Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Burning of Atlanta

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
blake79 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote blake79 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Burning of Atlanta
    Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 10:26

In recent years, I have heard so much from many left leaning revisionist who constantly argue the morality of the atomic bombings of Japan and the Dresden boming of Germany. Yet, I have heard very little from those groups on the issue of the Burning of Atlanta and the devestation that was recked on the South during the American Civil war.

First of all let me make one thing clear. I am a Southerner who feels that slavery was the worst of all evils and should never have been allowed to fester anywhere in the world. Having said that I must also add that I know enough about American history, to know that while Lincoln was sending many brave union soldiers South to fight what he later adopted as a war to end slavery, forever. He was also sending troops west to kill Native Americans and steal their lands. So in my opion his and the Union's moral justifaction was either a clever and successful attempt at political spin or downright hypocritical.

I will not debate the issue of States Rights but more or less the morality of the Union's conduct in waging America's bloodest war.

In his March to the Sea, Sherman's army laid waste to large swafts of land between Tennessee and North Carolina, with Atlanta being in the middle. History has proven in later cases, that had the Burning of Atlanta taken place in a more modern time, Lincoln and many of his Generals would have been put on trial for crimes against humanity.

It must be remembered that the United States Government spent very little to help the south recover, politicaly and economicly while the same United States governmemt would later spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Germany, Japan and western Europe after the second world wars.  As a more recent example America has spent $87 billion rebuilding Iraq alone in the aftermath of the last Iraqi war.

The South, on the other hand, was left to starve and didn't fully recover for another hundred years. Many states of the South are still concidered to be among the poorest in the nation.

Whether due to the surface nature of the struggle, (slavery) or just simply an indiffernt biggotry towards the souths traditional way of life. (Bible Belt.) This has gone unnoticed by many historians and the educated elite in America and around the world.

 



Edited by blake79
All Rise!
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 11:25

In recent years, I have heard so much from many left leaning revisionist who constantly argue the morality of the atomic bombings of Japan and the Dresden boming of Germany.

 

In terms of numbers killed Sherman's march to the sea in no way compares to the Allied bombing campaign of world war 2, though I see both as necessarry.

 

He was also sending troops west to kill Native Americans and steal their lands.

 

Lincoln's Indian policy was much softer than any president before or after up until the 20th century, during the Santee uprising in Minnesota he pardoned 300 members of the Santee.

 

History has proven in later cases, that had the Burning of Atlanta taken place in a more modern time, Lincoln and many of his Generals would have been put on trial for crimes against humanity.

 

So would Hap Arnold and the entire commanding staff of the US Army Air Corp of the second world war.

 

It must be remembered that the United States Government spent very little to help the south recover, politicaly and economicly while the same United States governmemt would later spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Germany, Japan and western Europe after the second world wars.

 

Little to rebuid?  First it was not entirely accepted to spend Federal money on state projects.  Second the South was backwards and impoverished before the war, sure there may have been some wealthy plantation owners but the doesn't include the mass of southern society.  If anything the south would be more impoverished and backwards had the war not occurred.  It was the civil war that broke the planter class's stranglehold on southern society bringing northern investment and public schooling to usher dixie into the industrial age.  Even if Reconstruction did not measure up to the Marshal Plan do not make the mistake of dissmissing the considerable Northern financial investment into the south. 

 

The South, on the other hand, was left to starve and didn't fully recover for another hundred years. Many states of the South are still concidered to be among the poorest in the nation.

Whether due to the surface nature of the struggle, (slavery) or just simply an indiffernt biggotry towards the souths traditional way of life. (Bible Belt.) This has gone unnoticed by many historians and the educated elite in America and around the world.

 

If anything the reason for the impoverished nature of the south is because of their state government's refusal to invest sufficient public money into their own public infrastructures. 

Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 04:24
Having said that I must also add that I know enough about American history, to know that while Lincoln was sending many brave union soldiers South to fight what he later adopted as a war to end slavery, forever. He was also sending troops west to kill Native Americans and steal their lands. So in my opion his and the Union's moral justifaction was either a clever and successful attempt at political spin or downright hypocritical.
 
Its things like these that lead me to believe in the nature of American Imperialism.
 
American Empire 1776-XXXX
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 05:12
1) The devastating defeats of '64 inside deep southern territory not the border as before, be they in Georgia, the Shenandoah or the Overland Campaign, directly led to the general southern collapse in 1865, so from a purely military standpoint, yes it was justified as it led to victory. As for the morality question, I perfer to suscribe to Kitchener's "war is an atrocity"thesis.
 
2) Actually historically the USG ended up having to pretty much pay for the Southern costs as well, as Southern debts especially to England were quietly paid. Another way was to sell off captured southern military stocks.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 19:37
in wars the spoils go to the victors, the civil war was in my mind the most gruelling war the americans have ever fought, and as with other nations, if i can relate it to england, england used to be divided into petty kingdoms and in the end, not long before the norman invasion the south won through, even today the north is seen as working class, poor relations etc.
 
I suspect its a worldwide phenomenon, people in north italy have traditionaly got a better deal than those in the south.
 
It would make very interesting news if a state of the usa, say california or texas, turned around and said they wanted to go it alone, i wonder what the government response would be.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 21:16
Originally posted by longshanks31

It would make very interesting news if a state of the usa, say california or texas, turned around and said they wanted to go it alone, i wonder what the government response would be.
Now that is interesting; I wonder if you used those two states as examples on purpose?  I remember taking an american history class as a freshmen in college and was suprised to learn of the unique situation of Texas and California.  From what I remember Texas was a seperate state, in essence, before it became part of the US.  As far as I know both it and California still have the legal right to leave the union, as opposed to other states which never had the same kind of freedom.  Not positive though. 
 
I would find it unlikely that either of them would want to go on alone, it all comes down to economics.  If it was more profitable to become a separate state and then I'm sure there would be people who would consider it.  Based on what has happened in california recently (wildfires) I would imagine them wanting to stay in the union to see federal aid come pouring in.  With Texas one never knows...  The US would probably just intimidate one of these rogue states to come back into the fold.  Both of those states have a very large percentage of hispanic/mexican people, so perhaps one could consider a reunion with Mexico?  I would say 5% at most chance that anything like this occurs, and that is probably being generous. 
 
Fun to contemplate though.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 01:03
Originally posted by Justinian

  From what I remember Texas was a seperate state, in essence, before it became part of the US.  As far as I know both it and California still have the legal right to leave the union, as opposed to other states which never had the same kind of freedom.  Not positive though. 
 
 
I can't speak for anyone from California, though i am sure the same applies, but Texas does not have the legal right to secede. Any uncertainty about that issue was settled in april of 1865!
 
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 02:25
I know, I was just trying to explain the unique historical situation of Texas compared to, for example, the eastern states.  Having forgot most of what I was taught did not help.Embarrassed  I was talking about it more as a hypothetical than literal situation.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 02:38
Whoops... sorry. Embarrassed
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 09:08
Originally posted by Justinian

Originally posted by longshanks31

It would make very interesting news if a state of the usa, say california or texas, turned around and said they wanted to go it alone, i wonder what the government response would be.
Now that is interesting; I wonder if you used those two states as examples on purpose?  I remember taking an american history class as a freshmen in college and was suprised to learn of the unique situation of Texas and California.  From what I remember Texas was a seperate state, in essence, before it became part of the US.  As far as I know both it and California still have the legal right to leave the union, as opposed to other states which never had the same kind of freedom.  Not positive though. 
 
I would find it unlikely that either of them would want to go on alone, it all comes down to economics.  If it was more profitable to become a separate state and then I'm sure there would be people who would consider it.  Based on what has happened in california recently (wildfires) I would imagine them wanting to stay in the union to see federal aid come pouring in.  With Texas one never knows...  The US would probably just intimidate one of these rogue states to come back into the fold.  Both of those states have a very large percentage of hispanic/mexican people, so perhaps one could consider a reunion with Mexico?  I would say 5% at most chance that anything like this occurs, and that is probably being generous. 
 
Fun to contemplate though.
 
 
I just chose texas and california because to the US gdp they are very important, plus they are not land locked by other us states, i once heard that if california was an independant country it would have the eighth largest economy on earth, quite amazing.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 09:10
justinian, i hope it never does happen, but at the same time that would be a wild news day.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 03:27
Originally posted by Panther

Whoops... sorry. Embarrassed
No worries, I did not do a great job of getting my point across.
 
8th largest you say?  Now that is impressive.  People think the media over dramatize things now...  It would be an event, no denying that.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Crystall View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 114
  Quote Crystall Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 04:53
I think it is illegal for states to succeed.. some amendment I believe. It would infringe on the rights of the Americans Citizens, which all citizens of states are.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 14:14
crystall im sure it would never happen, not in our lifetimes atleast, its just a theoretical side track, if the huge majority of, say californias population wanted to set up there own shop today, like certain parts of other nations have done, i think it would happen, as the alternative would be a worse scenario.
 
In the same light if scotland decided by majority consensus to split with the union, i dont think it would result in war to stop it.
I dont think it would bother the average man of either side much atall, as long as theres food on the table and money in the pockets.
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.