Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > What Was the Single, Worst Civilian Atrocity in the Civil War?


What Was the Single, Worst Civilian Atrocity in the Civil War? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 07:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

According to the NPS and the American Battlefield Protection Program, Sand Creek is considered a Civil War battle.

Yes. According to a great many folks, it was a part of the USCW, as was the Minnesota uprising, but I consider them to be a different rebellion. At the same time. And before. And after. On that, we can agree to disagree.

The Indian Wars did not begin when the first European set foot on what is now U.S. soil. It wasn't ours, but we took it anyway. Exactly like most of them took it from who ever plunked the first foot on it.

Was Little Crow's tribe the first settlers of Minnesota? No. Was Black Kettle's tribe the first settlers in Colorado? No. They were where they were because they ran someone else's tribe out. Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, Cochise, Geronimo, Big Foot, Chief Joseph, Tecumsah, Sequoia -- there isn't one of them that didn't gain ascendency by shoving someone else out of their territory.

Now see what you've made me do? :( Rambling off topic. (Like that's a first!)

Ole



 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 02:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole, I'm impressed with your knowledge of American Indian history. This is an area of my study that I have woefully neglected.



 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 03:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I too am impressed with people that like to look at the entire picture. In my work I speak with many people that believe the ACW started on July 1, 1863 and ended on July 3. To some, nothing else matters. I also speak with people that feel if it didn't happen in Virginia, it is not American History. Whether people agree or disagree on how to categorize it, I feel it is important to keep an eye on the big picture. For every action in history, there is a reaction. That is why what-ifs don't particularly interest me.

Now I'm sorry to ramble and stray off topic. Really, I'm interested to learn the stories of atrocities perpetrated against civilians during the CW. I've googled the ones pointed out and look forward to learning more.



 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 03:39 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Well if you mention Chambersburg you need to mention the act that spawned it The Burning in the Shennadoah that affected many loyal citizens too.



 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 05:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I would like to add two more incidents to the list.

The Sacking of Osceola by James Lane who was as much a terrorist as Quantrill. Plus, the Shelton Laurel Massacre in North Carolina.



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


 Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 08:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
calcav1
Member
 

Joined: Tue Nov 20th, 2007
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 48
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The burning of the Shenandoah, the "breadbasket of the Confederacy", did have a military justification (try and tell that to the folks without a home!). The Valley was feeding the armies and thus a legit target. Chambersburg on the other hand was burned for one of two reasons, revenge or cash ransom, both of which spell out atrocity.

Let's not forget what Ivan Vasilyevich Turchaninov (John Basil Turchin) did to Athens, Alabama. There was no justification for the "Rape of Athens" and the nasty cuss was promoted to Brigadier before his sham of a court martial was even over.



 Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 04:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

calcav:

Won't argue your case for Confederate motivation in Chambersburg. However, If burning a farm is a legitimate target to weaken the opponent's war effort, burning the home's of city workers is legitimate too. Even the guy who sweeps the floor at the factory is contributing to the war effort. If you make it hard for him to sweep the floor, you are weakening the opponent's war effort. Granted there is a fine line between legitimate targets and atrocities. In fact for some families in the Shennandoah, a bullet to the head would have been more merciful than the slow starvation and diseases that resulted from the Burning.



 Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 05:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There are 3 incidents usually brought up in such a discussion:

1) the expatriation of female mill workers from Roswell Georgia in 1864,

2) the enslavement of some 400 blacks during Lee's 1863 Pennsylvania campaign,

3) the Lawrence, Kansas massacre in August 1863.

I've listed them in reverse order of *my* preference, emphasizing the taking of life, above and beyond destruction of property and deprivation of liberty.


HankC



 Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 08:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C, can you do me a favor and give me a source for the 400 enslaved from Lee's 63 campaign. I've heard varying numbers and nome of them seem consistant. Eastern theatre isn't my forte and I can't seem to find ANY reputable source that gives numbers.



 Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 01:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan, unluckliy what I most recall is the underlying methodology rather than the actual source. My mind's eye recalls it as a footnote to a journal or magazine article.

The post-war Freedman's bureau's records were a virtual census of recently freed slaves. To as great an extent possible, it documented the birthplace and travels of the recently freed, thus providing a somewhat central source for reuniting long- and widely-separated families. These lists were replicated and dispersed to the various offices.

As can be expected, individuals list Maryland and Pennsylvania as their homes and report being taken south in the summer of 1863.

It struck me at the time as an unexpected lode of information with informative consequences.

The reasons get better and better for keeping a journal of readings and notes therof ;)

HankC

PS now that I think of it, the library may provide a list the books I've checked out in the last couple of years...



 Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 04:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank, thanks. I've stumbled across similar things and when I first startred my research of the ACW sources didn't seem as important as they do now and neither did footnotes. I've learned the hard way though. I do greatly appreciate the source as it gives me somewhere to start looking when I finally get around to doing it.



 Posted: Fri Nov 14th, 2008 09:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

a number of recent books include beacoup de good stuff in the end notes.

The recent trend of end notes back-linking to the text pages is appreciated. Pfanz' books are good examples of additional 'story behind the story' - full paragraphs of background - in the end notes.


HankC



 Posted: Sat Nov 15th, 2008 12:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Captain Crow
Proud Southerner


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Posts: 542
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole wrote: According to the NPS and the American Battlefield Protection Program, Sand Creek is considered a Civil War battle.

Yes. According to a great many folks, it was a part of the USCW, as was the Minnesota uprising, but I consider them to be a different rebellion. At the same time. And before. And after. On that, we can agree to disagree.

The Indian Wars did not begin when the first European set foot on what is now U.S. soil. It wasn't ours, but we took it anyway. Exactly like most of them took it from who ever plunked the first foot on it.

Was Little Crow's tribe the first settlers of Minnesota? No. Was Black Kettle's tribe the first settlers in Colorado? No. They were where they were because they ran someone else's tribe out. Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, Cochise, Geronimo, Big Foot, Chief Joseph, Tecumsah, Sequoia -- there isn't one of them that didn't gain ascendency by shoving someone else out of their territory.

Now see what you've made me do? :( Rambling off topic. (Like that's a first!)

Ole
I do not necessarily disagree with the substance your conclusions Ole -especially since I've probably used some of them myself at one time- but I must ask the question: do the above statements make what was done by the U.S. right? Of course you are most likely correct in asserting  that what the Indians had was gained through some form of conflict with their predecessors. Again I must ask...does that make the White man's transgressions justified due to precedence? Maybe I'm becoming a softy or something but I just can't find the reasoning to dismiss the awful acts perpetrated in the name of Manifest Destiny as just another link in some vaguely justifiable Darwinian historical chain.
Okay now I'm off topic too!:(
I am officially putting my soapbox away)(_.........for now:)



 Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 04:03 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Nope, it just makes us the same as the French, British, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Russians, Chinese, and everybody else.



 Posted: Sun Nov 16th, 2008 11:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan Steele wrote: Nope, it just makes us the same as the French, British, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Russians, Chinese, and everybody else.
And just wait to see what happens when the men from Outer Space arrive!:shock:



 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 01:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

CleburneFan wrote:

And just wait to see what happens when the men from Outer Space arrive!:shock:


"Klaatu barada nikto"



 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 01:23 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

...but I just can't find the reasoning to dismiss the awful acts perpetrated in the name of Manifest Destiny as just another link in some vaguely justifiable Darwinian historical chain.

Didn't say it war right or justified, Captain, But I feel compelled to add color to the black and white sketch when a story is only partly told. And Darwin is no justification either -- just an explanation of why all animals do what they do, it's a territorial imperative.

Ole)))(



 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 01:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Looks like Ole used a razor...



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 03:27 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The new avatar is up? Doesn't show on my screen.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 11:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole wrote:
The new avatar is up? Doesn't show on my screen.

Ole


Yes it is. You appear to be a very likable fellow. Is that true or is it an old picture? ;) (Just pickin with you)



 Current time is 01:59 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > What Was the Single, Worst Civilian Atrocity in the Civil War?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2302 seconds (17% database + 83% PHP). 28 queries executed.