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

Re: Vicksburg, Grant and trapped and shelled Civilians

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
      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 2 of 25 , Feb 7, 2008
        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 3 of 25 , Feb 8, 2008
          --- 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 4 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
            >
            > 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 5 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
              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 6 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                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 7 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                  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 8 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                    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 9 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                      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 10 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                        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 11 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                          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 12 of 25 , Feb 9, 2008
                            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 13 of 25 , Feb 11, 2008
                              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.