Channel Serf

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Not the Sherman I recall studying about. The show also painted “Fightin’ Joe Wheeler” as a more dispicable character (torpedo mines, shooting forgerers) than Sherman and history didn’t teach me that!

By landsaf

April 23, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

I don’t know, The show was good, but it actually made me think less of Sherman as a person. He was brilliant in some aspects of military leadership, but the show made him out to be a coward when it came to controlling his own men. It must have made him feel more like a man to have his troops rob, steal and vandalize the southern women. THAT is not a classy leader. That basically throws any credibility out of the window. I have read about his rampages through the south, but it painted a different picture to see it acted out on TV. I used to feel bad about the poorly encamped Union soldiers. Now, not so much. The southerners were just downright angry at this point.

ok, I vented. It was a good show. Good entertainment, but I wonder just how accurate it was.

By Leah

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

I didn’t see the entire show, but what I did see made no mention of what Sherman did to the factory workers at the Roswell mills. In my opinion, that one act alone definitely constitutes an egregious war crime, and it wasn’t the only one.

I agree with landsaf, and felt that the show tried to place much of the blame on Sherman’s men, when in fact a good leader would have had better control over his forces.

By Ian

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Spend and evening reading the Constitution, followed by a re-reading of the Tenth Amendment. Then read the accounts of how Sherman’s troops treated the civilian population and how brutal they were with the former slaves. By that time, you will think the show was way more than kind to Sherman.

By Bruce

April 23, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Being a Sherman descendant, these are the stories I have been told all my life. It seems only in the South where the impression has always been of a tyrrant. I’m proud to have this ancestry and I’m proud that some of the misinformation has been righted, if only through a TV program.

By GMAN

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

This was an attempt to rewrite history by a bunch of Yankees. The white women and white children of Georgia from that era see Sherman’s March a little differently than the show producer did. To try to paint Sherman as something lesss than a murderer and butcher is an out an out lie. His soldiers ran wild destroying anything they couldn’t carry off, unlike the behavior of Lee’s troops when they invaded Maryland and Pennsylavania. Sherman’s actions actions did however lead to brutal retaliation by Confederate raiders into the north in late 1864. Real Southerners, wspecially Georgians will never forget the brutality and TOTAL war that Sherman and his thugs brought to Georgia.

By Barbara

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

There seems to be a different teaching of history mindset when it comes to the Civil War. Being from North Carolina and living in Atlanta for 28 years, I can honestly say, Northerners really don’t have a true concept of what happened down here. Nor have they heard the term, “carpetbagger”. Amazing there’s history can be taught so differently within the same country. Then again, just ask anyone who the first born of English decent was in this country, and nobody, except perhaps from NC and VA, can tell you. Absolutely amazing.

By lovelyliz

April 23, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

One’s view of the Sherman and others of that era quite often is formed by which side of the Mason Dixon you were raised on.

Unfortunately, war is hell and it tends to bring out the worst in everybody, sometime the best.

By Mike

April 23, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

Pure, insulting hogwash. Reminded me of that recent stupid “documovie” done on Clinton and the terrorists. Some Hollywood idiot maybe wanted the country to think, “oh, Sherman was just misunderstood all this time.” It was a made up piece of trash. Laughable, really. Guys like this bozo would never have been a Captain, much less General. Heartwarming…that’s what it was….heartwarming.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

White southerners deserved what they got and if anything, Sherman was probably too kind to them. These people took up arms against the American government. This is treason, punishable by death and many of them got exactly what they deserved. DEATH!

It is rather funny and sad that while southerners complain about their treatment at the hands of Sherman, that they turn a blind to how they treated their “property”, African slaves. The beatings, lynchings, rapes.

If anything, Sherman did not go far enough. He should have burned more of the south to the ground, then executed Robert E. Lee, Jackson, the Confederate Congress, the Southern state governors, and all military personnel with a rank of captian and above.

By Doug

April 23, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Sad to say But Yankees are still marching to the sea down I-75/I-95 everyday :>)

I wonder why they think the Interstates only run South ?

By Bob

April 23, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

The comment about leaders having control over thier men sparked an interesting thought….Did Lincoln know what was going on in Georgia. After all, he was the commander-in-chief and did assign the “Madman” the task. The history I have studied has never mentioned this fact.

By PD

April 23, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

Sherman was evil. After destroying the south, he went out west to destroy the indians…he used the term “final solution” to the indian problem; his solution - extermination. Great guy…enough of the revisionist history crap. Don’t get your history from hollywood or the history channel.

By Keith Turner is stupid

April 23, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Keith you are an idiot. Yes the actions of Southerners (slave owners) were atrocious back in those days. Was that the fault of all Southerners? I think not. The fact that Sherman came down and burned everything, took what he wanted, and destroyed many peoples lives in the process should not be shed in a good light as you are trying to do. Just like “slave ownong” should not be shed in a good light.

The bottom line is that some people are victims of circumstances. Do you really think that everyone that lived in Georgia agreed with having slaves? THat is ridiculous. What are the women going to do? Go against the wishes of their husbands back in those times. You need a big reality check compadre. Yes the South lost the war and I think the country is better for it, but that does not mean that Sherman should be put on some sort of pedastal for what he did. Many other cities were “conquered” by the North in the war and did not need to be burned to the ground. Before you write in these columns again I suggest you take your racial bias somewhere else.

By Keith Tanner is stupid

April 23, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Keith you are an idiot. Yes the actions of Southerners (slave owners) were atrocious back in those days. Was that the fault of all Southerners? I think not. The fact that Sherman came down and burned everything, took what he wanted, and destroyed many peoples lives in the process should not be shed in a good light as you are trying to do. Just like “slave ownong” should not be shed in a good light.

The bottom line is that some people are victims of circumstances. Do you really think that everyone that lived in Georgia agreed with having slaves? THat is ridiculous. What are the women going to do? Go against the wishes of their husbands back in those times. You need a big reality check compadre. Yes the South lost the war and I think the country is better for it, but that does not mean that Sherman should be put on some sort of pedastal for what he did. Many other cities were “conquered” by the North in the war and did not need to be burned to the ground. Before you write in these columns again I suggest you take your racial bias somewhere else.

By Rob

April 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

I always find the carping about Sherman’s march to the sea ironic and naive. The “war is hell” approach brought a horrific war to a quicker end. Let’s not forget that the Civil War started when Confederate troops fired on Federal troops at Fort Sumter in part over anger of the election of Lincoln. Imagine if 13 states seceded after the 2000 Bush/Gore election and attacked U.S. troops and employees: we would call it treason.

By PD

April 23, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

Keith…Jackson was already dead when Sherman marched through Georgia! Read a history book.

By ctmoore

April 23, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

It takes a lot of arrogance to call the War for Southern Independence “treason”. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, it has been and still is the constitutional right of any state to leave the union as voluntarily as they joined it. The North did not own the South but forced its will on us militarily.

As far as Sherman is concerned. I think he rates somewhere below Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden.

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

Sherman was a terrorist in his tactics - no better than Osama bin Laden.

By Knappy

April 23, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Hey, Tanner, how would you have had Sherman execute Jackson? Dig up an armless corpse and hang it? And, since you are do big on condemning “traitors,” you must also despise Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. According to your definition, that’s bunch of treasonous rabble.

By Southerner

April 23, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Anyone who reads the detailed correspondence reports from both the Union and Confederate commanders during the period in question can only come to one conclusion. Sherman should have been hung and some of his soldiers and officers should have been imprisoned for life for the atrocities committed on the civilian population.

By julie

April 23, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

Why, Keith Tanner, bless your heart. you sound like an ignoramus.

By KatyWatts

April 23, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

Regardless of what we think of Sherman as a person we must ask ourselves this. As a professional soldier obviously sick of war, did the end justify the means? The south’s treatment of blacks was wrong but back in the day, ignorance was commonplace. Further, slavery was not the sole reason the south seceded. The south, just like Japan during WWII, would have kept fighting until and unless someone came along and broke the emotional back of their cause. We will never know what went through his mind during this time but I’m glad I have never been put in such a position.

By Raleigh Do

April 23, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

The great Shelby Foote, who knew more about the Civil War than anyone in the world, called it a great and horrible catastrophe, a huge national tragedy. If it comes down to a matter of pride, read the Greeks. Read the Bible. Pride and falls go together. When we talk about the Civil War, we should talk about it gravely and with sorrow, not as a matter of pride or chest thumping. Whether we in the South like it or not, Sherman got it right: “War is hell.” 150 years later, let’s move on and rejoin the Union once and for all.

By Steve

April 23, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

History is written by the victors… in this case it is revised by them. If Sherman did what he did in 1864 today, he would be charged with war crimes. My favorite part of the documentary is when an expert is talking about how “this was military custom and completely legal under the rules the war” while the reenactment shows a georgia woman being used as a human shield by a yankee soldier who is confronted by some of Wheeler’s troops. Another scene shows yankee troops shooting at an unarmed woman who just buried her family treasure, only to have it pillaged later. The bottom line is, Sherman might have been a good general and his soldiers may have loved him but what he did to this state was a crime.

By Titan

April 23, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Vejnolka, as some interesting questions, but even more interesting is the her disposition of history. I think her questions uphold the reality that southerners have never gotten over having to reap what they had sowed. The history that has been taught in has been a great disservice—such that when real facts are presented, they are automatically dismissed by individuals who would rather things remained as they were. As an Black male, I am forever grateful for the outcome of the civil war, “By all means necessary”. Sherman obviously recognized this also. I am forever indebted to him an those brave Union Soldiers.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

ctmoore, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE A STATE CAN LEAVE THE UNION.

Remember, the south started this war, and us Yankee’s finished it. You sounds like those dirtbag trailer park dwellers, who are flying the Confederate (nazi) flag, that is bigger than their rusting pickup trucks. Generally, they have about the same number of teeth as they do years of education…..ABOUT 8 OR 9.

War is Hell, Sherman crushed and humiliated the South, just like any other great leader who CRUSHES AN INSURGENCY.

By Richard

April 23, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

They show tended to focus upon the immediate effects of Sherman’s destruction of cities, personal effects and families. In that day, this was unheard of. We are used to it now - civilians being killed and homes destroyed to “punish” them. He was the first to destroy population centers, churches, schools and homes. There was also not enough attention paid to the rapes and outright murder of civilians that occured wholesale due to his lack of control or endorsement.

In short, Sherman was a midget of a man and commander compared to another who was a better soilder, better commander and better man - Robert E. Lee.

By Mel in Midtown

April 23, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

As a serious student of Civil War hsitory, and one who has read voluminously from the “Official Records” and contemperaneous accounts, the History Channel presentation of Sherman’s March was accurate.

Regarding controlling troops - this happens in ALL wars - look at Abu Ghraib and the murders of civilians in Iraq by US Forces, Me Lai in Viet Nam, etc. You must remeber that Sherman’s men were “volunteers” and as such were not as disciplined as the “regulars” of the period. Add to that the fact that Sherman’s Army was spread out over a 60 mile front with no communication between the commander (on horse back) and the foragers.

What was NOT mentioned was that Sherman spared many towns along the route - most noticablly, Madison, GA. The mayor of Madison was the college roomate of Sherman’s brotrher, Sen. John Sherman of Ohio. The mayor sent a message to Sherman and Sherman ordered his gtroops to not enter and bypass trhe town.

The incident at the Burge plantation did not include the fact (from Dolly Burge’s diary) that she appealed to a Federal officer and he posted guards at her home to protect it until the army had passed.

Those native southerners would rather believe the stories passed down than the actual historical record.

To actually think that the South seceeded on any issue other than the protection oof slavery also shows a mis-understanding of history.

By carlton

April 23, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

It was an okay show. Probably an hour’s worth; not 2. For more interesting info, visit Kennesaw Mountain and the Cyclorama.

By Today's war

April 23, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

I did not like Shermen before last night. Now, I absolutely despise him. But, I realize that if you are at war with another nation (or side) you are at war with everyone who lends support to the enemy in any way. This is the lost military lesson that hog-tied the U.S. in Viet Nam, and it is the ignoring of which has the U.S. hog-tied in Iraq. To win any war it must be a “total” war.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Funny, all these “fine” yankees so hate the south, southerners with our “Confederate (nazi) flag, our rusting pickup trucks and the same number of teeth as they do years of education…..ABOUT 8 OR 9” then WHY DO THEY LIVE HERE? IF THE NORTH IS SO GREAT, GO BACK HOME TO YOUR RUST BELT, LACK OF JOBS AND RACIAL TENSIONS!

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Mel in Midtown most of these “PRO-CONFEDERACY” southerns are racist idiots.

Their demonic ancestors committed TREASON and attempted to destroy the U.S.A. They got what they deserved. After the war, they created all sorts of heroes and villians, told lies, made up stories, etc. They fought a LOST AND EVIL cause and they had to come up with LIES to feel good about themselves.

Just look at how they treated newly freed Blacks after the war. This will give you a clear insight into how EVIL these people were.

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

33rd Ilinois, we come here to do the jobs that you southerns are too stupid to do.

By Joe Brown

April 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Mr. Tanner, The irony is that WE asked to go in peace and YOUR President refused (Please read about the Star of the West and Fort Sumter prior to posting). That would be the whole “A house divided…” speech.

Ultimately, the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. If one side, does not honor the contract then the other party has to have the ability to enforce the contract on the other party or void the contract. The States wished the contract voided as stated in the Letters of Successions.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

And pray tell, how did the “good ol’ God fearin’ North treat the freed slaves? What year did the ‘fine, bluebelly yankees give them the right to vote? How did the north treat their migration up there? Why do most blacks CHOOSE to live in the south?

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

So, Joe Brown….WHERE???? Where in the consitutuion does it say a state can leave the Union? I can tell you what is does say, that all men are created equal. The south could not abided by the constitution and wanted to treat human beings as cattle, break up their families, kill them, beat them, rape them, etc.

The South paid the price. They deserved misery and death and they got it.

By ReggieDawg

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Regardless of your feelings about the Confederacy, the fact is what Sherman did were in violation of the laws of war. You can’t indiscriminately target and burn civilian structures. If this occurred with today’s media, Sherman would be vilified as a war criminal. For history to soften his image and call it “strategy” is mealy-mouthed nonsense.

By Mark

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

To Keith: Did you ever study US history? Only 5 - 10% of southerners owned slaves at the beginning of the war. The overwhelming majority of men and boys in the south fought against an invading and marauding, out of control army. They fought to protect their homes and families. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the import of slaves from Africa…something the US Constitution did not do. Lee did not own slaves…but US Grant did. Geez…where did you go to school!?

By ReggieDawg

April 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Regardless of your feelings about the Confederacy, the fact is what Sherman did was in violation of the laws of war. You can’t indiscriminately target and burn civilian structures. If this occurred with today’s media, Sherman would be vilified as a war criminal. For history to soften his image and call it “strategy” is mealy-mouthed nonsense.

By Firebrand

April 23, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

That anyone would try to justify the acts of a madman, even in wartime, is inexcuseable in any circumstance. Had he been a modern military leader, Sherman would have been tried and convicted for war crimes. He was called mentally unstable by his own men, who felt he needed to be institutionalized. The appointment of he and an alcoholic like Grant at positions of leadership illustrates the desperation and blatant disregard Lincoln the hypocrite had for humanity - all he was concerned about was, as he called it, “the math of the situation.” Sherman is burning in Hell today, and he feels right at home.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith, was that after you ruined the jobs up north? were you all too stupid to figure them out?

By mark

April 23, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Does Keith not know that all of the original 13 states had slaves at one time or another…many making it illegal just a few years before the Civil War?

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

I bet Keith Tanner’s family owned slaves and he doesn’t even know it.

By JD

April 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

No matter how greatly Sherman is portrayed and the number of good things he did for the union, all the dumb hicks of GA still won’t like him.

By David

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

History always favors the victor, because it is always told by the victor. Up until this time in history, civilians were not targeted by combatants. Sherman allowed his men to take from women and children. Sherman’s slash and burn tactics forced old men and children into combat and cripled the south for years. This may have ended the “war”, but it bred a hatred not soon forgotten. I think it will be a very long time before you see any statues of that scally wag in Georgia.

By jabster

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith—

Delta is ready when you are!

By Cynthia Ward

April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Boy, reading these posts are hilarious. Please make some changes in your lives. Stop the hating. Now, here’s something about Sherman that you may not know.

On January 16, 1865, Forty Acres and a Mule was inacted by General Sherman.

In the midst of his ‘March to the Sea’ during the Civil War, General William T. Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton met with 20 Black community leaders of Savannah, Georgia.

Based partly to their input, Gen. Sherman issued Special Field Order #15 on January 16, 1865, setting aside the Sea Islands and a 330-mileinland tract of land along the southern coast of Charleston for the exclusive settlement of Blacks. Each family would receive 40 acres of land and an army mule to work the land, thus “Forty Acres and A Mule.” Gen. Rufus Saxton was assigned by Sherman to implement the Order.

On a national level, this and other land, confiscated and abandoned, became the jurisdiction of the Freedman’s Bureau, which was headed by Gen. Oliver Otis Howard (Howard University). In his words he wanted to “… give the freedmen protection, land and schools as far and as fast as he can.” However, during the summer and fall of 1865, President Johnson issued special pardons, returning the property to the ex-Confederates. Howard issued Circular 13, giving 40 acres as quickly as possible. Upon his knowledge, Johnson ordered Howard to issue Circular 15, returning the land to the ex-Confederates.

By Ken

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I’ll always remember W.T. Sherman as that “Damn Yankee Demon”. In fact, I find myself passing this sentiment on to my children. I do this at bedtime by reminding them that Sherman’s gonna getcha if you don’t go to sleep.

By AJB

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, people like you are the entire reason why the South fought for her independence. Why would a region, any region, want to be associated with evil, vindictive, and punishing hatred such as you?

The South left because they were being economically abused by an “elitist-thinking” group. They did not ask for war, nor did they wish to tell the rest of the land what to do. They simply wanted to be let alone. Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.

People like Sherman are slightly below Hitler and Stalin. The misery, destruction, and rape of a foreign people shoule be condemned throughout history. Arguing that the War Between the States was about slavery is like saying the Revolutionary War was about not wanting to pay taxes on tea.

By Shermy

April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

It probably all depends on where you were born - North or South. War is not pretty. Never has been, never will be. You can’t fight by rules. That is not war. Sure people should not rape and pillage. But then most pople who have opinions on this have probably never been under the stress and duress of war, so it’s easy to pass judgement. I am sure that Hitler could paint bad stories or Allied forces, but he still needed to be defeated.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Hey Keith, “Where in the consitutuion does it say a state can leave the Union?”

WHERE IN THE MAGNA CARTA DID IT SAY THE COLONIES COULD LEAVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

By M. D. Cain

April 23, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, you would have made a good little loyal Tory during the Revolutionary War. I’m sure you think all our Founding Fathers were traitors too. Remember some of them were slave owners too. If ignorance is bliss you must be in a perpetual state of happines.

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Good post AJB,

“Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.’

As has happened today. The “Rust Belt” comes down here to carpetbag OUR jobs and complains about OUR “rusted pickup trucks”. Have you ever seen the cars in Cleveland, Detroit or Flint? Rust buskets…….

By 33rd Ilinois

April 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Good post AJB,

“Yet, the NE elitists knew that without the South’s superior economy, the NE would wither on the vine and die.’

As has happened today. The “Rust Belt” comes down here to carpetbag OUR jobs and complains about OUR “rusted pickup trucks”. Have you ever seen the cars in Cleveland, Detroit or Flint? Rust buckets…….

By mark

April 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Hey Cynthia…That does sound like something old Sherman would do. He gave lincoln the city of Savannah as a Christmas present. I’m sure he did confiscate land and gave it out to whomever he pleased…not realizing that he had no jurisdiction or legal right to do such a thing. Most of the land he gave away belonged to poor southern farmers (not slave owners) who just tried to get out of his way. His actions were a lot like Fidel Castro’s when you think about it…

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

HEY AJB??? YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE ECONOMICALLY ABUSED….IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL THE NORTH NOT ALLOWING YOU TO KEEP YOUR SLAVES? LOL, MAN, THAT’S THE CRAZIEST THING I EVER HEARD.

THAT’S LIKE SAYING THAT IF I’M A PIMP “THE MAN” IS ECONOMICALLY ABUSING ME, CAUSE HE FREED MY UNDERAGED GIRLS.

By Keith Helms

April 23, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Sherman was a war criminal equal to Hitler or any other German. So was Grant who was the sorriest man elected President before 1992.

By Jota Te

April 23, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Some of you are perfect examples of why we need a modern day General Sherman. Georgia is full of trash from the people in government to the trailer parks. After being burned to the ground, the city of Atlanta’s reconstruction was planned poorly and we need to start over once again!

By Keith Tanner

April 23, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Anyone else notice that southerners are WARMONGERS. The same PRO-CONFEDERACY nut jobs on this board are the same ones that support BUSH/CHENEY, as they send THOUSANDS more people over to Iraq to die.

By mitch

April 23, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Thought this would be enlightning. Really forced myself to watch the whole thing. Sherman was their “Uncle Billy” because they got away w/ plundering an already defeated (not morally but economically)South. Will not waste my time watching that again. When did the History Channel pick up on re-writing history like the Russians?

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Keith:

You are just as bad as the ignorant trailer-parking’ people you harp on. You and your ilk are why there is STILL friction between North and South 140 years after the Civil War ended. If the South is as bad as you say it is, what are you doing here? personally, If I despised “trailer parkin’, gap-toothed southern people” I wouldn’t choose to live in the same region. We southerners feel the same way about “nasal talkin’, whiny, condecending yankees” who think they are morally superior to us. As information, bozo, racial hatred is not indigenous to the south. If I remember correctly, most of the major race riots of the 1960’s took place in cities such as Detroit, Newark, Los Angeles….hardly south of the Mason Dixon line. What about the Boston race riots of 1974-75 when the Boston Board of Education tried to INTEGRATE the Boston public school system….last time I check the only place you can go further north than Boston in this country is Maine….hating someone because of their race or where they are from is WRONG. Sherman was a tyrant and a disgrace to the uniform he wore.

By Travis

April 23, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

As a history teacher, I think it reinforced what good modern history has taught while giving some insight that I was not aware of.

By Sparta Man

April 23, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

I already thought Sherman was a fine fellow and this special just reinforced it. He knew there was a constitution somewhere that had a lot about freedom, etc. etc. Unlike good ole Robert E. Lee and the other confederates who were holding their fellow man in bondage, while they were supposedly fighting for “a noble cause.” Talk about HYPOCRISY!!! Sherman should have circled back and run a number 6 (slash and burn) on the entire confederacy

By M. D. Cain

April 23, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner, every posting you make just reinforces the fact that you are a bitter ignorant member of the “blame America first” crowd. Like I said you would have been a great little loyal Tory years ago.

By will

April 23, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Now, should we expect an “apology” from the northerners and their descendants?

By Augusta

April 23, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Mel in Midtown: You may be a “serious student” of the War, but you still have a lot to learn. As a PROFESSIONAL 19th Century U.S. historian, I can say with absolute certainty that the History Channel show was riddled with inaccuracies and bias. For example, the entire show portrayed was from only a Northern perspective…Dolly Burge was the only Southerner given more than a mention, while Sherman, Grant, Upson and Hitchcock were featured Unionists. Historian John Marsezelak said Grant was “unfairly” accused of being a drunk, yet at one point in Grant’s life HE WAS A DRUNK. The program showed Union soldiers shooting at an unarmed Southern woman (Dolly Burge), who was running away, yet made no attempt to express the immorality of such action. The show also said foraging was an “acceptable” activity in wartime. HOGWASH: What many of Sherman’s bummers did was far beyond simply taking the food they needed. They deliberately stole & destroyed personal property that had no military value, often leaving the civilian population (both black & white) on the verge of starvation.

The show portrayed Camp Lawton as a horrible POW camp (which it was), but without giving any indication that compared to many other POW camps in BOTH the North & South Camp Lawton was actually not as bad (even if this was primarily because it was not as large as other camps). The show expressed several times that Sherman’s men were near starvation as they approached the Georgia coast. HOGWASH, they were never even remotely close to starving. The show indicated the battle for Fort McAllister would be a close call…HOGWASH. The fighting was over in 15 minutes (with only one division of Sherman’s army taking it), as even the show later admitted. The show said Sherman did not order or desire Columbia to be burned, then contradicted itself by admitting that Sherman had no remorse for its burning BY UNION TROOPS!

Toward the show’s end Union troops were portrayed as caring and humane for being “forced” to execute even one Confederate soldier in retaliation for Wheeler’s brutal murder of 18+ Union men. HOGWASH…the killing was cold and brutal on both sides! And the show’s image of Joe Johnston in North Carolina was of a unkempt man, when Johnston was immaculately well groomed.

Finally, the telling of the incident at Ebenezer Creek was HORRIBLE. Why did they not mention that numerous Union soldiers turned back against Gen. Davis’s orders to help rescue some of the drowning slaves? And why did the show not even mention that the incident resulted in a political firestorm in Washington, DC, that tarnished Sherman’s image? All in all this was a terrible program…TERRIBLE!

By robi

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Considering that the Confederacy wanted to protect the institution of slavery, I was disappointed that Sherman wasn’t as cruel and vicious as some of the stories I have heard. It’s a shame that he saved some of the worst abuses for the former slaves.

Of course, having seen Andersonville, Sherman’s army could hardly be blamed for taking revenge on evil, inhuman Confederates.

By jon drake

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

I once heard a lecture by some Confederate historical society, and they mentioned the locals started burning whatever was behind them before Sherman hit Atlanta. Good points from above - ‘war is hell’, and not controllable, and the issue of how the locals complained, yet mistreated their slaves. History is interesting - The first man in the Colonies to own African slaves was - a black African. [Anthony Johnson, 1651] In the 1700’s, 75% of the world’s males - and all women - were slaves of some sort - owned, mistreated, not in control of their lives, not able to freely leave. The root of Slavic is ‘slave’. Guess how that region got named?

By Mr. Peabody

April 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

After watching the show the only conclusion I have is that Sherman was an expert in ignoring wrong-doing and absolutely everybody involved got F’d. The North, South and the Slaves. A total shame.

By UNAMUSED SOUTHERN PATRIOT

April 23, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

KEITH TANNER. Sugar, you really need to have a history lesson from an unbiased book and teacher. As for the SUPERIOR ECONOMY-yes, dear, the South paid 80% of the taxes that were collected for the USA. When asked why he would not just allow us (the South) to leave in peace as we wished, Lincoln, replied “But who then, shall pay the taxes?” Look in the New Orleans Crescent newspaper, circa 1859 for that quote.

As far as where we are allowed to seceed-read the Declaration of Independence.I believe it reads something like…”That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Does this sound familiar? Probably not to you. The South was legally entitled to remove itself from the USA in a peaceful manner. Had we tried to over throw the government of the USA, THEN we would be guilty of treason. As it was, we basically said “this is not working for me, so I think I will do my thing and you can do your thing, never the 2 to meet again”. As far as Fort Sumter goes, yeah, we fired first after being provoked, and telling the feds to just leave us alone and go home. They poked at us constantly, and we lost our collective tempers.

You are a self righteous, ignorant person, Keith Tanner, if one goes by your writing. There was wrong on both sides, but it all boiled down to the North being greedy and not wanting to let the South go its own way because of the money our luxury goods provided.

Read a book by Donald Kennedy called the South was Right. He gives the honest truth-the good the bad and the ugly on both sides, without emotion, but by using points of law.

As far as us deserving hell- I don’t believe it.

By Swatguy

April 23, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

I agree with Keith Tanner. Those who raped black women for generations, kept a people in bondage, humiliating and murdering the men as well as those which supported, should have been left with NOTHING. Sherman did not go far enough. You people should know, the southern slave system was as horrific as the holecaust. The Confederacy was Evil. It is why it was destroyed. Only by the grace of GOD was the lovers of Dixie totally Burned including the treasoning, slave owning people. This society can never pay back to black people what white people stole.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Keith just for your information, it is the Declaration on Independence that states that revolt against a government is sometimes needed and neccessary.

As a student of the War, whatever you want to call it, Sherman’s march was brilliant in it’s ability to destroy the South’s capabiltiy to wage war. He destroyed complete infrastructures, railways, shippping, warehouses, bridges, farms for providing food for an army and a populace. He basically used the same scorched earth policy that the Russians used to defeat Napolean. I would not go so far as to say evil. Determined, yes.

After the war when we were having a flare up with the Spanish over Cuba in the 1870’s, predated the war in 1898, Sherman recommended that if we went to war with Spain to employ Nathan Bedford Forrest as a military commander. This is the same man that he said would be worth a million dollars to have the man killed during the Un-Civil war.

How much better off would this country be if the war had dragged on even further. I think alot of these points would be moot if McClellan had destroyed Robert E. Lee’s army at Antitiem/Sharpsburg. That would have ended the war in September 1862.

I am a southerner and proud of it. I have ancestors that fought on both sides of that awful war and I honor both. But I consider myself an American first. I quit studying this war after 9/11 because I could not stand the idea of Americans fighting Americans. There is an enemy out there that wants to kill all of us because we are free. Count me in as a nutjob there Keith because I see the terrorists as something worth fighting no matter where they are. Somewhere there is an American soldier fighting and possibly dieing so you can have your right to post on this blog. If you don’t like the war at least honour the soldier.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Actually, in response to the poster who said that the south took up arms against the US and it was treason… Lincoln originally started calling up troops to invade the south to the tune of 30,000+. Also, the south seceded. The south never wanted to overthrow the US government - it just chose not to be a part of the US anymore. In other words, the several states that voluntarily joined the union were choosing to voluntarily leave it and Lincoln would not allow that…. so he was preparing to use military force. The first line of the Constitution - We the People in order to form…. Well, some of those “we the people” decided that it was not a perfect union and wanted to leave. And since you mention slavery. Well the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves - just southern slaves. Slavery existed in the north for a few years AFTER the war…. In fact, do a little research and you find some interesting reading on the slave auctions that were still be held in non-southern states AFTER the war.

By Scared black person

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

This blog is hillarious and scary. You would think that Sherman was the devil marching through a church known as the South. Yet, so many of my relatives were hung, raped, beaten and killed in so many horrific ways. Mr. Tanner takes a beating for telling the truth. I’m truly amazed at how all the southern Christians defend the horrors performed by the South and then criticize Sherman for his acts. I’m still trying to figure out why they cause this the Bible Belt. I’m not sure that anyone here has actually read it or any other book. Who else would spend time re-enacting a war that they lost???? The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it. I pray for all of you! Where are the real Christians?

By CSA

April 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Swatguy:

Yep, white folks “stole” your ancestors out of Africa….maybe they should have left all of you there so you could participate in the vicious tribal wars in that wonderful country, not to mention sharing in such afflictions as Ebola, Lassa Fever, AIDS, as well as starvation and famine that plagues that continent.

By Cuz

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

sorry, Declaration of Inedpendence. It got past me.

By Friendly black person

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

CSA…..Why do you think Black people should be slaves?

By beege

April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

My Great Grandmother told me that when she was a young girl that she saw slaves crying because they had to leave their plantation hom, she said their master was good to them and they didn’t know where they’d go or how to support themselves. Sad that some people only saw the bad side of the southern people.

By Chris

April 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

I’m not from this country so I really don’t have a bias either way. The fact is that: “History is written by the victors (American-Indian Wars, The Civil War)” and “Treason/Rebellion is fine as long as you win (the American Revolution). So you can all keep bashing the North or South but the ends will always justify the means. That is the nature of human conflict throughout history.

By Christian

April 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

“The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it.”

REAL christians don’t insult, call names or sterotype people. They love their enemies & pray for those who mistreat them.

“Judge not lest ye be judged”…the Bible

By larry

April 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Keith Tanner and Swatguy are both nincompoops who have no knowledge of history. The Emancipation Proclamation had the effect of “freeing” the slaves in places like Nashville and Atlanta until the Yankees conquered those cities. At that time, the “freed slave” reverted back to slavery until the passage of the 13th Amendment after the war was over.

Sherman’s victories did save Lincoln’s presidency which was under heavy attack from General MacClellan until Atlanta fell.

Sherman was intent on punishing the South as just about every, single contemporary account, Northern or Southern, points out. This punishment was meted out by a bad/evil man and his rapine troops.

Also, just about every contemporary Constitutional scholar, Northern and Southern, felt that secession was justified under the United States Constitution. Lincoln waged an illegal war of conquest and the aforesaid nincompoops should look up the definitions of treason, rebellion and the like. They are both without a clue.

Finally, if is true that slavery was a horrific institutiona and is happily gone (hopefully) forever; but only 3% of Southerners (including several hundred black Southerners) owned slaves. The war was not about slavery. People should read Lincoln’s first inaugural address where he states not only does he not have the power to abolish slavery; but, he has no inclination to do either.

The War proved various things and established certain of them into law; but, like so many other wars, all these things were established by conquest, not by exercising Constitutional force.

By J ELDER

April 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Well, hate is alive and well. It’s all a shame, it’s all so sad. Mr. Tanner, your very core seems to be full of hate. I daresay if you were raised down here you would be driving a rusty pick up with the Rebel flag and damin’ them Yankees.

By Friendly black person

April 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Beege:

Battered, uneducated women who’ve been beaten for 20 years say the same thing. Are you surprised?

By rayburnette

April 23, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

I thought the program depicted Sherman far, far to kindly and the way the Union troops devistated Georgia was far more severe than the way it was portrayed. Griswaldville near Macon was destroyed as boys and old men tried to defend it and the Union troops massacred them for no real reason and it was opon the order of Sherman. There was no reason for the slaughter that took place and the destruction that was caused.

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Scared black:

Race hatred is not indigenous to the south. Apparently you are either too young or too ignorant to remember the racial unrest in the NORTH back during the 1960’s. Seems to me that white northerners are just as intolerant as white southerners are. The Boston riots of ‘74-75 prove this, WHITE Bostonians didn’t want their kids going to school with blacks…remember, this was BOSTON, not Birmingham or Atlanta. Hating someone because of their ethnic background is WRONG no matter where you are from.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

“The people down here are not too bright and they don’t even know it.”

As Lewis Grizzard would say, if things are so great up north, Delta is ready when you are. Have you back there by dark.. Why would anybody want to live amongst so much stupidity… I guess it makes you feel morally superior to us stupid southerners to grace us with your presence and all-knowing knowledge. As far as reading the Bible… I far one will go head-to-head with you on that one… I have not only read the Bible, I have read it in virtually all versions - except for that black version that was popular in Chicago a couple of decades ago - something about Christ going up the to the Disciples and saying, Yo, what’s hangin’ just did not sit very well with me!

By Gene

April 23, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

WOW! YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HOW THE SOUTH JUST WANTED ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. “MOST SOUTHERNERS WERE AGAINST SLAVERY” YOU SAY. BULL!!! THE WAR HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST TOO EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT IT! YOU THINK THAT BY MAKING THE CRY THAT THE SOUTH WAS TRYING TO RESTORE ITS ECONOMIC FREEDOM YOU ARE SOMEHOW JUSTIFYING IT. YOUR MAIN DEFENSE IS “READ THE HISTORY BOOKS!” WELL, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE HISTORY BOOKS IS ACCURATE, THEN I HAVE SOME BEACHFRONT PROPERTY IN KANSAS I’D LIKE TO SELL YOU! SHERMAN SHOULD BE HAILED AS A HERO FOR CRUSHING THE SOUTH AND BRINGING IT TO ITS KNEES. AND I SAY THIS IS A BORN AND RAISED SOUTHERNER. SHERMAN JUST DID TO THE SOUTH WHAT SOUTHERNERS WERE DOING TO SLAVES FOR CENTURIES. SO TAKE YOUR REBEL FLAGS AND YOUR RACIST THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES AND DEAL WITH IT! THE SOUTH LOST THE WAR! GET OVER IT!

By Unbiased Southern Black Man

April 23, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

As a southern black man, I am proud to be from the south. We all know that racism exists throughout the United States, so the south is no worse than anywhere else. If the white people down here want to celebrate the Civil War, even though they lost, that’s fine by me….just as long as we don’t bring back Slavery. Fortunately, I don’t think many southerners know the history of the confederacy or what the flag stands for. Like most people, they saw their parents celebrate it and they celebrate it. I’ve even seen black people wear the flag, because they didn’t know what it stood for.

People will say it stood for pride in the southern way. And, of course the southern way was built largely on slave labor, which is not popular among black people.

So, I think we need to clarify why southerners are so proud of the confederacy. Would they have wanted Slavery to exist today? Why are you celebrating a war that you lost? These are the questions held by most of America (white and black). I’m not here to bash any body….just asking questions to understand.

By CSA

April 23, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Friendly black person:

Absolutely should no person EVER own another person. I am NOT defending slavery, far from it. However if blacks had NOT been brought over here at all, stayed in Africa, look at the mess they’d be in. My ancestors came over as indentured servants….scots owned by the British…hell, I’m just glad they got over here.

By Friendly black person:

April 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

CSA: Being hung in America is better than being killed in Africa? Just asking…

By Scott

April 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Ended the war plain and simple. For that reason he is a genuis

By GaDawg53

April 23, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

I am probably one of the few people around now who has heard a first hand description of what Sherman did in Georgia. My great-great grandmother was 14 when he came through Resaca, and lived until 1959. Sherman and his men left her, her sisters and her mother homeless, without food or other provisions. They didn’t or never did “own” slaves. Her family never left the union and a brother was in the Union army. One fact not mentioned is the wagontrain of “freed” female slaves that traveled behind Sherman’s army.

By Kidcounselor

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

WOW! YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE HEARD ABOUT HOW THE SOUTH JUST WANTED ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. “MOST SOUTHERNERS WERE AGAINST SLAVERY” YOU SAY. BULL!!! THE WAR HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST TOO EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT IT!

Most southerners did not own slaves and were indifferent to it. What they were not indifferent to was having their states invaded… that old states rights thing where the power of the federal government is derived from the several states… Of course, with democrats - the power of the states is derived from the federal government… and as Walter Williams, a BLACK economist has point out, slavery was dying out IN THE SOUTH and would have probably be extinct in a decade without the war… Cotton gins and other agricultural developments are cheaper to operate and maintain than a family of slaves… while in the industrial NORTH, slavery was growing - cheap factory labor, kept in the squallor of the mill houses, having to purchase everything from the ‘company store’…. basically, even if they could have left, they could not afford to go anywhere… Several good points have been made here - slavery existed and was growing in the north; contemporary race riots were predominantly a non-southern thing; and lastly, many of the lynching of blacks after the war occurred outside of the southern states….

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Unbiased:

Thanks for a thoughtful and introspective post. The South lost and that’s as it should be, this country could never have survived under the conditions of that day. The reason the Anti-North sentiment still persists 143 years later is due in part to how Sherman overran his authority, the Radical Republicans harsh treatment of the South during Reconstruction, and some ignorance tossed in, plus a good dose of misguided sould like Keith Tanner. Slavery is not right. Neither is racial hatred. But as I said before, you have this in ALL parts of this country, not just the South.

By beege

April 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Oh….Swatguy….can the (Egyptians) ever pay back the Israelites (Jews) that built their pyramids? Can the blacks ever pay back for selling their own people into slavery? Tell me Tell me

By mark

April 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

To Keith, Swatguy, friendly black person, etc… Do you not understand? Nearly all of the people who fought for the South were poor farmers who had no interest in slavery? They were simply protecting their homes and families. This is historic fact. You all depict southerners at that time as evil. Ask yourself this question: “Would I put my life on the line so rich people can keep their domestic help?” Most likely you would not…and neither did the 90% of the southerners who fought for the Confederacy. When you are presented with facts, figures, quotes, laws, etc that point out the error in your judgement, you label us “hicks,” “racists,” “non-Christians,” etc.

Just THINK about it. READ history and learn..don’t make emotionally charged arguments based on your misconceptions. To argue without knowledge is , well, idiotic.

By Gman

April 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

I didn’t get a chance to see the show due to a wedding weekend, but I do want to see it to form my own opinion of Sherman’s portrayal in the documentary (though in the “making of” special I saw there is not a Southerner in sight). Sherman flanked his way around Joe Johnston all the way through Atlanta b/c Johnston wouldn’t fight for various reasons (size of Sherman’s army mostly according to him). The basic route was the railroad from Chattanooga (or present day I-75) for obvious resupply reasons.

Sherman was not a great general, he did nothing spectacular to win his campaign, if this documentary presents him that way it is simply wrong, the entire campaign was simply meant as a diversion in the first place, so Johnston could not send reinforcements to Lee up in Virginia…..Joe Johnston did even less for the Confederacy, even though his men loved him much more than John Bell Hood, Johnston’s successor on the eve of the Battle of Atlanta July 22nd.

AS far as his burning of Atlanta, he did it b/c he couldn’t leave men to hold the city, and felt once he continued on to Macon the Confederacy would turn around and go right back into Atlanta and start up the factories and fix the railroads. Lincoln knew what Sherman was going to do as well. The looting and pillaging ocurred, against the official Union army orders, and was certainly not an accepted practice. But to be honest, 5 Points downtown was the rail hub for all Southern soldiers coming from all points around the region, full of brothels, gambling, runaway slaves and bars…….that area was looted more times than you can count by both sides. However, no Confederate army ever raped, looted and pillaged on a scale like Sherman’s army, an army that had almost no food b/c Sherman decided they could “forage” what they needed from fields and residents thru south georgia.

Also, if General Hood had held Atlanta longer (the city was surrendered Sept. 2nd, at the present day intersection of northside dr and marietta st),through the presidential elections was the goal, it was very likely that Lincoln would not have been re-elected (it was an election year)and George McClellan would have won the day on his anti-war platform, due to the perception in northern cities that they were losing the war, citizens in all cities from New York to Chicago were rioting due to heavy conscription (involuntary draft) requirements and the feeling that too many northern men were dying in a war that they themselves didnt believe in and were losing to boot.

Anyways, I do want to see this documentary, but I have a feeling already how it was made and how I will view it. Coupla facts for folks in the ATL:

The Cyclorama at the Atlanta Zoo depicts the Battle of Atlanta (also called the Battle of Decatur), July 22nd, 1864. The painting was created in the 1880’s by erecting a tall tower, on which the artists spent the next six months or so on top of said tower, sketching a 360 degree view of the battlefield. This tower was erected right next to what is today the intersection of Moreland Ave and Dekalb Ave. The Troup - Hurt house, (the big house depicted in he middle of the painting), is located just up the road on Degress Ave, just off Dekalb Ave.

Sherman watched the Battle of Atlanta from on top of the present day Carter Center

5 Points downtown was the center of everything in Atlanta during the Civil War, shops, bars, railroad terminal, etc

General Hood and Confederate officers watched the Battle of Atlanta where present day Oakland Cemetery sits.

When the Confederacy decided they had to vacate the city due to Sherman’s actions around Jonesboro, Hood sent word to get all his ammunition trains rolling towards Macon. 5 locomotives, 81 boxcars, 5 thousand rifles and 3 million rounds of ammunition sat in those trains. The quartermaster in charge of said evacuation got loaded that nite and didnt execute Hood’s orders, so the trains were stuck where they were, where the present day Fulton Cotton Mill lofts stand, b/c Sherman had cut the rail lines going both east and west. So, the Confederates did what they had to do - they blew it all up on the spot so the Union forces couldn’t use anything. Eyewitness accounts say it was like the 4th of July there was so many explosions……the Rolling Mill (which manufactured weapons and ammo) was also destroyed, and the Cotton Mill was built on that spot about 20 years later…..

A great (and histroically accurate) book to read on Sherman’s march is called Decision in the West, by Albert Castel. It is written in present tense, and a very interesting read……

Also, I love Keith Tanner’s posts, he is the type of guy that could find a way to work in his hatred for Southerners, Conservatism and most espcially George Bush in a blog about the Braves. How y’all enjoy the post……

By Black Southerner (UGA grad)

April 23, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

GaDawg53

Just to clarify. Slaves did not want anyone (black or white, male or female) to die in the war. They just didn’t want to be slaves….

What’s your point about the wagontrain?

Thanks.

By ray

April 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

u all make it seem like sherman did something not commonly found in any u.s. led invasion i take it yall arent big iraq fans because we havent really change are policies too much. i dare anybody to read the constitution and find anything that made slavery legal “all men are created equal”hmmm. it was an ugly war, but show me a pretty one.

By Southerner

April 23, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Slavery wasn’t legal????

By CONCERNED CITIZEN

April 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

KEITH TANNER..GENE….too bad they don’t admit the truth in what you all said. The South and it’s Racial/Slave issues can be, and should be, looked into by way of a GREAT book: “In The Matter Of Color” By A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. A former federal judge who breaks down the South like you have never seen before. The book has won 5 prestiges awards, great reviews from the NY Times, Harvard, amd others. ISBN# 0-19-502745-0

I am not saying Sherman did all innocent acts, but the South calling him bad is like the pot calling the kettle black! Even to this day the South and it’s Judges ruin the lives of color-blind issues, making race an issue, clandestinely. The Southern Media like the Macon Telegraph loves to gives racially tainted views, along with Middle Ga tv stations. The Klan is alive and well my people. Stop being duped into think we non-whites are not subject to daily racism. We are.

I guarantee you, if you get that book ($20) you will see the truth about the South.

Obviously Sherman didn’t do enough, cause these red neck confederate flag flying, 360 degree hang a negroe by their neck dying, still are lying, and we are still dying, and or jailed unconstitutionally.

www.HESINNOCENT.COM

By heather

April 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Who sold the slaves to the slave traders?

Many african slaves were sold to the slave traders by other africans!

And all you yankees who act as though you’re better than those from the south… Remember all the terrible race riots that happened in Detroit and Newark.

and…

take your stupid yankee a*******es back north if it’s so great up there.

By Unbiased Southern Black Man

April 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Let’s stop the hatred. Let’s all admit that slavery was wrong. Let’s all admit that not all white people owned slaves and not all white people are racist. Let’s all admit that we are not the Christians we should be. But, most importantly, let’s all admit that we care enough to change the future since we can’t change the past!

I want my black kids to love all those white kids who had nothing to do with the confederacy or slavery and vice versa!

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Heather:

Totally agree. The population of the metro area has nearly tripled since 1971. Guess where all that growth came from? It can’t be too damn bad down here if these northerners are descending on us like lemmings….ever heard the term “carpetbagger”?

By TonyG

April 23, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Absolutely Unbiased!

I have always taught my children that any form of racial bigotry is wrong. As a former Pastor of mine used to say, “Don’t hate your black brother…you MIGHT wind up living next door to him in Heaven. God has a sense of humor.” We need to realize we are all fallible humans forgiven only by the grace of God. Sorry if anything I put on this post seemed to reflect hate. I just get incensed when people from somewhere else come here and try to tell me how I should do things.

By RMS

April 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I thought the show was centered around casting Sherman in a more favorable light. Typical politically correct historical revision. Sherman’s march was brutal, unrelenting and without remorse. He left nothing standing in his path, for the most part.

Years ago, I interviewed a man whose grandmother stood face to face with Sherman in Orangeburg, SC. She appealed to his gentler side, having met him before the war at a social in Charleston. She asked him if he was still the gentlemen she had met back then, he responded that he was. She and her family were allowed to stay in their plantation house and he ordered his men to leave them alone. The house still stands today with all of its original Civil War era furniture. That would have bolstered the position taken by the documentary last night.

I couldn’t help thinking as I watched the show, what if we could send a General Sherman to Irag and Afghanistan? How long would it take to end those conflicts? Just a thought….

By CobbCoian

April 23, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Wow - from these posts it seems like we are still fighting the war…. I am a “Yankee” who moved down here recently, and was amazed to find that people still talked about the Confederancy like it was still around, I was even amazed that I got called a “Yank”… I would have thought we as a country got past all this.
Civil war was a part of HISTORY, it is not still going on! It is something we should learn from, and learn about, but we aren’t going to change any it! Shermans March was a pretty good show, it did leave out facts about both sides. But I think the point was, Total War. Yes, all Wars are bad and bad things happen on both sides, but it did help to bring the war to an end. Similiar to what we did to Japanese at the end of WWII.

By David Lee

April 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

CobbCoian: You are just another yankee who thinks he knows it all. Learn about your city and don’t take it for granted.

By ray

April 23, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

people say that the union soldiers raped women and pillaged the towns. but did you know that all slave o