Sherman the Son-of-a-Bitch!

[Selene]

Professor Feimster's argument is that the "threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to Southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War."

Wow, so now your sorry ass shifts to the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA]! <<<<A semi satirical statement...

Hnm do you think those perfectly pretty proper Southern "ladys" were not in "fear" of "rape" by the down home plantation "nigras?"

They only were concerned about blue uniforms?

I have to say, sir, you are getting tedious.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

There was relatively little rapine in the March Through Georgia. The Southrons exaggerated the little there was to demonize Sherman.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The recent work of Harvard historian Cystal Feimster shows that rape of both white and black women was not uncommon during the Union occupation of the South:

"Whether they lived on large plantations or small farms, in towns, cities or in contraband camps, white and black women all over the American South experienced the sexual trauma of war . . . Southern women’s wartime diaries, court martial records, wartime general orders, military reports and letters written by women, soldiers, doctors, nurses and military chaplains leave little doubt that, as in most wars, rape and the threat of sexual violence figured large in the military campaigns that swept across the Southern landscape."

Pullease! We are talking about Sherman's March to the Sea and this impossibly broadens everything out and would destroy the thread with this gigantic dog leg. You did the same thing with your first post here.

If you are against the War Between the States--me too, me too! Now you can just say so. But that's also another thread.

--Brant

There has been no attempt to broaden the discussion, only to support my claim that violence against women was among the crimes that Sherman's troops in Georgia committed.

Professor Feimster's argument is that the "threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to Southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War." Now, if such violent acts were common in the war torn South, then there is no reason to suppose that an exception was made by Sherman's men in occupied Georgia. In fact, Feimster specifically cites a Georgia case.

Of course there was "a Georgia case." 60,000 men marching 60 miles wide for 300 miles. Your implied case is Sherman's army raped its way through Georgia. Adduce your evidence.

--Brant

now Sherman's men "occupied Georgia"--I thought they just went through Georgia, so why would they leave anyone behind?--the harassing Confederates would have chopped them up

Kim Murphy has recently done a study of over 400 Union Civil War rape cases (in an era when rape was severely under-reported due to prevailing mores): I Had Rather Die: Rape in the Civil War. I'll have the Georgia numbers for you later.

Occupation is what any locale experiences when an invading army is in the area. Google: "The action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force."

(Two years after Sherman departed, Congress ordered a military administration for Georgia and other rebel states: "Georgia, along with Alabama and Florida, became part of the Third Military District, under the command of General John Pope.")

[Selene]

Kim Murphy has recently done a study of over 400 Union Civil War rape cases

Wow...really?

Were there rapes of slaves the week before Appomattox?

The month?

Got any of those numbers?

Where is your mind?

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

In Sherman's march to the sea "Uncle Billy" kept up a blistering marching pace. His boys did not have time for rape. There main business was wrecking Georgia and making it impossible for Confederate civilians to give aid and support to their army. Sherman marched his men from Atlanta to Savannah on a 60 mile wide front in about 36 days. The last week of the March was through land that had little or no forage. He had to take the fort just outside Atlanta on time or his troops would starve.

Uncle Billy practiced total war and he was the first modern general. He departed completely from Napoleonic tactics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

Professor Feimster's argument is that the "threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to Southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War."

Wow, so now your sorry ass shifts to the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA]! <<<<A semi satirical statement...

Hnm do you think those perfectly pretty proper Southern "ladys" were not in "fear" of "rape" by the down home plantation "nigras?"

They only were concerned about blue uniforms?

I have to say, sir, you are getting tedious.

A...

I'm sure your words are well intended and the product of deep thought. However, if the content of my contributions fails to improve in the upcoming weeks, you may want to consider the ignore option.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Kim Murphy has recently done a study of over 400 Union Civil War rape cases

Wow...really?

Were there rapes of slaves the week before Appomattox?

The month?

Got any of those numbers?

Where is your mind?

A...

Tell you what. I'll work on getting the numbers for Union army rapes, and you work on getting the number for rapes of slaves.

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Sherman's march to the sea "Uncle Billy" kept up a blistering marching pace. His boys did not have time for rape.

That's interesting because the stragglers in Sherman's army, also known as "Sherman's bummers," have been widely recorded.

[BaalChatzaf]

In Sherman's march to the sea "Uncle Billy" kept up a blistering marching pace. His boys did not have time for rape.

That's interesting because the stragglers in Sherman's army, also known as "Sherman's bummers," have been widely recorded.

Those weren't combat troops. Those were scavengers.

[Brant Gaede]

There was relatively little rapine in the March Through Georgia. The Southrons exaggerated the little there was to demonize Sherman.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The recent work of Harvard historian Cystal Feimster shows that rape of both white and black women was not uncommon during the Union occupation of the South:

"Whether they lived on large plantations or small farms, in towns, cities or in contraband camps, white and black women all over the American South experienced the sexual trauma of war . . . Southern women’s wartime diaries, court martial records, wartime general orders, military reports and letters written by women, soldiers, doctors, nurses and military chaplains leave little doubt that, as in most wars, rape and the threat of sexual violence figured large in the military campaigns that swept across the Southern landscape."

Pullease! We are talking about Sherman's March to the Sea and this impossibly broadens everything out and would destroy the thread with this gigantic dog leg. You did the same thing with your first post here.

If you are against the War Between the States--me too, me too! Now you can just say so. But that's also another thread.

--Brant

There has been no attempt to broaden the discussion, only to support my claim that violence against women was among the crimes that Sherman's troops in Georgia committed.

Professor Feimster's argument is that the "threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to Southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War." Now, if such violent acts were common in the war torn South, then there is no reason to suppose that an exception was made by Sherman's men in occupied Georgia. In fact, Feimster specifically cites a Georgia case.

Of course there was "a Georgia case." 60,000 men marching 60 miles wide for 300 miles. Your implied case is Sherman's army raped its way through Georgia. Adduce your evidence.

--Brant

now Sherman's men "occupied Georgia"--I thought they just went through Georgia, so why would they leave anyone behind?--the harassing Confederates would have chopped them up

Kim Murphy has recently done a study of over 400 Union Civil War rape cases (in an era when rape was severely under-reported due to prevailing mores): I Had Rather Die: Rape in the Civil War. I'll have the Georgia numbers for you later.

Occupation is what any locale experiences when an invading army is in the area. Google: "The action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force."

(Two years after Sherman departed, Congress ordered a military administration for Georgia and other rebel states: "Georgia, along with Alabama and Florida, became part of the Third Military District, under the command of General John Pope.")

The definition is tautological. We are, were, talking about Sherman through Georgia. You have combined occupy with a kind of calculus semantically. So, as the army passed through it occupied until it had gone through? BFD! It moved fast! This doesn't support your raping as we go thesis or raping when we stop for the night or raping while we heat up and twist rails or raping as we loot and burn the plantations down or that Sherman really was just way too bad and should have been replaced by Mother Teresa.

--Brant

[Selene]

Precisely because he is basically deficient.

Just to state clearly to FF.

I have never used ignore and never will.

However, I will get in your face because I enjoy playing with a person locked in the past.

Kinda like you are the roach and I am the cat...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

"Bummers" were looters and vandals of Sherman's army. Nothing about raping or straggling I've found so far. Loot and destruction was what the army was about. What should it have done differently? Sought out and engaged Confederate forces? Maintained its supply lines? Sat in Atlanta? Gone North immediately to help Grant against Lee? I'm not saying there should have been the war and therefore . . . . I'm saying there was a war, therefore . . . . The whole point is to contrast what Sherman did with what Israel is doing in Gaza and what the US did in WWII, etc. Fire bombings of Japanese cities killed 600,000 Japanese. Bad strategy? Wrong strategy? Immoral strategy? Qua war it was just as wrong as the one Sherman fought in and just as unnecessary, but Sherman didn't do to Georgia and Georgians what those bombers did to Japan. Now, he was an SOB and if he had been in charge of fighting Japan in theater I grant he'd have been just the man to bomb those cities if he couldn't figure out something better. It all comes back to what Israel should do and needs to do to defend and protect itself militarily against enemies who demand kill or be killed.

--Brant

[Selene]

--Brant

Brant...

When was war anything other than someones intestines splayed over hallowed ground,

Hell you lived it, I only experienced it in certain limited fire fights that had no "sides," or, uniforms.

Same red blood stained the ground.

A...

'

[Samson Corwell]

Especially among Union generals, Sherman represented the return of "civilized world" to total war, the disappearance of any discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.

Sherman wrote that his goal was "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [southern] people." (Letter of July 31, 1862 to his wife from his Collected Works)

In this sense Sherman is the perfect Übermensch, the man who is freed from the standard Christian concern for the lives of others. The Übermensch makes his own morality.

I think it was more practical than that. Sherman wanted to shorten the war. The only way to do that was to wreck the economy of the Confederacy which he did. Aside from burning houses and fields he had railway track ripped up, heated in fire and wrapped around trees. They were called Sherman's neckties.

His objective was to lay the confederacy militarily and economically prostrate and that is what he did.

Within a year of his famous (infamous) March through Georgia the war was finished. The effects were so profound that even today, while you are reading this there are Southrons who still curse Sherman's name.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Southrons"?

[BaalChatzaf]

"Southrons"?

1. southron

   Web definitions

   1. A southerner, someone from the south; An Englishman; Alternative capitalization of Southron; southern; English, from England
      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/southron

[Jules Troy]

WTF? Why this lecture? Try reading the second link then adjust and add to your comments.

--Brant

Surprised me also.

However, MEM has been in a non-connective mode for the last month or so.

[Jules Troy]

The last month??!! Christ he has been floating around Alpha Centauri for years!

[Francisco Ferrer]

The definition is tautological. We are, were, talking about Sherman through Georgia. You have combined occupy with a kind of calculus semantically. So, as the army passed through it occupied until it had gone through? BFD! It moved fast! This doesn't support your raping as we go thesis or raping when we stop for the night or raping while we heat up and twist rails or raping as we loot and burn the plantations down or that Sherman really was just way too bad and should have been replaced by Mother Teresa.

--Brant

I'm not aware that raping is more time-consuming than burning cities and destroying rail lines.

And even an invading army led by Mother Teresa would have been unconstitutional

[Francisco Ferrer]

Precisely because he is basically deficient.

Just to state clearly to FF.

I have never used ignore and never will.

However, I will get in your face because I enjoy playing with a person locked in the past.

Kinda like you are the roach and I am the cat...

A...

I certainly don't want to get squished under your paw. And I appreciate your concern for those who are locked in the past with no access to such modern developments as vaccines, Facebook, and Obamacare. Therefore, when we discuss the Civil War, shall we not use any primary source older than a year or two?

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Bummers" were looters and vandals of Sherman's army. Nothing about raping or straggling I've found so far. Loot and destruction was what the army was about. What should it have done differently? Sought out and engaged Confederate forces? Maintained its supply lines? Sat in Atlanta? Gone North immediately to help Grant against Lee? I'm not saying there should have been the war and therefore . . . . I'm saying there was a war, therefore . . . . The whole point is to contrast what Sherman did with what Israel is doing in Gaza and what the US did in WWII, etc. Fire bombings of Japanese cities killed 600,000 Japanese. Bad strategy? Wrong strategy? Immoral strategy? Qua war it was just as wrong as the one Sherman fought in and just as unnecessary, but Sherman didn't do to Georgia and Georgians what those bombers did to Japan. Now, he was an SOB and if he had been in charge of fighting Japan in theater I grant he'd have been just the man to bomb those cities if he couldn't figure out something better. It all comes back to what Israel should do and needs to do to defend and protect itself militarily against enemies who demand kill or be killed.

--Brant

British soldiers didn't do to American colonists what the U.S. did to Japan. Technology has made mass killing quick, easy, and relatively cheap. The button is sitting right there on the desk. Why not press it?

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Sherman's march to the sea "Uncle Billy" kept up a blistering marching pace. His boys did not have time for rape.

That's interesting because the stragglers in Sherman's army, also known as "Sherman's bummers," have been widely recorded.

Those weren't combat troops. Those were scavengers.

A rapist is not part of Sherman's army. Ergo, Sherman's army did not rape.

Neat.

[Brant Gaede]

So far:

As a matter of tactics and strategy Sherman's army looted and destroyed its way through Georgia concentrating on plantations, industry and transportation. The purpose was material and psychological destruction of Southern resistance to Northern aggression. (The Civil War was never actually a civil war but a war of succession.)

Rapine was not part of those tactics and there were only a very few cases. That doesn't mean Southerners weren't terrified at the idea.

Only about 1000 Confederate soldiers were killed trying to stop Sherman's "march to the sea." Sherman had no interest in battles except to minimize them.

The historian Hanson is biased to the North.

Sherman was an SOB, but what he did in Georgia was the best way to win the war for the North in the quickest time possible. No one here has made one suggestion of how he could have done a better job of that.

What Sherman did in Georgia is somewhat analogous to what Israel just did in Gaza, except qua end of the war the analogy breaks down. What might Israel need to do going forward since it's at overt war with Hamas and with myriad others sub rosa, just out of sight?

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

So far:

As a matter of tactics and strategy Sherman's army looted and destroyed its way through Georgia concentrating on Plantations, industry and transportation. The purpose was material and psychological destruction of Southern resistance to Northern aggression. (The Civil War was never actually a civil war but a war of succession.)

Rapine was not part of those tactics and there were only a very few cases. That doesn't mean Southerners weren't terrified at the idea.

Only about 1000 Confederate soldiers were killed trying to stop Sherman's "march to the sea." Sherman had no interest in battles except to minimize them.

The historian Hanson is biased to the North.

Sherman was an SOB, but what he did in Georgia was the best way to win the war for the North in the quickest time possible. No one here has made one suggestion of how he could have done a better job of it.

--Brant

You mean war of secession.

I have already said that the war and its atrocities could have ended years earlier had Lincoln been willing to negotiate with Southern emissaries.

You cannot destroy a state's transportation infrastructure, factories, storehouses, and a large portion of its crops and livestock (already strained because of the war) without having a significant impact on its mortality rate. The battle dead do not tell the whole story.

Let the poor people answer whom they have deprived of every mouthful of meat & of their stock to make any. Our mills, too, they have burned, destroying an immense amount of property. --from the diary of Georgian Dotty Lunt Burge quoted in Walter Brian Cisco, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians.

[Brant Gaede]

Blush.

--someone else, honest