Conquer Club

Well, in history class we just learned about William Sherman's march to Savannah during the American Civil War. My teacher told us that Sherman gave orders to target property only, and not harm the population (unless they showed resistance). He then told us that in Georgia and other parts of the South today, you probably wouldn't be allowed to teach the march in that way, and that southern schools equate Sherman's march to some sort of grave human rights violation, with atrocities commited against Southern people.

I live in Massachusetts, so I was wondering if there are any southerners out there, and if you know whether or not that's true. Just curious .

- Thanks!

Who the hell is William Sherman?

I kid... I'm not exactly sure what human rights violation his march entails. However, I'm also not the kind of guy with a big confederate flag on the front of my 9 foot tall pickup truck that has a gun rack in the back window and a mutt in the bed. So maybe I'm biased... though I know people like that. I did wear a wife-beater once though.

Sherman broke off contact with Washington D.C. during the war, and basically enacted a "scorched earth" war against the south in his "March to the Sea". He wanted to destroy the Confederacy's ability to wage war, by destroying it's crops and livestock. So the army marched through, not to engage military targets, but to destroy the fields in Georgia. Lincoln and the politicians were very upset by this, but the strategy worked well for the war effort. One could argue that Sherman and Grant won the war for the Union.

I live in the heart of the march.

He stopped in my town and didnt destroy it.
Supposedly all the women begged him not to burn it to the ground.


We're simply taught that he was trying to end the war early and he couldnt control all his troops from taking advantage of the people and stuff.

Basically they teach us that it wasn't some kind of atrocity but do say that there are still people who hate him to this day.

In case your wondering I live in Sandersville.

OK, that's basically what we were taught as well. It just sounded to me like Southern schools teach it in a much more negative light, my teacher made it sound like Northern schools were like "it wasn't that bad" and Southern schools were like "Sherman was the antichrist". Or something like that

Lincoln and the politicians were very upset by this, but the strategy worked well for the war effort. One could argue that Sherman and Grant won the war for the Union.

I actually heard that Sherman sent a telegram to Lincoln on Christmas Eve offering him Savannah as a Christmas present and Lincoln laughed out loud.

Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are wrong).

I'm in AP US History class, my teacher knows what he's talking about, and he says similar things about the South. Apparently there are still Southerners that are pissed off about losing the Civil War

suggs wrote:Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are weong).

Still mad about that, Brit?

it probably had a bit to do with the fact that the first group won their go, and the second group did not win so much.

Serbia wrote:

suggs wrote:Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are weong).

Still mad about that, Brit?

Not at all! No, not really. But like Flashman, i get wound up no end about Yankees banging on about their "revolution" when they just rebellled against a big central government, EXACTLY as the South did 90 years later.
There's a lot of hypocrisy in Yank history.
Having said that, we fucked up one quarter of the globe so...

suggs wrote:Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are weong).

Because, as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, once you allow states to secede, what's to stop individual cities and towns from seceding? When the South seceded, what if Upper California decided, huh, that's a pretty good idea? Or what if Boston said "screw you guys" and broke away from Massachusetts? Soon you'd have pockets of new countries inside of the actual Union, all with different governments and laws. Terminal impact? ANARCHY!

This was, rather ironically, demonstrated when West Virginia seceded from Virginia early on in the war.

The same thing happened when the colonies broke away from England in 1776 (to correct you ). It led to India, Haiti, and other English colonies rebelling and starting their own countries. Would you say that England wasn't justified in fighting these and trying to keep their empire intact? That's what the Union did, only they were successful.

got tonkaed wrote:it probably had a bit to do with the fact that the first group won their go, and the second group did not win so much.

That was exactly Lincoln's response to Flashman!

"Its the victors who write the history books" (A. Hitler).

Correction, Haiti was French (I believe), but you get the general idea.

jecko7 wrote:

suggs wrote:Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are weong).

Because, as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, once you allow states to secede, what's to stop individual cities and towns from seceding? When the South seceded, what if Upper California decided, huh, that's a pretty good idea? Or what if Boston said "screw you guys" and broke away from Massachusetts? Soon you'd have pockets of new countries inside of the actual Union, all with different governments and laws. Terminal impact? ANARCHY!

This was, rather ironically, demonstrated when West Virginia seceded from Virginia early on in the war.

The same thing happened when the colonies broke away from England in 1776 (to correct you ). It led to India, Haiti, and other English colonies rebelling and starting their own countries. Would you say that England wasn't justified in fighting these and trying to keep their empire intact? That's what the Union did, only they were successful.

The onluy problem with that is that it means the Yanks should not have rebelled against Britain in 1776, because where will it end?!
ie New York fighting Rhode Island etc.
Yes, Lincolns argument is the same as George III, you are quite right.

Its just odd that the South aren't treated as heroes in the same way as those slavers in 1776 are

InkL0sed wrote:I'm in AP US History class, my teacher knows what he's talking about, and he says similar things about the South. Apparently there are still Southerners that are pissed off about losing the Civil War

True in some cases, but I definitely wouldn't say they are anywhere near a respectable number. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I know who really gets worked up about Sherman's march to Savannah. Perhaps your teacher suffers from the old elitist Yankee syndrome? The idea that Sherman was destroying civilian property does a bit of heart-wrenching for me, but that has nothing to do with it being "Southern" property. I won't say the ends justify the means, but I think we, as a country, have progressed in a defensible direction since then. Plus, everyone knows southerners are more patriotic than anyone else, so what's the fuss?

More of a problem is the way the North burned the South to the ground after the war was over. One of the great atrocities, along with those idiots at Gettysburg.

suggs wrote:

jecko7 wrote:

suggs wrote:Ask your teacher why it was right for the 13 colonies to secede in 1775, but not for the South to secede in 1860?

(sorry if my dates are weong).

Because, as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, once you allow states to secede, what's to stop individual cities and towns from seceding? When the South seceded, what if Upper California decided, huh, that's a pretty good idea? Or what if Boston said "screw you guys" and broke away from Massachusetts? Soon you'd have pockets of new countries inside of the actual Union, all with different governments and laws. Terminal impact? ANARCHY!

This was, rather ironically, demonstrated when West Virginia seceded from Virginia early on in the war.

The same thing happened when the colonies broke away from England in 1776 (to correct you ). It led to India, Haiti, and other English colonies rebelling and starting their own countries. Would you say that England wasn't justified in fighting these and trying to keep their empire intact? That's what the Union did, only they were successful.

The onluy problem with that is that it means the Yanks should not have rebelled against Britain in 1776, because where will it end?!
ie New York fighting Rhode Island etc.
Yes, Lincolns argument is the same as George III, you are quite right.

Right, one difference is the colony/state thing. The 13 colonies were economic tools of Great Britain, and probably in the first generation of colonists they would've never dreamed of rebelling against their mother country. But time and 3,000 miles of ocean does a lot to seperate folks, and there weren't many ties that bind between the two entities by 1776. The Confederate states had been part of the Union since the 16th century. They were a part of the Union, they were Americans, they were right next door. States are way different than colonies.

Also, the 13 colonies never intended to be one unified entity. They wanted to be a loose federation of states that would unite in the face of a common entity (G.B.). And maybe the rebellion would've lead to more secession within themselves, but we won. As someone pointed out, that makes a heck of a difference when you're comparing the two, all Hitler quotes aside.

I keep getting fastposted

suggs wrote:More of a problem is the way the North burned the South to the ground after the war was over. One of the great atrocities, along with those idiots at Gettysburg.

Actually, the North launched a massive compaign to rebuild the South after the war. Burning it to the ground after the war was over is just flat-out false.

Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

Neoteny wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I'm in AP US History class, my teacher knows what he's talking about, and he says similar things about the South. Apparently there are still Southerners that are pissed off about losing the Civil War

True in some cases, but I definitely wouldn't say they are anywhere near a respectable number. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that I know who really gets worked up about Sherman's march to Savannah. Perhaps your teacher suffers from the old elitist Yankee syndrome? The idea that Sherman was destroying civilian property does a bit of heart-wrenching for me, but that has nothing to do with it being "Southern" property. I won't say the ends justify the means, but I think we, as a country, have progressed in a defensible direction since then. Plus, everyone knows southerners are more patriotic than anyone else, so what's the fuss?

My history teacher is no Yankee elitist. He went to the University of Texas just to get away from New York.

I seem to remember him saying something about Southerners making a big deal about having the Confederate flag around and whatnot. But not even he said this was all of them, or even many.

suggs wrote:Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

If cotton farmers hated industrialists, why did you have brothers fighting brothers across state lines? When the South took Fort Sumpter (effectively starting the war), the Southern general had been a student of the Northern general, and allowed the Northern guy to fire a salute after he surrendered because he respected him so much. The border states were torn between Union and Confederacy - to say that the two areas had nothing in common is wrong.

If the South had won, you think they would be the "good guys"? One of the reasons Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation was to make the war about slavery, thus making the South look like the bad guys and making it very hard for non-slaveholding countries (like GB) to come in on their side. The war happened because of slavery - the South wanted it and the North didn't want it to spread. It's very simplified, but basically a long lawmaking process whereby Southerners pushed through pro-slavery laws peaked and broke when Lincoln was elected, so the seceded. It's very hard to make the North look like the "bad guys".

And don't gimme that crap about the revolutionaries having slaves too, that's irrelevant, it wasn't an issue in the Revolution.

suggs wrote:Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

Actually, I don't know about them managing to kill more people. One of their main advantages was their outnumbering the Southerners (further compounded when 200,000 slaves joined the Union Army after the Emancipation Proclamation), and one of their main strategies was to just wear the South down. I think it was Grant that would order his men to just charge straight into cannon-fire without a qualm. Not sure about that though.

I should pay more attention to details in class so I can make better Internet arguments... oh and also so I don't fail.

jecko, the secessions started because a republican was sworn into office even though the northern states were the only ones to vote for him.

InkL0sed wrote:

suggs wrote:Don't knock the Hitler quote - that was one og=f the best things he said. (Although i suspect others had said it before).
All that nonsense abour colonies and states is just that - nonsense. I doubt a cotten farmer in Georgia felt much kinship for some industrialist geezer in Massachusetts.

The answer, as Tonkaed said, and Hitler, is that the North managed to kill more human beins than the South, so they "won".
If the South had won, we would be talikbg about The SEcond War Of Independance and the glorious Jefferson Davis etc

Its all about winning. Please dont think the North were the good guys-they just believed in centralised government/federalism.
LONG LIVE THE FBI AND THE CIA! Thanks a bunch Grant.

Actually, I don't know about them managing to kill more people. One of their main advantages was their outnumbering the Southerners (further compounded when 200,000 slaves joined the Union Army after the Emancipation Proclamation), and one of their main strategies was to just wear the South down. I think it was Grant that would order his men to just charge straight into cannon-fire without a qualm. Not sure about that though.

I should pay more attention to details in class so I can make better Internet arguments... oh and also so I don't fail.

last time I looked it up, I think the unions won while losing more men in just about every area. Check wikipedia, they must have stats that can be checked.