I’ve lived in the South all my life. I had no trouble comprehending the meaning of “hate-all-others” Southerners. I understand there is a distinct group of Southerners who are unambiguously disgusting bigots, and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have no fear of accidentally getting mistaken for one of them. I wonder why you do.
Actually, I meant it in the sense of the immediate pre-, during, post-war era. So, say, 1850s-1880s.
Huh. I understood for your OP that by referring to the Confederacy, you meant the South up to and including the Civil War - the so-called “culture” they were trying to preserve.
Anyway, now that we’re out of CS, it’s not really relevant any more.
Hello. This was the sentence in question.
I’d say that “the antebellum South” includes the entire region, so seeing the other eras (“the Jim-Crow South” etc.) as region-wide is an understandable interpretation. BUT! It’s almost impossible to think that Exapno was also saying, “Fuck the slaves,” so taking his remark to include All Southerners is, ultimately, a flawed interpretation.
I kinda doubt he even meant to include every white Southern. So, outrage is unwarranted, but slightly understandable.
Union soldiers kill Confederate soldiers in battle. Well, that’s just war, bub.
Union soldiers destroy property to break the economic back of the Confederate soldiers and end the war with less killing: WAR CRIME!
Sorry, not seeing why destroying property is a war crime.
And cooler uniforms.
Not to mention the lure of the underdog.
Maybe people will stop glorifying Shelby Footes Southern apologist books.
True, I mean attacking the Founders are they owned quite common perfectly legal slaves is ridiculous. That was then.
We will be considered evil as “we” enslaved chimps and dolphins.
As to the last part, that’s what I meant by Nazi Germany and the CSA (Imperial Japan too) not being good at war on the strategic level.
However on the tactical level CSA and Germans through most of the ACW and WWII tended to be tactically superior to their enemies, more effective per unit of combat power though not as much at the end of those conflicts as the beginning. That was also true of the Japanese Army and Navy (and each services air forces) in the early part of the Pacific War but distinctly less so later on or the other way around.
It wasn’t just a matter of opponents being unprepared or wanting peace. It persisted through most of the ACW and WWII as to the Confederates and Germans v. their land opponents at least (and in the air in WWII) though the margin of tactical superiority declined toward the end in both cases as the overall bad military situation began to seriously affect the basic functioning of Confederate and German forces. The IJA and IJN’s generally superior performance combat power for combat power v. Allied opponents early in the Pac War went away faster, partly because the Japanese generally fell behind the Allies in intra-war weapons and electronics development faster than the Germans did, which was important in that war, v. intra-war technical developments not as significant a factor in the ACW.
nm
There are a lot more songs about outlaws than lawmen.
A racist murderer, known liar, and commiter of war crimes, who was actually a bad general. (But to give him his due, pretty good at cavalry raids).
“Oh, he repudiated the KKK”- :rolleyes:only after being strongarmed into it.
“he gave a wonderful speech to some blacks once!”:rolleyes: Maybe, but does that make up for murdering them, torturing them, and selling them?
If there was any justice, he woudl have hanged for Fort Pillow.
Very cool- altho not very practical.
The South had more Zouaves than the North, iirc. But I was thinking of SS uniforms.
Because in this case, you’re attacking civilians, rather than other soldiers.
Tearing up the railroads that take supplies to the troops is not attacking civilians. It’s destroying the infrastructure that allows the CSA to carry on its war.
Capturing food supplies that will support the CSA troops and enable them to fight is a war measure.
Destroying the economy that supports the CSA troops is a war measure.
Blockading the southern ports so the southern economy collapses is a war measure.
Freeing slaves and turning from property into freemen is a war measure, even though it will destroy “capital investments” and the plantation economy.
Yeah, the whingeing over Sherman is more trying to cast the South as the poor put-upon underdog. Destroying your enemy’s capacity to continue to sustain the war effort is by-the-book strategic warfare.
And the South stared it with their calvary raids, not to mention terrorists like Quantrill & “Bloody Bill” Anderson.
Just that Sherman had the manpower to make it more than a “raid”.
I really don’t think it is in the interest of the Confederate apologists to throw around terms like war crimes. When Lee marched north, he seized every black he could as “contraband.” It didn’t matter if they were ever enslaved (not that it matters) or not. Black people became property of the Confederate Army.
When you find yourself sticking up for an army marching through America enslaving its people, take a step back and examine your values.
If Sherman’s actions were a war crime, so were many US actions in WWII, such as the bombings or Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki (which is admittedly arguable). While these cities had some military value, they were targeted, and large numbers of civilians were killed, largely to destroy the morale of the enemy. This was the primary motivation of Sherman’s actions.
Sherman’s orders instructed that homes and other property should only be destroyed in areas that showed hostility to the advancing army, such as guerrilla attacks, burning bridges, etc., and that horses, mules, and wagons should be taken preferentially from the rich, who were hostile, rather than the poor who were neutral or friendly. Now these orders in practice were often ignored, but Sherman did not order indiscriminate destruction.
If Sherman’s march is upsetting, I can’t imagine how outraged one must be by this kind of behavior: