McDonnell declares April Confederate History Month..

Great! He's seriously making me ashamed to live here with each move, this is embarrassing to me.


(CNN) - For the first time in eight years, Virginia's Republican governor has issued a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month in the state, drawing criticism from Democrats and a civil rights group.

"It is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present," Gov. Robert McDonnell's seven-paragraph proclamation reads in part.

He quietly made the declaration after two previous Democratic administrations refused to do so.

"This defining chapter in Virginia's history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians," the governor's proclamation reads.

It does not mention slavery.

"I wish he would have followed the examples of Gov. [Mark] Warner and Gov. [Tim] Kaine, but obviously he has declined to do so," state Sen. Don McEachin, a Democrat, told CNN affiliate WWBT. "I also find it interesting that while he issues his proclamation, there's no mention of slavery."

The Virginia chapter of the NAACP also condemned the proclamation, The Washington Post reported. The group did not immediately return phone calls to CNN.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans asked the governor to declare the month Confederate History Month. Virginia seceded from the union on April 17, 1861.

Brandon Dorsey, a spokesman for the group, told CNN Radio that Confederate History Month isn't about slavery or race, but about studying the 4-year history of the Confederacy. He said it will also help draw visitors to the many Civil War battle sites in Virginia, helping to boost tourism.

"The proclamation's main goal is to call attention to the fact that there is Confederate history in the state of Virginia, of course, across the South. It's simply a tool to expose individuals to that history. It's not a mandate in any way. It's a symbolic gesture."

He said the group doesn't consider the history of the Confederacy or Virginia's Confederate History Month racially divisive. "It's not meant to discriminate against anybody," he said.

He said that the Confederacy wasn't about continuing the institution of slavery, but that it was really about the states' rights vs. the rights of the federal government. He said there were abolitionists in the group.

Other Southern states have issued similar proclamations for April. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley declared April, the month the Civil War began, as Confederate History and Heritage Month. The statement condemns slavery.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Virginia governor declares April as Confederate History Month - Blogs from CNN.com

Why is it embarrassing? The Civil War played a huge part in shaping our history, denying it happened would be like denying all the fallen veterans from this area that fought in the war. It doesn't mean that we are racist, it means that we are embracing our history.

I'm not denying it happened, its just something I'm ashamed my state was part of. We were on the losing end of a fight for slavery, that's nothing I'm proud of or think should be celebrated. Virginia has and continues to live in the past when it comes to things like this, we're about 50 years behind when it comes to major social issues, history of intolerance in a lot of ways...that's something I'm ashamed of, I love this state with a passion, but that part I hate. McDonnell keeps solidifying my belief of being to the right of a Rush Limbaugh, from his budget cuts, to his essay about women working outside the home being damaging to the family, to this...its scary, but sadly represents a good deal of this area.

To think that the Civil War was only about slavery is terribly narrow minded.

Anyone who thinks that the Civil War was over white southerners wanting to have black slaves please go back and read history again. The only slavery was the north wanting to enslave the south.

Kind of reminds me of how this end of the state breaks their back to just send money upstate and reaps none of the benefits.

I don't necessarily agree with all of McDonnell's policies either. What keeps you in Virginia? Racism is not just in Virginia, it is everywhere.

Ah yes, the war of Northern Agression! Lmao. Were there smaller underlying reasons? Sure. The war boiled down to slavery without a doubt, we were on the wrong end and the losing end, I'm happy we lost too. The south had nothing and it wasn't the North's fault, they invested in factories and technology, we had our money in slaves and land. We want to blame the North now just like Monkeyhead just did, but how much do we really contribute? There isn't even enough jobs here to think we contribute all that much to the state, we have a much smaller population to that doesn't need as much money either.

One of these days your going to here that POP sound, the one where your head finally pops out your backside lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmo99

I don't necessarily agree with all of McDonnell's policies either. What keeps you in Virginia? Racism is not just in Virginia, it is everywhere.

---

What do you agree with really? He's proposed cuts to programs for lower income people(a lot of seniors also) and 1/3 of it was to education, his policies really scare me. And like I said, I love Virginia, born and raised here and literally all of my family is from here to Northern VA...there's just some aspects of it that I am embarrassed of, we've been very intolerant of a lot of groups of people, we're behind in the times in a lot of areas and an extremely conservative in this area. We have a certain reputation with outsiders, this furthers it.

So because we have different views than others outside our little hillbilly nation, that makes us wrong?

What ever happened to free speach and freedom of expression? Or does that only apply to liberals, gays, and such?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeyhead

So because we have different views than others outside our little hillbilly nation, that makes us wrong?

What ever happened to free speach and freedom of expression? Or does that only apply to liberals, gays, and such?

---

When your 'different views' is racism, xenophobic, homophobic etc...it is wrong, its not a matter of opinion, its wrong and disgusting.

I don't care what they say or express, that's their right just like you said, but intolerance shouldn't be dressed up as just "our views".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeyhead

One of these days your going to here that POP sound, the one where your head finally pops out your backside lol.

---

Why? Because I'm not ignoring that we are very intolerant? And not na?ve enough to think we actually bring that much to the table in this state? That its really them keeping us up and not the other way around? That we have much fewer jobs and less people and don't need as much(but I agree we need more)? And that its our fault that no one wants to open up shop here and that we can do more so that people don't have to hightail it out of here for oppotunity? That we need to stop whining about how unfair we have it(esp when in reality we have it pretty well compared to a lot of places) and take some responsibility and do something about it?

You mention the factories and etc. in the North at that time. Do you know part of the reason why? Taxation. At that time about 80% of the worlds cotton was being produced in southern states. Washington decided to hike federal taxes on it, and turned those into infrastructure improvements in the North, and reinvested little of that money in the south. There was just as many Southerners at that time ready to shut down slavery as there were Northerners wanting to keep it going, or just ship them all back to Africa. It was very similar to the same reasons we rebelled from England, and I'm sure your glad to celebrate that.

I dont like McDonnell at all, after his essay about women and the workplace, I cant stand him. He is terrible.
But this is not about celebrating Southern slavery or anything like that, its a recognition of our state in the history of the United States. We arent appreciating what happened in the South at the time, we are appreciating the loss of life that led to our nation being unified and more advanced.

While I am not sure about declaring a month Confederate History Month, I do believe there is nothing wrong with recognizing the history of our state.

And the Civil War....
The main reason always boils down to slavery. Not because the South was so intent on enslaving black people, but because the economy of the South at the time almost had to have slaves to be profitable. With the invention of the cotton gin, the South went through a great shift. The tobacco farms started to dwindle while the cotton plantations became the most efficient, most profitable form of income.
It was not just about slavery in the South either, it was the conflict about newer states and their slavery laws.

With the expansion of the country, there was always a huge debate about newer states adopting slavery. The events surrounding the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854? (im pretty sure, maybe 1855), it led to a growing divide between the abolitionsists and the pro-slavery contentions. With the discussion about slavery on the forefront, the agression between the two sides became even more heated.
The fugitive slave act was also a HUGE deal, adding even more tension to the situation. The abolitionsists fought hard against the Fugitive Slave Act, while the slave-holding states were intent on getting the act passed, which it was.

Furthermore, states rights became a huge issue. The South wanted the government reduced and the states to have the ability to run without interference, basically a soverign country with agreements with the rest of the states.

And Stripes I am not sure about what you are referring to. There was a 1/8 cent tax hike per pound on cotton, but it was implemented to try and raise money to pay back a $15 million dollar loan. But the South already had their voluntary embargo working at high pace, therefore only $30,000 was raised by the new tax.

So, if I had to say one reason for slavery, it would be cotton, not slavery.

Virginia governor apologizes for slavery 'omission'

by Virginie Montet Virginie Montet ? 2 hrs 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) ? Amid growing national criticism, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell apologized for not acknowledging slavery in a proclamation he signed declaring April "Confederate History Month."

McDonnell recognized he had made a "major omission" in not citing slavery, a practice that sparked the 1861-1865 Civil War between the Union of 20 free states and five border slave states and the 11 southern slave states that declared they were seceding to form a Confederacy.

"The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed," McDonnell said in a statement.

"The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War. Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation."

But the Republican governor did not rescind his original statement, instead adding language that recognized slavery had started the Civil War.

His largely symbolic proclamation, seen as a move to build up support among conservatives, had revived controversy over Virginia's Confederate past and angered civil rights leaders.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine, McDonnell's predecessor, said the move showed Republicans were insensitive to racial concerns.

McDonnell's two Democratic predecessors had refused to issue the declaration honoring soldiers who fought for the South during the Civil War out of concern it would insult African-Americans, who make up around 20 percent of the state's population.

In explaining his decision, McDonnell initially said Tuesday the proclamation would help boost tourism in Virginia ahead of the war's 150th anniversary next year. Virginia was the site of many of the war's battles and the state capital Richmond also served as the Confederate capital.

The governor said he did not refer to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones that I thought were most significant for Virginia."

The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) both condemned McDonnell's decision.

NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous said the move "disrespects history and the people of Virginia."

In apologizing for his initial proclamation, McDonnell announced he was revising the text to add a paragraph criticizing slavery.

"It is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history," the new paragraph read.

Some Virginia lawmakers were not satisfied.

"He has a right to apologize, but I don't accept that. This is a pattern of this governor. He says the wrong thing. He makes an apology. This has happened many, many times," Democratic Virginia state Senator Henry Marsh told CNN.

"I expect respect from him toward me and my constituents. If he continues to do this, I'm not going to believe his apologies. So far, he's starting on the wrong foot."

Doug Wilder, the first elected African-American governor in US history, told CNN he welcomed McDonnell's apology and revisions to the declaration.

"I think it's the right thing for him to have done, because most people recognize that slavery was the cause of the war," said Wilder, who removed Confederate insignia from Virginia National Guard uniforms when he served as the state's governor in the early 1990s.

But Richard Hines of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that had urged McDonnell to make his declaration, said the governor "deserves a great deal of credit for issuing the confederate history month proclamation and he certainly hasn't retracted that."

Virginia is dotted with Civil War battlefields and is seeking to promote its struggling museums, which include the "White House" of the Confederacy that was once home to Confederate leader Jefferson Davis.

Virginia governor apologizes for slavery 'omission' - Yahoo! News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

And Stripes I am not sure about what you are referring to. There was a 1/8 cent tax hike per pound on cotton, but it was implemented to try and raise money to pay back a $15 million dollar loan. But the South already had their voluntary embargo working at high pace, therefore only $30,000 was raised by the new tax.

---

The southern states were where 80% if not more of the countries imports/exports took place. Because of that southern businessmen were being hit with the greatest percentage of tariffs due to this. Free trade had been a huge deal for many southern businessmen of that time, and after the 1857 tariff, taxes had dropped to one of the lowest percentages worldwide, but still that meant that most taxes were coming from Southern states. In 1860 the Morrill tariff was put together by Rep. Morrill of Vermont which raised rates by 60%. It had basically no support from southern representatives because it effected their constistences the most. After succession, the amended the bill raising rates even higher to help pay for the Civil War.

That was another big reason why GB supported the Confederates and their attempts to keep free trade available.

There is nothing at all wrong with celebrating the heritage of the place you live. I realize that now days teachers and schools attempt to trivialize the Civil War and say it was a war fought to free the slaves...but nothing is further from the truth. Some of the division came from the issue of slavery, but what it boiled down to is that the Civil War was fought over a state's right to govern itself through laws that supercede Federal laws. And, it's hard to argue otherwise since the first Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until the second year of the war and exempted border states from having to free their slaves. And, if one of y'all still persist that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, explain this quote from Lincoln:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

BTW, an interesting web page dealing with Lincoln's thoughts about the slaves is here: http://sztybel.tripod.com/lincoln.html It is documented as well.

Pure and simple, Lincoln freed the slaves as a political maneuver hoping to incite rebellion from the slaves in the South and, furthermore, hoping to land enough of the abolitionist vote to keep him in office come 1864. It's foolish to think otherwise. And, it's also foolish to equate the Confederacy with Racism...because in 1861 most everyone on both sides were racist. It wasn't like it was confined to the south.

the issue is WAY too complex for you to just say the major cause was a states rights issue.

there were tons of other issues, that were as important if not more than the simple states rights debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

the issue is WAY too complex for you to just say the major cause was a states rights issue.

there were tons of other issues, that were as important if not more than the simple states rights debate.

---

There were other issues..but they ALL fell under the Southern belief in an individual states right to choose for itself how to deal with those individual issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

When your 'different views' is racism, xenophobic, homophobic etc...it is wrong, its not a matter of opinion, its wrong and disgusting.

I don't care what they say or express, that's their right just like you said, but intolerance shouldn't be dressed up as just "our views".

---

Just because you don't agree with homosexuality does not make you a homophobe. Just because you don't listen to rap and you own a old beat up ford with a rebel flag in the back window, does not make you a racist. You generalize and label people that you really may not even know. Don't let your own bigotry be your downfall.

To change peoples minds and heart you can't belittle them and make them feel like they are always in the wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

There were other issues..but they ALL fell under the Southern belief in an individual states right to choose for itself how to deal with those individual issues.

---

It was mascaraed as "states rights", but the right of the states to do what? Abolish or keep slavery. Look what happened when they were given the right to vote on it in places like Kansas and what happened? Every pro-slavery person around(from other states) would come to vote on it, and when the states got their rights...you'd get things like the Fugitive Slave Law, was that a good thing? No. The main reason for the war, the reason the states seceded were about SLAVERY. Again, I know there were other smaller reasons, but it boiled down to slavery not the other way around. I'm firmly against leaving social issues to the states really always, back them and in today's age too.

Lincoln was against slavery since he was a boy, he campaigned on keeping it out of the new states, was he racist? Yup, but hated slavery. He didn't hate the South though, he was pretty sympathetic considering, he wouldn't have been really good to us if he hadn't been shot.

When it comes down to slavery, we were wrong, the South was wrong, we lost and we're much better for it. Do you think that McDonnell just happened to leave out the part about slavery because it was insignificant? No, it's because he knows that what it boiled down to, which anyone can see...whether it be me that lives here or someone from another state, that's embarrassing to me, the whole Jackson-Lee Day thing is pretty embarrassing too. This didn't come from teachers either, pretty much the opposite is what I heard in school, which the "War of Northern Aggression" is pretty wide spread in the South. McDonnell is trying to stir shit, that's all this is and it looks very bad on us IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeyhead

Just because you don't agree with homosexuality does not make you a homophobe. Just because you don't listen to rap and you own a old beat up ford with a rebel flag in the back window, does not make you a racist. You generalize and label people that you really may not even know. Don't let your own bigotry be your downfall.

To change peoples minds and heart you can't belittle them and make them feel like they are always in the wrong.

---

That's all true, I haven't said anything like that though, so I don't know where you're getting it. But when that "disagreeing" causes others to become second-class citizens, that's a problem and that's wrong(it's not opinion, it's wrong). And also, if you do drive down the road with it in your back window, don't complain if someone does call you a racist or something. I don't think it means your racists at all, I just think it's stupid, I see no point in it. We all have 1 flag.

When their discrimination is effecting others, then I have no sympathy for them, they're in the wrong and it's pretty clear.

It's a little more complicated than slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collegetrumpet2010

It's a little more complicated than slavery.

---

And I've said at aleast 3 times there were other causes and reasons for fighting, but it all boils down to slavery.

How? You do know that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery don't you? Slavery was an issue but it was not the only issue in the war.

[QUOTE=R13;182068

He didn't hate the South though, he was pretty sympathetic considering, he wouldn't have been really good to us if he hadn't been shot.

.[/QUOTE] Yes, remember the nice homecoming bonfire he had WTS throw in Atlanta where all those bad rebels were hiding as kids and ladies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

It was mascaraed as "states rights", but the right of the states to do what?

---

I swear..you younger folks swear up and down that y'all get a good education now days..and then you turn right around and act like ya can't comprehend what folks write...lol. Slavery was just one issue that states and the nation disagreed on back then. If you want to be contrite or stubborn about it, that's fine...but don't play stupid.

Lincoln's wiping of his ass with the Constitution is the reason the federal government is so out of control now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collegetrumpet2010

How? You do know that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery don't you? Slavery was an issue but it was not the only issue in the war.

---

That's very much up for debate, there's some evidence, but that's a view that the South took up to defend him...from what I've read on it, he thought it was necessary for them to progress, that's not really being against it. And once again, I've said that there was other issues, but slavery was the main issue for the war and for secession - Alexander Stephens agrees with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple man

Yes, remember the nice homecoming bonfire he had WTS throw in Atlanta where all those bad rebels were hiding as kids and ladies?

---

He didn't have Sherman do that, hell he was under Grants command. Even with that said, the objection was to take Atlanta, that's all Lincoln wanted. The "scorched earth" tactic was Shermans idea, it's brutal, but what some soldiers did(the things you mentioned) wasn't part of it...it was to cut off supplies, he didn't, Lincoln didn't nor anyone commanded raping or anything. He also freed 10,000 slaves in that March.

Lincoln was blasted for being too lenient on the South, a lot of his party wanted to punish them pretty harshly. He could have hanged the Confederate commanders, but was handing out pardons left and right. He wanted the war to be over and the country to be together again, he was going to be extremely good to the South during Reconstruction...but what do we do? Kill the one guy that wanted to help us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

I swear..you younger folks swear up and down that y'all get a good education now days..and then you turn right around and act like ya can't comprehend what folks write...lol. Slavery was just one issue that states and the nation disagreed on back then. If you want to be contrite or stubborn about it, that's fine...but don't play stupid.

---

And I've agreed that there were other issues, but slavery was THE issue, there's no denying that - unless you're Bob McDonnell.




________________________________

It get's more and more embarrassing, now Obama is blasting McDonnell, a lot of attention on VA that I don't want...thanks Bob.






(CNN) -- Virginia's proclamation of Confederate History Month without any reference to slavery was unacceptable, President Obama said in an interview broadcast Friday.

"Well, you know, I'm a big history buff. And I think that understanding the history of the Confederacy and understanding the history of the Civil War is something that every American and every young American should be a part of," he told ABC in an interview taped Thursday.

"Now, I don't think you can understand the Confederacy and the Civil War unless you understand slavery. And so, I think that was a -- an unacceptable omission. I think the governor's now acknowledged that."

Obama was referring to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who apologized Wednesday for leaving out any reference to slavery in his recent proclamation designating April as Confederate History Month, calling it a "major omission."

McDonnell, a Republican, also said he would amend the proclamation.

ABC asked the nation's first African-American president to weigh in on the controversy.

"I think it's just a reminder that when we talk about issues like slavery that are so fraught with pain and emotion, that we'd better do so thinking through how this is going to affect a lot of people, and their sense of whether they're part of a commonwealth or part of our broader society."

McDonnell's written apology said, "The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed."

"The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War," the statement said. "Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation."

The new language added to the proclamation says that "it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights."

It adds that "all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our orders."

McDonnell's statement noted that while Virginia was home to the capital of the Confederacy, it was also the first state in the nation to elect an African-American governor, L. Douglas Wilder, whom McDonnell called "my friend."

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Wilder said McDonnell's apology and his introduction of additional proclamation language was "the right thing for him to have done."

"Most people recognize that slavery was the cause of the [Civil] war," Wilder said, noting that McDonnell had called him Wednesday. "The war was not a glorious thing in our past. It was something that we were able to withstand in terms of tearing the country apart. ... Thank God that war ended with the Confederacy losing."

Not all of Wilder's fellow Democrats were willing to forgive McDonnell so quickly Wednesday.

"He has a right to apologize," Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh III, who is also African-American, told CNN on Wednesday. "But I don't accept that as a good answer, because this is a pattern of this governor.

"He says the wrong thing, he sends a signal to his base, and then he makes an apology," Marsh said. "It's a question of whether or not he's sincere or not."

McDonnell is the first Virginia governor in eight years to issue a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month.

Two previous Democratic administrations refused to do so.

"It is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present," the proclamation reads in part.

Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, now the Democratic National Committee chairman, issued a statement Wednesday blasting the exclusion of slavery from the original proclamation.

"Governor McDonnell's decision to designate April as Confederate History Month without condemning, or even acknowledging, the pernicious stain of slavery or its role in the war disregards history, is insensitive to the extraordinary efforts of Americans to eliminate slavery and bind the nation's wounds, and offends millions of Americans of all races and in all parts of our nation," Kaine wrote.

"A failure to acknowledge the central role of slavery in the Confederacy and deeming insignificant the reprehensible transgression of moral standards of liberty and equality that slavery represented is simply not acceptable in the America of the 21st century," he continued.

Obama: Governor's failure to mention slavery unacceptable - CNN.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotSoSilentBob

Lincoln's wiping of his ass with the Constitution is the reason the federal government is so out of control now.

---

That indeed is why the government is as it is today..the greatest power grab for the executive branch happened 8-9 years ago when W. claimed even more powers for a sitting president.. Obama's claim of the same powers leads to ridicule. Where were all these Constitution waving conservatives when Bush was ripping their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS away? And R13 you should have paid more attention in US History class..or learn to not be spoonfed info, cuz you have missed the boat as far as the Civil War goes.

"He didn't have Sherman do that, hell he was under Grants command. Even with that said, the objection was to take Atlanta, that's all Lincoln wanted. The "scorched earth" tactic was Shermans idea, it's brutal, but what some soldiers did(the things you mentioned) wasn't part of it...it was to cut off supplies, he didn't, Lincoln didn't nor anyone commanded raping or anything. He also freed 10,000 slaves in that March.

Lincoln was blasted for being too lenient on the South, a lot of his party wanted to punish them pretty harshly. He could have hanged the Confederate commanders, but was handing out pardons left and right. He wanted the war to be over and the country to be together again, he was going to be extremely good to the South during Reconstruction...but what do we do? Kill the one guy that wanted to help us."

Silly me, I thought Lincoln was the CIC , and calling Grant's shots- he did appoint him. And as far as "Him" helping us? It is what it is ,and I didn't have a horse in that race. The whole war was about cheap labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

And R13 you should have paid more attention in US History class..or learn to not be spoonfed info, cuz you have missed the boat as far as the Civil War goes.

---

Really? Well go ahead and show me where I've been so wrong in all of what I've said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple man

Silly me, I thought Lincoln was the CIC , and calling Grant's shots- he did appoint him. And as far as "Him" helping us? It is what it is ,and I didn't have a horse in that race. The whole war was about cheap labor.

---

That's like saying the President of Arbys, was told by the regional manager, that was told by manager, that his workers had been spitting in food...it doesn't happen. Those few times may have happened, but it wasn't a command by Sherman or part of 'total war', it just happened. If he even knew about what they were doing, it wouldn't go any further than him, definitely not to Grant and esp. not to Lincoln.

R13, the history classes where you went to school must be like the Japanese classes where they spent 6 pages on WWII and didn't mention they started the war. WTS didn't just burn ONE town, that was just a large one that came to mind. And how much did the northern voters like the tatic? They elected Grant president. ....OK you can put your head back in the sand now.

Info about WTS-
From his memoirs


"No army can be efficient unless it be a unit for action; and the power must come from above, not from below: the President usually delegates his power to the commander-in-chief, and he to the next, and so on down to the lowest actual commander of troops, however small the detachment. No matter how troops come together, when once united, the highest officer in rank is held responsible, and should be consequently armed with the fullest power of the Executive, subject only to law and existing orders. The more simple the principle, the greater the likelihood of determined action; and the less a commanding officer is circumscribed by bounds or by precedent, the greater is the probability that he will make the best use of his command and achieve the best results."

" For the rapid transmission of orders in an army covering a large space of ground, the magnetic telegraph is by far the best, though habitually the paper and pencil, with good mounted orderlies, answer every purpose. I have little faith in the signal-service by flags and torches, though we always used them; because, almost invariably when they were most needed, the view was cut off by intervening trees, or by mists and fogs. There was one notable instance in my experience, when the signal-flags carried a message. of vital importance over the heads of Hood's army, which had interposed between me and Allatoona, and had broken the telegraph-wires--as recorded in Chapter XIX.; but the value of the magnetic telegraph in war cannot be exaggerated, as was illustrated by the perfect concert of action between the armies in Virginia and Georgia during 1864. Hardly a day intervened when General Grant did not know the exact state of facts with me, more than fifteen hundred miles away as the wires ran. So on the field a thin insulated wire may be run on improvised stakes or from tree to tree for six or more miles in a couple of hours"

From his quotes
"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it" Sherman to the leadership of Atlanta, prior to Burning the City.

And finally an opinion- he is the guy that STARTED the total war concept ,as far as this country is concerned.

Finally here is a line about a set fo orders taken from a dead Union officer in 1864, for the burning of richmond.

" Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28?March 3, 1864) was an ambitious attempt by Union cavalrymen to assault the lightly defended Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia, and free prisoners of war during the American Civil War (1861?1865). The brainchild of the flamboyant Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, the raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick's men were stopped northwest of the city and a supporting column, under the command of twenty-one-year-old Colonel Ulric Dahlgren, was routed to the east. Dahlgren was killed, and papers found on his body, which were subsequently published by the Richmond press, detailed plans to burn the city and assassinate Confederate president Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was inflamed, and historians continue to debate the "
All you have to do is search the net for Sherman and that raid and you will find the stuff I'm talking about. I'd post the link, but you usually just complain about a source , however that will not change history.
PS don't forget -both sides were so happy with this war that would allow a "substitute" to be purchased so neither group wanted to kill any wealthy kids.

I do find it funny that some blast Lincoln for his approach to the Constitution, but then praise a certain other President who did the same thing, totally disregarding the Constitution, especially individual freedom.

The only difference is that one was dealing with civil war, a war in which the state of the nation was in jeopardy, the other was dealing with a foreign war against a country that had not attacked American soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple man

R13, the history classes where you went to school must be like the Japanese classes where they spent 6 pages on WWII and didn't mention they started the war. WTS didn't just burn ONE town, that was just a large one that came to mind. And how much did the northern voters like the tatic? They elected Grant president. ....OK you can put your head back in the sand now.

---

Trying to figure where you're getting this? Sherman used "total war", which is to burn and destroy everything so that the enemy forces couldn't use them later mainly. So I don't know what part you've posted that I've denied? His "scorched earth" tactic created a massive amount of destruction in the march, so where am I wrong again?

I think he is pointing out that Sherman was in daily contact with Grant and did know what his troops were doing. Grand and Shermans daily updates were also sent to Lincoln. They all knew what was going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Trying to figure where you're getting this? Sherman used "total war", which is to burn and destroy everything so that the enemy forces couldn't use them later mainly. So I don't know what part you've posted that I've denied? His "scorched earth" tactic created a massive amount of destruction in the march, so where am I wrong again?

---

"That's like saying the President of Arbys, was told by the regional manager, that was told by manager, that his workers had been spitting in food...it doesn't happen. Those few times may have happened, but it wasn't a command by Sherman or part of 'total war', it just happened. If he even knew about what they were doing, it wouldn't go any further than him, definitely not to Grant and esp. not to Lincoln. "

That make things any clearer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

I think he is pointing out that Sherman was in daily contact with Grant and did know what his troops were doing. Grand and Shermans daily updates were also sent to Lincoln. They all knew what was going on.

---

Lincoln and Grant both knew because Grant was Sherman's superior and Lincoln was the Commander in Chief...and anyone with doubts that Lincoln knew what was going on, remember he replaced numerous Generals that didn't please him, and the Union had the service of a telegraph most of the time to keep him informed. But really, Grant was as reckless with the lives of his own men (see Cold Harbor) as Sherman was with the lives of Southern women and children....neither cared what price their legacy would cost ..and Lincoln didn't either. IMO, if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, his legacy as a "saintly" President would never have come about. And we all know what Grant's legacy as President was... It's not hard to realize that these folks weren't what you would call "good people".

"Lipstick on a pig.":D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

Lincoln and Grant both knew because Grant was Sherman's superior and Lincoln was the Commander in Chief...and anyone with doubts that Lincoln knew what was going on, remember he replaced numerous Generals that didn't please him, and the Union had the service of a telegraph most of the time to keep him informed. But really, Grant was as reckless with the lives of his own men (see Cold Harbor) as Sherman was with the lives of Southern women and children....neither cared what price their legacy would cost ..and Lincoln didn't either. IMO, if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, his legacy as a "saintly" President would never have come about. And we all know what Grant's legacy as President was... It's not hard to realize that these folks weren't what you would call "good people".

---

I completely agree. For his "legacy" JWB is the best thing that happened to him (and no folks I am not condoning assassination, and never would for any US president).