Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

Expand Messages
  • Carl Williams
    Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it, seems to be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave Vicksburg in the siege.
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it, seems to
      be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
      Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
      seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
      controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman allowed
      Atlanta to evacuate.

      http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
    • hank9174
      I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;) Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston. Anyone (civilian, disguised
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;)

        Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston.
        Anyone (civilian, disguised soldier, woman or child) may carry verbal
        messages in an attempt to synchronize a breakout attack with relief.
        Grant's position is still a precarious one. He has Vicksburg
        surrounded, but he is surrounded as well.

        Sherman's strategic position at Atlanta is much the stronger than
        Grant's at Vicksburg. Hood has no nearby relief force. In fact, Hood is
        never completely surrounded; even though he is besieged, exits exist
        for civilians. As far as I know, only Scarlett O'Hara uses one...


        HankC

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it, seems to
        > be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
        > Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
        > seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
        > controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman allowed
        > Atlanta to evacuate.
        >
        > http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
        >
      • Carl Williams
        ... I guess we know now what Grant didnt know: that the Vicksburg force was doomed and couriers wouldnt have mattered. ... Hank, I understand your meaning, but
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;)
          >
          > Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston.
          > Anyone (civilian, disguised soldier, woman or child) may carry verbal
          > messages in an attempt to synchronize a breakout attack with relief.



          I guess we know now what Grant didnt know: that the Vicksburg force
          was doomed and couriers wouldnt have mattered.





          > Grant's position is still a precarious one. He has Vicksburg
          > surrounded, but he is surrounded as well.


          Hank, I understand your meaning, but will quibble that "surrounded" is
          not the accurate description for Grant's force, as he had established
          a supply base on the Yazoo.



          > Sherman's strategic position at Atlanta is much the stronger than
          > Grant's at Vicksburg. Hood has no nearby relief force. In fact, Hood is
          > never completely surrounded; even though he is besieged, exits exist
          > for civilians. As far as I know, only Scarlett O'Hara uses one...



          Siege warfare was well studied at the time of the Civil War. There was
          a base of knowledge about it generated from all kinds of early
          European wars. It may be that it was accepted that the citizenry were
          in for the full treatment and that to let them go would have been
          unusual for the time. I don't know myself.
        • brainbent
          ... verbal ... relief. ... Hood is ... exist ... seems to ... allowed ... Allowed Atlanta to evacuate. ? ..only Scarlett O Hara.. ? On the outskirts of
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;)
            >
            > Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston.
            > Anyone (civilian, disguised soldier, woman or child) may carry
            verbal
            > messages in an attempt to synchronize a breakout attack with
            relief.
            > Grant's position is still a precarious one. He has Vicksburg
            > surrounded, but he is surrounded as well.
            >
            > Sherman's strategic position at Atlanta is much the stronger than
            > Grant's at Vicksburg. Hood has no nearby relief force. In fact,
            Hood is
            > never completely surrounded; even though he is besieged, exits
            exist
            > for civilians. As far as I know, only Scarlett O'Hara uses one...
            >
            >
            > HankC
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it,
            seems to
            > > be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
            > > Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
            > > seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
            > > controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman
            allowed
            > > Atlanta to evacuate.
            > >
            > > http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
            > >
            >

            "Allowed Atlanta to evacuate."?

            "..only Scarlett O'Hara.."?

            On the outskirts of Atlanta, Sherman sent word to city officials to
            begin civilian evacuation of the city. When the mayor of Atlanta and
            two city council men begged Sherman not to expel Atlanta's populace,
            he refused:

            [Sherman said,]"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
            War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war
            into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions our people
            can pour out. ..The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once
            more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop fighting, admit
            that you cannot have a division of our country, return to the Union,
            and acknowledge the authority of the national government." (The
            Whirlwind of War, by Stephen Oates, p. 572)
            ---
            I think evicted would be a better term.
          • swan_pat_estelle
            ... On September 14, 1864 Sherman wrote to Hood: [Quote]: I was not bound by the laws of war to give notice of the shelling of Atlanta, a fortified town, with
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "brainbent" <brainbent@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;)
              > >
              > > Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston.
              > > Anyone (civilian, disguised soldier, woman or child) may carry
              > verbal
              > > messages in an attempt to synchronize a breakout attack with
              > relief.
              > > Grant's position is still a precarious one. He has Vicksburg
              > > surrounded, but he is surrounded as well.
              > >
              > > Sherman's strategic position at Atlanta is much the stronger than
              > > Grant's at Vicksburg. Hood has no nearby relief force. In fact,
              > Hood is
              > > never completely surrounded; even though he is besieged, exits
              > exist
              > > for civilians. As far as I know, only Scarlett O'Hara uses one...
              > >
              > >
              > > HankC
              > >
              > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
              > > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it,
              > seems to
              > > > be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
              > > > Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
              > > > seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
              > > > controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman
              > allowed
              > > > Atlanta to evacuate.
              > > >
              > > > http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
              > > >
              > >
              >
              > "Allowed Atlanta to evacuate."?
              >
              > "..only Scarlett O'Hara.."?
              >
              > On the outskirts of Atlanta, Sherman sent word to city officials to
              > begin civilian evacuation of the city. When the mayor of Atlanta and
              > two city council men begged Sherman not to expel Atlanta's populace,
              > he refused:
              >
              > [Sherman said,]"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
              > War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war
              > into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions our people
              > can pour out. ..The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once
              > more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop fighting, admit
              > that you cannot have a division of our country, return to the Union,
              > and acknowledge the authority of the national government." (The
              > Whirlwind of War, by Stephen Oates, p. 572)
              > ---
              > I think evicted would be a better term.

              On September 14, 1864 Sherman wrote to Hood:
              [Quote]: I was not bound by the laws of war to give notice of the
              shelling of Atlanta, a "fortified town, with magazines, arsenals,
              founderies, and public stores;" you were bound to take notice. See
              the gooks. [end of Quote]

              Sherman was apparently quoting from some source that stated the "laws
              of war." Evidently those "laws" treated "fortified cities" differently
              from those that were not fortified, etc.
              >
            • swan_pat_estelle
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "swan_pat_estelle" <pbswan@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "brainbent" <brainbent@> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > I do not know all the details but that never stopped me ;)
                > > >
                > > > Every person leaving Vicksburg is a potential courier to Johnston.
                > > > Anyone (civilian, disguised soldier, woman or child) may carry
                > > verbal
                > > > messages in an attempt to synchronize a breakout attack with
                > > relief.
                > > > Grant's position is still a precarious one. He has Vicksburg
                > > > surrounded, but he is surrounded as well.
                > > >
                > > > Sherman's strategic position at Atlanta is much the stronger than
                > > > Grant's at Vicksburg. Hood has no nearby relief force. In fact,
                > > Hood is
                > > > never completely surrounded; even though he is besieged, exits
                > > exist
                > > > for civilians. As far as I know, only Scarlett O'Hara uses one...
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > HankC
                > > >
                > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it,
                > > seems to
                > > > > be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
                > > > > Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
                > > > > seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
                > > > > controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman
                > > allowed
                > > > > Atlanta to evacuate.
                > > > >
                > > > > http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > "Allowed Atlanta to evacuate."?
                > >
                > > "..only Scarlett O'Hara.."?
                > >
                > > On the outskirts of Atlanta, Sherman sent word to city officials to
                > > begin civilian evacuation of the city. When the mayor of Atlanta and
                > > two city council men begged Sherman not to expel Atlanta's populace,
                > > he refused:
                > >
                > > [Sherman said,]"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
                > > War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war
                > > into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions our people
                > > can pour out. ..The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once
                > > more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop fighting, admit
                > > that you cannot have a division of our country, return to the Union,
                > > and acknowledge the authority of the national government." (The
                > > Whirlwind of War, by Stephen Oates, p. 572)
                > > ---
                > > I think evicted would be a better term.
                >
                > On September 14, 1864 Sherman wrote to Hood:
                > [Quote]: I was not bound by the laws of war to give notice of the
                > shelling of Atlanta, a "fortified town, with magazines, arsenals,
                > founderies, and public stores;" you were bound to take notice. See
                > the gooks. [end of Quote]
                >
                > Sherman was apparently quoting from some source that stated the "laws
                > of war." Evidently those "laws" treated "fortified cities" differently
                > from those that were not fortified, etc.
                > >
                >Oops! He said "See the Books, not gooks!!
              • Doug Newman
                ... to ... allowed ... I recently finished some research concerning Vicksburg and the siege - My sources suggest that based on church funeral and funeral
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Trying to answer this myself without knowing a lot about it, seems
                  to
                  > be the case that Grant did not offer to let the citizens leave
                  > Vicksburg in the siege. The following account from Shotgun's site
                  > seems to just assume we knew that. Not much of a hint that it was
                  > controversial, although I believe it is the case that Sherman
                  allowed
                  > Atlanta to evacuate.
                  >
                  > http://civilwarhome.com/insidevicksburg.htm
                  >
                  I recently finished some research concerning Vicksburg and the siege -
                  My sources suggest that based on church funeral and "funeral home"
                  records a total of roughly 12 - one dozen - civilians died as a
                  result of the bombardment.

                  I was astonished and had thought the total would be much higher. It
                  appears that the 19th century bomb shelters - .e.e. caves were very
                  effective. It's true conditioners were horrible - one diarist noted
                  that Union gunners stopped shelling three times a day to eat - The
                  Vicksburg residents cooked and ate at these times. This person also
                  notes that there was no time for anything else - such as laundry.
                  Union soldiers also complained about the need to bath and longed for
                  the day when they could use the river to bath.

                  For those people who haven't yet visited Vicksburg, I suggest it's
                  well worth the time and money. Reading Grant's Memoirs - at least
                  the parts concerning Vicksburg will help with prospective. Like all
                  Civil War battlefields, the intervening time - about 145 years takes
                  it toll the topography.

                  A final note - When in Vicksburg - be sure to check out the Old Court
                  House AND Anchuca House (Town home of Joseph Davis - Jeff Davis'
                  brother) It's an excellent Bed and Breakfast. Also, if the
                  accomodations are too spendy, Anchuca House operates an first rate
                  resturant.
                • Carl Williams
                  I have to tell you I got my best laugh of the day out of this one!
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have to tell you I got my best laugh of the day out of this one!


                    > > >
                    > >Oops! He said "See the Books, not gooks!!
                    >
                  • Carl Williams
                    I m thinking they begged him not to *burn the city*, and that was what made Sherman say what he did.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Feb 6, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm thinking they begged him not to *burn the city*, and that was what
                      made Sherman say what he did.


                      > On the outskirts of Atlanta, Sherman sent word to city officials to
                      > begin civilian evacuation of the city. When the mayor of Atlanta and
                      > two city council men begged Sherman not to expel Atlanta's populace,
                      > he refused:
                      >
                      > [Sherman said,]"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
                      > War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war
                      > into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions our people
                      > can pour out. ..The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once
                      > more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop fighting, admit
                      > that you cannot have a division of our country, return to the Union,
                      > and acknowledge the authority of the national government." (The
                      > Whirlwind of War, by Stephen Oates, p. 572)
                      > ---
                      > I think evicted would be a better term.
                      >
                    • brainbent
                      ... what ... to ... and ... populace, ... will. ... war ... people ... admit ... Union, ... The mayor begged Sherman not to evict the entire remaining civilian
                      Message 10 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm thinking they begged him not to *burn the city*, and that was
                        what
                        > made Sherman say what he did.
                        >
                        >
                        > > On the outskirts of Atlanta, Sherman sent word to city officials
                        to
                        > > begin civilian evacuation of the city. When the mayor of Atlanta
                        and
                        > > two city council men begged Sherman not to expel Atlanta's
                        populace,
                        > > he refused:
                        > >
                        > > [Sherman said,]"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I
                        will.
                        > > War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought
                        war
                        > > into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions our
                        people
                        > > can pour out. ..The only way the people of Atlanta can hope once
                        > > more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop fighting,
                        admit
                        > > that you cannot have a division of our country, return to the
                        Union,
                        > > and acknowledge the authority of the national government." (The
                        > > Whirlwind of War, by Stephen Oates, p. 572)
                        > > ---
                        > > I think evicted would be a better term.
                        > >
                        >
                        The mayor begged Sherman not to evict the entire remaining civilian
                        population. They were sent down the road with what they could load
                        and/or carry.

                        There are several communication between Hood and Sherman on this
                        topic.

                        Not burn - drive out the civilians.
                      • keeno2@aol.com
                        In a message dated 2/7/2008 12:58:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, brainbent@yahoo.com writes: Not burn - drive out the civilians. Sherman could be cold. I m
                        Message 11 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 2/7/2008 12:58:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, brainbent@... writes:
                          Not burn - drive out the civilians.
                          Sherman could be cold. I'm still wrestling with how much of it was punishment and how much of it was that he simply didn't want civilians mixing with his soldiers. Lots of potential trouble from both sides in that situation.
                           
                          ken



                        • swan_pat_estelle
                          ... civilians mixing with his ... Another problem may have been how to feed all of them. Certainly, he didn t intend to maintain the supply line from
                          Message 12 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > In a message dated 2/7/2008 12:58:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                            > brainbent@... writes:
                            >
                            > Not burn - drive out the civilians.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Sherman could be cold. I'm still wrestling with how much of it was
                            > punishment and how much of it was that he simply didn't want
                            civilians mixing with his
                            > soldiers. Lots of potential trouble from both sides in that situation.
                            >
                            > ken

                            Another problem may have been how to feed all of them. Certainly, he
                            didn't intend to maintain the supply line from Chattanooga.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
                            Music.
                            >
                            (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
                            > 48)
                            >
                          • hank9174
                            from http://www.civilwarhome.com/atlantaevacuation.htm : My real reasons for this step were, we want all the houses of Atlanta for military storage and
                            Message 13 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              from http://www.civilwarhome.com/atlantaevacuation.htm :

                              "My real reasons for this step were, we want all the houses of
                              Atlanta for military storage and occupation.

                              We want to contract the lines of defenses so as to diminish the
                              garrison to the limit necessary to defend its narrow and vital parts
                              instead of embracing, as the lines now do, the vast suburbs.

                              This contraction of the lines, with the necessary citadels and
                              redoubts, will make it necessary to destroy the very houses used by
                              families as residences. Atlanta is a fortified town, was stubbornly
                              defended and fairly captured.

                              As captors we have a right to it.

                              The residence here of a poor population would compel us sooner or
                              later to feed them or see them starve under our eyes. The residence
                              here of the families of our enemies would be a temptation and a means
                              to keep up a correspondence dangerous and hurtful to our cause, and a
                              civil population calls for provost guards, and absorbs the attention
                              of officers in listening to everlasting complaints and special
                              grievances that are not military.

                              These are my reasons, and if satisfactory to the Government of the
                              United States it makes no difference whether it pleases General Hood
                              and his people or not."


                              HankC
                              http://civilwarmissouri.blogspot.com/

                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "swan_pat_estelle" <pbswan@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@ wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > In a message dated 2/7/2008 12:58:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                              > > brainbent@ writes:
                              > >
                              > > Not burn - drive out the civilians.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Sherman could be cold. I'm still wrestling with how much of it
                              was
                              > > punishment and how much of it was that he simply didn't want
                              > civilians mixing with his
                              > > soldiers. Lots of potential trouble from both sides in that
                              situation.
                              > >
                              > > ken
                              >
                              > Another problem may have been how to feed all of them. Certainly,
                              he
                              > didn't intend to maintain the supply line from Chattanooga.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
                              > Music.
                              > >
                              > (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?
                              NCID=aolcmp003000000025
                              > > 48)
                              > >
                              >
                            • keeno2@aol.com
                              In a message dated 2/7/2008 3:57:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, pbswan@bellsouth.net writes: Another problem may have been how to feed all of them.
                              Message 14 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 2/7/2008 3:57:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, pbswan@... writes:
                                Another problem may have been how to feed all of them.  Certainly, he didn't intend to maintain the supply line from Chattanooga.
                                Excellent point. I didn't think of that! Let them consume Hood's rations. Thanks.
                                 
                                ken



                              • brainbent
                                ... Certainly, he didn t ... rations. ... Music. ... NCID=aolcmp003000000025 ... Hood went in the opposite direction, he wasn t going to feed them either. It
                                Message 15 of 25 , Feb 8, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 2/7/2008 3:57:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                                  > pbswan@... writes:
                                  >
                                  > Another problem may have been how to feed all of them.
                                  Certainly, he didn't
                                  > intend to maintain the supply line from Chattanooga.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Excellent point. I didn't think of that! Let them consume Hood's
                                  rations.
                                  > Thanks.
                                  >
                                  > ken
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
                                  Music.
                                  > (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?
                                  NCID=aolcmp003000000025
                                  > 48)
                                  >

                                  Hood went in the opposite direction, he wasn't going to feed them
                                  either.

                                  It was more psychological than logistical.

                                  All out war being waged on the South, including civilians.
                                • Carl Williams
                                  ... in two different situations, that s for sure. I guess the way Atlanta was different was that the battle for it was over, any siege was over, and the
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    > Hood went in the opposite direction, he wasn't going to feed them
                                    > either.
                                    >
                                    > It was more psychological than logistical.
                                    >
                                    > All out war being waged on the South, including civilians.
                                    >

                                    in two different situations, that's for sure.

                                    I guess the way Atlanta was different was that the battle for it was
                                    over, any siege was over, and the civilians suffered a *forced*
                                    relocation in addition to Sherman burning the city.
                                  • keeno2@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 2/9/2008 5:54:43 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo.com writes: and the civilians suffered a *forced* relocation in addition to
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 2/9/2008 5:54:43 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@... writes:
                                      and the civilians suffered a *forced* relocation in addition to Sherman burning the city.
                                      Sherman did not "burn" Atlanta. What he burned was anything of military value that Hood didn't burn or blow up. Some of that spread to civilian areas. In total, I've read, Sherman's men were responsible for burning 30 percent of the city. That's a goodly chunk, bur it hardly equates to "burning the city."



                                    • Carl Williams
                                      OK, well, a point worth making. Sherman burned a chunk of Atlanta might be how I should say it from now on. Is forced relocation accurate? Presumably these
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        OK, well, a point worth making. 'Sherman burned a chunk of Atlanta'
                                        might be how I should say it from now on.

                                        Is "forced relocation" accurate? Presumably these citizens didnt just
                                        watch from the sidelines and then just march back in?

                                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:

                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Sherman did not "burn" Atlanta. What he burned was anything of
                                        military
                                        > value that Hood didn't burn or blow up. Some of that spread to
                                        civilian areas. In
                                        > total, I've read, Sherman's men were responsible for burning 30
                                        percent of
                                        > the city. That's a goodly chunk, bur it hardly equates to "burning
                                        the city."
                                      • keeno2@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:07:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo.com writes: Is forced relocation accurate? Presumably these citizens didnt
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:07:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@... writes:
                                          Is "forced relocation" accurate? Presumably these citizens didnt just watch from the sidelines and then just march back in?

                                          Someone said "eviction." I thought that was accurate. Apparently, when Sherman left, Atlantans did go back.



                                        • Ricky Washburn
                                          If sherman only burnt 30% of Atlanta, and thats not burning the city, then maybe the case of Meridian MS. might be an example of burning a city, with only 3
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            If sherman only burnt 30% of Atlanta, and thats not burning the city, then maybe the case of Meridian MS. might be an example of burning a city, with only 3 houses left in the city.


                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                            Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                            http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                          • keeno2@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:59:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, rwwiv@yahoo.com writes: If sherman only burnt 30% of Atlanta, and thats not burning the city,
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:59:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, rwwiv@... writes:
                                              If sherman only burnt 30% of Atlanta, and thats not burning the city, then maybe the case of Meridian MS. might be an example of burning a city, with only 3 houses left in the city.
                                              Good example. THAT's burning a city .... well, a town .... OK, a cluster of homes. Your point?
                                               
                                              ken



                                            • David Wall
                                              Which brings up a question: did Sherman leave a garrison at Atlanta? If so were they ordered to keep civilians out? I guess that was two questions. To:
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Which brings up a question: did Sherman leave a garrison at Atlanta? If so were they ordered to keep civilians out? I guess that was two questions.




                                                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                                From: keeno2@...
                                                Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:37:25 -0500
                                                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

                                                In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:07:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo. com writes:
                                                Is "forced relocation" accurate? Presumably these citizens didnt just watch from the sidelines and then just march back in?

                                                Someone said "eviction." I thought that was accurate. Apparently, when Sherman left, Atlantans did go back.




                                              • NPeters102@aol.com
                                                In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:09:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, keeno2@aol.com writes: Sherman did not burn Atlanta. What he burned was anything of
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:09:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, keeno2@... writes:
                                                  Sherman did not "burn" Atlanta. What he burned was anything of military value that Hood didn't burn or blow up. Some of that spread to civilian areas. In total, I've read, Sherman's men were responsible for burning 30 percent of the city. That's a goodly chunk, bur it hardly equates to "burning the city."
                                                   
                                                  And some of the fires were started by the Confederates.
                                                   
                                                  Respectfully,

                                                  Mike Peters
                                                  npeters102@...



                                                • Ronald black
                                                  No, Sherman did not leave a garrison at Atlanta. Thats the point. He cut his ties with the federal forces in Tennessee, no supply lines, no body could
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    No, Sherman did not leave a garrison at Atlanta.  Thats the point.  He cut his ties with the federal forces in Tennessee, no supply lines, no body could contact him until he got to Savannah.  They did not know where he was.  Hood's campaign after the fall of Atlanra, against Sherman's line of communications between Chattanooga and Atlanta helped Sherman in making his decision to abandon Atlanta.  Another example of how Hood was destroying the western confederate army.  
                                                    Ron  
                                                     
                                                    -- Original Message -----
                                                    Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:27 PM
                                                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

                                                    Which brings up a question: did Sherman leave a garrison at Atlanta? If so were they ordered to keep civilians out? I guess that was two questions.




                                                    To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                                    From: keeno2@...
                                                    Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:37:25 -0500
                                                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

                                                    In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:07:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo. com writes:
                                                    Is "forced relocation" accurate? Presumably these citizens didnt just watch from the sidelines and then just march back in?

                                                    Someone said "eviction." I thought that was accurate. Apparently, when Sherman left, Atlantans did go back.





                                                    No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                                    Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1267 - Release Date: 2/8/2008 8:12 PM
                                                  • brainbent
                                                    Actually, Sherman did persue Hood for a while before giving up and heading to Savannah. He detached Schofield and the Army of the Ohio to assist Thomas in
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Feb 11, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Actually, Sherman did persue Hood for a while before giving up and
                                                      heading to Savannah.

                                                      He detached Schofield and the Army of the Ohio to assist Thomas in
                                                      dealing with Hood, while he took what was considered the best of his
                                                      fighting force to deal with the boys and old men of the Georgia
                                                      State Guard.




                                                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
                                                      wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > No, Sherman did not leave a garrison at Atlanta. Thats the
                                                      point. He cut his ties with the federal forces in Tennessee, no
                                                      supply lines, no body could contact him until he got to Savannah.
                                                      They did not know where he was. Hood's campaign after the fall of
                                                      Atlanra, against Sherman's line of communications between
                                                      Chattanooga and Atlanta helped Sherman in making his decision to
                                                      abandon Atlanta. Another example of how Hood was destroying the
                                                      western confederate army.
                                                      > Ron
                                                      >
                                                      > -- Original Message -----
                                                      > From: David Wall
                                                      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:27 PM
                                                      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and
                                                      shelled Civilians
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Which brings up a question: did Sherman leave a garrison at
                                                      Atlanta? If so were they ordered to keep civilians out? I guess that
                                                      was two questions.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      ---------
                                                      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > From: keeno2@...
                                                      > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:37:25 -0500
                                                      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped
                                                      and shelled Civilians
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > In a message dated 2/9/2008 11:07:07 A.M. Central Standard
                                                      Time, carlw4514@... writes:
                                                      > Is "forced relocation" accurate? Presumably these citizens
                                                      didnt just watch from the sidelines and then just march back in?
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Someone said "eviction." I thought that was accurate.
                                                      Apparently, when Sherman left, Atlantans did go back.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      ---------
                                                      > Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on
                                                      AOL Music.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      -----------
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                                      > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1267 - Release
                                                      Date: 2/8/2008 8:12 PM
                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.