An interesting video on why "states rights" causing the civil war is a myth.

[Comradeluxemburg]

I know I am going to get flamed on this, but I thought it was an interesting video to point out. WATCH IT BEFORE YOU YELL AT ME IN THE COMMENTS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
A well sourced video on why the civil war is about MOSTLY slavery.

[Rithal]

That video has actually already been brought up on the forum.

Not going to get into it, but think about it. The guy is wearing a U.S military uniform and was educated at a U.S military academy. A little biased don't you think? XD

I mean, and entire portion of his argument rests on the idea that an entire population of poor southerners fought just so they could have someone below them on the social ladder. XD Thats ridiculous.

[TrustyJam]

Feel free to discuss this. Word of caution though; I've already closed one of such discussions that got out of hand.

- Trusty

[Rithal]

Feel free to discuss this. Word of caution though; I've already closed one of such discussions that got out of hand.

- Trusty

Noted. If things get out of hand I will just stop replying :p

[Comradeluxemburg]

What my question for people who believe in the states rights stuff, is states rights for what? Slavery?

[BloodBeag]

As long as people don't take personal offense and start insulting each other it's fine.

[Rithal]

What my question for people who believe in the states rights stuff, is states rights for what? Slavery?

I see it as a defense of the idea of state's rights. It was the right of the state to decide if it wanted slavery or not. Southerners in general held that the state should have at least some authority over its own affairs. When Lincoln was elected, they feared the worst and seceded, believing it was their right to do so. Many states had individual reasons for secession. Texas for example was dissatisfied with U.S military protection, being a very very new addition to the U.S and still in the frontier. Georgians also held beliefs against northern manufacturing believing northern corporations were manipulating the government to take advantage of the southern people.

Glance over this excerpt of the Georgian section of the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:

" The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."

This essentially outlines the economic aspects of the Civil War. Essentially, the south saw the issue of slavery as a sideline distraction being brought up by northern manufacturers. It was used to unite the north entirely behind one issue and essentially pass pro-north legislation. The excerpt recognizes that the north had been relatively contempt with the institution of slavery since the founding of the nation, and it wasn't until then that slavery began to become a major issue of separation. (then meaning the years leading up to the Civil War).

Take it or leave it. :)

[BloodBeag]

I think there were a lot of reasons and depending on your point of view you can just manipulate evidence to support you stance so everybody is wrong and right

[Josy_Wales]

I don't care about discussing this anymore since its not getting any way what ever people write, but its still funny to see how people talk about the issue of slavery. If you want to discuss this you must understand and immerse yourself in it. Its very common that we look back on history with modern eyes, and don't compare it with things we see today. Just look at a thing as normal as eating meat, and compare it with how normal it was to tolerate slavery back then (both north and south).

Farmers butcher animals every day and even tho we know those animals have the same feelings we have, we are ok with it. As long as we get our food we don't really care about how we got it or if the animals have served all their life being fed up in a cubicle. If we want we could live with out meat, but most of us don't even think about that option. We think its fine because those animals cant have a good life anyway because they are stupid, but do we try to understand them or give them a choice? Most of us have grown up with it and therefore we think there is nothing wrong in it.

If you don't like my comment because I compare humans and animals or because you don't see the link, its fine, but in the future people will look at how we tolerate the butcher and eating of animals with disgust, just like we look at similar things back in time like slavery. So before hating on people back then, look to yourself is all am saying.

[BloodBeag]

I don't care about discussing this anymore since its not getting any way what ever people write, but its still funny to see how people talk about the issue of slavery. If you want to discuss this you must understand and immerse yourself in it. Its very common that we look back on history with modern eyes, and don't compare it with things we see today. Just look at a thing as normal as eating meat, and compare it with how normal it was to tolerate slavery back then (both north and south).

Farmers butcher animals every day and even tho we know those animals have the same feelings we have, we are ok with it. As long as we get our food we don't really care about how we got it or if the animals have served all their life being fed up in a cubicle. If we want we could live with out meat, but most of us don't even think about that option. We think its fine because those animals cant have a good life anyway because they are stupid, but do we try to understand them or give them a choice? Most of us have grown up with it and therefore we think there is nothing wrong in it.

If you don't like my comment because I compare humans and animals or because you don't see the link, its fine, but in the future people will look at how we tolerate the butcher and eating of animals with disgust, just like we look at similar things back in time like slavery. So before hating on people back then, look to yourself is all am saying.

I don't think animals do have the same feelings as us and we really couldn't manage to feed everyone enough without any meat. A lot of farmland can't be used for growing plants so farmers raise animals to make enough money to survive. Also, more livestock than not aren't battery farmed and injected with steroids so that they grow faster. I agree that we could eat less meat but that is simply down to the fact that livestock is quite inefficient as an energy source due animals using energy on moving rather than on growing and that they give off a load of CO2 but the human race would be unable to sustain itself without meat. Plus I think that people are more important than animals as we are the only thing on this planet (and possible in existence) that to an extent controls its own destiny.

[Josy_Wales]

This was not the link I was talking about. Im not talking about statistical facts and whether humans are more important, but it makes it easier to look at things differently. Your comment could just as well be a defense of slavery some hundred years back with some minor amendments.

[BloodBeag]

not really

[Comradeluxemburg]

I see it as a defense of the idea of state's rights. It was the right of the state to decide if it wanted slavery or not. Southerners in general held that the state should have at least some authority over its own affairs. When Lincoln was elected, they feared the worst and seceded, believing it was their right to do so. Many states had individual reasons for secession. Texas for example was dissatisfied with U.S military protection, being a very very new addition to the U.S and still in the frontier. Georgians also held beliefs against northern manufacturing believing northern corporations were manipulating the government to take advantage of the southern people.

Glance over this excerpt of the Georgian section of the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:

" The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."

This essentially outlines the economic aspects of the Civil War. Essentially, the south saw the issue of slavery as a sideline distraction being brought up by northern manufacturers. It was used to unite the north entirely behind one issue and essentially pass pro-north legislation. The excerpt recognizes that the north had been relatively contempt with the institution of slavery since the founding of the nation, and it wasn't until then that slavery began to become a major issue of separation. (then meaning the years leading up to the Civil War).

Take it or leave it. :) I can see that. I am not saying that it is entirely slavery that started the war, but that slavery is much more important to the war than states rights. Also it may be part of the Georgian section, but EVERY single state that joined the CSA mentioned keeping the institution of slavery, along with people in government positions. So I would still say that slavery was the major cause, with states rights taking a less important role in the war.

[Kevinistrill]

As the title of the game implies the Civil War was a war of rights or a defense of state's rights. But don't pretend that one of if not the main right the Confederacy was fighting for was to maintain slavery within it's territory.

[Rithal]

Actually out of all 13 Secession acts of the 13 Confederate States, the term "slave" is only used three times. All three times the word "slave" was used in the context of "slave-holding states". While these documents usually didn't cite the reasoning behind secession, and just declared secession, many of the documents did cite reasoning.

Read this excerpt from Missouri's Secession Act:

"Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth."

Similar reasoning can be found in other states' acts of secession such as in Texas'.

Basically, while slavery was definitely a major issue of early secession, it was Lincoln's reaction to South Carolina that eventually caused the secession of subsequent states. By Lincoln calling on 75,000 volunteers, southern states reacted strongly. They saw this as not only as a declaration of war on South Carolina, but a declaration of war on all of the south.

In response to Lincoln's call for volunteers from each state, many southern governors responded, stating they would not support an invasion of the south.

Governor of Tennessee's response: "Tennessee will furnish not a single man for the purpose of coercion, but fifty thousand if necessary for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brothers."

Governor of Arkansas' response: "The people of this Commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity their honor, lives, and property, against Northern mendacity and usurpation."

The governors of Virginia and Kentucky also made similar responses. They saw secession as a right ordained by the constitution, and when Lincoln attempted to deny that "right" by force, they saw it as an obvious declaration of war. So Lincoln's call for troops inevitably pushed every southern state to secede, and subsequently caused the onslaught of the Civil War...

:)

[Comradeluxemburg]

Snip

SOME people in the confederacy said that it wasn't about slavery, but a huge number of important people including the president and vice president said that slavery was a key point of the new nation that they must protect. Also I don't believe it is right for a state to decide whether they should have slavery. The government should not allow any states to have the rights to allow something so horrible and inhumane.

[A. P. Hill]

what president? what vice president?

If you're not a U.S. citizen, I don't expect you to understand the nuances of states rights over federal rule.

[Rithal]

SOME people in the confederacy said that it wasn't about slavery, but a huge number of important people including the president and vice president said that slavery was a key point of the new nation that they must protect. Also I don't believe it is right for a state to decide whether they should have slavery. The government should not allow any states to have the rights to allow something so horrible and inhumane.

Morals had nothing to do with it then. It was all politics. And in politics, southerners believed the states should have some sort of sovereignty. The fact is, it was originally a state's right to determine whether or not it would allow slavery. When the federal government began meddling in state business, southerners reacted against it.

While slavery was definitely an issue on the international scale, many southern soldiers fought for other reasons. Was the war started over slavery? Partially. Did every soldier fight to defend slavery? No. Did the majority of soldiers fight to defend slavery? No. They fought to defend their homes from what they believed to be a tyrannical government. I find honor in that.

[Comradeluxemburg]

what president? what vice president?

If you're not a U.S. citizen, I don't expect you to understand the nuances of states rights over federal rule.

Only one CSA president and only one vice president.

[Comradeluxemburg]

Morals had nothing to do with it then. It was all politics. And in politics, southerners believed the states should have some sort of sovereignty. The fact is, it was originally a state's right to determine whether or not it would allow slavery. When the federal government began meddling in state business, southerners reacted against it.

While slavery was definitely an issue on the international scale, many southern soldiers fought for other reasons. Was the war started over slavery? Partially. Did every soldier fight to defend slavery? No. Did the majority of soldiers fight to defend slavery? No. They fought to defend their homes from what they believed to be a tyrannical government. I find honor in that.

You find honor in things like Andersonville prison and the Lawrence massacre?

[Rithal]

You find honor in things like Andersonville prison and the Lawrence massacre?

Do you find honor in Sherman's march to the sea? Each side made questionable decisions. And to answer your question, no. I do not find honor in Andersonville and the various massacres of the war. I never said I did.

I do however find honor in a man standing up against his federal government who he believes is infringing on his rights as a citizen. Fighting for an arguably just cause of the right to secede and the idea of state autonomy. Just as the American patriots fought in the revolutionary war, southern men chose to fight. You cannot find honor in one but not the other.

[Comradeluxemburg]

Do you find honor in Sherman's march to the sea?
Yes I do. America had lost a lot in the war and the march to the sea ended the war maybe 2 years faster. Andersonville and Lawrence didn't affect the war outcome at all.

[BloodBeag]

I think that federal government isn't an evil thing to be feared and the US is pretty terrible

[A. P. Hill]

Only one CSA president and only one vice president.

Reckon you need to start providing links to your imagined quotes.

[Rithal]

Yes I do. America had lost a lot in the war and the march to the sea ended the war maybe 2 years faster. Andersonville and Lawrence didn't affect the war outcome at all.

The total war tactics used by Sherman were completely unjustified. Sherman's army confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn, 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed dozens of cotton gins and mills. This was truly uncalled for. The act of total war against one's own countrymen will never be justified.

It was this act that crippled the southern economy and would forever set it back behind the north decades. There are still areas of the south that are years behind other areas of the U.S. It was also this act that affirmed complete separation of north and south. The idea that northerners are "a bunch of assholes" and that southerners are "a bunch of inbred hicks" has morphed out of the hatred that developed during Sherman's march.

Really I don't see any honor in the destruction of civilian property ;)

[Josy_Wales]

Enjoyed reading your posts Rithal.

Comradeluxemburg, you just made this entire discussion pointless with your last comment. Saying that you support the unnecessary destruction and killing of innocent citizens and homes makes me hope for your own sake that you don't know what you are talking about. This destruction and killing was practiced during the whole war and was completely unnecessary and makes instances like the Lawrence massacre a drop in the ocean. One other thing about the march to the sea, Sherman personally saw his men rape and murder unyielding slaves throughout the march and gave no order to stop this along with numerous other crimes. Can you see the irony?

Also, have you ever heard about Elmira Prison NY (saw nearly a 25 percent mortality rate.), Union's Fort Delaware(was dubbed "The Fort Delaware Death Pen")? Not to mention Camp Douglas Illinois, the most horrid read Iv ever had.

There is really no point in coming with individual events you just read about, trying to make one or the other side look bad. I can tell you things like the union was hanging and at times beheading partisans, mass killings of surrendered unarmed soldiers and civilians, the torture at Camp Douglas and so on, but in the end it won't make any good or any progress.

[Comradeluxemburg]

Sherman did not kill thousands of southerners, I read that it was about a dozen to the highest estimate 100. Also Sherman forbid anyone to enter someones dwelling, use abusive or threatening language. There is only one case of recorded rape, bodily harm to anyone was rare. Destruction of private property was banned, outbuildings were destroyed, but Lee did that in PA too! Guards were left to protect women and children. If it weren't for Sherman the CSA would last until they ran out of men to fight with. He also gave plenty of orders preventing rape and murder. Sherman sounds like a monster.

[A. P. Hill]

Sherman did not kill thousands of southerners, I read that it was about a dozen to the highest estimate 100. Also Sherman forbid anyone to enter someones dwelling, use abusive or threatening language. There is only one case of recorded rape, bodily harm to anyone was rare. Destruction of private property was banned, outbuildings were destroyed, but Lee did that in PA too! Guards were left to protect women and children. If it weren't for Sherman the CSA would last until they ran out of men to fight with. He also gave plenty of orders preventing rape and murder. Sherman sounds like a monster.

Boy are you living in a dream world.

[Josy_Wales]

Id love to see some links because this sound like something you made up :) Over 1000 of the 50000 civilians killed during the war was a result of Shermans march to the sea, and soldiers unlawfully entered civilian houses to pillage breaking the 3rd and 4th Amendments. It was a massacre and there are no way of justifying a massacre.

[Comradeluxemburg]

Boy are you living in a dream world.

Really? Are you saying that Lee didn't destroy outbuildings in PA? Also Field order 120 banned any soldier from entering someones dwelling or using threatening language. If you can find more than one recorded case of rape, please tell me. Section 5 of special field order 120 banned destruction of private property. "In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted;" I would respect your position if you didn't insult me and actually gave me some evidence.

[Comradeluxemburg]

Id love to see some links because this sound like something you made up :) Over 1000 of the 50000 civilians killed during the war was a result of Shermans march to the sea, and soldiers unlawfully entered civilian houses to pillage breaking the 3rd and 4th Amendments. It was a massacre and there are no way of justifying a massacre.

Alright thanks for being respectful and offering your opinion, unlike some people (Snuffy). If you read Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 120 in section five there is a part prohibiting destruction of private property or threatening language. I also noticed I made a mistake, but there was about one dozen of reported rapes during Sherman's march not just one. I got that from a blog I read ago, but can't for the life of me find it.

[Josy_Wales]

Its hard to give you evidence when you just passes it and keep on derailing.

[A. P. Hill]

Really? Are you saying that Lee didn't destroy outbuildings in PA? Also Field order 120 banned any soldier from entering someones dwelling or using threatening language. If you can find more than one recorded case of rape, please tell me. Section 5 of special field order 120 banned destruction of private property. "In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted;" I would respect your position if you didn't insult me and actually gave me some evidence.

No. Unlike you collateral damage was a given. There is no way in hell Sherman marched through Georgia and only had one case of rape and no other civilians injured. For the record there was a train of "refuges" (read contraband) That followed his armies through Georgia, and he left them all to be fend for themselves after the Federal armies crossed a river and burned the bridges so the "darkies" couldn't follow his any more. How many of those died from that experience? You need to read more, or provide links. Good luck.

[A. P. Hill]

Its hard to give you evidence when you just passes it and keep on derailing.

Not really. That's how people trying to drive an agenda work. :)

[Comradeluxemburg]

Its hard to give you evidence when you just passes it and keep on derailing.

I am not just justifying a massacre since it isn't a massacre. I gave evidence with Sherman's field orders, so you can accuse me of ignoring evidence because you don't want to give evidence, or give me it and I can take a look at it. Things like saying "boy you are living in a dream world" are derailing things. I want to see your evidence that Sherman encouraged destroying property and that 1000s of people dying, so I can take a look, but I am not going to change my mind with insults and passive aggressive smiley faces.

[Comradeluxemburg]

No. Unlike you collateral damage was a given. There is no way in hell Sherman marched through Georgia and only had one case of rape and no other civilians injured. .
Yeah I got the rape number wrong, it was about one dozen. Rape wasn't actually common after the Lieber Code of 1863 when wartime rape was banned, and all rapists were immediately court marshalled. I never said no civilians got injured, I said you were exaggerating the numbers.

For the record there was a train of "refuges" (read contraband)
Did you really just refer slaves as property and not people. Nice

That followed his armies through Georgia, and he left them all to be fend for themselves after the Federal armies crossed a river and burned the bridges so the "darkies" couldn't follow his any more. How many of those died from that experience?
Do you have any recorded cases of this?

you need to read more, or provide links.
I did provide a source on how Sherman banned destruction of private property and threatening language.

Not really. That's how people trying to drive an agenda work. :)
Those passive aggressive smileys will really change my mind.

[Rithal]

Well this has been fun and is going nowhere like every other thread on this topic. I'm out boys. Enjoy the rest of this thread :p

[Comradeluxemburg]

Well this has been fun and is going nowhere like every other thread on this topic. I'm out boys. Enjoy the rest of this thread :p

Yeah, maybe we can agree to disagree, no ones gonna get anywhere convincing anyone.

[A. P. Hill]

... Did you really just refer slaves as property and not people. Nice ...

No. I used terminology of the day, actual words written in real history. Sorry if you don't have the stomach for real history.



That followed his armies through Georgia, and he left them all to be fend for themselves after the Federal armies crossed a river and burned the bridges so the "darkies" couldn't follow his any more. How many of those died from that experience?
Do you have any recorded cases of this?

Yep. I suggest you watch this video. Pay special attention to what is said at 24:32- 26:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF2uFVUXTzw)


I did provide a source on how Sherman banned destruction of private property and threatening language.

Once again pay particular attention to the video linked above ... only earlier than the 24:32 mark. .... Sherman's original intent was to destroy as much as Georgia as he could on his march to the sea. His, War is hell comment was literally played out in Georgia.