Of COURSE Paul Krugman Is a Fan of General Sherman
And remember, when naming his blog, Krugman chose “Conscience of a Liberal” to stress that his worldview is infused not just with better economics, but with superior morals than his right-wing rivals. Anyway, his latest post says:
One hundred fifty years ago today, William Tecumseh Sherman’s corps, which had pulled back from in front of Atlanta — deceiving the Confederates into believing that they were in retreat — were scything around south of the city, cutting the rail lines. Hood’s army got away, but the victory was nonetheless decisive, for political reasons: the fall of Atlanta convinced voters that the war could and would be won, and Lincoln was reelected.
I’ve written before about my U.S. Grant obsession; Sherman, too. And the friendship between these two men — men who had no illusions about war, who understood the modern world and did what had to be done — is, to my mind, one of the great stories of American history.
Now for innocent readers who might not know, what exactly does this “did what had to be done” entail? Perhaps some of Sherman’s cannon fire on rebel troops went astray, accidentally killing a few dozen civilians? Is this the kind of thing Krugman is willing to excuse in pursuit of social objectives?
Nope, it’s a bit more than that. I’ll quote from Wikipedia’s entry on “Sherman’s March to the Sea”:
Sherman’s March to the Sea is the name commonly given to the military Savannah Campaign in the American Civil War, conducted through Georgia from November 15 to December 21, 1864 by Maj. Gen.William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army. The campaign began with Sherman’s troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia, on November 15 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. His forces destroyed military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property and disrupted the South’s economy and its transportation networks. Sherman’s bold move of operating deep within enemy territory and without supply lines is considered to be revolutionary in the annals of war.
…
Sherman gave explicit orders, Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 120, regarding the conduct of the campaign. The following is an excerpt from the orders:
… IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march…
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted 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….
— William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.
The Wikipedia article mentions that Sherman’s march was very destructive and controversial, but doesn’t report anything too shocking to one’s sensibilities. A more Southern-oriented (though still not inflammatory in tone) website reports:
Sherman’s march frightened and appalled Southerners. It hurt morale, for civilians had believed the Confederacy could protect the home front. Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. Although he did not level any towns, he did destroy buildings in places where there was resistance. His men had shown little sympathy for Millen, the site of Camp Lawton, where Union prisoners of war were held. Physical attacks on white civilians were few, although it is not known how slave women fared at the hands of the invaders. Often male slaves posted guards outside the cabins of their women.
When I was younger, I had this romantic notion that American “liberals” were very antiwar and lovey-dovey, whereas it was the right-wing realists who knew that sometimes you had to kill people to get things done. Well, now I know better.
One thing I’ve learned is that you cannot shame liberals for their blood lust regarding southerners and you cannot shame Republicans for their blood lust regarding Muslims.
This post severely understates the horrors inflicted by Sherman, including his policy of killing all dogs. Krugman was informed of that policy years ago.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/everyone-has-an-ideology/?comments#permid=109
Roddis, I recognize that this post doesn’t paint the horror of Sherman’s March that I’ve seen described elsewhere. However, (a) I’m supposed to be working and (b) I didn’t want to stray too far from what a new reader would consider an “unbiased” source.
Treat them gently. I get it.
Roddis by all means if you have some good links, please post them. I was actually surprised by how tame the Wikipedia entry was, because I’ve seen shocking accounts of people who had the unfortunate luck to be in the path of Sherman’s army.
Many of them. Not perhaps quite all. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek
So, Sherman’s army refused to let the slaves cross the river on the bridge and left them there to drown or be recaptured by the confederates.
It’s all Rothbard’s fault.
Seriously, what point are you trying to make that we do not know or understand?
Great point. Bob clearly meant every single person who ever encountered Sherman’s army.
World War I as Fulfillment – Power and Intellectuals
This book puts the meat on the bones of that theme. Tom Woods interviewed Richard Gamble twice on his show.
http://tinyurl.com/lcaxlcu
I found this laying about from back when:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/03/judge-napolitano-takes-over-the-daily-show.html#comment-339057
No results found for andersonville site:consultingbyrpm.com.
That’s because libertarians and Austrians are motivated primarily by support for slavery and thus are keen to hide confederate atrocities. Everyone knows that.
Is invoking Andersonville supposed to be a mirror or grenade or what here?
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/do-not-underestimate-the-power-of-the-dark-side.html#comment-635950
Interesting characterization of what that war was about. Incomplete I venture, but revealing.
Interesting sure, doesn’t look correct or even apt though.
Looks like elementary school pettiness more than anything, honestly.
As long as you venture I am compelled to believe what ever you think is the final word.
Great catch, obviously Bob is omitting facts that don’t suit his moribund ideology.
Bob, maybe I’ve missed some posts, but have you written much on liberalism/progressivism basically being a religion itself at this point? Because that might explain Krugman quite well.
After Confederate forces evacuated [Columbia, S.C. as Sherman’s army approached], about 9 A.M., Mayor Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn met the advancing Federals and surrendered his city, asking for—and receiving—promise of protection for persons and property.7 Upon entering Columbia some Union officers permitted their men to be given liquor, and soldiers started looting stores and igniting the cotton. Flames were soon extinguished by municipal firefighters. One Iowa soldier said that when he arrived, “The cotton had been drenched and the street flooded with water and, to all appear- ances, the fire entirely subdued.” That was fortunate, for about 2 P.M. troops began to pass the time by slashing and bayoneting hoses.”
Throughout the day, reported a witness, “robbery was going on at every corner—in nearly every house.” Purses, watches, hats, boots, overcoats—any item of value—were taken from victims, white or black. “Nor were these acts [entirely] those of common soldiers,” he noted. “Commissioned officers, of a rank so high as that of a colonel, were frequently among the most active.”9 At one home soldiers in their search for hidden valuables stabbed knives into a mattress between terrified children, “thinking that the children were put there as a blind.”‘” Countless women had earrings ripped from bleeding ears. “I have myself seen a lady with the lobes of both ears torn asunder,” wrote a foreign diplomat.” A bedridden, dying woman had rings removed from her fingers. “In several cases, newly made graves were opened,” remembered a witness, “the coffins taken out, broken open, in search of buried treasure, and the corpses left exposed.” Yankee troops relieved themselves in the rooms of Columbia homes, defiling crockery, even urinating on beds.12
On one street a Union soldier, “seeing some children playing with a beautiful little greyhound, amused himself by beating its brains out.””
One black woman, a servant of Columbia minister Peter Shand, was raped by seven soldiers of the United States Army. She then had her face forced down into a shallow ditch and was held there until she drowned. William Gilmore Simms reported how “regiments, in successive relays,” committed gang rape in Columbia on scores of slave women.10
WAR CRIMES AGAINST SOUTHERN CIVILIANS by Walter Brian Cisco
Neocons also love Sherman http://m.nationalreview.com/article/385698/sherman-gaza-victor-davis-hanson
Most military commanders, Bob would be fine with.
But the guy that ended the most costly war in US history with minimal civilian casualties?
Apparently, he killed dogs, and stuff. So, unacceptable.
I guess Lee would be a better choice, because he was fighting for freedom from evil federalism.
The Confederacy was a libertarian utopia before Sherman came through.
Is that an honest comment, Cody? Because I can think of, like 5 problems with it off the top of my head.
When someone starts with the proposition that Dr. Murphy would love most military commanders, it’s safe to say that he is either trolling or completely oblivious about Murphy’s views.
Oh I’m sure, I just want to see how much nonsense can be squeezed out before Bob intervenes. If he asks me to stand down I certainly will.
Agreed, Dan.
“When someone starts with the proposition that Dr. Murphy would love most military commanders”
Which isn’t what Cody S said, of course.
You’re more concerned about an incorrect reading of what Cody S said, than you are with the fact that what Cody S said is incorrect.
the ancap obsession with the evils of the Union and their sympathy for the Confederacy is rather odd.
Remember guys….
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/i-call-krugmans-bluff-on-european-austerity.html#comment-855172
but then again maybe not so odd.
The anti-ancap obsession with the South and their Sympathy for the Union is rather odd.
Yeah, it was what he said.
Remember guys….
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/i-call-krugmans-bluff-on-european-austerity.html#comment-855172
Bob certainly would have had problems with military commanders and if he had had his way Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Zhukov would have stood their troops down.
Well thank god Bob wasn’t in charge or we would have missed out on 60 years of tranquility.
Progressives and neocons find meaning in their lives through conflict.
Welp looks like the discussion in this thread is proceeding the way I had hoped…
Haha!
Big, gentle charmer that Sherman:
“We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians stop and check the progress of the railroad,” he wrote to General Grant in 1867 (Fellman, p. 264). As Fellman writes: “The great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort [Grant, Sherman and Sheridan] formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by the 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as “the final solution of the Indian problem,” which he defined as killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places . . . These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three despised, in the name of ‘Civilization and Progress.’
Another Sherman biographer, John F. Marszalek, points out in “Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order,” that “Sherman viewed Indians as he viewed recalcitrant Southerners during the war and newly freed people after the war: resisters to the legitimate forces of an orderly society,” by which he meant the central government. Moreover, writes Marszalek, Sherman’s philosophy was that “since the inferior Indians refused to step aside so superior American culture could create success and progress, they had to be driven out of the way as the Confederates had been driven back into the Union.”
“Most of the other generals who took a direct role in the Indian wars, writes Marszalek, “were, like Sherman, [Union] Civil War luminaries.” This included “John Pope, O.O. Howard, Nelson A. Miles, Alfred H. Terry, E.O.C. Ord, C.C. Augeur, and R.S. Canby. General Winfield Scott Hancock should be added to this list of “luminaries.” Among the colonels, “George Armstrong Custer and Benjamin Grierson were the most famous.”
Sherman and General Phillip Sheridan were associated with the statement that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” The problem with the Indians, Sherman said, was that “they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race” (Marszalek, p. 390). And, “both races cannot use this country in common” (Fellman, p. 263). Sherman’s theory of white racial superiority is what led him to the policy of waging war against the Indians “till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.” As Fellman (p. 264) writes: “Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all.” Deduced from this racist tautology . . .the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land. “Accordingly,” Sherman wrote to Grant: “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” Writing two days later to his brother John, General Sherman said: “I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . . .” (Fellman, p. 264).
This was Sherman’s attitude toward Southerners during the War for Southern Independence as well. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his “Collected Works”) he wrote that his purpose in the war was: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” His charming and nurturing wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.” With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: “During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . .” (Marszalek, p. 379).
Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan “authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages” (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2011/05/history-thomas-j-dilorenzo-general-shermans-final-solution-609470.html
As a description of the horrors of Sherman’s March to the Sea, this seems kind of underwhelming.
This is a summer rerun and has the usual suspects obfuscating the obvious. These wonderful folks were in charge of the Union’s holy transformative war on southern civilians:
Both Indiana and Ohio adopted new state constitutions in 1851. Indiana adopted the harshest and extensive racial restrictions on free blacks of any state constitution at that time. The 1851 Constitution continued to withhold the right to vote from free blacks. Article 2, Section 5:”No Negro or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage.”
Nor could free blacks serve in the Indiana militia. Article 12, Section 1 restricted militia service to “able bodied white male persons.” Nor could free blacks enter into contracts; and white people who employed free blacks were subject to fines. Article 13, Section 2:
“All contracts made with any Negro or Mulatto coming into the State, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be void; and any person who shall employ such Negro or Mulatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars.”
But it didn’t end there. The money collected from those fines was to be used only for colonizing free blacks to some other part of the world. Article 13, Section 3:
“All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or any law which may hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and Mulattoes, and their descendants, as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and max be willing to emigrate.”
And the most severe restriction of all was the blatant prohibition that forbade blacks from entering Indiana. Article 13, Section 1 states, “No Negro or Mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution.”
There was no welcome mat for free blacks in prewar Indiana. The free black man could not settle in Indiana; he could not work in Indiana; he could not enter into a contract in Indiana; he could not vote in Indiana; and he could not serve in the militia in Indiana. The only thing he could do was leave. Moreover, the 1851 Constitution made provision to finance his departure.
“Lincoln Uber Alles – Dictatorship Comes to America” by John Avery Emison pp. 57-58
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/americas-war-culture.html#comment-649100
Oregon also adopted its state constitution in 1857. This was submitted to and approved by Congress and signed into law by President Buchanan in 1859. It contained numerous blatant discriminatory provisions.
Article II, Section 2 restricts the franchise to “white male” citizens. If the meaning of this language is not plain enough, there is another section of the same article that leaves no doubt. Article II, Section 6: “No Negro, Chinaman, or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage.”
Article XV, Section 8 further limits the rights of Chinese:
“No Chinaman, not a resident of die State at the adoption of this Constitution, shall ever hold any real estate, or mining claims or work any mining claims therein.”
However, it is Article I, Section 35 that contains the most sweeping, restrictive language in the history of state constitutions:
“No free Negro, or Mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide bv penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such Negroes, and Mulattoes. and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them.”
In Oregon, by constitutional restriction, free blacks could not visit, settle, work, own property, enter into contracts, or have access to the courts. These restrictions are for the “effectual exclusion from the state” of free blacks. This is what the Constitution of Oregon said when it was approved by Congress for statehood. It was the only state ever admitted to the Union that had a raced-based exclusion law in its constitution at the time of admission.
“Lincoln Uber Alles – Dictatorship Comes to America” by John Avery Emison pp. 59-60
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/americas-war-culture.html#comment-649103
oh, when Bob mentioned Sherman you thought he was talking about Oregon…?
I had assumed Philippe was smart enough to get my point. Was I wrong?
The point was the you statists justify Sherman’s atrocities as benefiting the alleged “greater good”. I’m just showing who the folks were that comprised the “greater good”. And I still think you knew that.
Oregon had a tiny population at the time by the way.
All of these racial restrictions were completely voided by the 14th and 15th Amendments… you have no point really.
Roddis hates the 14th amendment, so it turns out he has a point against himself actually.
Exactly why Lincoln is to blame for what Buchanan signed must remain a mystery.
Another excellent point Ken, Roddis is such a hypocrite for going on and on about the 14th amendment which he hates.
Ratification of the amendment was bitterly contested. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[19] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before “said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress”.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states
Seems to me that the US could have passed these amendments without the seceding states and could have offered sactuary for runaway slaves instead of returning them to their southern owners.
or alternatively the confederates could have agreed to stop enslaving up to half of the Southern civilian population.
Was that ever an offer from Lincoln though?
As we all know, the Cabinet indeed was willing to do just that in exchange for independence and international recognition.
KP, on what basis do you make that claim? On what basis do you suggest that even if it were true the confederate states would have done so?
That was Kenner’s very mission in 1864, he got France on board, couldn’t secure Great Britian.
I can’t say that all the states would have gone along with it, they, of course, could have seceded from the CSA.
However, from the Jackson Mississippian: “If it [slavery] is found in the way – if it proves an insurmountable object of the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it! Let it perish!”
Such chatter wasn’t uncommon and that was only 1863
“in exchange for independence and international recognition”
Are you saying the Confederates proposed to the Union that they would end slavery if the Southern states were recognized as being independent?
“Are you saying the Confederates proposed to the Union that they would end slavery if the Southern states were recognized as being independent?”
No, Great Britain and France. They just wanted an end of hostilities with the Union.
KP, let,s assume you are right. That was three years into the war, so quite irrelevant to the choices made in 1861.
It was of course also after the confederacy was strategically lost.
More pointedly the slaveocracy proposed to the north to conquer the caribbean and mexico to form a slave empire. So even if, as you have not, you produce proof all you will show is evidence of a bad faith, late, meaningless bargaining tactic.
KP, you said they were willing to offer that for independence. That implies an offer to the north. Britain and France could not give independence. Now you admit there was no such offer. Red herring.
“That was three years into the war, so quite irrelevant to the choices made in 1861.”
I didn’t know I was discussing the choices made in 1861. Let’s grant that they were wholly in the wrong at first, if they were willing to change it makes it all moot.
“More pointedly the slaveocracy proposed to the north to conquer the caribbean and mexico to form a slave empire. So even if, as you have not, you produce proof all you will show is evidence of a bad faith, late, meaningless bargaining tactic.”
Are you just trying to flood it with words here? Did Kenner not get approval for his mission or what here?
As you admit, they were desperate, and the CSA near the end of the war wasn’t the CSA at the beginning, so there’s no reason to hold the initial plans for Mexico and Cuba.
Maybe they were trying to hoodwink France and GB, but you have no (good) reason not to take them at their word, especially when bringing France and GB into their sphere would only make it more difficult for them to go back on their word.
GB and France could secure independence. Just as France and Spain did for the US.
It does imply an offer to the North, but not directly and not the same.
basically the confederates were beaten and in an attempt to hold onto power and defeat the Union, they sent someone to make some promises to France and England, which England rejected..
“basically the confederates were beaten and in an attempt to hold onto power and defeat the Union, they sent someone to make some promises to France and England, which England rejected..”
Is that the best you’ve got? I’d have used “obviously false promises that they never intent to keep, ever, ever…” just to up the ham factor.
my point is not that that didn’t intend to keep whatever promises they made, it’s that it was a last-ditch attempt by the confederates to defeat the Union and hold onto power.
“my point is not that that didn’t intend to keep whatever promises they made, it’s that it was a last-ditch attempt by the confederates to defeat the Union and hold onto power.”
I know Philippe, my point is who cares *why*? Whether through enlightenment or hardship, they did, in fact, agree on the very alternative you proposed.
apparently the war was over anyway within weeks of the envoy arriving in France.
“apparently the war was over anyway within weeks of the envoy arriving in France.”
A fun fact that makes absolutely no difference, of course.
“they did, in fact, agree on the very alternative you proposed”
Well this is all very vague. But they did not at any point offer to the Union that they would end slavery if the Union recognized the Southern states as being independent.
Let’s say Kenner did promise to France and Britain that the Confederacy would end slavery in return for recognition. That was nothing more than an some sort of attempt by the warmongering slaveocrats to remain in power and avoid total defeat.
“A fun fact that makes absolutely no difference”
It does in the sense that their rule was over anyway.
“Well this is all very vague. But they did not at any point offer to the Union that they would end slavery if the Union recognized the Southern states as being independent.”
It’s not vague at all, the details are all there. But they were obviously willing, so the point will stand.
I think the answer to your challenge has already been given, why didn’t the Union ask for it? The Union had slave states itself and had already floated ideas to further protect slavery in exchange for them rejoining, what would be the point?
“Let’s say Kenner did promise to France and Britain that the Confederacy would end slavery in return for recognition. That was nothing more than an some sort of attempt by the warmongering slaveocrats to remain in power and avoid total defeat.”
And? The warmongering slaveocrats were willing to stop being slaveocrats (Kenner was one of, if not the, largest slaveholder) to end war.
“It does in the sense that their rule was over anyway.”
He wasn’t sent after the fact though, so no.
Desperate, yes, no doubt, but not over.
“I think the answer to your challenge has already been given”
No. The confederates declared their ‘secession’ (or started their rebellion) primarily in order to preserve slavery. If they had not been determined to preserve slavery the whole conflict could probably have been avoided.
“I think the answer to your challenge has already been given, why didn’t the Union ask for it? The Union had slave states itself and had already floated ideas to further protect slavery in exchange for them rejoining, what would be the point?”
And, I must add, as if Lincoln’s words weren’t enough to show how silly negotiating with the Union was “[Davis] would accept nothing short of severance of the Union—precisely what we will not and cannot give.” the Hampton Roads Peace Conference (1865) confirmed it.
“If they had not been determined to preserve slavery the whole conflict could probably have been avoided.”
Even if they still wanted independence?
“Even if they still wanted independence?”
Who knows what would have happened if the slaveocrats hadn’t decided to bring about war.
Say for example that slavery was abolished throughout the US, the southern economy transformed, and there was still a mass popular demand in the south for political separation from the Union. As with what’s going on in Scotland at present, this sort of thing should be done properly and peacefully through a legitimate political process.
“Who knows what would have happened if the slaveocrats hadn’t decided to bring about war.”
Egads! I didn’t ask “who knows” I asked what do *you* *think*?
“Say for example that slavery was abolished throughout the US, the southern economy transformed, and there was still a mass popular demand in the south for political separation from the Union. As with what’s going on in Scotland at present, this sort of thing should be done properly and peacefully through a legitimate political process.”
Of course, the Confederacy *initially* tried to secede “peacefully and properly” as well. Perhaps you just have more in common with Bob than it appears.
“the Confederacy *initially* tried to secede “peacefully and properly” as well.”
No they didn’t.
Their ‘secession’ was more like Alex Salmond declaring tomorrow that Scotland is now an independent country, that he is its president, that half the Scottish population will now be slaves, and then launching a military attack on a UK naval base.
“Their ‘secession’ was more like Alex Salmond declaring tomorrow that Scotland is now an independent country, that he is its president, that half the Scottish population will now be slaves, and then launching a military attack on a UK naval base.”
Haha, oh man Philippe, how much time approximately did you put into thinking that analogy up?
“it really is very weird how people who refer to themselves as libertarians somehow end up supporting a brutal slave-owning regime.”
I’ve never met a libertarian who supported “the regime” in itself, however, you’re not speaking to a libertarian, so it’s yet another irrelevant fun fact, as fascinating as it may be.
KP, we were discussing Philippe’s remark that alternativelly the confederates could have ended slavery. Alternatively to what? To the war. So only 1861 is relevant.
Himmler offered concessions to the allies late in the war too. Care to apply your arguments to that situation? No, I don’t expect you do.
Please cite one example of the federal government returning a runaway slave to a confederate state.
Another good call Ken. Even though fugitive slaves were still being returned to the masters during the war those were only slave states not confederate states. Even though Bob said southern states we all know the government is wrong for calling Maryland a southern state.
Roddis was trying to repeat Napolitano’s trick. I just think we need to be clear and accurate.
So you concede there were zero examples. And yet Roddis’s hypothetical was exactly about that.
Read pages 188-191 of “The Slavecatchers”:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/14261818517/in/photostream/
It’s very interesting Bob, but again it does not cite examples of slaves returned to the confederacy. It does confirm that the fugitive slave law was enforced in regards the loyal slave states, which no-one denied.
There are two examples of slaves returned to Virginia.
I amend: after the war started.
Although as I recall your example was moved to Ky in preparation for return to Va shortly before Sumter. What finally happened is not mentioned.
There is also the example of Sherman USING slaves in Tennessee during the war and keeping track of their ownership in order to return them to their “owners”. That seems a whole lot worse than “federal marshals returning slaves to southern states”.
Further, after the war began, we have the example of Butler being ordered to not interfere with the return of escaped slaves in Virginia.
“The Slavecatchers” makes an admittedly cursory examination of the entire topic after secession.
The point has been made: The north was racist to the core, cared little if at all about the plight of black people and was willing to enforce slavery to maintain “the union”. In order to do that, the union army set itself on a murderous rampage upon the citizens of the southern states. Finally, if the constitutions of Indiana and Oregon will not dissuade the pro-war types, nothing will.
Your Ebenezer Creek example almost perfectly captures the high moral standards of boths sides in the war.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek
Then, of course, the amendments were not enforced in the southern states for 100 years. I know. Picky picky picky.
“KP, we were discussing Philippe’s remark that alternativelly the confederates could have ended slavery. Alternatively to what? To the war. So only 1861 is relevant.”
Alternative to *not ending slavery* fits rather snugly there.
“Himmler offered concessions to the allies late in the war too. Care to apply your arguments to that situation? No, I don’t expect you do.”
Sure, tell me the concessions and we’ll go from there, I know it may be fashionable but I don’t recoil when Nazis are invoked.
Yeah Roddis, States with large populations were filled with frolicking minstrels and anyone with distasteful thoughts against humanity were skirted away into sparely populated western states. That’s why the 14th and 15th amendments came about years before the war.
Any of you guys with strong stomachs read the comments to Krugman’s blog post?
Anything specific?
General Sherman was a great American hero and we can only wish that we had more generals like him today. For the conservative view of General Sherman, you should read Victor Davis Hanson, most recently here, where he compares the Israeli war against Gaza to General Sherman’s victory in the South: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385698/sherman-gaza-victor-davis-hanson/page/0/1
yeah, great man no doubt, “misunderstood” also and unjustly caricatured by evil slavocrats:
“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” Writing two days later to his brother John, General Sherman said: “I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . .
This was Sherman’s attitude toward Southerners during the War for Southern Independence as well. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his “Collected Works”) he wrote that his purpose in the war was: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” His charming and nurturing wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”
With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: “During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out .”
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2011/05/history-thomas-j-dilorenzo-general-shermans-final-solution-609470.html
I thought Krugman just told us that wars were essentially inexplicable because they didn’t result in a net increase in GDP, and that likely explanations for war was capture of the state by its leadership.
In that case, doesn’t Krugman think that Sherman “did what didn’t have to be done?” This is very confusing.
I do not think Krugman’s comments were about why the confederacy started the war were they?
I’m just making fun of Krugman – I thought his “Why We Fight” article was not well thought out.
In Why We Fight, Krugman doesn’t suggest that if someone secedes from the country or fires on Fort Sumpter, it’s therefore appropriate to attack them. The only reasons he can apparently think of is (1) war might result in a net increase in GDP for the fighting nation; (2) corrupt leaders might need a distraction.
(Yes, you can hypothesize that Krugman is aware of other reasons to go to war and chooses not to list them, but that makes his article pointless.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/opinion/paul-krugman-why-we-fight.html?_r=0
Ah, okay. Yes, that is economic reductionism run amok. People have fought wars for all kinds of reasons.