<p>Our area is probably unique because there are several islands where “heirs’ property” is located, resulting in areas which have high “gullah” population. Most other things are pretty well integrated tho’.</p>
<p>I think there are better race relations here than in many places because of the common heritage. That is changing however, because we have so many new residents and retirees moving into the area.</p>
<p>There is - and always has been - a lot of love and understanding between the races here.</p>
<p>There would be no different ending of “the story” (I assume you mean the outcome of the war?) even if Sherman never set foot in SC. The CSA lost the war the minute it started. The end was never in doubt, only the length of time.</p>
<p>There were no innocent civilians in South Carolina and Georgia in 1864-1865. </p>
<p>His scorched earth policy did exactly what it was intended to do. </p>
<p>*“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over…”</p>
<p>“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war…”</p>
<p>"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out…”</p>
<p>“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking…”</p>
<p>“But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.”*</p>
<p>Sherman is a hero in the USA, considered to be one of the greatest military strategists of all time, and would have easily been elected President if he had chosen to run.</p>
<p>“If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”</p>
<p>BZ–you are right–slavery wouldn’t have lasted in the south forever, Northern public opinion as well as that of the world would have ended it eventually—but even it was destined to die a very SLOW death as evidenced by the survival of Jim Crow until the 1960’s. The South would have eventually given it up, not because it was wrong but because it would have been economically unfeasible to sustain, should the rest of the world have eventually resulted in an economic boycott or other anti-slavery sanctions against the south (something the Union Naval Blockade achieved in a few short years)–Even the British shyed away from full support of the South because of the slavery issue, and they were a MAJOR importer of cotton prior to the war.
Being in Southern California has little to do with undertanding history 150 years ago–my family is from the North and had serving officers in the Union Army who were engaged in both the Eastern Theatre and in Atlanta, Nashville, and the general Alabama area–their experiences are well documented. The embracing of slavery as a way of life for Southern (and to a great extent Northern) 18th and 19th century culture was a dark (parden the pun) part of all of our history and caused a war in which both sides suffered and as is usual, the losing side always suffers more, no matter what the virtues of the winning side may be. That war went on for nearly 5 full years in America’s own back yard. The decision to end it as quickly and decisively as possible in late 1864 and early 1865 was one similar to decisions made my most countries (including our own) in other wars. That we had to make our own population suffer the consequences is all the more trajic, but the secession should never have occured at all—in retrospect, the issue of slavery got us into the mess, getting out of it would take a war and then another 150 years to get us where we are now. The Southern idealistic notion that this was somehow a “War for Southern Independence” is a dog that “don’t hunt”. Independence based on the right to enslave others without interference hardly compares to a war of independence to “end taxation without representation.”
“Give me Liberty or Give Me Death” vs “Give me my slaves”?</p>
<p>I imagine Sherman is reviled in the same way that I am sure British Lancaster crews are reviled by some German citizens for the fire-bombings of WW2, and American crews were not well thought of by the Japanese citizenry following the firebombing of Japanese cities–we won’t talk about the atomic bomb—</p>
<p>“War is Hell.”—the idealistic notion of only having two armies meet on the battlefield as the means to solving differences went out the window long ago (if it ever really existed)—9/11 reminds us of that.</p>
<p>“Most slaves were treated well”—Im not gonna touch that one.</p>
<p>Again, for the North, it was about preserving the Union, and then later the end of slavery became tied to the cause.
For the South, it was ALWAYS about protecting the institution of slavery.</p>
<p>I appreciate your posts.<br>
Very interesting quotes.</p>
<p>Not sure I agree with all of your comments, but I have no intention of re-hashing the civil war on this forum. My earlier post was mainly to shed some light on a couple of points that are often lost to people outside the south. </p>
<p>But as far as Sheman goes, there is no way you could come South & defend his tactics - most people feel that he should’ve used his “talents” on the battlefield and not on the homes and farms of the southern civilains.</p>
<p>Sherman (rightfully) believed that the homes and crops of civilians were just as much of a legitimate target as any he would face on the “batllefield.”</p>
<p>He punished the cradle of treason harshly and decisively, and his quote “those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.” says it all.</p>
<p>Sherman served brilliantly. A brilliant man, a brilliant military strategist, a winner, a true American hero. </p>
<p>Those who feel otherwise are still fighting the Civil War.</p>
<p>bz2010,
hint…beach…we are military…2nd hint all of our pets names are military and begin with an M. 1st pet was Maquire (AFB married at).
If you are from SC than this is a no brainer…no reeling</p>
<p>This whole conversation got me to thinking—dangerous that it is…
I recently transcribed the original pages of my GG Grandfather’s Civil War Diaries that he wrote in daily from July of 1862 till about July of 1865 (you can read much of them here):</p>
<p>The issue of Sherman and the burning of homes, farms, fields, etc “rang a bell” in my seriously underdeveloped brain. When my GG GF was with the 6th Corps (Franklin and then Sedgewicks Corps) at 2nd Bull run, Antietam, Chancellorville, and Gettysburg, he didn’t write much about “foraging” (the practice of soldiers going out into the field and “obtaining” needed food and supplies.) He was with a Battery of Horse Artillery and they moved with the Army of the Potomac as it manouvered throughout Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia in 1862-1863. I got the impression that they were consuming more or less official army rations. After Gettysburg, he was reassigned from Battery D, 2nd US Artillery to Battery A 4th US because most of the latter battery’s officers had been killed at Picket’s Charge (Cushing’s Battery). Shortly afterwards the Battery was reassigned to Robertson’s Brigade of Horse Artillery. After that he was re-assigned to the Western Theatre around Nashville. His new Battery (I, 4th US) eventually was attached to James Wilson’s Cavalry as it roamed the South through Georgia and Alabama. It was when he was in the South that he started talking about foraging. He would lead Union soldiers to forage the countryside almost nightly for food and supplies. (Sorry about the long post). I then realized that a huge part of what Sherman was doing with all this destruction of the civilian infrastruture was denying the Southern Armies food and supplies. The south was fighting primarily in it’s own backyard for the last two years of the war–much of it’s army was living off the civilian population, just as my GG GF’s unit was doing. I think Sherman understood it (heck they all probably did) but he alone was willing to follow it to its natural, strategic, and obvious conclusion: The fastest way to end the war was to defeat the Rebel Army—the fastest way to defeat an army is to make it too weak to fight. </p>
<p>Wow, what great conversations we have here!</p>
<p>Wow, the ability to have those docs is amazing (i am jealous). Whatever happened, happened, the true question is how do we as Americans unite and get past this…140+ years is too long to hold a grudge.</p>
<p>true and remarkable in the context of our relations as a nation with many of the countries we’ve gone to war with in just the last half century; Vietnam for example. As you move through life you will inevitably find people that fail to see the hundreds of similarities and common interests that are shared and instead choose to focus on the very few differences; an aspect of human nature that I have never been able to comprehend. You can see the same consequences in the interaction of people of faith, so much in common and yet they still posses the capacity to go to war and kill over subtle differences in their interpretations of their faith. </p>
<p>In regard to the discussion on Sherman; my only comment is to support the notion that the lives of soldiers on both sides; Northern and Southern; were undoubtedly saved by the shortening of the war. </p>
<p>I think the issue/subject that this thread began with was a good starting point for discussion and will hopefully become a subject deemed worthy of debate during the upcoming elections. When we went to Iraq during the presidency of Bush41 we could bring over a half million men/women to the resolution of the conflict, we now struggle to maintain 1/3 that force and have to resort to extended rotations for our troops that further contribute to the problem. Obviously the difference in duration has played a role but clearly we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Do we need a million man/woman ground force? I don’t know what a good number is, but it certainly seems like we need more than we have now. I hope we hear more about each candidate’s position on this issue than we do on the cost of their hair cuts…</p>
<p>WE aren’t still fighting the Civil War, only the South is. Shouldn’t we be outraged that three states still use battle flags from the Confederacy?</p>
<p>And look at the statements that were given by one of the posters.</p>
<p>“Most slaves were treated well”</p>
<p>or “Many of the slaves lived in much better conditions back then than local african americans do now”</p>
<p>Now maybe some of you understand why I reacted so strongly after Thompson made those statements. Because they are is a LARGE segment of the population that shares the above doctrines and who still can’t get over the “WAR of NORTHERN Agression” and who love Jefferson Davis and the rest of his crowd.</p>
<p>Dear Liable,
I live in the south and no one here is still fighting the war.<br>
Secondly, if u asked any student who Jefferson Davis was they would not know…hey ask an adult, Pose it in 1 of 2 wAys who was the President of the South or who was Jefferson Davis…I would bet 90% couldn’t answer either.
Now for the treated well, unfortunately there is ignorance in the world, but u can’t make a blanket decision that Thompson is 1 of them.
“Slaves lived better…now” well that is a sad statement, however, 25% of African American males are in prison. Again what happened, happened, how do we fix what is happening now!
Finally, I don’t the LARGE segment u are talking about. You talk about the south & attitudes, but have never lived here. Who is this large pop that u think shares these doctrines?
I am not meaning to be antagonistic, I am hoping that through these discussions we can come to a respect and understanding.</p>
<p>I rather doubt that, particularly since Thompson never made any “statements”, he never issued a policy statement, never said this is how I feel, what he did was make a joke that was obviously taken for what it was by the audience it was directed towards. How do I know this to be true? If his joke offended just one of the participants it would have made the front page of the New York Times. </p>
<p>Under the heading of seeking understanding, I should ask why would a person waste so much time, energy and space on this BB on such a ridiculously absurd issue, particularly in light of your convoluted approach to both attributions and associations with the notion of “Confederate or Southern Sympathies”.</p>
<p>Given all the challenges we face, all that is reasonable fodder for discussion about the issues that will impact us as individuals as well as our nation; is there really anyone aside from you on this site or anywhere else in the universes, that gives a rat’s derri</p>
<p>You’re free to attack what I say, however you have no right to attack me as a perosn. You just earned yourself a report to the mods. Tread lightly on attacking other individuals or you’ll be banned like others have already.</p>
<p>I respect the job the moderators for this site have to do. However, banning posters should only happen as a last resort and in my opinion I haven’t seen anything said on this thread that remotely comes close to be a reason for such a drastic action. There were posters here on this board with whom I sometimes disagreed with vehemently—BUT I would happily welcome them back if they should ever get the opportunity. The exercise of the expression of free thoughts makes us all better. It’s curtailment is a sad thing, no matter who is at fault.</p>
<p>Seriously, liable - I am at a loss to figure out who attacked you - If it was the comment by rjrzoom57 then I fail to see how firing at tin cans on a wall would be personally attacking you because I am sure that is what he and bz2010 meant.</p>
<p>Perhaps your true colors are showing, however and you get your jollies by coming on here, being argumentative and provoking people so the moderators (are they your friends?) will ban them. You have gotten other people banned? wow. Of this you are proud? Once you have banned all the “bad” people with whom will you argue? Yourself?</p>