Started By
Message

re: Abraham Lincoln radically changed the nature of the Civil War on this day 161 years ago

Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:42 pm to
Posted by AU66
Northport Al
Member since Sep 2006
3264 posts
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:42 pm to
quote:

Sherman did his job. This is warfare. You play for keeps and do what has to be done to make the other side give up.


At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
72767 posts
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:10 pm to
quote:

At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.


Next time just say the South FAFO.
Posted by DakIsNoLB
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2015
587 posts
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:22 pm to
quote:

At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.



These were his orders:

quote:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms...


How are his armies strayed from these orders, I don't know.

And Robert E. Lee, whether he would have or not, had have known that if he did go after Northern infrastructure and property, then invading Northen armies thereafter would follow suit. I'm guessing he would not risk it especially since he wanted local support.
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
49870 posts
Posted on 9/24/23 at 9:54 pm to
quote:

At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.


Lee had this policy as the south hoped to avoid further inflaming the North. The war wasn't terribly popular in the north at this time and there was a hope among the southerners that the populace would turn against it and through their votes bring it to an end.

Prior to Gettysburg the war hadn't been a rousing success for the north so a lot of people wanted to see it end.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram