Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Storm Raven]

What was the purpose of burning the houses and taking the food of individual homes? He would take everything, even when there was not even enough to support the families that lived in them, much less the confederate army.

Because if they had left, experience showed that the Confederacy would send the supplies to the army, as they had when the Union had laid siege to towns in the western theatre.

And no, I'm not talking about logistics, where taking the supplies away would help his cause. I'm talking about the ruthless destruction of the very way of life of thousands of people. He was destroying civilian populations, NOT military supplies in the majority of cases. His main purpose was to terrify the population, nothing else.

Food, and the ability to provide food, is a military supply, no matter how you cut it.

Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the methods he used against non-military populations. The people in most of those towns were innocent civilians.

Not if they supported a regime that espoused slavery they weren't.

After he left, people resorted to eating dead animal carcasses and grass in some cases, as he would leave them with nothing, taking what he could carry and burning or killing what was left.

And? That meant they had nothing to send to their armies fighting in the north. It meant Johnston and Hood had no basis to supply their armies in Georgia by forage.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.

 

[billd91]

Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.

I dunno about that. I hardly think Atlanta had nothing to send to the Confederate army in either supply or political will to continue to fight. There are plenty of people who feel this is morally justified, particularly when taking the war to the people who started it to defend an indefensible institution like slavery. Is it really any different from bombing German cities in WWII (particularly the night raids by the British and the raids on Desden, neither of which credibly targeted war industries)?
I think there have been too many times in history in which war is a remote idea, the brunt of the suffering borne by the soldiers, entered into capriciously by people scarcely affected by it.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

I dunno about that. I hardly think Atlanta had nothing to send to the Confederate army in either supply or political will to continue to fight.

But it wasn't just Atlanta that he did this to. There was a trail of death and destruction as he rampaged across the south, burnign everything he came to. Atlanta just happened to be the biggest city.

 

[WayneLigon]

Ben Franklin, definately. He was the original font for some many ideas and concepts in both our political landscape and our culture that we may never know all of them.

 

[billd91]

But it wasn't just Atlanta that he did this to. There was a trail of death and destruction as he rampaged across the south, burnign everything he came to. Atlanta just happened to be the biggest city.

But you know they'd think twice about firing on Fort Sumpter again. Mission accomplished.
On a less flippant note, there are people who still think that's justified. Burn the consequences of war into the collective memory by taking the war, on a very personal level, to the people and not just to the soldiers on the battlefield, where the suffering could otherwise be relatively contained.
There are people who consider that wrong as well. Tough moral issue.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It wasn't quite that one-sided. The Battle of Lake Eerie, the Battle of Chipewa, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of the Thames, for example, were notable American successes against British Canada and/or their Indian allies. The Americans even burned York (later rebuilt and renamed Toronto) which probably precipitated the infamous burning of Washington in the first place. Stephen Decatur, Isaac Hull and whatsisname Porter had some notable early naval successes. And even though the timing made it ironically unnecessary, the Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory for the Americans.

Although the War of 1812 is probably merely a footnote in British history, especially in light of their other "War of 1812" against Napolean it had a profound impact on the national identity of both the U.S. and what would later emerge as Canada.

No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.

At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary. I'm no expert. Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently. You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.

Except that he had to worry about Johnston and Hood (primarily) who had shown a willingness to take those things for themselves, to supply their armies. You are assuming that civilian = not valuable to the war. In that you are wrong. And virtually no one in the South was "innocent", their farms and crops were used to support the war. Most actively supported slavery, many held slaves. Most of the food supplies for the Army of Northern Virginia came from Georgia and South Carolina (at least once Sheridan made the Shenandoah valley unusable for the Conmfederacy as a source of supply). Taking the food and support mechanism from the agricultural regions of the South meant that food could not be used to support the army, and may very well require diverting food from other places to prop up the populace, once again depriving Johnston, Hood, and Lee of supplies.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Not if they supported a regime that espoused slavery they weren't.

That's funny, cos slavery was legal in the United States (Union) all throughout the War Between the States. Also, slaverye existed under the flag of the United States far longer than it did under that of the Confederate States . . .

 

[Gentlegamer]

Except that he had to worry about Johnston and Hood (primarily) who had shown a willingness to take those things for themselves, to supply their armies. You are assuming that civilian = not valuable to the war. In that you are wrong. And virtually no one in the South was "innocent", their farms and crops were used to support the war. Most actively supported slavery, many held slaves. Most of the food supplies for the Army of Northern Virginia came from Georgia and South Carolina (at least once Sheridan made the Shenandoah valley unusable for the Conmfederacy as a source of supply). Taking the food and support mechanism from the agricultural regions of the South meant that food could not be used to support the army, and may very well require diverting food from other places to prop up the populace, once again depriving Johnston, Hood, and Lee of supplies.

Foraging was a common practice in that day, so yes, technically, the Confederate military could have used civilian supplies. But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting. Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did.