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

Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

Expand Messages
  • Carl Williams
    I have to tell you I got my best laugh of the day out of this one!
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 6 2:12 PM
    • 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 2 of 25 , Feb 6 2:15 PM
      • 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 3 of 25 , Feb 7 10:58 AM
        • 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 4 of 25 , Feb 7 12:59 PM
          • 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 5 of 25 , Feb 7 1:56 PM
            • 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 6 of 25 , Feb 7 2:28 PM
              • 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 7 of 25 , Feb 7 5:40 PM
                • 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 8 of 25 , Feb 8 1:55 PM
                  • 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 9 of 25 , Feb 9 3:54 AM
                    • 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 10 of 25 , Feb 9 8:08 AM
                      • 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 11 of 25 , Feb 9 9:06 AM
                        • 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 12 of 25 , Feb 9 9:37 AM
                          • 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 13 of 25 , Feb 9 9:59 AM
                            • 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 14 of 25 , Feb 9 10:06 AM
                              • 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 15 of 25 , Feb 9 11:27 AM
                                • 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 16 of 25 , Feb 9 4:47 PM
                                  • 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 17 of 25 , Feb 9 6:22 PM
                                    • 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 18 of 25 , Feb 11 8:22 AM
                                      • 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.