America Needs To Rediscover The Spirit Of The Old South.

My gods... do you really think you're infallible????

Seriously, has it never occurred to you that you might just possibly be wrong about a few things? Is your ego really so dependent on always being right that you can't even consider contradictory evidence?

You have this narrative of what happened during the Civil War that you seem to have tied into other things, and you seem to be so attached to this narrative that you act as if you're terrified of even one small part of it turning out to be wrong.

Yes, you quoted Sherman as saying, "In my official report of this conflagration I distinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion a braggart and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina." That's an admission that he accused Hampton without evidence or conviction, not that he did it himself. We all agree that Sherman was amazingly efficient and effective at destroying property. Did he suddenly have a lapse of competence at Columbia? If he was really as fearsome as you say, does it make sense that he'd leave so much as one stone atop another in a city he decided to destroy?

So what if it turns out that Sherman wasn't the monster you thought he was? You've never realized that your impression of an historical figure was off the mark? Why is it so important to you to keep Sherman as a near demonic figure that you won't even listen to common sense?

No, I don't want to try explaining Lincoln's actions regarding Turchin. I never even heard of the guy until just now. I don't know what happened and I honestly just don't care. People have spent lifetimes going over the minutia of the Civil War, I'm really just not that interested. Maybe Turchin committed crimes and maybe he didn't. Maybe Lincoln did something wrong and maybe he didn't. I simply don't know. I have never claimed Lincoln was perfect, and I'm sure he did make some very bad calls and even stepped over the line from time to time. Pretty much any wartime leader has, no matter how principled. Regardless of whatever happened in one small town, Union forces did not systematically commit war crimes. They simply didn't.

 

............................

 

LOL LOL LOL It is apparent what you know and don't know, we are finding out more and more each day. Dispute what I have posted if you can.


Woogs isn't wrong you are.

If you don't care then why do you reply? Why do you defend the crimes of SHERMAN?

Yes they did and I am proving it.

I find it laughable you are the only one on this board that supports the killing of old men, women and children. Americans all


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Woogs,

It's not important to me to praise Sherman. In fact I find some of the things he said about the Indians after the war to be pretty disgusting. I have no particular agenda one way or another coming to the Civil War. What happened, happened, the important thing is to get a realistic assessment of what happened and why, and to understand what that tells us about ourselves. Haven't I already demonstrated that I have no problem with finding the US to have been in the wrong. Here, let me demonstrate. During the events that led to the Revolution, on the set of issues that originally set the chain of events in motion - mostly about taxation - I find the position of those pushing for independence to be pretty dubious. The War with Mexico was a blatant war of aggression and conquest. The Spanish American War was also a war of expansion, and the justifications for the US going to war was pretty flimsy. If I have no problem or hesitation in saying the US was in the wrong in those cases, why would I have an agenda to distort the facts to make the US look good in the Civil War?

Now, the specific issue at hand is whether or not Sherman ordered the destruction of Columbia. There is obviously no dispute that the city did burn. (And yes, I did actually look at the photographs you linked, and found more with Google.) The question is how and why. Now we have the two statements from Sherman, the statement from Howard, we have the fact that Sherman ordered his men to fight the fires (and even went to the front lines himself), and we have the physical damage to the city itself. Now if we take a look at the photos you linked, most of them are of damage to individual buildings and give a poor sense of the overall level of destruction. I know at least one of them (the Confederate Mint) is of a building that was destroyed by Sherman's men after the fire since it was a CSA government facility. I think the one that gives the best overall view is the first one of Main Street. http://www.wadehamptoncamp.org/r-cola-a.jpg Clearly, there is a lot of damage. Equally clearly there are lots of undamaged buildings in the distance. The fire was bad and did a lot of damage, but it did not destroy the entire city, or anywhere close.

Now, I don't know of any particular reason for Howard to lie about the matter (although it's always possible) so I'm inclined to provisionally take his statement at face value. But take a closer look at what he actually said. "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act." He saw Union troops setting fires, and it's his assessment that that was the cause of the fire. He did not say anything about any orders to set fires.

Since Sherman was a public figure, that gives him more of a motive to lie, particularly in his memoirs. However, he did freely admit to blaming Hampton without cause. To my knowledge, he generally made no bones about what he did during that campaign or anytime else. My subjective impression is that he didn't particularly care what others thought of him, and that he was probably well aware that nothing he said would change the minds of Southerns. So while Sherman's statements are more suspicious then Howard's, There doesn't seem an obvious reason for him to lie either.

So, we have two hypotheses, either Sherman ordered the destruction of the city, or the fire occurred due to a combination of circumstances and was not purposefully started. Let's examine the idea that Sherman did order the destruction of the city. That would be consistent with Howard's statement, and with Sherman's statement in his memoirs about blaming Hampton. It would not be consistent with Sherman's other statement, but he could have easily been lying. However, it is very inconsistent with Sherman and his troops fighting the fires. It is also not very consistent with the damage to the city - why would Sherman only burn part of the city? We can hypothesize that Sherman ordered the destruction of the city and then changed his mind. That then raises the question of why. I have no guesses on that one.

Now let's look at the hypothesis that the fire was the result of a chain of events. This is also consistent with Howard's statement. Actually, Howard's statement is a bit interesting. Either there were orders and Howard either didn't know about them or chose to omit that detail, or he was simply mistaken that the fires he saw being set were the sole cause of the fire. This hypothesis is entirely consistent with both of Sherman's statements. and it's consistent both with Sherman fighting the fire and the partial destruction of the city.

So, for the orders hypothesis to be true, we need Sherman to have changed his mind for some unknown reason. To my knowledge, that is inconsistent with Sherman's usual command style. I would also wonder why Howard wouldn't mention orders, given the nature of his statement.

On the other hand, the chain of events hypothesis is consistent with all the facts as we know them without requiring any other assumptions. Occam's razor clearly indicates that the hypothesis that does not require extra assumptions should be preferred. So, until there is more evidence, the chain of events would seem to be the more reasonable conclusion. Given that a highly respected historian like McPherson, who spent years studying the Civil War and knows far more about it then you and I put together, came to the same conclusion, this seems like a pretty good conclusion to me.

Now, that's my analysis, did I make any mistakes? Did I make any logical errors or overlook anything? Do you have anything more to add? Perhaps some possibilities that I overlooked?

Incidentally, if you are talking about whether the Nazi high command ordered the Holocaust, and not debating if the Holocaust itself occurred or not, asking why there would be survivors is not an unreasonable question. It has a very simple answer - the Nazis were stopped.

 

One post up you were all about I don't know, now you're an expert!!!!! Sherman did it and you cannot prove otherwise. The only thing you have is the same old smelly BS!!!!

You support the murder of Americans!!!!

 

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 38, Part 5 (The Atlanta Campaign)

Pages 91-92

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
Near Chattahoochee, July 9, 1864.

Major General H. W. HALLECK, Washington, D. C.:



----I call your attention to the inclosed paper* in reference to the Roswell factories. They were very valuable, and were burned by my orders. They have been engaged almost exclusively in manufacturing cloth for the Confederate Army, and you will observe they were transferred to the English and French flags for safety, but such nonsense cannot deceive me. They were tained with treason, and such fictitious transfer was an aggravation. I will send all the owners, agents, and employee up to Indiana to get rid of them here. I take it a neutral is no better than one of own citizens, and we would not respect the property of one of our own citizens engaged in supplying a hostile army.

Your friend,

W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.

 

Edited

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 38, Part 5 (The Atlanta Campaign)
Pages 76-77


HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, near Chattahoochee, July 7, 1864.

General GARRARD,

Roswell, Ga.:

GENERAL: Your reports is received and is most acceptable. I had no idea that the factories at Roswell remained in operation, but supposed the machinery had all been removed. Their utter destruction is right and meets my entire approval, and to make the matter complete you will arrest the owners and employee and send them, under guard, charged with treason, to Marietta, and I will see as to any man in America hoisting the French flag and then devoting his labor and capital in supplying armies in open hostility to our Government and claiming the benefit of his neutral flag. Should you, under the impulse of anger, natural at contemplating such perfidy, hang the wretch, I approve the act before hand.

----------I repeat my orders that you arrest all people, male and female, connected with those factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under guard, to Marietta, whence I will send them by cars to the North. Destroy and make the same disposition of all mills save small flouring mills manifestly for local use, but all saw-mills and factories dispose of effectually, and useful laborers, excused by reason of their skill as manufacturers from conscription, are as much prisoners as if armed. The poor women will make a howl. Let them take along their children and clothing, providing they have the means of hauling or you can spare them. We will retain them until they can reach a country where they can live in peace and security.


I am, with respect, yours, truly,

W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.

 

~_~ I said that I don't know about the incident involving Turchin, which I don't. How do you go from that to thinking that I was saying that I know nothing about the Civil War in general? Even for you, that's quite a leap.

Just because you don't like what I have to say does not make it BS. Just saying over and over that "Sherman did it!" does not make it so. Why don't you try addressing what I actually say instead of just hurling juvenile insults? Or are you admitting that you can't, and you have no case to make?

The murder of Americans? Hmmm, maybe the Confederates painted smiley faces on their cotton gins, and that's what confusing you? Do you typically have trouble distinguishing between a piece of wood with a face painted on and an actual human being?

 

So, ummm, genocide? The murder of women and children? Sherman explicitly ordered that grist mills be spared, and even authorized the use of military resources to help the women and children effected by the campaign.

 

It is obvious by your posts you know little or nothing. What you do know is nothing more than Yankee propaganda.

I have addressed what you have been saying and proving DID DO IT!!!! Why don't you address those posts? What about the Roswell women???

It is not I don't like what you say, it is the simple fact you are wrong and refuse to learn, and that is not ignorance that is willful stupidity. The insults are based in fact, and I am only 12 years old.

The murder of Americans? Hmmm, maybe the Confederates painted smiley faces on their cotton gins, and that's what confusing you? Do you typically have trouble distinguishing between a piece of wood with a face painted on and an actual human being?

I am gonna rub your face in a big pile of poo for the comments you have made. The south deserved the burning, just as Japan and Germany deserved the carpet bombing, the Third Reich Comment, Sherman’s crimes were over stated, and this was not done by the Union as a whole, and now this one. What are you the leader of the Information Gestapo, only what you approve is fact?

Everyday I am gonna post a couple of Yankee war crimes until you get the point

YOU SUPPORT TERRISOM!!!!!!George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Yes genocide. You cannot prove that no women or children were killed or raped. You said the South deserved what happened to them just as much as Germany and Japan deserved the bombing.

Yes he ordered military sources to help them ---REMOVE THEM TO THE NORTH with only what they could carry.

Still trying to twist the facts aren't you?? You know other people read this and knowwhat you are trying to do -- justify Shermans actions. Woogs sure has you pegged doesn't he???

You support the murder of American citizens!!!

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

@ George....

You have made mention of the women of Roswell. I have read about this and generally see the number being between 400-500 women and children taken out of there for points North. I then find that, on arriving in Louisville, KY that the number is 249. Do you have any idea what happened to the other 150-250 other women?

Here's what I base this on. The dates don't exactly match up, but they are newspaper accounts, nonetheless. I'm assuming that the Nashville story was written before the train arrived (not even sure if the paper was a daily) and that might be the reason for the dates being a little off.

"Precious Haul -- Four hundred factory girls were captured by the Federal forces below Marietta, and are expected here to-day or tomorrow, on their way north."
Nashville Dispatch, 23 July 1864

"The train which arrived from Nashville last evening, brought up from the south 249 women and children, who are sent by order of Gen. Sherman...Why they should be sent here to be transferred North is more than we can understand."
Louisville Daily Journal, 21 July 1864

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, General Thomas was using the 400-500 number.

"The Roswell factory hands, 400 or 500 hundred in number, have arrived in Marietta. The most of them are women. I can only order them transportation to Nashville where it seems hard to turn them adrift. What had best be done with them?"
Gen. George H. Thomas to Gen. Sherman

"I have ordered General Webster at Nashville to dispose of them. They will be sent to Indiana."
Gen. Sherman to Gen. Thomas

 

From the March 3, 1864 issue of The Daily Picayune.

Eleven soldiers belonging to the 159th New York Regiment were tried for marauding and committing outrages too gross for public mention. Of these, two were perhaps 25 years of age, and the others were mere boys, varying from 17 to 20. One of the youngest of these boys turned State’s witness and pointed out those of his companions who were engaged in the outrage; the part he took being simply that of stealing fowls of which he obtained about fifteen.

According to the story of this witness, the young men went to the plantation of Mr. R. D. Darden, in Lafourche, and while he and another of his companions were engaged in stealing chickens from the negro cabins, some of the crowd broke into one of the cabins. Who broke the door in he did not know and what was done therein he did not witness. The inmates of the cabin were a negro of about 40 years in age, his wife, and his daughter, a dusky damsel of 18 or 20 summers.

For the credit of humanity we will suppose that illegal foraging was all that they first intended. When the negro found that his hen house was being despoiled of his pretty chickens, he mustered up a sufficiency of courage to put his head out of the window and beg that a few at least of the brood should be spared to him for breed. Thereupon he was assailed by foul speeches and rude threats; brickbats were sent flying against his windows, and some of them threatened to enter the house and kill the old son of _____ .
Finding that there was a movement to carry these threats into execution, the old negro climbed up into his loft where he could look down on them, as he said, “like a eagle looking down on carrion.” About the time that he got up on the loft the door was burst open and a demand was made for the man who had spoken to them from the window. The women, to shield husband and father, declared that there was no man there.
In an instant the cabin was filled, a light was struck, and as the man was no where to be seen, a purpose more fiendish than that which had induced them to enter the dwelling, took possession of the marauders. The girl was at once seized, and with violence, alike criminal and brutal, they accomplished their fiendish purposes, one after another, in the presence of the father and the mother.

They then stripped the girl of her jewelry, ear rings, finger rings, a bracelet, and some of her choicest articles of apparel, as trophies of their diabolical achievement, and having done so, left.

The Judge, in disposing of the case, said that the ringleader, one H. B. Hopkins, should be drawn and quartered, but he would only sentence him to Tortugas for life, there to labor with ball and chain; Jordan M. Lee, a youth who took an active part in the proceedings and stood at the girl’s head with the bayonet at her throat, was sent to Tortugas for ten years; the others were all sent to the same place for three years each. Their names are Henry Dennis, James Lee, D. Rafften, John Thorpe, R. Wheeler, R. Coons, J Horan and H. C. Nelson. J Reil, the boy who turned State’s witness, and G. W. Scoefield, who was proved not to have been in the crowd, were sent back to their regiments.


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Woogs,

Not trying to dodge your question, but I honestly have no idea. The fact of the matter is I never gave the figures any thought. All I can say is I will do some research, I have about 300 references to Roswell I will go through, maybe something will show -- see if I can find some firsthand account or a reliable source as to the fate of these women and children. If you locate something, please advise. You know they were in the care of Yankees so ---------.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

@ Kessy.....

As to your analysis on Columbia:

Briefly, I will say first off that McPherson was using the official records. Now, that might be convincing in most cases, but Sherman's own words give lie to the official record. That, and the sourced statement by General Howard together outweigh the official record. Also, keep in mind the eye witness accounts that add further credence to this version. One of those accounts is from a Northern journalist.

What's unbelievable is that you keep going back to Sherman actually helping to put out fires himself. That is not credible. First off, a commanding General would not be doing such labor. Secondly, Sherman had shown no conscience at all in previous towns he had destroyed.

Sherman has begun this scorched earth policy back in 1862 when he burned Randolph, Tennessee as a reprisal for Confederate sharpshooters firing at Union gunboats along the Mississippi River. He also burned Jackson and Meridian, even though these were undefended cities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some quotes from Sherman.....

"For five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper."
...in a September 17, 1863, letter to Henry W. Halleck, the general in chief of the Union armies.

Halleck liked Sherman's letter so much that he passed it on to President Lincoln, who declared that it should be published. Sherman, in a follow-up to Halleck on October 10, 1863:

"I have your telegram saying the President had read my letter and thought it should be published…. I profess ... to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s (negroes), cotton, money, or any earthly interest."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"There is a class of people [in the South] … men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."
.........June 21, 1864 letter to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources…. I can make the march, and make Georgia howl."
......October 8, 1864 letter to Ulysses S. Grant

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source for quotes.....The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (128 volumes published by the Government Printing Office)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified...in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."
...from "A Soldier's Life", by Sherman biographer Lee Kennett

 

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 38, Part 5 (The Atlanta Campaign) Page 60


HEADQUARTERS CAVALRY DIVISION,
July 5, 1864.

Captain DAYTON,

Acting Assistant Adjutant-General:

CAPTAIN: I have to report for the information of the major-general commanding that my command is camped on the Willeyo Creek near Roswell Factory. My advance is at the Factory. I will destroy all buildings. The bridge at this point over the river is burnt by the rebels. The ford is passable; so reported by citizens. I sent a regiment to the paper-mills, burnt the paper-mills, flouring-mills, and machine-shops. The citizens report the banks of the river high at Powers' Ferry and batteries in position on south bank. They had a pontoon bridge at Pace's Ferry, a few miles below, where a portion of their army crossed. There is a road running from Roswell Factory down the river below the paper-mills, and near the mills and above passes on the bank of river. As fast as possible I will send information of the roads, fords, ferries, &c.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

K. GARRARD,

Brigadier-General, Commanding Division.

 

All I can say is that if you're genuinely 12, you're in for a real shock when you get to American History in school.

You have neither addressed nor proven a thing. In fact I haven't seen a single real argument out of you in pages. All you've been doing is shouting insults and spamming with out of context primary sources which you obviously haven't read, since half of them directly undercut your position. By most people's standards, you completely lost the argument the minute you started screaming.

Most of your insults don't deserve a response, however, I do think it's important to comment on one thing. I never said the South deserved the burning. "Deserved" is a very strong and judgmental word, and should be used with extreme caution, if at all. War is always a horrible thing, and no one deserves to be caught up in one. Not Southerners, not Germans, not Japanese, not anyone. I said that the burning was a direct result of the decisions the leaders of the Confederacy made, which is not at all the same thing as saying that the common people deserved any of what happened.

Sherman said it best - "War is hell; its glory is all moonshine."

Even if you continue to ignore everything else I say, you need to listen to this. War is death. War is destruction. War is suffering and cruelty and pain. There is no glory in war, no righteousness, no noble causes, no justice, no triumph, no redemption. The only time war is ever justified is when the only alternatives you are left with are even worse.

 

Maybe the teachers are in for a shock. Maybe the truth will knock them down!!!

You have neither addressed nor proven a thing. In fact I haven't seen a single real argument out of you in pages. All you've been doing is shouting insults and spamming with out of context primary sources which you obviously haven't read, since half of them directly undercut your position. By most people's standards, you completely lost the argument the minute you started screaming.

Just make my point about your ignorance thank you. Prove the primary -- ahhh you know how they lie.

If my insults don't deserve a response then why do you respond? Just more of your double talk perhaps?? Perhaps you cannot resist showing everyone how much you really (don't know). Remember this you started the a5ttacks and insults, don't dish out what you can’t take.


Post #293 page 30
The South chose to go to war, chose to refuse to surrender in the face of certain defeat, and chose to bring the consequences of those actions on themselves. Sherman's march was little different from the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan during the Second World War. I find it quite fitting that Allied forces rode to victory against tyranny on Sherman tanks, just as Sherman himself rode to victory against tyranny 80 years previously.

Honestly I have no good reason to listen to someone who knows less than me. When you stop trying to twist the facts then and only then I might have enough respect for you to listen. get ready for more of those incorrect primary sources!!!!!!

You support the murder of Americans.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

I'm sure that McPherson was well aware of the statements made by Sherman and Howard, however, you have a fair point that although he may be an expert, McPherson is certainly fallible. That's why I only offered his opinion as supporting evidence.

Okay, we can dismiss the story of Sherman personally fighting the fires as quite possibly a tall tale if you like. However, to my knowledge, there isn't any dispute that he did have his men fight the fires.

I'm not familiar off hand with the incidents at Randolph, Jackson, and Meridian. However, taking your statements about them at face value, doesn't that underscore how strange the partial destruction and the order to fight the fires are if Sherman had decided to destroy Columbia?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not disputing my main analysis or the conclusion I draw from it.

------------------

Somewhat of a tangent, but I was looking through some of the older posts and found one about the relief convoy Lincoln sent to Ft Sumter. Of course Lincoln sent a military escort - the unarmed merchantman Buchanan sent was fired on.

It also occurred to me - if the Confederacy really believed they had a genuine right to secession, and that it was legal and proper for them to seize federal property in their territory, why didn't they simply take Lincoln to court to force him to hand over the forts? Wouldn't that have been the legal, constitutional thing to do? If the Confederates genuinely had no thought of war, the federal garrisons would be purely symbolic, wouldn't they? And doesn't it go without saying that a court ruling against him would have largely tied Lincoln's hands?

 

Trying to run away from the war crimes??? Nope ain't gonna happen!!!

 

Yes, I said that, and I stand by it. How is it an insult or attack against anyone? The people involved in the Civil War are all long since dead. Besides, the only part of that that was really directly critical of the Confederacy was the bit about Sherman riding to victory against tyranny.

If you really believe the Confederate cause was just and the alternatives to going to war would have been worse for them, then it is in no way a criticism to say that they chose to go to war.

Yes, Sherman's march was much like the Allied bombing campaigns. Both were intended to reduce the enemy's ability to make war. Both tended to target the same sorts of things - railroads, bridges, factories, warehouses, military and government facilities, etc. If anything the bombing campaigns caused more widespread and indiscriminant damage. They certainly killed more civilians then Sherman. Aside from the obvious difference in technology, how are they different?

If you wanted an example of me directly criticizing the Confederacy, you could have found much better examples - I know I've said that the Confederacy was evil and immoral several times. Which I also stand by. And again, how is that an attack or insult to anyone on this board?

 

Found supporting statements about Turchin in the ORs. The full text of the charges is 4 pages long. If you want I can post the entire summary of each charge. As you have posted here is just a brief----

Official findings of the Turchin court-martial, as published by General Buell, on August 6, 1862:

"[He] allowed his command to disperse and in his presence or with his knowledge and that of his officers to plunder and pillage the inhabitants...they attempted an indecent outrage on a servant girl ... destroyed a stock of ... fine Bibles and Testaments. ...Defaced, and kicked about the floor and trampled under foot. ...A part of the brigade went to the plantation...and quartered in the negro huts for weeks, debauching the females. ...Mrs. Hollingsworth's house was entered and plundered. ...The alarm and excitement occasioned miscarriage and subsequently her death. ...Several soldiers...committed rape on the person of a colored girl. ...The court finds the accused [guilty as charged] ... and does therefore sentence ... Colonel J.B. Turchin ... to be
dismissed from the service of the United States. ...It is a fact of sufficient notoriety that similar disorders ... have marked the course of Colonel Turchin's command wherever it has gone.*


*Official Records: War of the Rebellion, Series I, pp. 273, 274, 275, 277


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Well how is calling you stupid an insult to anyone on this board. It is the truth.
Thank you for verifying that you support terrorism m and the rape, murder of civilian old men, women and children. Now tell me exactly what someone's house or silverware has to do with the war?

And remember when you said some like Sherman gave the women and children military escort north? Isn't that the same thing Hitler did for the Jews he was sending to death camps???

No there is nothing worse than a so called American advocating war crimes committed against the Americans who lived in the South. You are lower than snail snot.

Gee those Southern women and kids of the day must have been some kind of warriors!!!!

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 6, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) Page 935

FORT MONROE, February 9, 1864.

Honorable EDWIN M. STANTON:

Shall I send a flag-of-truce boat up with women and children? I have a large number in and about Norfolk that I want to get rid of. If so, I will do it on Wednesday, the 17th instant, and will telegraph notices to Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York papers. Please answer whether I shall make the declaration proposed, that all prisoners released by us have been exchanged, so they may return to duty.

BENJ. F. BUTLER,

Major-General, Commanding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Page 937
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 10, 1864.

Major General B. F. BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va.:

I do not think it expedient to send a flag-of-truce boat with women and children, nor to give advertisement in Baltimore, Washington, and elsewhere, at present, as you propose to do. If there be any residents of Norfolk whom you want to send away for cause you are authorized to do so, but not to put other persons across the lines. Your proposed declaration of the exchange is, in the opinion of this Department, irregular, and ought not to be made, because it would be seized upon as a justification of the irregular and improper course pursued by the rebels; and besides, from its indefiniteness, would not afford pursued by the rebels; and besides, from its indefiniteness, would not afford protection to our own troops, and would lead to serious embarrassment in the final arrangement of exchanges, if one can be made. The reasons for this opinion are more particularly set forth in the reply furnished to you by Major-General Hitchcock upon this subject. * I think that upon consideration of that report you will yourself be satisfied that the proposed declaration of exchange is premature, and would afford serious advantages to the rebels in the present controversy.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

While we can say that the Confederate Rebellion was about "State's Rights" and it is absolutely true, that is not the end all of it.

Exactly what "State Right" were they MOST concerned about protecting from the intrusions of the Federal Government? It wasn't about unfair taxation. It wasn't about lack of representation, it was about protecting a disgusting institution that should've been destroyed at the founding of the nation.

Of course that means the Southern Colonies at the time would've never agreed to ratify the Constitution.

Now that's not to say that the boys who fought in the CSA Army were fighting for slavery. The answer to that question was answered quite simply by a dirt poor Tenneseee farmer who was caught by some Union soldiers after he took a pot shot at them. He was too poor and illiterate to own slaves, and didn't even have any interest in Government period. So the Union boys asked him "Just WHY are you fighting sir?" and he replies "Because you came down here."

The Southern boys who fought, fought for their homes and the politicians who sent them to war, like all Politicians throughout history, had different motivations than the common soldier.

But none of that excuses rebellion against a nation in which they were fully represented. It was disgusting.

To the neo-rebels who are actually silly enough to think the Constitution allows for Secession. That question was a valid one in 1860.. by 1865 that question had been decided by force of arms.

Anyone who reads REAL history rather than neo-Confederate revisionist crap, fully well knows that the South acted like a bunch of for lack of better term, belligerent rednecks.

I'm sorry Rebs.. but one cannot fight for the "Freedom" to deny freedom to another human being.

Lee himself even said that he did not fight for slavery, but that he gladly gave all that he had. Lost his home, lost his fortune, lost everything he owned, and said that he would gladly trade it all again to make sure that slavery died as an institution in America. Longstreet said the same thing.

So even the very leaders of the Confederate Army were happy that the war ended the way it did. They fulfilled their duties to the best of their abilities and lost with honor and dignity, but everyone agreed that the loss was the better outcome for the nation as a whole.

So to question whether the Civil War was right.. If Lee and Longstreet said the North acted exactly the way it should've and the outcome of the war was preferable to their victory.. that settles the issue in my mind and neo-confederate loons can simply well.. Go to hell. Because I promise you today that if we could channel Lee, Jackson and Lonstreet today, they would chastise today's neo-confederates and their supporters in the South and tell them The Cause was Lost at Appomattox and that it was the best outcome possible and they should support their nation fully.

Lee, Jackson and Longstreet would never approve of what you are doing today. They would be ashamed of you! and you INSULT the memory of those men when you talk of secession being valid. None of those great men supported secession! They abhored it, and only fought because their sense of duty wouldn't allow any other option for them. But they NEVER thought that the CSA should've done what it did and they can tell you that today by just reading their Post-War writings!!