looting and burning homes in the civil war?

[band180]

hello,
i was wondering if you guys could name me a few officers, armys or event in the civil war of soilders who went around and burnt and looted homes? i remeber in that movie glory there was a scene of a union army who went around for months burning homes?
thanks

[charge_of_glory]

In Glory, the 54th burned the town of Darien(sp?). With them was another regiment, who only looted and burned towns, but I don't remember the name of them, or if they really existed. They were under the command of Colonel(?) Montgomery in the movie. Colonel Shaw was with the 54th, but that was the only time they destroyed a town that I know of.

Try searching on Google for more information. Also look up some stuff on Sherman's march to the sea. I believe they destroyed everything in thier path.

Hope this helped!

[charge_of_glory]

O'B, I did mean the 54th. They only ever burned one town, that being Darien.

[Natty]

Sherman sent an entire Army to attack noncombatants in the South. Burning down and destroying everything in their path. Murder, rape, pillage and plunder. He was proud of his scorched earth policy. Now days we call these War Crimes.

Atilla the Hun had nothing on Sherman.

[caster89]

ill tell ya who looted, murdered and committed other atrocoties, sherman the butcher. that *******'s march was like a steamroller crushing and destroying everything in its path. adolf hitler, joseph stalin, and saddam hussein took lessons from him. (not really)

[civilwarbuff17]

Sherman's original orders came from Grant himself. Grant ordered Sherman to destroy the Deep South's capacity to make war. Sherman interpetted that order to the extreme.

True, Grant said nothing about making war on citizens.

But hey, it's a war. You are going to have to put civilians under fire. After all, alot of battles are fought at towns, the main point for humans to live. And you know what? the Southern people were willing to make the sacrifice for thier country.

So, I can't really believe that people are still boo-hooing about it. If people are willing to make the sacrifice, it really leaves Sherman's victory hollow in a sense.

Now. I know I offended just about every southerner and European on here, but, hey, time to face the facts.

[civilwarbuff17]

You notice, there is one thing that always comes up. Both sides commited autrocities. So, why do people need to expound upon the wrong doings of the other side? I mean, both sides had faults that they came to regret.

[civilwarbuff17]

As for John Brown, I think he was an idiot.

As for God chosen (not meant to veer off subject too much), Mormons never got much love from the United States when their religion first was founded.

Missouri was worst of all. They tried to feed Mormon leaders the flesh of thier brothern while they were inprisoned in the worst jails imaginable, denied them the right to vote. Their houses were burned, thier wemon were raped, thier children had thier brains blown out and never allowed them the chance to rebuild their homes, like the north let the south do.

The state government also ordered every living Mormon executed if they tried to defend thier lives and homes. This was in direct violation of every God given right gureented in the Constitution. Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, went to the Senate itself to plead the Mormon case, and got laughed out.

So, really, when you think about it, the South was shown alot of mercy from a government that nearly massacred a whole religious community.

[Natty]

General Sherman was taught at West Point that he would be hanged for actions such as his.

[charge_of_glory]

So what? We can't like or admire any historical figure then? All leaders, and citizens, make mistakes. Everyone does something evil in their life at some point.

Just because you don't think it was right doesn't mean others think the same thing. For example, I think Sherman's March was a good thing. You don't. But you think sucession was right (at least, I think you do), but I don't agree with it. It's ok if you don't agree with people, but at least repect their opinion.

You act like your way is the only way, which is knid of hypocrital actually. You preach about evil neo-puritans, yet you force your views on people, just like they did.

[Ollie439]

I'm no ******* puritan thats for **** sure.

[Ollie439]

Not going far enough. People who fly the stars and bars are no friends of mine, thats for sure. No Yankee either, from Alabama, humped 5 years for this country. You can say whatever you want about states rights, but you can take an ugly girl and dress her in a pretty dress and she is still ugly underneath.

[charge_of_glory]

Ok, you need to either start being a bit more respectful like everyone else here is, or just leave. People are here for intelligent debate, not trash talk and hateful opinions. Why not try listening to what's already been said and adding to it constructively, instead of just saying stupid things like you seem to be? Please, take no offense to what I've said, it's just a friendly suggestion.

How can you be enemies with those who support the Union and those who support the Confederacy? Either you agree with the South's decision, or you don't. You could be neutral too, but how can you hate both sides?

[Ollie439]

It is the stars and bars that is the symbol of hate and oppresion. In case you have not noticed, we have been lobbying and attempting to organize economic boycotts to get states to remove this symbol.

States' rights = slavery

[charge_of_glory]

I'm a Northerner through and through, but I still know what the Confederate flag REALLY means, and it isn't what you think. Even if I don't agree with the ideas of the Confederacy, I still think the flag shouldn't be banned. That's basically banning a part of our history. You're a typical uneducated moron. The Confederate flag didn't stand for hate and opression, at least not for most Southerners. The fact that you think that makes you ignorant. Read a book, then come talk to us.

By the way, states' rights=states' rights. There's no hidden meaning or anything like that. It is what it is, not the stupid lies you believe.

[Ollie439]

Governor Wallace, 1962

That's funny because the next time white Southern politicians chanted the States' Rights mantra its in the late 50s/60s except this time states' rights has morphed into a euphemism for continued support for segregation.

[charge_of_glory]

Slavery and all that was the example of a bigger problem. They wanted to do things one way and the North didn't. It was an issue over who should have the power to decide. If it wasn't over slavery, it would've been about something else. The fact of the matter is that the South was fighting for state's rights, and slavery was just one reason behind it.

You really need to go back to US History 1 and get your facts straight.

[melizar]

His real name was Robert Gould Shaw. He was indeed put into that movie as I think he must have been. Gould is an old Georgia name which has always seemed right to me. I have never been able to connect the two that way.

Anyway, there is a real man who did not feel good about what happened to Darien, GA. His family did not either. They paid for the church to rebuilt there in his name (I think). I know a bit more if you are intersted.

In Glory, the 54th burned the town of Darien(sp?). With them was another regiment, who only looted and burned towns, but I don't remember the name of them, or if they really existed. They were under the command of Colonel(?) Montgomery in the movie. Colonel Shaw was with the 54th, but that was the only time they destroyed a town that I know of.

Try searching on Google for more information. Also look up some stuff on Sherman's march to the sea. I believe they destroyed everything in thier path.

Hope this helped!