Are you ashamed of your heritage?

[Mushroom]

Sherman's March killed EVERYONE and burned every Farm.

No, it did not. Holy hell, you are believing some really bad propaganda.

The vast majority of deaths were in the military on both sides, and that combined with the civilian deaths were only around 3,200.

Take Atlanta. It is true that Sherman burned the rail yards and other military infrastructure. But by far most of the damage to the city was done by Confederate demolitions teams trying to destroy warehouses stocked with Confederate war supplies.

They did not "kill everyone", nor did they "burn every farm". That is complete nonsense, can you cite a single reputable and verifiable source to back up those claims?

 

[longly]

Is that a yes or a no?

As I said before, slavery is evil. Slavery is evil in all of its forms. That’s why I opposed communism. That’s why I opposed drug smuggling. Good night

 

[Deadstick]

As I said before, slavery is evil. Slavery is evil in all of its forms. That’s why I opposed communism. That’s why I opposed drug smuggling. Good night

You missed Fascism and Nazis off your hate list.

 

[JohnDB]

No, it did not. Holy hell, you are believing some really bad propaganda.

The vast majority of deaths were in the military on both sides, and that combined with the civilian deaths were only around 3,200.

Take Atlanta. It is true that Sherman burned the rail yards and other military infrastructure. But by far most of the damage to the city was done by Confederate demolitions teams trying to destroy warehouses stocked with Confederate war supplies.

They did not "kill everyone", nor did they "burn every farm". That is complete nonsense, can you cite a single reputable and verifiable source to back up those claims?

I am believing the old family Bible and the notes written in it. I am believing other letters written in old quill style pens and flowery script telling of the horrors they witnessed. Much much more so than some unknown person on a rhetoric filled political forum. I believe the original newspapers, prolific after the war.

War is horrible, for DECADES to come. The horrors of starvation and pirates pillaging the countryside.

What I do know for certain....
The Northern Union was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination...they merely won the war somewhat. The South was not innocent either. Who was more inhumane? Uhhh....that's like asking which turd stinks less in a cesspool.

You wish to glamorize, clean, and sanitize war. War is anything but. It's starvation, mutilation, abuses of the worst form, and completely horrible. It's people acting like mere beasts. Only the guilty survive.

 

[Unkotare]

...
The Northern Union was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination...they merely won the war somewhat. ...

Not "somewhat." COMPLETELY. The traitorous curs were brought to heel and treated more gently than they deserved.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He wasn't certain. Even before the Burr-Hamilton duel, most ended in both men deliberately missing to give everyone involved a face-saving way out. Pistols were horribly inaccurate, and both guys were just trying to make a point.

Wrong, Dueling pistols were VERY accurate even when smoothbore. Rifled dueling pistols rivalled or exceeded modern semi-autos for accuracy.
"...Virtually all dedicated English dueling pistols during 1770-1830s had front and rear sights. The rear sight often was a wide "U" for taking quick aim or snap shooting because deliberate aiming was frowned upon by the English. Smooth bored English dueling pistols were very accurate at the prescribed ranges. The owner of one pair I examined could consistently hit the center of a playing card at 20 paces. The balls were a tight fit and wrapped in a greased patch, hence the need for the loading rod and sometimes a mallet was included in the case. English makers sometimes rifled their barrels with barely detectable "scratch rifling" but European makers frequently rifled their dueling pistols. The pistols below are inspired by a pair made by Robert Wogdon in the English Royal collection. Accuracy was a major selling point for a maker and Wogdon was famous for making the best and most accurate pistols during his time. Later, makers such as Manton and Nock made heavier barrels designed to steady the hand and make shooting more accurate. ..."

 

[gipper]

I am believing the old family Bible and the notes written in it. I am believing other letters written in old quill style pens and flowery script telling of the horrors they witnessed. Much much more so than some unknown person on a rhetoric filled political forum. I believe the original newspapers, prolific after the war.

War is horrible, for DECADES to come. The horrors of starvation and pirates pillaging the countryside.

What I do know for certain....
The Northern Union was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination...they merely won the war somewhat. The South was not innocent either. Who was more inhumane? Uhhh....that's like asking which turd stinks less in a cesspool.

You wish to glamorize, clean, and sanitize war. War is anything but. It's starvation, mutilation, abuses of the worst form, and completely horrible. It's people acting like mere beasts. Only the guilty survive.

Agreed.

Sherman was a war criminal and no American should venerate that asshole. He said it himself, when he said “make the South howl.”

To say nothing of the outrageous war crimes he committed against Native Americans, after the War of Northern Aggression.

Americans aren’t taught of the numerous crimes committed by the North. They do know about Andersonville, but nothing about the horrors of northern prison camps.

 

[Deadstick]

Civil wars are the worst they bring out hatred and savagery even among families, the American Civil war was one of them, i read about the Confederate POW Camp at Andersonville Georgia for over 45.000 Union Soldiers where 13,000 died through neglect and abuse, i don't know but maybe there were Union Camps as bad, we had a civil War in England in the mid seventeeth Century with up to 85.000 military casualties and up to 100 thousand civilians.

 

[gipper]

No, it did not. Holy hell, you are believing some really bad propaganda.

The vast majority of deaths were in the military on both sides, and that combined with the civilian deaths were only around 3,200.

Take Atlanta. It is true that Sherman burned the rail yards and other military infrastructure. But by far most of the damage to the city was done by Confederate demolitions teams trying to destroy warehouses stocked with Confederate war supplies.

They did not "kill everyone", nor did they "burn every farm". That is complete nonsense, can you cite a single reputable and verifiable source to back up those claims?

This will help you get informed…

When a just war of defense turns into a war of revenge, it ceases to be a just war and becomes an unjust war of aggression. That explains why Robert E. Lee—who followed the conventions of civilized warfare agreed upon in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—saw his role as defense of the South, and not as aggression against the North. In 1863, he said:

It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.

Thomas E. WoodsBest Price: $2.91Buy New $9.99(as of 07:05 UTC - Details)In “The War Against the South and Its Consequences” Murray Rothbard points out that Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, by contrast with Lee, abandoned all such conventions and launched a total war against civilians. Rothbard explains:

Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized “rules of war” that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman’s march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism).

Veale attributes the blame for Sherman’s war strategy, particularly the attacks on civilians, to Lincoln:

Sherman only executed the most dramatic and devastating example of the strategy which was laid down by President Lincoln himself and followed faithfully by General Ulysses S. Grant as commander-in-chief of the Northern armies.

It was the deliberate policy of the Union army to view Southern civilians as no different from combatants. As reported in “War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies” published in 1880–1901, Sherman stated, “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.” Sherman’s apologists do not deny his total war tactics; on the contrary, they argue that these tactics were justified for various reasons including the claim that his war crimes were necessary in order to win the war.
Total War Against Civilians Is Never Justified - LewRockwell

 

[Deadstick]

Wrong, Dueling pistols were VERY accurate even when smoothbore. Rifled dueling pistols rivalled or exceeded modern semi-autos for accuracy.
"...Virtually all dedicated English dueling pistols during 1770-1830s had front and rear sights. The rear sight often was a wide "U" for taking quick aim or snap shooting because deliberate aiming was frowned upon by the English. Smooth bored English dueling pistols were very accurate at the prescribed ranges. The owner of one pair I examined could consistently hit the center of a playing card at 20 paces. The balls were a tight fit and wrapped in a greased patch, hence the need for the loading rod and sometimes a mallet was included in the case. English makers sometimes rifled their barrels with barely detectable "scratch rifling" but European makers frequently rifled their dueling pistols. The pistols below are inspired by a pair made by Robert Wogdon in the English Royal collection. Accuracy was a major selling point for a maker and Wogdon was famous for making the best and most accurate pistols during his time. Later, makers such as Manton and Nock made heavier barrels designed to steady the hand and make shooting more accurate. ..."

I think we should bring Dueling back, many lives would be saved in the long run if Politicians had to put their money where their big mouths are.

 

[gipper]

No, it did not. Holy hell, you are believing some really bad propaganda.

The vast majority of deaths were in the military on both sides, and that combined with the civilian deaths were only around 3,200.

Take Atlanta. It is true that Sherman burned the rail yards and other military infrastructure. But by far most of the damage to the city was done by Confederate demolitions teams trying to destroy warehouses stocked with Confederate war supplies.

They did not "kill everyone", nor did they "burn every farm". That is complete nonsense, can you cite a single reputable and verifiable source to back up those claims?

This will help to educate you…

When a just war of defense turns into a war of revenge, it ceases to be a just war and becomes an unjust war of aggression. That explains why Robert E. Lee—who followed the conventions of civilized warfare agreed upon in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—saw his role as defense of the South, and not as aggression against the North. In 1863, he said:

It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.

Thomas E. WoodsBest Price: $2.91Buy New $9.99(as of 07:05 UTC - Details)In “The War Against the South and Its Consequences” Murray Rothbard points out that Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, by contrast with Lee, abandoned all such conventions and launched a total war against civilians. Rothbard explains:

Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized “rules of war” that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman’s march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism).

Veale attributes the blame for Sherman’s war strategy, particularly the attacks on civilians, to Lincoln:

Sherman only executed the most dramatic and devastating example of the strategy which was laid down by President Lincoln himself and followed faithfully by General Ulysses S. Grant as commander-in-chief of the Northern armies.

It was the deliberate policy of the Union army to view Southern civilians as no different from combatants. As reported in “War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies” published in 1880–1901, Sherman stated, “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.” Sherman’s apologists do not deny his total war tactics; on the contrary, they argue that these tactics were justified for various reasons including the claim that his war crimes were necessary in order to win the war.

Total War Against Civilians Is Never Justified - LewRockwell

Civil wars are the worst they bring out hatred and savagery even among families, the American Civil war was one of them, i read about the Confederate POW Camp at Andersonville Georgia for over 45.000 Union Soldiers where 13,000 died through neglect and abuse, i don't know but maybe there were Union Camps as bad, we had a civil War in England in the mid seventeeth Century with up to 85.000 military casualties and up to 100 thousand civilians.

It wasn’t a Civil War, in the classic sense. The South did not wish to conquer the North. The South merely wanted to separate, not control the whole nation.

The North under Dishonest Abe wanted to conquer the South and force it to stay in the Union.

Hence the correct name…The War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Unkotare]

Those infamous 1800s pistol duels? They actually served a purpose

Were 1800s duels deadly and irrational? New research says they were neither.

www.bates.edu

 

[longly]

You missed Fascism and Nazis off your hate list.

By the time I came along, they were no longer a Serious danger to freedom. If they had been, my attitude towards them would have been just as ferocious.

 

[longly]

Sherman’s strategy on his March to the Sea would today be viewed as a war crime. He destroyed all transportation and treated farms and plantations as logistical centers of the Confederate Army. He burned and destroyed everything he could, killed livestock, burned crops, and carried away whatever his soldiers could use. Sherman turned a blind eye to the misconduct of his men: raiding parties stole personal property, people were assaulted, and women — especially Black women — were raped. Anyone who attempted to interfere was shot.

However, as a military man, I have to admit that Sherman’s strategy made sense and probably still could be used today — except for the rape and the violence committed against civilians. The destruction of food supplies makes military sense: an army that cannot eat cannot fight.

 

[Unkotare]

Vast and ever-growing desertion played so large a role in the traitors' defeat that the so-called confederacy very nearly freed the slaves themselves.

 

[Mushroom]

I am believing the old family Bible and the notes written in it.

In other words, you have no real reference so can not prove anything you just claimed.

 

[Mushroom]

However, as a military man, I have to admit that Sherman’s strategy made sense and probably still could be used today

It still is, in essence it was a "Single Envelopment" with a Field Army. And has been used countless times throughout history.

 

[gipper]

Sherman’s strategy on his March to the Sea would today be viewed as a war crime. He destroyed all transportation and treated farms and plantations as logistical centers of the Confederate Army. He burned and destroyed everything he could, killed livestock, burned crops, and carried away whatever his soldiers could use. Sherman turned a blind eye to the misconduct of his men: raiding parties stole personal property, people were assaulted, and women — especially Black women — were raped. Anyone who attempted to interfere was shot.

However, as a military man, I have to admit that Sherman’s strategy made sense and probably still could be used today — except for the rape and the violence committed against civilians. The destruction of food supplies makes military sense: an army that cannot eat cannot fight.

Total war never makes sense and is always a war crime.

See my post above for details.
Post in thread 'Are you ashamed of your heritage?'
Are you ashamed of your heritage?
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/are-you-ashamed-of-your-heritage.1188621/post-37778920

 

[skews13]

Bullshit, slavery would have been abolished anyway and without the lives of 600,000 Americans.

Then the confederates should have thought about that before they declared secession, adopted a constitution that stipulated slavery was their main cause, and fired on Ft. Sumpter.

 

[rightwinger]

Then the confederates should have thought about that before they declared secession, adopted a constitution that stipulated slavery was their main cause, and fired on Ft. Sumpter.

The south was not willing to give up slavery
So much that they started a war over it