on the home front where kept the plantations, factories and railroads running. If they had just stopped work the Confederacy would have collapsed. They saw the up side of slavery, “a living” from the cradle to the grave with medical, disability and retirement benefits. The North ended slavery because it was cheaper to hire poor European immigrants to work long hours in unhealthful conditions for low pay than to buy slaves. With hired labor, if they got sick, disabled or too old to work they kicked ‘em out and hired another one. It’s dispectful to claim that for over 200 years the slaves were so spinless that they put up with abuse and mistreatment.

And remember that the Marxist history professors on the show believe that truth is a subjective perceptual construct in the mind of the beholder. That thinking is right out of Orwell’s “1984” To them life is all make-believe. They see how the Lincoln myth has become “truth”, and now it looks like they want to create the “Uncle Billy” myth to go with the “Honest Abe” myth.

By Mark

April 23, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Keith….Should US Grant have been executed for owning slaves. He did, you know, while RE Lee did not.

All of this arguing reminds me of a conversation I once had with some Canadians. They thought it was amusing that Americans say they never lost a war until Vietnam, when in fact, they lost The War of 1812. I mentioned that The War of 1812 was a draw…one that ended in a truce. Their point was that The War of 1812 was fought over US interests in annexing Canada. Since Cnada was a free country, it was proof that the US lost. I argued with them that there were many reasons for that war, but they would not listen. To them, The War of 1812 was won by Canada and Britain as the US tried to takeover Canada. That was what they had been taught.

Likewise, in a US history class at Emory several years back, some of my classmates from New Jersey, New York etc, could not bear the thought that the War Between the States was anything other than the great benevolent north defeating the evil slave holding southerners. That’s what they had been taught.

In both cases, it is best to examine facts and make your own conclusions. If you are not a student of history then you are arguing out of your league. You are merely repeating a version of history that someone wanted you to learn.

Here are some facts: Very few southerners owned slaves in 1860..only the very rich could afford them. There were actually more slaves in the populous states of the north (even though the slave trade had been outlawed).

The CSA Constitution outlawed the African slave trade. The US Constitution did not.

At one point during the war, the CSA offered to end slavery if Britain would become an ally.

Lincoln repeatedly stated that the war was not about slavery. It was a war to preserve the union.

Southerners had been financially raped by the northern states for years. Southerners paid 80% of the taxes in the country and almost all of the benefits went to building canals, bridges, turnpikes, etc in the north.

Finally, why, when presented with facts do many of you respond by calling people racists, hicks, etc.? I do not dislike any of you here on this post. Heck! I don’t even know you! Some of you simply need to know more in order to make an intelligent contribution here.

Someone asked, with genuine interest, why southerners have pride? In my case, two of my great-great grandfathers died for the CSA. Neither owned slaves. Both died trying to protect their families. I admire both for giving their lives to protect their land and their loved ones even when they faced incredible odds. It bothers me when uneducated people accuse them of giving their lives to protect the horrible institution of slavery. They did not.

By anthony

April 23, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

…are we talking about a leader during a time of national war? yes, being classy doesn’t cut it and the southern fighters wouldn’t have treated northerners any better! too much drama about the “grand” old south..slavery was horrible and nothing can make the destruction of it anything other than a victory for mankind! are we “classy” in combat now? heck no!

By btwarren

April 23, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Honest question here. I am African American and I can not understand why some white southerners seem to hold this undying loyalty to the Confederacy. Can someone please explain this to me? I see people with confederate flags on their cars and waving in their front yards. Why is this? What did the south stand for that makes this so popular? From a black perspective it is insulting because it would seem to be honoring and supporting the values of a country that stood for building its wealth off the backs of other people with out compensating them for it and more importantly treating them like nothing more than a herd of cattle, and that is being kind. Any answers anyone?

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Anthony, that is an outright lie that Southern fighters would not have treated Northerners any better. Robert E. Lee addressed his army on his two invasions that there would be no looting of private property. They did forage and gave out vouchers for taking foodstuffs. Anyone caught taking family valuables was shot. Amazing that Robert E. Lee could control his men and Sherman could not. I believe it has to do with character. One had it, one had much less.

By Zebra

April 23, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

BTWarren, what kind of stupid question is that you’re asking. Let me give you da answer - the same reason they didn’t want to apologize for slavery the other day.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

btwarren, the answer is not black or white but various shades of gray. I have always considered the Confederate Battle flag as a symbol of the South as a region, not a symbol of hatred. Of course I am white, and have never felt oppressed by that symbol. It is actually funny that the flag you see flying is the Confederate Navy flag, a rectangle. The Confederate army battle flag was square.

My ancestor Ferdinand Richards was a shop owner in Fredricksburg Virginia. He did not go to war in 1861 prefering to stay neutral and not tear apart the country his grandfather had helped found. In December of 1862, the Union army shelled Fredricksburg from Falmoth causing my great-great grandfather to load his family and get out of town as rapidly as possible. Union army soldiers then took over the town, looted his store and home, taking everything he had personal and business wise. After surveying the wreckage of his home and business he sent the rest of the family to be with relatives in Augusta and joined the Confederate army and fought as a private for the rest of the war. And by the way, he never owned another human being. I support his decison to fight an invader that stole or destroyed everything he had. How could I not. There is my answer about why I support his right to defend himself, his property and his family.

By John

April 23, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

I thought the docudrama was artistically well done and written from an unbiased point of view. In the comments I have read about the program, little has been said about the reaction of the Union troops following their discovery of the hideousness of Andersonville Prison following the battle of Jonesboro. That revealation undoubtedly affected the attitude of every Union soldier exposed to that news and undoubtedly caused some of the soldiers to overreact toward the civilians.

By Uncle Sam

April 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

BTWARREN,

All great empires in history were built on free and inexpensive labor !

Greece. Persia. Babylon. Egypt. Rome. England. France. Spain. Portugal. Russia. The United States of America !

Slavery did not begin or end in the USA.

If the leaders of the Confederacy were traitors, so was Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al for seeking independence from England.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

John, Sherman cared so much about Andersonville, he never liberated it. He could have made a side trip to liberate it but chose not to do so. By the way, Northern prisons were just as bad, look up Elmyra and Camp Lookout. Not taking sides, just telling the truth. Unfortunately that is something not taught in school.

By jabster

April 23, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Not only did US Grant own slaves, he issued orders to kick the Jews out of the places he occupied! Look it up! He wanted to make Tennessee “judenfrei”. Lebensraum for Yankees?

Meanwhile, the CSA had Jewish cabinet members and Jewish CSA army members got passes to go home and observe Jewish holidays.

By btwarren

April 23, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Uncle Sam That was not my question, but your post does not make it right. What you are essentially saying is that just because someone else does something then it is okay. That suggests a very simple lemming type mentality. If you reason for supporting the confederacy, which was my question, is because “great” nations did it before then you really are not conveying much of a reason. In that case maybe people should display symbols of Spain, France, Greece and whatever “great” societies you can think of. Very simple argument for supporting something. Great is clearly a subjective assessment of the societies you listed. The suppressed peoples of those societies would not feel that way I’m sure. Might makes right, as the saying goes, but that doesn’t make it so.

By btwarren

April 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

Zebra My question as i stated was an honest one. Just because I asked the question does not mean that i do not have my own opinion of the answer. I have a very stong opinion of the answer, which I stated in my post. My opinion/answer does not include everyone and neither does yours. I wanted to hear from people who had an honest answer on the subject other than because they hate black people.

By Uncle Sam

April 23, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this

BTWARREN,

You missed my point.

What I stated is historical fact.

As much as you & the bedwetters want to sugarcoat or whitewash US history, this country was built and established on CHEAP labor, whether it be on the backs of the slaves, indentured servants, Irish or Chinese immigrants, children in sweatshops, or illegal Hispanics today picking our lettuce or plucking our chickens.

I did not say it was right. It is reality.

As for the Confederacy, it lasted four years. The USA had legalized slavery from 1776-1865. (89 years)

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

Why does the 4-year existence of the Confederacy get lumped for the blame of North American slavery which lasted 1619-1865 ?

If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read that slavery first became legal in Massachusetts, though it was introduced first into the Virginia colony.

By VERITAS

April 23, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Why does the 4-year existence of the Confederacy get lumped for the blame of North American slavery which lasted 1619-1865 ?

If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read that slavery first became legal in Massachusetts, though it was introduced first into the Virginia colony.

By Gman

April 23, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

I live in dowtown ATL, actually right where Sherman’s vaunted XV Corps was stationed and attacked by Manigault’s Carolinians. My great - great grandfather, captured in Chattanooga, fought with the 28th Alabama Infantry, under Manigault. I have an interest in the history of Atlanta and of Sherman, and the battle fought all around L5P and East Atlanta on july 22, 15,000+ killed all told for both sides, two generals killed, it was the bloodiest day of Sherman’s entire campaign.

Yet you see very little preservation done, certainly not like Vicksburg, Kennesaw Mtn or Gettysburg for that matter. Bald Hill is the intersection of I-20 and Moreland, they just plowed right though it. I dont think Atlanta highlights enough of this history, including the entire Auburn Ave area where MLK grew up, the East Lake area and Bobby Jones, Inman Park, etc. There are over 2,000 cofederate soldiers graves in Oakland Cemetery, along with Margaret Mitchell and Bobby Jones, almost every street in the Inman Park/Kirkwood/East Atlanta/Edgewood area is named after Civil War officers and in the 1950’s-1960’s you could still find minie balls on the ground at Grant Park, 100 yrs after the war. In these areas today, blacks and whites live together, integrated neighborhoods, first time since the 50’s when many whites left. It’s a person’s culture, not color, that determines character, skin color determines nothing about a person’s behavior, but culture, a person’s learned culture does…..if you hang around with enough people that appear different from yourself b/c of color for a while , this becomes common sense…..

By Wolfman

April 23, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

The 4 Great Truths about the War between the States.-1)Slavery in any form is wrong( I also had Scottish ancesters came here fresh out of debters prison).-2)God created us all equal but northners think they own the license to blame everything on the South.-3) The North only won because of far superior numbers and resources.-4)Sherman is probably now sharing a nice glass of Kool-Aid with Jim Jones.

By Dishonest Abe

April 23, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

If Abe Lincoln were alive today, with his beliefs and attitudes about Blacks, he would be deemed an absolute RACIST !

Up until the last year of the war he was looking for ways to ship the freed slaves to Africa, as he felt they were racially and culturally inferior to whites.

He only accepted Blacks into the Union army to fill up the ranks that otherwise would have gone to white draftees, as the casualties were beginning to take their toll on the Union forces.

By THE TRUTH HURTS

April 23, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

THIS MAY COME OFF AS BEING CRUEL AND INSENSITIVE, BUT DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE OVER 600,000 WHITE AMERICANS WENT TO THEIR DEATHS TO KEEP THE SLAVES IN BONDAGE OR TO FREE THEM ?

IN OVER 40 YEARS OF STUDY I’VE READ HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF SOLDIER LETTERS, UNION & CONFEDERATE, AND I’VE YET TO SEE ONE THAT STATED THEY WERE FIGHTING FOR OR AGAINST SLAVERY.

UNION SOLDIERS WERE FIGHTING FOR THE UNION, AND A BOUNTY.

CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS FOUGHT AS THEIR STATES WERE INVADED BY A FORCE UNFRIENDLY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCE.

YOU WILL NOT LEARN THIS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, THE MOST DANGEROUS ENTITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

By chip

April 23, 2007 10:16 PM | Link to this

THE TRUTH HURTS: Get over it. Unless you sit in an eigth grade history class day after day, you have no idea what is being taught in public schools, although you probably feel empowered thinking you do. I teach eigth grade history. We teach the real reasons for the war, states’ rights, tariffs, western lands, and yes slavery. We look at both sides. So, get over your ignorant, unknowing assessment of what public schools teach.

By gman

April 23, 2007 10:20 PM | Link to this

Just as General Lemay would have been tried as awar criminal had we lost WW2 Sherman would have been tried and HUNG FROM THE NEAREST TREE if the South had managed to turn the tide. Better yet Lee should have had the Finest General and soldier this nation has ever produced Nathan Bedford Forrest and his unmatched cavalry raid Sherman’s camp and take him prisoner. He would died a very slow death.

By keith tranner the a**

April 23, 2007 10:42 PM | Link to this

Keith, please be so kind as to leave your physical address on this blog so we can have a civil war re-enactment on your front yard. I think the outcome would be different this time.

By Rebel03

April 23, 2007 11:20 PM | Link to this

Chip “We teach the real reasons for the war, states’ rights, tariffs, western lands, and yes slavery”. Concerns about the states’ right to deal with slavery as they saw fit was one of the reasons for secession, but Lincoln made it clear in his First Inaugural Address (google it) that slavery was not a reason for his invasion. He agree to support the Corwin amendment which was passed by both houses of congress which would make constitutional protection of slavery “express and irrevocable” , all in an attempt to entices the seven cotton states to return to the union. So it’s illogical for anyone to say the war was about slavery. It was about tariffs and protecting the economic interest of the Northern big money boys who controlled the shipping and business end to the cotton trade and sold their high priced goods in the Southern market. There is nothing to indicate that Lincoln would have taken a different course of action had the South freed the slaves, or even if slavery had never existed. Of course you know that; this info is for the others.

By Tommy

April 23, 2007 11:26 PM | Link to this

My Great -Great Grandparents farm was ruined by Sherman. All the live stock was killed execpt 1 milk cow which they had dug a large pit and hid the cow. My great grand mother told the stories of the baby childern would have died if “Mamma” would not have been smart enough to hide the cow and have milk for the young kids. They burnt every thing they did not steal and this was from innocent women and childern. The men were off up north fighting for the south. His troops killed all the chickens, pigs everything and then burnt the remains. This was the worst kind of fighting. It was against helpless people. My GGGranddad made it back home back throuh the lines during the winter to help only to leave again.

Sherman was no hero.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:44 PM | Link to this

I think we all miss the point. The awful regretable war was fought by people with 19 century minds. We judge them in the 21’st century. This is not really fair. My ancestor thought he was invaded. Just as if you or I thought the World Trade Center attack was an invasion. They had limited resources to base their observations. We have 24 hours cable news and the internet. I find the owning of another apalling. Yet we still have it in todays world. I cannot project my 21’st century mind upon my ancestor though I can recognise what he went through. We all need to take the proverbial chill pill and think about what they had to endure versus what we have to endure. Prejudice, racism and bigotry have no place here and now. And thankfully for our children and grandchildren will be even less a factor in the development of this country. We are all Americans without the hyphen. I love you all, whatever race, color, creed, origin or political leanings. We are all Americans. God bless America.

By Gil Gibson

April 23, 2007 11:48 PM | Link to this

All these posts about who was right and who was wrong obscure the original point: Sherman was little more than an arsonist. General Lee, when entering Pennsylvania, told his army, “We make war only on armed men.” History shows what Sherman told his soldiers. If we had won the war, Sherman would have been tried as a war criminal. BTW, for all you yankees hollering “treason,” why do you think not one single Confederate of any rank, not even Jefferson Davis, was tried for treason?

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:54 PM | Link to this

I care not the reasons of the war. I am saddend it was ever fought. Our best and bravest died in that conflict. What could they have done in peacetime. What accomplishments could we have done if slavery had died its natural death. It would have. 700,000 of our best died in a conflict that need not have been fought. Hotheads from both sides pushed it to the brink. What could have been? What could have been if slavery had been allowed to die it’s natural death?

By Cuz

April 24, 2007 12:00 AM | Link to this

btw and all the other black Americans who have posted, I appreciate your comments. Keep asking the questions. Knowlegedable white people like myself love to answer these questions. I too am ashamed of the post war through the 1960’s. It is something my family never talked about though the N word was never allowed in my house and I grew up during segergation.

By Cletus Snow

April 24, 2007 1:41 AM | Link to this

I watched Sherman on the history I hope everyone realizes it was a dramatised version it was based on facts not a true story.The part of the story I’ve never understood was why he didn’t go 30 miles out of his way and free 49000 of his fellow union soldiers who were imprisoned and known to be suffering the gravest atrocities at Andersonlille prison where almost 13000 died from disease and malnutrition.At this point in time it really makes no difference Slavery was wrong then as it is now, there was slavery in the north as well as in the south, it was wrong in both places.We are all americans some are hyphenated some not in the end we are all simply Americans. I was raised by a Black woman she was our housekeeper, she raised 5 children3 of her own and my sister and I,was just as sad when she died in 1987 as I was when My Mother died the next year,I believe she loved me as much as I loved her,Her grandmother was a slave and many stories were passed down both happy and sad the saddest part is that slavery exists even to this day,we still haven’t gotten rid of it, maybe we never will but we should never quit trying.

By Cletus Snow

April 24, 2007 1:41 AM | Link to this

I watched Sherman on the history I hope everyone realizes it was a dramatised version it was based on facts not a true story.The part of the story I’ve never understood was why he didn’t go 30 miles out of his way and free 49000 of his fellow union soldiers who were imprisoned and known to be suffering the gravest atrocities at Andersonlille prison where almost 13000 died from disease and malnutrition.At this point in time it really makes no difference Slavery was wrong then as it is now, there was slavery in the north as well as in the south, it was wrong in both places.We are all americans some are hyphenated some not in the end we are all simply Americans. I was raised by a Black woman she was our housekeeper, she raised 5 children3 of her own and my sister and I,was just as sad when she died in 1987 as I was when My Mother died the next year,I believe she loved me as much as I loved her,Her grandmother was a slave and many stories were passed down both happy and sad the saddest part is that slavery exists even to this day,we still haven’t gotten rid of it, maybe we never will but we should never quit trying.

By Jebediah

April 24, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

This stuff is hilarious!! People still arguing over the civil war. DER SOUF WILL RIZE AGIN!!!

By TheTruthSpeals

April 24, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

“By Swatguy I agree with Keith Tanner. Those who raped black women for generations, kept a people in bondage, humiliating and murdering the men as well as those which supported, should have been left with NOTHING.”

Washington, Jefferson, All Northern slave states (NY, Mass,) all who owned slaves, fathered illegitimate children with slaves, left slaves without rights in the Constitution…..seems like ALL of early America & it’s leaders!

By *

April 24, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Cletus, The reason he didn’t free Andersonville was much the same reason that the freed blacks following his army weren’t welcome…NO way to take care of them (food, medicines, clothing, etc.) He had to be pragmatic about both of these groups. It was harsh, but there were no other options at the time.

By CL

April 24, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Well you had to know if the topic came up about the Civil War, there would be some on both sides that would show their bigotry and insome cases their ignorance. Kudos to those who kept to the topic and offered good questions and insightful answers. Cletus - My guess on why Sherman didn’t free those Union troops in Andersonville was that purely tactical. He felt he would most likley run into a heavely fortified situation (while in reality the COnfederates were probably stretched thinner than he thought)and have to wage a prolonged battle that would have greatly slowed an possibly crippled his march to Savannah. By the time he was near Andersonville, his troops were aplit into 3 to 4 divisions spread out from near Augusta to Macon. This was planned to keep the Confederates guessing as to what his real destination would be. To liberate the prisoners he would have had to abandon that plan and pull his ranks back together. Then there was the logistical issue of what to do with the freed prisoners. Most likley they would be too weak or sick to follow Sherman on his march and he didn’t have the personnel to care for the sick or feed the hungry. As brutal as the foragers (I still think they were murderers, rapists and plunderers - the documentary just addressed the plundering)were they were only successful enough to keep the army in minimal rations. Sherman knew that if he failed to reach Savannah (to the Union supply ships)or was delayed in any way, that is men would starve to death and his mission could become one of the biggest military blunders in history.

By TheStoneWall

April 24, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Fredricksburg, Fredricksburg, Fredricksburg

By GenSherman

April 24, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

“The part of the story I’ve never understood was why he didn’t go 30 miles out of his way and free 49000 of his fellow union soldiers who were imprisoned and known to be suffering the gravest atrocities at Andersonlille prison where almost 13000 died from disease and malnutrition.”

Cletus, 40,000+ unarmed & starving men would have slowed Sherman’s column down. His men were near starvation, living off “foraging” (stealing?). Most would have died between Americus and the coast.

War is hell!

By Larry

April 24, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

CL,

You’re clearly wrong about Sherman’s men nearly starving. He had an admittedly long and somewhat attenuated supply line extending back to Chattanooga and Nashville; but it kept his Army well provisioned the entire march.

They didn’t go to Andersonville because that was not part of Sherman’s agenda. It was that simple. A single brigade could have liberated Andersonville and there was sufficient supplies to feed, clothe and care for them. Sherman simply had his eyes on Savannah (and Charleston); punishing the South and; breaking the it (the South) in two.

By David

April 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

I take the high road concerning Sherman. I think that his tactics were about the same as the Nazi Germans, but the war could have been extented for months or even years, had he not done what he did. From a Military stanpoint, I would like to point out that he never actually won a battle, where odds were against him. On a friendlier note, when Atlanta had their worlds fair at the turn of the century, Sherman was invited and attended.

By Craig

April 24, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Andersonville is about 70 miles southwest of Macon, Sherman passed well north of Macon and was headed east. Did he even know about Andersonville?

If war is hell, why do we not take a higher path? Vietnam, Iraq, where next to take our version of total war and hell?

As a yankee, I think that letting the southern states leave the Union would have been the better idea. Fighting slavery with sanctions would have been less damaging and perhaps more effective.

By Jim Miles

April 24, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Last year the History Channel hired me to take two producers across Georgia to visit every March site. They were receptive to what I had to say, even though they had little understanding of the South-one was English, the other an old California surfer. In the end they did not film one frame in Georgia, substituting Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

To learn the truth about Sherman’s March, I modestly recommend my book, To the Sea, a comprehensive history of the event and an exhaustive travel guide to every site between Atlanta and Savannah.

Note that in May the History Channel airs a Sherman’s March episode of Saving Our History, where you can learn to do neat things like bending railroad tracks into Sherman’s neckties. I also took two producers across Georgia for this project, and these guys returned to film.

Jim Miles

By Derek

April 24, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Boy, this turned into a train-wreck of a thread …

Interesting comments by Jim Miles, above …

I turned off the TV after one of the ‘experts’ claimed that Sherman only burned 30% of Atlanta …

What Hogwash !

By All Apologies

April 24, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

In the spirit of the recent rash of apologies from people who did not commit a crime to people who are not victims of the crime, I think the North should apologize to the South for letting Lincoln invade the South and for letting Sherman burn its towns, rape its women, and orphan its children.

By Warishell

April 24, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

the south was lucky i was not the commander. i would have hung anybody that took up arms agianst the US. i do not feel bad for the japanese that lived in hirishima or the rebels that attempted to destroy the greatest county in the world

By All Apologies

April 24, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Warishell, the Southerns felt the same way as you do and that’s why they defended their greatest country in the world from the Northern terrorists and invaders.

By All Apologies

April 24, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Warishell, the Southerns felt the same way as you do and that’s why they defended their greatest country in the world from the Northern terrorists and invaders.

By Gman

April 24, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

Jim Miles

Thanks for the insight, thats exactly what I figured abt the producers, they knew nothing of southern culture. I was surprised the documentary skipped the entire trek from Chattanooga to Atlanta, and they didn’t talk abt most of the battles of the seige of Atlanta at all

By Gman

April 24, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

Craig

Sherman knew abt Andersonville; his calvary commander Kilpatrick attempted an a push to Macon, and to Andersonville to free those prisoners, with Sherman’s consent. I agree with earlier posts; he didnt free them b/c he didnt even have enough food for his own troops much less all those prisoners.

The city of Atlanta was bombed for weeks, it was a siege. Residents dug below their houses and buildings and created “bomb shelters” where they sat out the daily rounds of shells coming from all around the city, basically the enire month of August, 1864. I can’t believe none of this was mentioned in the documentary

By Karl

April 25, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

After veiwing the TV special entitled Shernman’s March the other night, it was apparent that they should change the name of their station from the History Channel to the Revisionist History Channel. I will never be able to watch anything on the revisionist history channel again without wondering if it is at all factually correct. Karl

Other comments on Sherman: I am appalled by your whitewash and rationalization. What of the 400 women

of Roswell who just vanished? Or the court martial records of rapes well-documents in “The Story the Soldiers Would Not Tell: Sex in the Civil War”? Sherman’s tenuous grip on reality was probably shattered when his friend McPherson was killed outside Atlanta. Hey, if this guy can be rehabbed then Japan’s invasion of China or Germany’s invasion of Russia will come up for a rewrite eventually. I expect more and much better from the History Channel. You failed miserably on this subject.

Steve Quick Arlington Hts, IL

Sherman’s March

From: coxe_p@bellsouth.net

Nice try History Channel! In a more modern context, to win in Iraq, we need to plunder all the valuables from Iraqi citizens, burn Baghdad and Mosul to the ground, destroy any food we can’t carry off to assure the starvation all who remain, rape their women, murder innocent civilians and prisoners in reprisal for roadside bombings, tell the Kurds they are free, then drown them in the Tigris river, etc. Wage war against the civilian population. Too bad Sherman didn’t have journalists traveling with him to put a better spin on things.

Face it, by any sane person’s standards, Sherman was and IS STILL a WAR CRIMINAL of major proportions. “Justified” my a$$!!!

I need to wait a few days before I mail anything.

Patrick Coxe

Sherman the firebug

From: cscitizen@alltel.net

Anyone with any historical knowledge who watched the History Channel’s program about Sherman’s march through Georgia should have realized that this was just another modern-day attempt to justify Sherman’s attack on the defenseless widows & orphans of Georgia. The program was sprinkled with a few facts with most of the damning ones against Sherman omitted. There was no mention of the Roswell mill incident or of the burning of an orphanage in Atlanta (orphans were a real threat to Sherman as were widows) or of the all woman home guard, the Nancy Harts who came out to oppose him on his march through their area. Sherman’s actions are written off as denying Confederate troops of the vital supplies they needed to continue the war. What supplies???? The yankee prisoners at Andersonville were eating the same rations as the Confederate guards & civilians in the surrounding areas of Georgia. If they were starving to death it stands to reason that the civilians were too. Add to this misery Sherman’s stealing of the meager supplies left to the civilian & slave population & you have mass starvation in the areas he raped, plundered, stole & burned his way through. Hood’s army had left Atlanta to fall back onto Union supply lines in Nashville. Why didn’t Sherman pursue Hood & try to engage Hood’s army which was a much greater threat to him & the Union than the civilian population of Georgia? Instead the modern-day politically correct who fancy themselves historians had rather call Sherman’s war atrocities ” modern warfare ” than what it actually was, war crimes against civilians. This program, like most others aimed against the South, are a part of the ongoing yankee attempt to brainwash us into thinking Sherman saved us from ourselves & that we should somehow come to understand that he destroyed us for our own good & be thankful for it. The yankee media moguls who pump out this propaganda can kiss my grits right in the white. We will never buy into any of your lies!