America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by teedubbya. 360 replies replies.
8 Pages«<345678>
So confederate flag supporters are racist, and don't know history....
jetblasted Offline
#301 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
I've seen so much deer on my land lately, that I'm reminded of this beautiful poem by North GA's own, Byron Scott Reece

Boy and Deer

Over the white, the frozen ground
With cautious step the deer came down.

The boy who had come to be
Alone with cloud and rock and tree

Suddenly saw the deer and hid
To see what that proud creature did.

But the sharp snapping of a limb
Made the proud deer aware of him

Kindred two, each watcher stood
With perfect stillness in the wood,

Each seeing each with mild surprise,
And each with wonder in his eyes.
DrafterX Offline
#302 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Did he hit it with da rock..?? Huh
frankj1 Offline
#303 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
you'll have to buy the book to find out
TMCTLT Offline
#304 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
opelmanta1900 wrote:
You should be less generous.... I read what you said, understood it, and it's still ignorant thinking...

Out of curiosity, when's the last time you had a black man in your house that you weren't paying to be there?

If a black man came and sat next to you at church would you get up and move?

Do any black people go to your church? Do you know any of them? You should go share this line of thinking with them and see what they think...




Joel,.........Shame on you This line of questioning is uncalled for but somehow I've come to expect it from you. SAD really
DrafterX Offline
#305 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
frankj1 wrote:
you'll have to buy the book to find out



I'll wait for the movie.... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#306 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
There I was with the old man stranded again so off I'd ran
A young world crashin' around me
No possibilities of gettin' what I need
He looked at me and smiled said, "No, no, no, no, no child"

See the dog and butterfly up in the air he like to fly
Dog and butterfly below she had to try
She roll back down to the warm soft ground laughin'
She don't know why, she don't know why dog and butterfly

Well I stumbled upon your secret place
Safe in the trees you had tears on your face
Wrestlin' with your desires frozen strangers stealin' your fires
The message hit my mind only words that I could find

We see the dog and butterfly up in the air he like to fly
Dog and butterfly below she had to try
She roll back down to the warm soft ground
Laughin' to the sky, up to the sky dog and butterfly

We're gettin' older the world's gettin' colder
For the life of me I don't know the reason why
Maybe it's livin' makin' us give in hearts rollin' in taken back on the tide
We're balanced together ocean upon the sky

Another night in this strange town moonlight holdin' me light as down
Voice of confusion inside of me
Just beggin' to go back where I'm free
Feels like I'm through then the old man's words are true

We see the dog and butterfly up in the air he like to fly
Dog and butterfly, below she had to try
She roll back down to the warm soft ground
With a little tear in her eye she had to try, she had to try

Dog and butterfly, yeah, up in the air, he liked to fly
The dog and butterfly, below she had to try
She rolled back down to the warm soft ground
Laughin' she don't know why but she had to try, she had to try
Dog and butterfly


DrafterX Offline
#307 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Puppy-dog..!! Laugh
ZRX1200 Offline
#308 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
http://www.ocala.com/article/20150707/ARTICLES/150709810?tc=ar
DrafterX Offline
#309 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Disney World removes the Confederate flag from Epcot exhibit
Published July 09, 2015

Walt Disney World in Orlando has reportedly removed a version of the Confederate flag from its American Adventure theater.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the flag hung at Epcot theme park and was part of a display of more than 40 flags from America’s history. The flag was not a traditional “Southern Cross”, but reportedly featured a smaller blue cross with white stars on a red background that was displayed in the upper left hand corner of a white flag with a thick red stripe border on one end.

The park would not confirm exactly when the flag was removed.


One tourist from Connecticut said that Disney did the right thing by removing the controversial Southern symbol.

"I think in this day and age we shouldn't be promoting a part of our history we're not proud of," Sheri Labowski told the Sentinel on Wednesday.

The American Adventure features animatronics figures of past presidents and statesmen, such as abolitionists Frederick Douglass, who talk about moments in U.S. history, including slavery.

Film at 11.... Mellow
tonygraz Offline
#310 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
The big Labowski strikes again !
jetblasted Offline
#311 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
I've been debating about posting the following for a couple of days, mainly because it is *so long*. But after re-reading it several times, I'd like to share it with you.

This is the introduction of one of the most important & fascinating books I have ever read. It's called, The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865. It chronically the life & experiences of Eliza Francis Andrews, she was the daughter of the Judge of Wilkes County. He was a staunch Unionist, she was in favor of secession. So much so that in secret, she made the first Bonnie Blue Flag that was raised about his court house, when Georgia left the union.

This book is an incredible read about the period when Sherman & Reconstruction came to Georgia. The detail of historical events she witnessed & described is amazing in the sense of reading about them through her eyes, not from an author's perspective & opinion.

The diary is generally unknown, as Mary Chestnut's diary seems to get more press. But Fanny Andrews book brings history alive, from her infatuation with Brig. Gen. Breckinridge, who by the way was the VP in office before the CSA was declared, to stories how men would spring to a duel, over the honor of who should be allowed to help the ladies move their trunks & belongings into a house, while the fled Sherman's army. And even details of her numerous interactions the famous Georgia Senator Robert Toombs, and his family, as they were close neighbors. She also witnessed the last CSA cabinet meeting in her hometown of Washington, GA, when Jefferson Davis was there.

The book shows what it was like back then in regards to the class consciousness of their time. Even when describing interactions in town with "the cracker people". They definitely were living by a very old & time honored sense of of aristocracy.

I'm including the long introduction as its her looking back, in 1908, to that time & giving the reader a head's up if you will, about how things change, what should be remembered & about healing, etc.

As I said, this is one of the best books I've ever read, and her life was remarkable going forward. Even before I finished the book almost two years ago, I decided that one day I would lay flowers on her grave, and finally an opportunity has presented itself, and I will do that on Tuesday. Because her grave site is on close proximity to the Robert Toombs house, in which she describes in detail about visits to, bbq's & dealings with his family, I'm going to visit it too, as its now a preserved State Park. Also close by is Alexander Stephen's residence & library, and it's a State Park, too.

This book is a must read for any student of the civil war, and should be required reading for any resident of Georgia.
jetblasted Offline
#312 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595

THE WAR-TIME JOURNAL OF A
GEORGIA GIRL 1864-1865

Eliza Francis Andrews

1908 - To edit oneself after the lapse of nearly half a century is like taking an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. The changes of thought and feeling between the middle of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century are so great that the impulsive young person who penned the following record and the white-haired woman who edits it, are no more the same than were Philip drunk with the wine of youth and passion and Philip sobered by the lessons of age and experience. The author's lot was cast amid the tempest and fury of war, and if her utterances are sometimes out of accord with the spirit of our own happier time, it is because she belonged to an era which, though but of yesterday, as men count the ages of history, is separated from our own by a social and intellectual chasm as broad almost as the lapse of a thousand years. In the lifetime of a single generation the people of the South have been called upon to pass through changes that the rest of the world has taken centuries to accomplish. The distance between the armor-clad the "embattled farmers" at Lexington is hardly greater than that between the feudal aristocracy which dominated Southern sentiment in 1860, and the commercial plutocracy that rules over the destinies of the nation to-day.


Never was there an aristocracy so compact, so united, so powerful. Out of a population of some 9,000,000 whites that peopled the Southern States, according to the census of 1850, only about 300,000 were actual slaveholders. Less than 3,000 of these - men owning, say, over 100 negroes each, constituted the great planter class, who, with a small proportion of professional and business men affiliated with them in culture and sympathies, dominated Southern sentiment and for years dictated the policy of the nation. The more prominent families all over the country knew each other by reputation, if not by actual contact, and to be a member of the privileged few in one community was an ex-officio title to membership in all. To use a modern phrase, we were intensely "class conscious" and this brought about a solidarity of feeling and sentiment almost comparable to that created by family ties. Narrow and provincial we may have been, in some respects, but take it all in all, it is doubtful whether the world has ever produced a state of society more rich in all the resources for a thoroughly wholesome, happy, and joyous life than existed among the privileged "4,000" under the peculiar civilization of the Old South - a civilization which has served its purpose in the evolution of the race and passed away forever. So completely has it vanished that the very language in which we used to express ourselves is becoming obsolete. Many of our household words, among them a name scarcely less dear than "mother," are a dead language. Others have a strangely archaic sound to modern ears. When the diary was written, women were still regarded as "females," and it was even permissible to have a "female acquaintance," or a "male friend," when distinction of sex was necessary, without being relegated forthwith to the ranks of the ignobile vulgus. The words "lady" and "gentleman" had not yet been brought into disrepute, and strangest of all, to modern ears, the word "rebel," now so bitterly resented as casting a stigma on the Southern cause, is used throughout the diary as a term of pride and affectionate endearment.

It is for the sake of the light it throws on the inner life of this unique society at the period of its dissolution - a period so momentous in the history of our country - that this contemporaneous record from the pen of a young woman in private life, is given to the public. The uncompromising attitude of the writer's father against secession removed him, of course, from all participation in the political and official life of the Confederacy, and so this volume can lay claim to none of the dignity which attaches to the utterances of one narrating events "quorum párs magna fui." But for this reason its testimony will, perhaps, be of more value to the student of social conditions than if it dealt with matters pertaining more exclusively to the domain of history. The experiences recounted are such as might have come at that time, to any woman of good family and social position; the feelings, beliefs, and prejudices expressed reflect the general sentiment of the Southern people of that generation, and this is my apology for offering them to the public. As an informal contemporaneous record, written with absolutely no thought of ever meeting other eyes than those of the author, the present volume can claim at least the merit of that unpremeditated realism which is more valuable as a picture of life than detailed statistics of battles and sieges. The chief object of the writer in keeping a diary was to cultivate ease of style by daily exercise in rapid composition, and, incidentally, to preserve a record of personal experiences for her own convenience. This practice was kept up with more or less regularity for about ten years, but the bulk of the matter so produced was destroyed at various times in those periodical fits of disgust and self-abasement that come to every keeper of an honest diary in saner moments. The present volume was rescued from a similar fate by the intercession of a relative, who suggested that the period dealt with was one of such transcendent interest, embracing the last months of the war and the equally stormy times immediately following, that the record of it ought to be preserved along with our other war relics, as a family heirloom. So little importance did the writer attach to the document even then, that the only revision made in changing it from a personal to a family history, was to tear out bodily whole paragraphs, and even pages, that were considered too personal for other eyes than her own. In this way the manuscript was mutilated, in some places, beyond recovery. The frequent hiatuses caused by these elisions are marked in the body of the work by the usual signs of ellipsis.

The original manuscript was written in an old day-book fished out of some forgotten corner during the war, when writing paper was as scarce as banknotes, and almost as dear, if measured in Confederate money. The pale, home-made ink, never too distinct, at best, is faded after nearly fifty years, to a light ocher, but little darker than the age-yellowed paper on which it was inscribed. Space was economized and paper saved by writing between the closely-ruled lines, and in a hand so small and cramped as to be often illegible, without the aid of a lens. The manuscript suffered many vicissitudes, the sheets having been torn from the covers and crumpled into the smallest possible space for better concealment in times of emergency.

As a discourager of self-conceit there is nothing like an old diary, and I suppose no one ever knows what a full-blown idiot he or she is capable of being, who has not kept such a living record against himself. This being the case, the gray-haired editor may be pardoned a natural averseness to the publication of anything that would too emphatically "write me down an ass" - to borrow from our friend Dogberry - though I fear that in some of the matter retained in the interest of truth, I have come perilously near to that alternative.
But while the "blue line" has been freely used, as was indispensable in an intimate private chronicle of this sort, it has not been allowed to interfere in any way with the fidelity of the narrative. Matter strictly personal to the writer - tiresome reflections, silly flirtations, and the like - has been omitted, and thoughtless criticisms and other expressions that might wound the feelings of persons now living, have been left out or toned down. Connectives, or other words are supplied where necessary for clearness; where more particular information is called for, it is given in parentheses, or in the explanatory notes at the heads of the chapters. Even the natural temptation to correct an occasional lapse into local barbarisms, such as "like" for "as," "don't" for "doesn't," or the still more unpardonable offense of applying the terms "male" and "female" to objects of their respective genders, has been resisted for fear of altering the spirit of the narrative by too much tampering with the letter. For the same reason certain palpable errors and misstatements, unless of sufficient importance to warrant a note, have been left unchanged - for instance, the absurd classing of B. F. Butler with General Sherman confusion between fuit Ilium and ubi Troja fuit that resulted in the misquotation on page 190. For my "small Latin," I have no excuse to offer except that I had never been a school teacher then, and could enjoy the bliss of ignorance without a blush. As to the implied reflection on West Point, I am not sure whether I knew any better at the time, or not. Probably I did, as I lived in a well-informed circle, but my excited brain was so occupied at the moment with thoughts of the general depravity of those dreadful Yankees, that there was not room for another idea in it.

Throughout the work none but real names are employed, with the single exception noted on page 105. In extenuation of this gentleman's bibulous propensities, it must be remembered that such practices were much more common in those days than now, and were regarded much more leniently. In fact, I have been both surprised and shocked in reading over this story of a bygone generation, to see how prevalent was the use of wines. and other alcoholic liquors, and how lightly an occasional over-indulgence was regarded. In this respect there can be no doubt that the world has changed greatly for the better. When "gentlemen," as we were not afraid to call our men guests in those days, were staying in the house, it was a common courtesy to place a bottle of wine, or brandy, or both, with the proper adjuncts, in the room of each guest, so that he might help himself to a "night-cap" on going to bed, or an "eye-opener" before getting up in the morning. It must also be taken into account that at this particular time men everywhere were ruined, desperate, their occupation gone, their future without hope, the present without resources, so that they were ready to catch at any means for diverting their thoughts from the ruin that enveloped them. The same may be said of the thoughtless gayety among the young people during the dark days preceding the close; it was a case of "eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die."

I cannot better express this feeling than in the words of an old Confederate soldier at Petersburg, Va., where he had gone with a number of his comrades who had been attending the great reunion at Richmond, to visit the scene of their last struggles under "Marse Robert." They were standing looking down into the Crater, that awful pit of death, lined now with daisies and buttercups, and fragrant with the breath of spring. Tall pines, whose lusty young roots had fed on the hearts of dead men, were waving softly overhead, and nature everywhere had covered up the scars of war with the mantle of smiling peace. I paused, too, to watch them, and we all stood there awed into silence, till at last an old battle-scarred hero from one of the wiregrass counties way down in Georgia, suddenly raised his hands to heaven, and said in a voice that trembled with emotion: "There's three hundred dead Yankees buried here under our feet. I helped to put 'em there, but so help me God, I hope the like 'll never be done in this country again. Slavery's gone and the war's over now, thank God for both! We are all brothers once more, and I can feel for them layin' down there, just the same as for our own."

That is the sentiment of the new South and of the few of us who survive from the old. We look back with loving memory upon our past, as we look upon the grave of the beloved dead whom we mourn but would not recall. We glorify the men and the memories of those days and would have the coming generations draw inspiration from them. We teach the children of the South to honor and revere the civilization of their fathers, which we believe has perished not because it was evil or vicious in itself, but because, like a good and useful man who has lived out his allotted time and gone the way of all the earth, it too has served its turn and must now lie in the grave of the dead past. The Old South, with its stately feudal régime, was not the monstrosity that some would have us believe, but merely a case of belated survival, like those giant sequoias of the Pacific slope that have lingered on from age to age, and are now left standing alone in a changed world. Like every civilization that has yet been known since the primitive patriarchal stage, it was framed in the interest of a ruling class; and as has always been, and always will be the case until mankind shall have become wise enough to evolve a civilization based on the interests of all, it was doomed to pass away whenever changed conditions transferred to another class the economic advantage that is the basis of all power. It had outlived its day of usefulness and was an anachronism in the end of the nineteenth century - the last representative of an economic system that had served the purposes of the race since the days when man first emerged from his prehuman state until the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery.

It is as unfair to lay all the onus of that institution on the Southern States of America as it would be to charge the Roman Catholic Church with the odium of all the religious persecutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The spirit of intolerance was in the air; everybody persecuted that got the chance even the saints of Plymouth Rock, and the Catholics did the lion's share only because there were more of them to do it, and they had more power than our Protestant forefathers.

In like manner, the spirit of chattel slavery was in the race, possibly from its prehuman stage, and through all the hundreds of thousands of years that it has been painfully traveling from that humble beginning toward the still far-off goal of the superhuman, not one branch of it has ever awakened to a sense of the moral obliquity of the practice till its industrial condition had reached a stage in which that system was less profitable than wage slavery. Then, as the ethical sentiments are prone to follow closely the line of economic necessity, the conscience of those nations which had adopted the new industrialism began to awaken to a perception of the immorality of chattel slavery. Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world's chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the "great moral crusade" of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South. It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.

It is only fair to explain here that the action of the principle of economic determinism does not imply by any means that the people affected by it are necessarily insincere or hypocritical. As enunicated by Karl Marx, under the cumbrous and misleading title of "the materialistic interpretation of history," it means simply that the economic factor plays the same part in the social evolution of the race that natural selection and the survival of the fittest are supposed to play in its physical evolution. The influence of this factor is generally so subtle and indirect that we are totally unconscious of it. If I may be pardoned an illustration from my own experience, I remember perfectly well when I myself honestly and conscientiously believed the institution of slavery to be as just and sacred as I now hold it to be the reverse. It was according to the Bible, and to question it was impious and savored of "infidelity." Most of my contemporaries would probably give a similar experience. Not one of us now but would look upon a return to slavery with horror, and yet not one of us probably is conscious of ever having been influenced by the economic factor!

The truth of the matter is that the transition from chattel to wage slavery was the next step forward in the evolution of the race, just as the transition from wage slavery to free and independent labor will be the next. Some of us, who see our own economic advantage more or less clearly in this transformation, and others who do not see it so clearly as they see the evils of the present system, are working for the change with the zeal of religious enthusiasts, while the capitalists and their retainers are fighting against it with the desperation of the old Southern slaveholder against the abolitionist. But here, in justice to the Southerner, the comparison must end. He fought a losing battle, but he fought it honestly and bravely, in the open - not by secret fraud and cunning. His cause was doomed from the first by a law as inexorable as the one pronounced by the fates against Troy, but he fought with a valor and heroism that have made a lost cause forever glorious. He saw the civil fabric his fathers had reared go down in a mighty cataclysm of blood and fire, a tragedy for all the ages - but better so than to have perished by slow decay through ages of sloth and rottenness, as so many other great civilizations of history have done, leaving only a debased and degenerate race behind them. It was a mediæval civilization, out of accord with the modern tenor of our time, and it had to go; but if it stood for some outworn customs that should rightly be sent to the dust heap, it stood for some things, also, that the world can ill afford to lose. It stood for gentle courtesy, for knightly honor, for generous hospitality; it stood for fair and honest dealing of man with man in the common business of life, for lofty scorn of cunning greed and ill-gotten gain through fraud and deception of our fellowmen - lessons which the founders of our New South would do well to lay to heart.

And now I have just a word to say on a personal matter - a solemn amende to make to the memory of my dear father, to whose unflinching devotion to the Union these pages will bear ample testimony. While I have never been able to bring myself to repent of having sided with my own people, I have repented in sackcloth and ashes for the perverse and rebellious spirit so often manifested against him. How it was that the influence of such a parent, whom we all loved and honored, should have failed to convert his own children to his way of thinking, I do not myself understand, unless it was the contagion of the general enthusiasm around us. Youth is impulsive, and prone to run with the crowd. We caught the infection of the war spirit in the air and never stopped to reason or to think. And then, there were our soldier boys. With my three brothers in the army, and that glorious record of Lee and his men in Virginia, how was it possible not to throw oneself heart and soul into the cause for which they were fighting so gallantly? And when the bitter end came, it is not to be wondered at if our resentment against those who had brought all these humiliations and disasters upon us should flame up fiercer than ever. In the expression of these feelings we sometimes forgot the respect due to our father's opinions and brought on scenes that were not conducive to the peace of the family. These lapses were generally followed by fits of repentance on the part of the offender, but as they led to no permanent amendment of our ways, I am afraid, that first and last, we made the old gentleman's life a burden to him. In looking back over the sufferings and disappointments of those dreadful years the most pathetic figure that presents itself to my memory is that of my dear old father, standing unmoved by all the clamor of the times and the waywardness of his children, in his devotion to the great republic that his father had fought for at Yorktown. I can see now, what I could not realize then, that the Union men in the South - the honest ones, I mean, like my father - sacrificed even more for their cause than we of the other side did for ours. These men are not to be confounded with the scalawags and traitors who joined the carpet-baggers in plundering their country. They were gentlemen, and most of them slaveholders, who stood by the Union, not because they were in any sense Northern sympathizers, but because they saw in division death for the South, and believed that in saving her to the Union they were saving her to herself. They suffered not only the material losses of the war, but the odium their opinions excited; and worst of all, the blank disillusionment that must have come to them when they saw their beloved Union restored only to bring about the riot and shame of Reconstruction. My father died before the horrors of that period had passed away; before the strife and hatred he so bitterly deplored had begun to subside; before he could have the satisfaction of seeing his grandson fighting under the old flag that his father had followed and that his sons had repudiated. Which of us was right? which was wrong? I am no Daniel come to judgment, and happily, there is in my mind no reason to brand either side as wrong. In the clearer understanding that we now have of the laws of historical evolution, we know that both were right, for both were struggling blindly and unconsciously in the grasp of economic tendencies they did not understand, towards a consummation they could not foresee. Both were helpless instruments of those forces that were hurrying our nation forward another step in its evolutionary progress, and whatever of praise or blame may attach to either side for their methods of carrying on the struggle, the result belongs to neither; it was simply the working out of that natural law of economic determinism which lies at the root of all the great struggles of history.

And now that we have learned wisdom through suffering; now that we have seen how much more can be accomplished by peaceful coöperation under the safe guidance of natural laws, than by wasteful violence, we are prepared to take our part intelligently in the next great forward movement of the race - a movement having for its object not merely a closer union of kindred states, but that grander union dreamed of by the poet,

"The parliament of man, the federation of the world."
teedubbya Offline
#313 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Cut and Paste


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

If war is a thunderstorm, then from November 15 until December 21, 1864, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his 62,000 soldiers were the lightning of that particular storm.

Sherman’s March began after the fall of Atlanta, on September 2, 1864. Many see photographs of Atlanta, or remember Rhett Butler driving Scarlett O’Hara away from what was actually the controlled burning of old sets from the 20th Century Production Company and think the depredations of Sherman’s March to the Sea started early. It comes as a surprise to many that Sherman was not responsible for the complete devastation of Atlanta. A reading of Sherman’s correspondence among himself, Generals Grant and Halleck on the Union side, and General John Bell Hood of the Confederacy clearly displays Sherman’s concern for the citizens of Atlanta. Apparently General Hood’s intent was to burn all military supplies and political information before they could get into Yankee hands, but most of Atlanta was made of wood, and the winds were high.

In early September, Sherman was in contact with Hood concerning the welfare of the citizens of Atlanta. He sent official communications to the Confederate commander, asking his help in removing the women, children, and older people to a safer environment. Hood, a law unto himself, responded by informing Sherman that even an appeal to “God, in the cause of humanity,” was not enough to gain his cooperation. Hood probably felt that God, given the choice, would stay and fight the Yankees.

Frustrated, Sherman replied:

In the name of common sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner . . . If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.

Clearly, these are not the actions of a war criminal, although those of Hood remain somewhat suspect.

Sherman sent copies of all his memoranda to Lincoln’s Chief-of-Staff, General Henry Halleck, in Washington, D. C. Halleck responded that Sherman had the full approval of the War Department for his efforts. Halleck goes further:

Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so. Moreover, I am fully of opinion that war, the conduct of the enemy, and especially of non-combatants and women of the territory which we have heretofore conquered and occupied, will justify you in gathering up all the forage and provisions which your army may require both for a siege of Atlanta and for your supply in your march farther into the enemy’s country. . . . I have endeavored to impress these views upon our commanders for the last two years. You are almost the only one who has properly applied them. I do not approve of General Hunter’s course in burning private, houses, or uselessly destroying private property–that is barbarous; but I approve of taking or destroying whatever may serve as supplies to us or to the enemy’s armies.

The South felt the loss of Atlanta very much, in all geographic areas. It seemed a bitter pill to swallow, according to the diary of Mary Boykin Chestnut. She wrote, “These stories of our defeats in the valley fall like blows upon a dead body. Since Atlanta fell, I have felt as if all were dead within me forever.” However, if there was any hint that the South felt it was in the hands of a war criminal, the newspapers gave no indication. They continued to publish the same misinformation concerning the success of the Confederate armies as they had always done. Politicians such as Georgia’s own Joseph E. Brown exhorted the citizens of his state to resist the Union invaders with all their might, while Robert Toombs was hopeful that discord would “reign forever.” None of this indicates a reaction necessary to constitute being victims of war crimes.

The importance of the Union capture of Atlanta was both symbolic and strategic; when Sherman took the city, the results were the beginning of the collapse of the Confederacy. After November 8, when Lincoln’s election was assured, Sherman decided to continue his “march” across Georgia, liberally foraging for his army and destroying all structures deemed to be of use in any way to support the cause of disunion. The stated purpose of this endeavor was, according to Sherman’s memoirs, ” . . . to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us.”

With such threatening words, it is easy to cast the March to the Sea in terms that, by today’s standards, constitute war crimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although Sherman was determined to make the people in the Deep South feel “the hard hand of war,” the horrors of war in the mid-nineteenth century were considered to be part of the nature of armed conflict itself. Before the twentieth century, armies frequently behaved brutally toward enemy soldiers and noncombatants alike; whether there was any punishment for this depended on who won the war. A victorious nation rarely tries its own people for properly executing plans in a winning strategy.

The very definition of what constitutes a war crime was not devised until after World War II. The murder of several million people, mainly Jews by Nazi Germany, but including the mistreatment of prisoners and civilians by the Japanese, changed international attitudes about exactly what constituted a just war (jus en bello). Nevertheless, even modern theories of warfare have considered the definition of non-combatants as legitimate targets. If the civilians in question are actively helping the enemy by moral encouragement, or arming, feeding or sheltering enemy combatants, then those civilians are considered to be targets of warfare.

A week after Lincoln won the Presidential election, Sherman’s army left Atlanta. Rather than chase John Bell Hood’s troops into Alabama, he took Confederate President Davis at his word: The Confederacy remained as “erect and defiant as ever . . . nothing has changed in the purpose of its government . . . the valor of its troops . . . or the spirit of its people.”

It is those words of Jefferson Davis that absolve Sherman of the charge of cruelty against innocent civilians. The Confederacy derived a large measure of its strength from the material and moral support of sympathetic Southerners. Farms, plantations, and factories, were providing the Southern armies with necessary supplies, delivered to them by the railroad. Sherman reasoned that if he could destroy the infrastructure of the Deep South, he could destroy the Confederate war effort. If he could also undermine civilian morale by making life unpleasant, perhaps the civilians would demand an end to the war. In a telegram dated October 9 1864 to General Ulysses S. Grant, he wrote:

I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Milledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. 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. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl!”
teedubbya Offline
#314 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
"When God was creating Confederate veterans, He was into his tenth day of overtime when a curious angel appeared.

"You're certainly putting in a lot of extra effort on this model Lord," the Angel remarked.

And God said, "Have you seen the specifications on this order?

A Confederate veteran had to be able to march thirty miles through rough terrain without shoes if required, endure with barely any sleep for days, enter into battle without a break from the march, and keep his weapon clean and operable."

"He had to be able to sit on a forward picket line all night and
often during a massive attack, hold his buddies as they die, retreat or advance at a moments notice, and somehow keep his senses alert for danger."

"He had to be in top physical condition, existing on a handful of
dried corn and very little rest. And he had to have six pairs of
hands."

The angel shook his head slowly and said, "Six pair of hands...no way!"

God says, "It's not the hands that's causing me problems...It's the three pair of eyes a Confederate veteran has to have."

"That's on the standard model?" asked the angel.

God nodded. "One pair that sees through wilderness brush, another pair here in the side of his head for his buddies, another pair here in front that can look reassuringly at his bleeding, fellow soldier and say, "You'll make it"...when he knows he won't."

"God, rest and work on this tomorrow."

"I can't," said God. "I already have a model that can carry a wounded soldier one thousand yards during a frontal assault, calm the fears of the latest new veteran, and feed a squad of ten men on a handful of cornbread for three days."

The angel walked around the model and remarked, "Can it think?"

"You bet," said God. "It can quote most of the Bible line by line,
recite his weapons drill and company commands by heart, and engage in a division size attack maneuver in less time than it takes for his fellow Confederates back home to read the latest casualty list, and still keep his sense of patriotism."

"This Confederate veteran must also have phenomenal personal control. He can deal with 75 percent casualties, comfort a fallen soldier's family, and then read in the Yankee newspapers how all Confederate soldiers are cowards, slave abusers, traitors, and men of low morals."

God gazed into the future and said, "He will also endure having his name vilified and spit on, and he will be rejected and forgotten by the very Southerners he fought and died for."

Finally, the angel slowly ran his finger across the veteran's cheek, and said, "There's a leak...I told you, God, that you were trying to put too much into this model."

That's not a leak," said God. "That's a tear."

What's the tear for?" asked the angel.

"It's for bottled up emotions, for holding fallen soldiers as they
die, and for commitment to that funny piece of cloth they call the
Confederate Battle Flag."

"You're a genius," said the angel, casting a glance at the lonely
tear.

God looked very somber, as if seeing down eternity's distant
shores..."I didn't put it there," he said, as a matching tear slowly
eased down His cheek."
Abrignac Offline
#315 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
teedubbya wrote:
Cut and Paste


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

If war is a thunderstorm, then from November 15 until December 21, 1864, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his 62,000 soldiers were the lightning of that particular storm.

Sherman’s March began after the fall of Atlanta, on September 2, 1864. Many see photographs of Atlanta, or remember Rhett Butler driving Scarlett O’Hara away from what was actually the controlled burning of old sets from the 20th Century Production Company and think the depredations of Sherman’s March to the Sea started early. It comes as a surprise to many that Sherman was not responsible for the complete devastation of Atlanta. A reading of Sherman’s correspondence among himself, Generals Grant and Halleck on the Union side, and General John Bell Hood of the Confederacy clearly displays Sherman’s concern for the citizens of Atlanta. Apparently General Hood’s intent was to burn all military supplies and political information before they could get into Yankee hands, but most of Atlanta was made of wood, and the winds were high.

In early September, Sherman was in contact with Hood concerning the welfare of the citizens of Atlanta. He sent official communications to the Confederate commander, asking his help in removing the women, children, and older people to a safer environment. Hood, a law unto himself, responded by informing Sherman that even an appeal to “God, in the cause of humanity,” was not enough to gain his cooperation. Hood probably felt that God, given the choice, would stay and fight the Yankees.

Frustrated, Sherman replied:

In the name of common sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner . . . If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.

Clearly, these are not the actions of a war criminal, although those of Hood remain somewhat suspect.

Sherman sent copies of all his memoranda to Lincoln’s Chief-of-Staff, General Henry Halleck, in Washington, D. C. Halleck responded that Sherman had the full approval of the War Department for his efforts. Halleck goes further:

Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so. Moreover, I am fully of opinion that war, the conduct of the enemy, and especially of non-combatants and women of the territory which we have heretofore conquered and occupied, will justify you in gathering up all the forage and provisions which your army may require both for a siege of Atlanta and for your supply in your march farther into the enemy’s country. . . . I have endeavored to impress these views upon our commanders for the last two years. You are almost the only one who has properly applied them. I do not approve of General Hunter’s course in burning private, houses, or uselessly destroying private property–that is barbarous; but I approve of taking or destroying whatever may serve as supplies to us or to the enemy’s armies.

The South felt the loss of Atlanta very much, in all geographic areas. It seemed a bitter pill to swallow, according to the diary of Mary Boykin Chestnut. She wrote, “These stories of our defeats in the valley fall like blows upon a dead body. Since Atlanta fell, I have felt as if all were dead within me forever.” However, if there was any hint that the South felt it was in the hands of a war criminal, the newspapers gave no indication. They continued to publish the same misinformation concerning the success of the Confederate armies as they had always done. Politicians such as Georgia’s own Joseph E. Brown exhorted the citizens of his state to resist the Union invaders with all their might, while Robert Toombs was hopeful that discord would “reign forever.” None of this indicates a reaction necessary to constitute being victims of war crimes.

The importance of the Union capture of Atlanta was both symbolic and strategic; when Sherman took the city, the results were the beginning of the collapse of the Confederacy. After November 8, when Lincoln’s election was assured, Sherman decided to continue his “march” across Georgia, liberally foraging for his army and destroying all structures deemed to be of use in any way to support the cause of disunion. The stated purpose of this endeavor was, according to Sherman’s memoirs, ” . . . to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us.”

With such threatening words, it is easy to cast the March to the Sea in terms that, by today’s standards, constitute war crimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although Sherman was determined to make the people in the Deep South feel “the hard hand of war,” the horrors of war in the mid-nineteenth century were considered to be part of the nature of armed conflict itself. Before the twentieth century, armies frequently behaved brutally toward enemy soldiers and noncombatants alike; whether there was any punishment for this depended on who won the war. A victorious nation rarely tries its own people for properly executing plans in a winning strategy.

The very definition of what constitutes a war crime was not devised until after World War II. The murder of several million people, mainly Jews by Nazi Germany, but including the mistreatment of prisoners and civilians by the Japanese, changed international attitudes about exactly what constituted a just war (jus en bello). Nevertheless, even modern theories of warfare have considered the definition of non-combatants as legitimate targets. If the civilians in question are actively helping the enemy by moral encouragement, or arming, feeding or sheltering enemy combatants, then those civilians are considered to be targets of warfare.

A week after Lincoln won the Presidential election, Sherman’s army left Atlanta. Rather than chase John Bell Hood’s troops into Alabama, he took Confederate President Davis at his word: The Confederacy remained as “erect and defiant as ever . . . nothing has changed in the purpose of its government . . . the valor of its troops . . . or the spirit of its people.”

It is those words of Jefferson Davis that absolve Sherman of the charge of cruelty against innocent civilians. The Confederacy derived a large measure of its strength from the material and moral support of sympathetic Southerners. Farms, plantations, and factories, were providing the Southern armies with necessary supplies, delivered to them by the railroad. Sherman reasoned that if he could destroy the infrastructure of the Deep South, he could destroy the Confederate war effort. If he could also undermine civilian morale by making life unpleasant, perhaps the civilians would demand an end to the war. In a telegram dated October 9 1864 to General Ulysses S. Grant, he wrote:

I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Milledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. 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. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl!”


Source?
jetblasted Offline
#316 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Abrignac wrote:
Source?


Beat me to it . . . LoL
teedubbya Offline
#317 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
dunno. can't find it again, but here is the coorespondence

http://civilwarhome.com/hoodshermancorrespondence.htm


my only point is this romance with the south is absurd. the war was ugly and neither side owns the high ground even when discussing sherman.
DrafterX Offline
#318 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Think
what do you think about the reenactments..?? Huh
teedubbya Offline
#319 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DrafterX wrote:
Think
what do you think about the reenactments..?? Huh



The ones where the southern angels fight the northern demons? they are 100% accurate and we should learn from them.
Gene363 Offline
#320 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
jetblasted wrote:
THE WAR-TIME JOURNAL OF A
GEORGIA GIRL 1864-1865

Eliza Francis Andrews


Pretty interesting read and post Civil War summation.

Edited to add, It will not be read, but just weighed and responded to with more knee jerk BS. And I here after what has been posted about those backward illiterate southerners, it turns out some yankees cannot manage reading.
DrafterX Offline
#321 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I've seen them smoke and drink together off the battlefield before..... Mellow
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#322 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
DrafterX wrote:
I've seen them smoke and drink together off the battlefield before..... Mellow



How'd they do that? I thought Sherman burned all their food stores and bathed in all their whiskey?
DrafterX Offline
#323 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
well, apparently Sherman didn't burn the Southern Comfort stores... Mellow
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#324 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
DrafterX wrote:
well, apparently Sherman didn't burn the Southern Comfort stores... Mellow


Now THAT is a travesty.
tonygraz Offline
#325 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
After the war, Sherman was visited by many of his former soldiers at his home. He always had some money to give them even when times were tough.
DrafterX Offline
#326 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
see, he wasn't all bad.... Mellow
banderl Offline
#327 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
tonygraz wrote:
After the war, Sherman was visited by many of his former soldiers at his home. He always had some money to give them even when times were tough.


That's all well and good, but did he help out any rebs?
DrafterX Offline
#328 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I didn't know there were any left..... Think
teedubbya Offline
#329 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AkSFh8c5Es.HLmhO5FnKIsGbvZx4?p=you+play+to+win+the+game&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-328&fp=1&vm=r
Gene363 Offline
#330 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820

Yap, yap, yap...

I'ma call the dog catcher to take all these yappy little ankle biters to the pound. fog
teedubbya Offline
#331 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I heard the confederates let the blue devils from the north win because they didn't want to hurt them and stuff.
DrafterX Offline
#332 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Not talking
it was cause the blue devils promised to let them marry their cousins...... of course the north broke that treaty.. which was the style at the time... Mellow
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#333 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
Duke sucks.
banderl Offline
#334 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
DrafterX wrote:
Not talking
it was cause the blue devils promised to let them marry their cousins...... of course the north broke that treaty.. which was the style at the time... Mellow


I thought this was.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
DrafterX Offline
#335 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
different war... Sherman smashed and burned all the yellow ones too.... which is where the bloomin onion originated.. most people think they came from the outback.... In fact, there was a Union General Bloomin that was so fond of these burnt onions people started calling them bloomin onions... it's a little know fact of war.. Mellow
banderl Offline
#336 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
DrafterX wrote:
different war... Sherman smashed and burned all the yellow ones too.... which is where the bloomin onion originated.. most people think they came from the outback.... In fact, there was a Union General Bloomin that was so fond of these burnt onions people started calling them bloomin onions... it's a little know fact of war.. Mellow


Well, you learn something new everyday.
Abrignac Offline
#337 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
teedubbya wrote:
dunno. can't find it again, but here is the coorespondence

http://civilwarhome.com/hoodshermancorrespondence.htm


my only point is this romance with the south is absurd. the war was ugly and neither side owns the high ground even when discussing sherman.


It's inevitable that war brings destruction to the lands where battles are fought. War is ugly as hell. It's also safe to say that both sides will commit acts which will later be deemed atrocities by the relevant opponents. Such is politics.
wheelrite Offline
#338 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Sherman was a slave owner too, ya know...


REMEMBER THE ALAMO !


wheel,,
teedubbya Offline
#339 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Texas has bastardized the Alamo and turned it in to a cheesier version of the Wisconsin dells. Honestly it's embarrassing what tall have done to sacred ground.
Kawak Offline
#340 Posted:
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
What's next, the Hawaii and Mississippi flags will be banned or changed? One has a symbol of oppression that started the revolutionary war and one has the confederate flag within? Where does the nonsense stop?
wheelrite Offline
#341 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
teedubbya wrote:
Texas has bastardized the Alamo and turned it in to a cheesier version of the Wisconsin dells. Honestly it's embarrassing what tall have done to sacred ground.


Really ?

explain,,,

wheel,,
tailgater Offline
#342 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
dunno. can't find it again, but here is the coorespondence

http://civilwarhome.com/hoodshermancorrespondence.htm


my only point is this romance with the south is absurd. the war was ugly and neither side owns the high ground even when discussing sherman.


Sherman is my middle name.


tailgater Offline
#343 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Gene363 wrote:
Pretty interesting read and post Civil War summation.

Edited to add, It will not be read, but just weighed and responded to with more knee jerk BS. And I here after what has been posted about those backward illiterate southerners, it turns out some yankees cannot manage reading.


First ya gotta remove the "y'alls" and "hee haws". Then we'll give it full consideration before we turn our nose up and drink our tea with full pinkie extension.
banderl Offline
#344 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
If Sherman was such a devil, why would a reb general be one of his pallbearers?
From wiki:
General Joseph E. Johnston, the Confederate officer who had commanded the resistance to Sherman's troops in Georgia and the Carolinas, served as a pallbearer in New York City. It was a bitterly cold day and a friend of Johnston, fearing that the general might become ill, asked him to put on his hat. Johnston famously replied: "If I were in [Sherman's] place, and he were standing in mine, he would not put on his hat." Johnston did catch a serious cold and died one month later of pneumonia.
riverdog Offline
#345 Posted:
Joined: 03-28-2008
Posts: 2,600
tailgater wrote:
First ya gotta remove the "y'alls" and "hee haws". Then we'll give it full consideration before we turn our nose up and drink our tea with full pinkie extension.

And to think, up to this point I never thought of you as a deep thinker.Think Beer
teedubbya Offline
#346 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Wheel just go there and look around.
Abrignac Offline
#347 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
If Sherman was such a devil, why would a reb general be one of his pallbearers?
From wiki:
General Joseph E. Johnston, the Confederate officer who had commanded the resistance to Sherman's troops in Georgia and the Carolinas, served as a pallbearer in New York City. It was a bitterly cold day and a friend of Johnston, fearing that the general might become ill, asked him to put on his hat. Johnston famously replied: "If I were in [Sherman's] place, and he were standing in mine, he would not put on his hat." Johnston did catch a serious cold and died one month later of pneumonia.


My guess would be that they served together during their military careers and were friends at least. Perhaps you missed the part where military officers generally chose the side of their home state in the Civil War. Sherman was from Ohio, Johnston from Virginia. As generals, I'm sure they both felt it was their duty to faithfully serve their commanding officer. Once the war ended, many friendships were renewed.
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#348 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
banderl wrote:
If Sherman was such a devil, why would a reb general be one of his pallbearers?
From wiki:
General Joseph E. Johnston, the Confederate officer who had commanded the resistance to Sherman's troops in Georgia and the Carolinas, served as a pallbearer in New York City. It was a bitterly cold day and a friend of Johnston, fearing that the general might become ill, asked him to put on his hat. Johnston famously replied: "If I were in [Sherman's] place, and he were standing in mine, he would not put on his hat." Johnston did catch a serious cold and died one month later of pneumonia.



He must have missed the memo about the food stores.
banderl Offline
#349 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
That's possible, but if Sherman was the monster that the Southerners portrayed him as, how could he be forgiven by a reb general?

Another interesting tidbit:
In 1859, Sherman accepted a job as the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy in Pineville, a position he sought at the suggestion of Major D. C. Buell and secured because of General George Mason Graham.[26] He proved an effective and popular leader of that institution, which would later become Louisiana State University (LSU).[27] Colonel Joseph P. Taylor, the brother of the late President Zachary Taylor, declared that "if you had hunted the whole army, from one end of it to the other, you could not have found a man in it more admirably suited for the position in every respect than Sherman."[28]

Although his brother John was well known as an antislavery congressman, Sherman did not oppose slavery and was sympathetic to Southerners' defense of the institution. He opposed, however, any attempt at dissolving the Union.[29] On hearing of South Carolina's secession from the United States, Sherman observed to a close friend, Professor David F. Boyd of Virginia, an enthusiastic secessionist:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.[30]

almost perfectly describing the four years of war to come.[31]
Cannons used to start the Civil War in front of LSU's Military Science Building

In January 1861, as more Southern states were seceding from the Union, Sherman was required to accept receipt of arms surrendered to the State Militia by the U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Instead of complying, he resigned his position as superintendent and returned to the North, declaring to the governor of Louisiana, "On no earthly account will I do any act or think any thought hostile ... to the ... United States."[32]

After the war, General Sherman donated two cannons to the institution. These cannons had been captured from Confederate forces and had been used to start the war when fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. They are still currently on display in front of LSU's Military Science building.[33]
banderl Offline
#350 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Thunder.Gerbil wrote:
He must have missed the memo about the food stores.



We have a new food store in the area, Berkhots, they have very good produce and meat.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
8 Pages«<345678>