This Soldier and His Comrades Tried to Stop Sherman’s March Through Georgia

[@milt6208]

Georgians couldn't figure out how Sherman knew the State so well. After graduating West Point one his first assignments was to Georgia and one of his jobs was to map the State. Sherman knew the place better than most who lived there all their lives. He had it all figured out how to get to Savanah on his March To the Sea.

[@reverv]

I learned something today. Thanks.

[@milt6208]

@@reverv I'm a Sonoran Desert Rat but I absolutely love Georgia.

[@johnfleet235]

Sherman also studied Census Records from the 1860 Census. They key is the troops Sherman commanded. Many of his men had been fighting since 1861. The soldiers Sherman used for March to the Sea were battle hardened and very experienced soldiers. One final comment is about the Union Navy. Sherman would not have been able to make the March without the Union Navy to re-supply his troops, take out the wounded and sick and bring in replacements.

[@carywest9256]

What river system did the Yankee Navy use?

[@conradnelson5283]

@@carywest9256 Good point . I would like to know that. The Navy saved them once they reached the coast. Before that, I’m pretty sure they lived off the land.

[@ericbevel1495]

As a Georgian, who grew up by Kennesaw Mountain, I love learning the specific history of the war in my home state. My 4th Great Grandfather, Daniel S Lee fought in this campaign againt Sherman with the 30th Georgia. Thank you for sharing these stories!

[@milt6208]

Grant got my Great Great Grandfather at Vicksburg.

[@davegaetano7118]

Thank you for not repudiating your courageous ancestors.

[@ericbevel1495]

​@davegaetano7118 while I don't agree with what he fought for, I can appreciate the courage it took to fight as a soldier - especially in our Civil War. It's haunting in a way to me, having grown up in an area that my ancestor saw and fought at. My friends and I as teenagers would hang out in the very field that the 30th Georgia was positioned at the Battle of Kennesaw Mnt. I also would hang out at Memorial Park in Atlanta, not knowing that this is where my ancestor would get wounded during the Battle of Peachtree Creek. While I'm glad his side lost the war, I'm very grateful he survived it.

[@mmcleod8148]

My great, great grandmother experienced Sherman’s soldiers visiting her farm and taking her animals. She gave birth that night to my great grandmother. At least that was one of my grandmother’s stories. I don’t know what my other Georgian ancestors experienced. I wish I knew more.

[@thomasjamison2050]

Pay attention to the fact that they didn't burn the farm down. They were ordered not to do so.

[@KevinCave-rj8eq]

Another great story ron to survive three wounds was a miracle in itself, 👍🍀🍀🌲

[@billramsey3049]

Thanks!

[@RichardDCook]

At 6:15 I have a question about Union raiders tearing up, heating, and twisting railroad rails. My understanding is that the only iron works in the South capable of straightening the rails was in Richmond. When Confederates returned to a site where rails had been twisted, were the rails sent to Richmond to be repaired, or were they left sitting around? When Union forces occupied an area to stay, and went about repairing the railroads, did they send the twisted rails to the North to be straightened, or did they use new rails? It occurred to me that if neither Southern nor Northern forces did anything with the twisted rails there would be hundreds of them scattered across the South at the war's end.

[@Tennman653]

They were twisted around large trees which made them difficult to move.

[@RichardDCook]

@@Tennman653 Are you saying that whether an area ended up in Union or Confederate hands the twisted rails were just left as they were? So at war's end there would be hundreds of them all over the South? Where are they today then?

[@davedammann741]

@RichardDCook Undercarriage for wagons, frying pans...

[@ailenepace8262]

Sir: I am very familiar with the subject you have just related. My great grandfather was a member of the Georgia State Troops from the battle of Chickamauga to the end of the war under Gov. Joe Brown and the Georgia Troops. He was a member of Capt. William Carakers company of the Georgia Battalion and was in every engagement the State Troops fought in, the last being Honey Hill.. If you are interested in the subject any further, especially Sherman's march, you might want to read Gen. Richard Taylor's "Destruction and Reconstruction" published in 1870. Bruce Howard, MG

[@ThomasJanik-nf5vi]

Why do say, "enslaved? Can't you just say, "slaves?" This seems to be all the rage, these days.

[@rnedlo9909]

Doing a family tree research, I found that the family lost four kin folk in the defense of Atlanta. A major blow to the family indeed.

[@tttyuhbbb9823]

Really sad!

[@ColinH1973]

Is that monument still there, Ron?

[@davegaetano7118]

Would they not have had better odds if they had dug in and attempted to repel a union charge, rather than do the charge themselves?

[@CliftonHicksbanjo]

Good luck with that.

[@GeorgiaBrock-t8k]

You mentioned General Wheeler: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wheeler

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

The “march to the sea” was far more politically impactful, but in my view the march through the Carolinas was far more impressive.

[@rickeargle]

You must be impressed with the Russian army in Ukraine and the Israeli army in Gaza orb the Nazis in Poland, Russia etc..

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

@@rickeargle Yeah, I could have worded that differently. But I think most would understand what I was trying to say.

[@CAROLUSPRIMA]

@@theinquisitiveprince7095 Who else’s opinion should I give? My opinion is the only one I have. If you want someone else’s opinion please don’t expect it from me.

[@i.m.9918]

Oh the moral gymnastics to commit so fervently to defend one's personal home and liberties... that was premised on suffocating the liberties of man, woman, and children, and indeed propagating the practice to others by selling both those people and their children whether they approved or not. Astonishing moral gymnasts. What argument could this man make against the impositions of Sherman, who represented 'far less' imposition? Hypocrisy is celebrated so fervently in America's short history.

[@DirtyBird28]

What would you do in the face of such a desperate situation? "local politics not with standing" Standby and allow a band of armed men to burn, and pillage everything you own when you have the means to do something about it?

[@i.m.9918]

​@@DirtyBird28 -- In the face of 'such a desperate situation'?? It was 'already' desperate if you were an American who happened to be of African origin (just ask Nat Turner). But to answer your question, I might very well resist Sherman or whoever, 'but' I would do so fully stating my hypocrisy and that my resistance is not based in an institutionalized or longstanding framing of righteousness. We are free to be violent and self-centered hypocrites. Just say so... and don't expect to be lauded in song and poem. When I rob you of your money, you can rest assured I'll say I'm just taking your 'stuff' -- not that I'm participating in an act of capital 'liberation' in the name of decency and the noble health of the marketplace.

[@DirtyBird28]

@i.m.9918 No time for all that.....You are between brigade of hungry and armed men and everything you hold dear. Either dig that hole, erect that barricade, or get out of the way and let them have it.

[@i.m.9918]

@@DirtyBird28 -- You failed to read what I wrote. I just said that you can do whatever is in your immediate self interest. Just like one of his slaves, facing another beating or his child being sold, might pick up a tree branch and brain the dastardly slaver. If your point is humans are selfish, self-interested blokes... who's gonna disagree? But that's hardly instructive of anything. Now...I'm gonna palm a mini Snickers bar from the boss' dish of desk candy . See?: Self-interest. I'll presume you are not exactly sympathetic to my deed.

[@owensomers8572]

What never seems to get enough publicity, although I have seen it in many accounts, especially from local newspapers at the time, is the number of dead people that appeared to litter the towns of the south, WELL before towns were occupied by Union forces. I have heard of or read accounts from Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and North and South Carolina. Those dead people were either shot down or hung, and indubitably are labeled in the newspapers as "deserters" if white, or runaway slaves if black. This could well have incentivized many southerners to take up arms, knowing it offered a better chance of survival than risking being murdered in their homes by southern gentlemen.

[@paulweaver6064]

I have a guestion how can you trace any ancestors that served in the Civil War? In my case most of my great grandfather's served from Mississippi probably Fulton. I tried to get into the Mississippi archives but or wasn't running due to covid since they are trying to re-right history I think it should be preserved good or bad it's our genealogy and our history our family's lived the Era not the tweebs in DC.

[@daviddalton9214]

A monument to getting a thousand men slaughtered?

[@jackmoorehead2036]

Confederates don't have much else to Memorialize. Their big wins amounted to nothing. They lost men at a rate they could never replace, and they think it was glorious.

[@daviddalton9214]

You mean he left his “slaves”.

[@NN-sj9fg]

Isn't the "War of Northern Aggression" a better description? What is the difference between the Declaration if Independence by 13 colonies in 1776 and the secession of 11 states in 1860? What is the difference between the battles of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Fort Sumter?

[@wmschooley1234]

The claimed “War of Northern Aggression” is, of course, nonsense. It was always THE WAR OF THE REBELLION. It was South Carolina that first raised rebellions ugly head on 20 December 1860. It was secessionist’s that first fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor South Carolina on April 12, 1861. “War of Northern Aggression” is part of the lost cause mythology. The name arose during the Jim Crow era of the 1950s when it was coined by segregationists who tried to equate contemporary efforts to end segregation with 19th-century efforts to abolish slavery. Southern segregationists used this distorting term for the Civil War because it bolstered their arguments that the effort to enforce the Civil Rights of Blacks in the 1950s and 1960s was a continuation of the war of 1861-1865. In this revisionist view, African Americans did not want Civil Rights. It was Northerners just “stirring up trouble again”; just lik in 1865 when the Yankees “imposed freedom” on the southern slaves.

[@brianniegemann4788]

Your questions are rhetorical; but l will give a factual answer. The Declaration of Independence put a tyrannical, greedy absolute monarch who taxed his American subjects mercilessly and without representation on notice that they weren't going to submit any longer. It was an ultimatum to a king. The rebel states each wrote some type of declaration of secession, plus new state constitutions. These documents all had one thing in common; they enshrined black slavery into law. You can look up these documents onlie under "articles of secession ". The purpose of the secession was to protect the slave industry from purported northern interference. There was no tyrant levying exorbitant taxes on the southern states. There was no attempt to take away their constitutional rights, or congressional representation. There was no occupying force in the south, as King George had done in Boston. The south's one and only greivance against the north was that the abolitionists and Republicans were preventing the spread of black slavery into every state. The Civil War was started by the rich plantation owners, who were also the political authorities throughout the southern states, to protect their financial interest in what they called "slave property". Just a bunch of crooked oligarchs and politicians bent on keeping their wealth and power. Thanks for listening.

[@davegaetano7118]

@@brianniegemann4788 The occupation of Fort Sumter by Union forces was certainly a parallel to King George's occupation of Boston. The South paid heavy taxes by way of tariffs. King George taxed the colonists far less then the current federal government taxes us. Lincoln certainly did not invade the South in order to stop slavery. Many of the northern states also allowed slavery.

[@brianniegemann4788]

@@davegaetano7118 I find it fascinating that almost 200 years later, people still want to defend the Confederate cause. Why? You are correct that Lincoln did not invade the South to end slavery. From his viewpoint, he was trying to stop an insurrection. Lincoln said, "If l could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, l would. If l could preserve it by freeing all the slaves, l would do that" . Lincoln was a lawyer, he saw it as his duty to preserve the Union and the Constitution. I believe the entire war could have been avoided if the Southern senators and politicians had been willing to negotiate. But they saw their power slipping away with the admission of new, free states. For men who were used to controlling the government, that was a threat they wouldn't step back from. The Southern politicians were almost all rich planters and slave owners. From my point of view, they wanted the "peculiar institution " that made them rich to last forever. So they decided to fight.

[@ozzyphil74]

You lost .. In a cause that is only comparable to a few.. Nazism comes to mind... Get over it.

[@Tennman653]

My g g uncle died at Marietta trying to stop the Yankee invasion

[@495whiterobe]

The war between the states should not 🚫 have happened... Abraham Lincoln would not allow the Southern States to secede because 80% of the federal government's $cost$ was paid for by tariffs levied by congress on cotton, tobacco & rice; produced by the 👉Southern States👈These tariffs were usually around 20%.... When these tariffs reached 50%, the Southern States would threaten to leave the union. This succession of the Southern States almost happened in 1932..but, congress lowered these tariffs on Southern commerce at that time. In 1861 Honest Abe sent revenue agents and the US army South to protect his federal $income$$$$ Excessive Taxation without any other option led to our Civil War....

[@trime1851]

That was one reason. The bigger was ""States Rights to own slaves". Those who contend that the civil was was about "States Rights" leave about the most important part. The rich always control the government thus the civil war.

[@bjohnson515]

One of the first examples of bombarding a city (July 20 to Aug 20 1864) with little regard to civilians.

[@suzanneflowers2230]

Exactly. Thank you.

[@daltonadams4672]

Your point is?

[@milt6208]

What about Vicksburg?

[@petehealy9819]

Oh, yeah, I'm sure that no army in all the previous centuries had ever done that, whether with catapults or cannons. 🙄 Not saying it's a good thing, but at least Sherman and Grant were both brutally honest about the nature of war.

[@stevewallace1117]

Sherman knew that Atlanta was mostly empty of civilians

[@brianniegemann4788]

A tariff is a tax on imported goods. If you are aware of a 20% tax on cotton exports being levied in the 1800s, I'd very much like to see any evidence of it. The southern states had to pay tariffs on imported products, and they strenuously objected to those tariffs. Why was this an issue? Because the south had little manufacturing capabilities, due to the backward economic, educational and political systems in the slave states. Most of their manufactured goods were imported from the north or from Europe. If the south had been willing to invest in building factories, making their own clothes, shoes, furniture, wagons etc, they wouldn't have been paying those steep tariffs. Again, to my knowledge there was no export tax on cotton, tobacco or rice. If you know of a good book on the subject; please reply so l can read it. Thanks for listening.

[@Chingadera]

That was not his point that you replied to . Federal taxation , arrogant , conceited new England ers . Liars such as Harriet Beecher Stowe who , by the way never set foot in the south until the war was over . In addition New England robber barons could not allow the south to secede because they were subsidized by that taxation . Your glorious New England robber barons were the beginning of what we now call the deep state . The south new ahead of time that arrogant liars such as exist today in New England were anti Christian and predicted by their actions prior to the war what would happen when they began to rape , burn , rob and Murder southern women . Just some facts about the North !

[@brianniegemann4788]

@@Chingadera one man's fact is another man's conspiracy theory. The South could have seceded peacefully by going to the Supreme Court, in 1860 it was controlled by Southern slave owners. All they had to do was sue for the right to leave. Instead they started a war, lost the war and have been blaming the North for it ever since. Accuse whoever you like of whatever you like. Just don't try to get me to believe it.

[@tekay44]

all this discussion over a war that was a forgone conclusion all along.

[@bsontrop]

"Yeah, but . . " it should be remembered that Sherman -committed by this time in the Civil War to TOTAL war v.s. property AND citizens ! [ Sherman is considered the father of modern warfare ] -fought for the Union, the restoration of ALL States as part-and-parcel of the Declaration of Independence from Britain. With the North's greater man power and manufacturing resources, he seems to have succeeded. Against someone who "thinks BIG", but also rightly, aggression by a lesser and mostly self-serving limited power [ the Confederate States, no matter what their claim to justification for aggression ] could withstand Lincoln's RE-claiming of the Union's legitimate rights only for so long, before having to give way to Sherman's "March to the sea" . . Captain William Wimberly notwithstanding.

[@tomjarrett2477]

Read Union Terror