The American Civil War

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Sherman had similar goals but I think that on the whole he was more restrained than the Allied strategic air forces in WW2. Bomber Harris spoke unequivocally about "de-housing" the German civilian population and the USAAF most certainly "de-housed" millions of Japanese civilians in most of Japan's cities. In most of the cities he passed through, Sherman did not burn down everyone's homes - Columbia in South Carolina was not typical. Even in Columbia I note that the Union soldiers made the people leave their houses and burned their houses down afterwards, showing that the aim was looting and arson, but stopped short of actual murder. But mostly he destroyed infractructure and industrial property. It was however a modern war strategy and like later military leaders Sherman was struggling precariously to find a balance between being effective and retaining minimum standards of humanity.

In his own words, written after the war had ended:

Carthago delenda est. Scipio Africanus set the standard.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Carthago delenda est. Scipio Africanus set the standard.

But Cato made the call....

[madgoose66]

Grant and Sherman ended up fighting the next war, which is why they were successful. The Civil War was a meat grinder because tactics didn't change with technology. Sherman's tactics in the 20th century would be considered tame. He changed the rules of the 19th century as much as the American Colonist using Indian tactics against the British.

On the question on the Japanese a lot had to do with:

1) The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany never attacked the US, they just declared war.

2) The Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, Banzai charges, Kamikazes, fake surrendering, civilian suicides, etc...... The Japanese were 1000% more viscous. They had never been conquered and they weren't going to surrender. When it became abundantly clear they were facing complete annihilation and could save the Emperor was when they finally capitulated.

Japan suffered massive starvation for years after the war. Imagine if they didn't surrender and Operation Downfall went forward. They might barely be a country today. MacArthur got food stuffs released immediately to help prevent complete collapse.

[KissArmy]

Just read an interesting article about how recent research showed the families who were large slaveholding plantation owners before the war, recovered better than all the other Southerners within 20 years of the Civil War's end. Not so sure about that, but the article is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-po...=.a632625ecb35. An interesting read!

[banquomerc]

quite true, the Redeemers political stance gained momentum and with the North divided between Radical and moderate Republicans and a feckless Johnson and clueless Grant, the stage was set for over a century of hate (still going tho needs to be extinguished once Trump leaves).

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Budo

Just to build on this previous comment. I remember a scene in the drama mini-series "North and South", where a slave actually returns home after escaping to the north where he believed he could find a better life, where he was led to believe that the people up north would treat him fairer due to them protesting against slavery. Well, he's shown to be extremely depressed and disillusioned, because he says that the people up north treated him as badly as they did down south. It's suggested (I'd say pretty accurately) that the Civil War wasn't fought for the benefits of the slaves, but because the southern plantations were seen as unfairly undercutting the north by using slave labour. In other words, it was all about money and business rather than for moralistic reasons.

North and South is a work of fiction. I strongly doubt if many, if any escaped slaves voluntarily returned to their former masters in the South having once got clean away. Of course, after the passing of the odious Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a lot of escaped slaves carried on running until they reached Canada, where the British colonial authorities were beyond the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, where any pursuing soldiers and police from the United States would be firmly instructed to combine sex with travel.

I can remember reading of one case where a fugitive slave returned to his former plantation home, but this was in 1863 and this plantation, located in Tennessee, had just fallen to the advancing Union army. The returning former slave was now a sergeant in a black regiment of the Union Army and he came to his alma mater with a few of his regiment. They captured the slave overseer, who foolishly hadn't run for it when the bluecoats were on the horizon. They hanged him like a dog, as payment for various favours he had done for the slaves under his control in years past.

[Budo]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

North and South is a work of fiction. I strongly doubt if many, if any escaped slaves voluntarily returned to their former masters in the South having once got clean away. Of course, after the passing of the odious Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a lot of escaped slaves carried on running until they reached Canada, where the British colonial authorities were beyond the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, where any pursuing soldiers and police from the United States would be firmly instructed to combine sex with travel.

I can remember reading of one case where a fugitive slave returned to his former plantation home, but this was in 1863 and this plantation, located in Tennessee, had just fallen to the advancing Union army. The returning former slave was now a sergeant in a black regiment of the Union Army and he came to his alma mater with a few of his regiment. They captured the slave overseer, who foolishly hadn't run for it when the bluecoats were on the horizon. They hanged him like a dog, as payment for various favours he had done for the slaves under his control in years past.

This is what I was worried about when I made the post, that people would think that I was mistaking the show for historical fact. But more fool me, I decided that no one would consider me that stupid, would they?! I was trying to point out that the writers were making a comment, that the war, just like most wars aren't fought for ethical reasons like freeing slaves or stopping genocidal madmen, but rather because the instigators have profits as their main or even only reason. Same with WWII that this post was originally supposed to connect to, that no matter what war you're talking about it's all about money and power up the top.

[CanisMantis]

Watching History Of The World Part 21 reminds me of a point that I have made regarding the Civil War in the United States. There has been an ongoing debate in America about why the war was fought. The prevailing opinion---and the one most widely taught in schools---is that the war was fought over slavery. This is true. But with a very big asterisk. The war between the States was fought over the issue of slavery. With a minority of exceptions (i.e. The Underground Railroad), the war was fought with the belief that the legality of slavery was paramount in determining where a state would land in the debate, and therefore on which side of the war. It was never fought because of the horrific and dehumanizing nature of slavery. The average soldier in the North was not, in his mind, fighting to free the slaves. It was a matter of secession, unity and keeping the nation intact in the face of simmering threats from Europe and Mexico. The evil of slavery and its effect on the people ravaged by it were of little concern...unless it served some political end. Even Lincoln agonized more about the nation's fracturing than he did about the plight of men, women and children stolen from their homeland and subjected to abuse and torture. I would spend my life savings betting on it.

1 Yeah. The show is a parody, not a history lesson. But you'd be surprised at how much they get correct.