why was the war in the south bloodier thatn the "civilized" warfare experienced in the North?

Answer 1

Because the South fought a civilized war as when Lee went into Pennyslvian he instructed the Army there would be no forgering and everything would be paid for.
The 1810, 1830 and 1850 census showed the South to be made up of roughly 50% Celtic, 30% English and the remaining 20% were German, French or Spanish. The Irish Potatoes famine of 1846-1850 killed a million plus Irishmen, the problem there was food but the British took it for themselves. Another good example of who has suffered under slavery. The real point the majority of English settled up North and continued to this day their opinion of superiority and want of control over our lot.

That explains their (yankee opinion of us- Southerners); surprisedly, when one reads about the federal soldiers many atrocities to include acts of rape their conscience seem to have escaped them through out the war and long afterwards. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities. Another source of Northern hostility is volume I of the “The Uncivil War” by Thomas Keys which chronicles with actually copies of the Union Army own reports which documented atrocities against the Southern People; there also is the Harper Weekly which along countless newspapers of the time cried out against the treatment of southroners.

On June 20, 1862 – one year into the war – General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.

In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.
Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman’s troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them.

In 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy.” In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."


Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln’s) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."

The official U.S. position on the treatment of Confederate prisoners of war during The War for Southern Independence would shock many modern Americans. The data, facts and statistics have been thoroughly eliminated from American history books. One must research the original documents to discover the horrible truth.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), the U.S. House of Representatives passed the following resolution: "Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons."

One Yankee prison commander boasted that he had killed more Confederate soldiers than any Union officer on the front battle lines.

The story of Confederate prison camps, especially Andersonville, has been misrepresented. There was no deliberate attempt to mistreat northern POWs. The South asked the North to send doctors and medicine, and they tried to exchange the prisoners.

The North refused and finally the Confederacy offered the North cotton and gold as payment to take them without exchange. Again, the North refused to do so. They knew the Confederate States of America would be honor bound to try to feed and house the Union POWs and to do so would hamper the Confederate war effort.

Reconstruction is still in place look at the differences in the manner voting is handled; there are still active segregation cases where the Federal Government is unhappy with the method we are using to comply with their laws. Look at transportation and manufacturing taxation there too you will find inconsistencies between what the rest of the country faces and we here in the South. The Federal Government contends that the ICC removing the punitive discriminatory freight rates from Georgia commerce in 1952 was the last act of Reconstruction. When You confront any Government representative with these additional facts, they always say they have no control over it.

In December 1865, an estimated 500,000 white people in three states of the lower South were without the necessities of life, and some of them even starved. . . . Fifteen years after the war only the frontier states of Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida had as many acres under cultivation as in 1860. . . . The spirit of vengeance was strong in the victorious North at first. . . . Because Southerners refused to be friendly, the federal army of occupation resorted to irritating retaliations. Women required to go to military headquarters for any favor were forced to take ironclad oaths of national loyalty. The wearing of Confederate uniforms was forbidden and when this order was enforced among men who had no other clothes, scenes of unforgivable humiliation resulted. . . . Church buildings were seized and turned over to Northern denominations, and ministers were not allowed to preach unless they agreed to conduct "loyal services, pray for the President of the United States, and for Federal victories." Direct refusal of Protestant Episcopal clergymen to substitute in their liturgy the name of the President of the United States for that of the President of the Confederate States resulted in the closing of churches and the dispersal of congregations. In addition, there was the burden of discriminatory war taxes and the confiscation laws of Congress. Federal Treasury agents threaded their way through the occupied areas seizing 3 million out of the 5 million bales of cotton which had not been destroyed. They corruptly enriched themselves. "I am sure," said the Secretary of the Treasury, "that I sent some honest agents South; but it sometimes seems very doubtful whether any of them remained honest for very long." A special tax of from 2.5 to 3 cents a pound on cotton yielded the federal treasury $68,000,000. Because of its effects on the economy of a prostrate region, this levy was called by the United States Commissioner of Agriculture "disastrous and disheartening in the extreme." As soon as the federal troops got a foothold in the South, property was seized and sold for nonpayment under the Direct Tax Act. In conclusion, I hope that in this article I have provided some balance to the common, and I believe inaccurate and unfair, descriptions of the antebellum South, of the Confederacy, and of the events that led to the Civil War. When judged by any fair, reasonable comparison, the South was just as deserving of its independence as were the original thirteen colonies. Similarly, the South had just as much right as did the North to be governed by a government of its choosing. The Confederacy had just as much right to exist as did any other nation of its day. It's been said that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them. But how can we learn from history if our version of history is markedly one-sided and incomplete? Sometimes the facts of history can be unsettling, especially when those facts have been widely suppressed. Robert Catlett Cave expressed my feelings about discussing such facts: I acknowledge . . . the obligation to heal dissensions, allay passion, and promote good feeling; but I do not believe that good feeling should be promoted at the expense of truth and honor. I sincerely desire that there may be between the people of the North and the people of the South increasing peace and amity, and that, in the spirit of genuine fraternity, they may work together for the prosperity and glory of their common country; but I do not think the Southern people should be expected to sacrifice the truth of history to secure that end.

In very straightforward terms just allow us the same tolerance and inclusion every other group is afforded in America today. Is that really too much to ask? Do Southerners somehow deserve less sensitivity? Does allowing us to revere our ancestors really hurt anyone? Why in this age of walking on eggshells so as not to offend anyone are Southerners still the targets of such vicious attacks?

Sadly the truth is plain to see. Only certain groups are perceived as fit to protect in the eyes of the left-wing political correctors. And Southerners who tend to be quite Conservative do not fit that description.

Along with Christians, gun owners, and anyone who dares espouse Conservative ideals, Southerners are not only not a protected class they are favorite targets of the politically correct bigots.

God Bless The Southern People.

Answer 2

The sheer level of harm inflicted to civilians in the South is what makes the Southern experience of the war so much worse than in the North. Sherman's March to the Sea was not primarily directed against the Confederate armies; rather its purpose was to break the will of the Southern people by bringing the war directly into their lives. That being said, however, if one looks at the carnage of the battles throughout the war, it can be said that both sides suffered horrific losses of men under almost unimaginable conditions during the battles. Thus, the distinction of the Southern experience is the trauma inflicted to the civilians of the South, particularly the wealthy elites who funded and promoted Secession and the commencement of hostilities in the first place.

The question of what the cause of the war is is not as straightforward as some Southern apologists might have you believe. They would love to convince of the revisionism that suggests that Southerners were fighting solely for state's rights or for "Southern independence." These may have been some of the many reasons why the average foot soldier fought for the Confederacy, but these are NOT the reasons that the ruling elites started the war.

As you may recall, at this point in time, the South still condoned human bondage even after it abolitionists had ended slavery in the North. The initial crisis came as both sides disputed what would be done with the territories to the West particularly as they qualified for statehood. Southern aristocrats saw an opportunity to spread slavery through the Southwest all the way to the coast of California. Meanwhile, the abolitionist North was determined that all new states to the West would be free states. For forty years prior to the onset of hostilities, American presidents chose to do nothing to clarify or meaningfully resolve the situation peacefully. Lincoln initially proposed a policy of containment that allowed the South to maintain slavery while preventing the spread of this abominable practice to the West. Had the South not seceded, Lincoln was confident that slavery would become so unprofitable there that the institution would die out in twenty or so years. The war could have been avoided if the South had been contented to maintain it's "rights" in its own states...instead seeking to spread the horror of slavery to the West, the South seceded. And, thus the War.

As for anyone who naively claims this was a war for states' rights, not slavery... the chief right that the wealthy Southern aristocracy sought to protect was the right not only to preserve slavery in the South, but the also the alleged right to spread slavery to the western territories. If the Civil War was a war for Southern freedom, then it was a tragic mistake because the simple fact is that 9 out of 10 people in the South at this time were slaves...and the War surely wasn't going to free them...not unless what actually happened happened i.e. the North defeated the South. The slaves were freed.

Funny, how people that are so pro-Confederacy are always silent about the injustice and horror of slavery. One might think they still support that most heinous of institutions.

Answer 3

The South suffered horrifically during the War for Southern Independence, which is what the TRUE purpose of the war from 1861-1865 was. Southern lands and crops were destroyed, houses were burned, and people were beaten, raped, and left to starve. The Yankees invaded the South, and Southerners had to defend their homeland.

Answer 4

Things were bloody all over - - - warfare is a harsh Mistress and if one wants to get technical the Northern attacks on the South were Legal whereas Southern attacks on places such as St Albans and in Ohio plus Southern Ships preying on Northern shipping in particular the Yankee Whaling Fleet were clearly against the law.

And the South had an inherent bllod lust hence the KKK activity that stretched a hundred years - - - - in many Southern Cities right through the 20th Century Lynching Day was a Holiday everyone looked forward to.

Peace

Answer 5

nicely as a Southerner, I haven't any concept what Northerners think of of the South. Southerners think of of Northerners as extra aggressive, no longer as straightforward-going, many times extra nicely-to do.. people who flow to the south tend to be observed as carpetbaggers.. nonetheless at present it is in simple terms used to tease. there is no actual animosity or something. those emotions, alongside with state's rights and something of this is been washed away via a hundred and fifty years of a concerted attempt via the U. S. to get rid of Southern identity. yet this could nicely be a diverse subject depend... from own adventure i think of this is *many times* authentic concerning the extra handy-going way of life interior the South, yet of direction there are exceptions. I in simple terms desire extra Yankees enjoyed candy tea. as quickly as I forget and order it in a eating place up North I continually get a befuddled look.

Answer 6

Before you excuse the South of not conducting any "civilized" warfare, you do need to read up on the Confederate raiders, such as William Clarke Quantrill, and "Bloody" Bill Anderson, and the events like the Lawrence Massacre in 1863 that occurred in the border states of Missouri and Kansas. Much of what occurred there was not "civilised" either, we would call it "terrorism" today.

p.s. Thanks for all the thumbs down. Now go read the books:

Answer 7

It was fought on southern soil, and when the Confederacy was sufficiently beaten down, numerous campaigns, such as Sherman's 'March to the Sea' really devastated the CIVILIAN aspects of the South. Paths of burned out homes, farms, slaughtered livestock, civilian deaths, and the resulting disease that follows massive amounts of decaying flesh all took their toll.

Very very little Norther territory ever saw any combat by comparison, and was certainly never raped as was the south.

Answer 8

Simply stated, most battles and skirmishes were fought on southern soil.