Southern Civilians Under Fire

2 November 2002

by Rev. Tim Manning, Sr.

“Generosity and fairness dictate that we forget the past

with all of its real, perceived and imagined wrongs. We cannot change

the past. We can only live for today. Each day is a fresh new day

and can be lived without the blame, guilt and baggage of our yesterdays.

In most respects the past is an unwanted burden. To be fair we must

begin each day with a new and clean slate. We have too little time

to be spinning our wheels over yesterdays ground. Yesterday is a

cancelled check. We must live for today and look to tomorrow with

great hope and confidence….” Does this sound good to


This is actually the approach of communists, socialists and social

deconstructionists and unfortunately is the attitude most of our

children have about studying and learning from history. Frederick

Wilhelmson summed-up today’s attitudes with these words, “history

is no longer a category of the consciousness.” Amnesia is

now considered the chief quality of social and historical value

and global significance. They say we cannot permit today’s

problems and challenges to be muddled-up by yesterday’s experiences.

“Who we are” is the sum total of our memories. My memory

is me. To ignore my past is to not know or care who I am. This is

a personal form of character and cultural homicide. For me to cooperate

in this effort is suicide.

History is a rehearsal of our individual and communities past and

past memories. M.E. Bradford wrote a wonderful book titled Remembering

Who We Are. The title is not “Remembering Who We Were.”

Remembering the past, remembering who we are is that essential element

that makes life a continuum and what makes us capable of having

a culture. A second benefit in remembering the past is that it supplies

the material for the faculties we call reason and conscience. The

better our memory of the past, the better is the possibility of

a higher level of intelligence; that is, the ability to perceive

things for what they are and to grasp their relationship in a proper

perspective. Without reason and conscience there is no civilization.

Man becomes like the animals making constant war on those around

him the way the strong devour the weak. In that society might always

makes right. What is right is defined by who survives and, of course,

they are the ones remaining to write the history.

Intellectuality rests upon our power to recall, recollect, and associate

things not present or things only suggested by what is present.

Consciousness is largely memory. An attack on memory is an attack

on the cognitive abilities, an attack on man’s mind in an

effort to re-form his thinking3/4we call this “brainwashing.”

Any attack on memory is a calculated assault on man’s freedom

to think and to make decisions for himself. Without a memory, an

accurate memory, we cannot preserve a conscious identity, that of

self or our community. Memory is not the random product of repeated

association but one of inclination and focus. Only in this manner

can we learn from our past experiences. Memory is active, selective,

and creative. We are not able to reconstruct, that is, revise, history.

We can only recognize how it was originally constructed. And, the

more deeply we penetrate the significance of past events, the more

we can be accurately informed and change our perspectives when needed.

History defines us. We do not define history. We recognise it.

Memory may be weakened by two common but important ways: First,

through disuse. Memory is strengthened by remembering, that is recollecting,

the past. Second, memory is weakened by interference and distraction,

often through a scattering of our attention. This may be accomplished

in the same way a slight-of-hand artist does his work, by diversion

and substitution.

While teaching at Columbia Union College I hired Mr. Fingers, a

slight-of-hand magician, an artist of deception. He visited my school’s

fine cafeteria doing his demonstration from table to table for groups

of three to eight students at a time. He would take a paper napkin

and pull it up by its center between his thumb and index finger.

Then he would burn the napkin from the top for about two inches.

Then he would roll up the burned napkin into a small ball. Then

he would unfold it to reveal a perfect napkin, not burnt. He did

this at least 20 times around the cafeteria with students close

around his hands trying to see how it was done. No one could figure

it out but when he left the cafeteria he had 20 burnt napkins in

his left coat pocket. He used diversion and substitution. He understood

how to refocus our attention so as to permit the substitution through

diversion. This is what is happening in how and what our schools

teach in their history classes. Let’s look at this word “recollection.”

Recollection is a pulling together in an organized manner. There

is an old country expression my family used to use describing a

person who became too distracted. They said he was “beside

himself,” meaning that he was not in possession of his full

faculties. This is where politicians (not statesmen), egalitarian

academics and the media live, move, and have their being. They are

presentist, always wanting to know “how you feel” at

the present time about something. If I hear Cokie Roberts or Barbara

Walters ask this question one more time to an individual who has

just suffered a great tragedy you may have to visit me in Virginia’s

Eastern State Mental Hospital. “Presence of mind” always

means “presence of memory,” or organized thought.

While recognizing the great service of memory Richard Weaver wrote,

our “Memories inhibit us and even spoil our pleasures.”

Today’s chief enemy to history is presentism, which wants

to live in the present without assuming the responsibility for an

accurate knowledge of the past. Present time is empirical, not conceptual.

It strikes at the restraints of man’s actions without considering

what these restraints were in place to preserve. It presents the

desire to be free of the old painful bloody lessons taught at such

tragic costs in times past and to be free of present obligations

learned from those past experiences. This is an alluring waywardness

which fits the definition of the behavior of a psycho-path. At best

this view is irrelevant to the present and creates a concrete discontinuity

to organized intelligent thought. Remembering the past is not vain

nor a whine by the descendents of those who lost the War between

the States and who are frustrated about having lost their country

and culture. It is the truly responsible and reasonable intellectual

approach by those who seek to preserve their dignity and the possibility

of a future peaceful existence.


With that said, before we put something behind us we should be sure

it should be placed there. From year to year there is much we may

need to learn from our past experiences3/4new lessons to meet our

level of growth and developing opportunities. But, the folks in

the North never leave it alone nor want to forget our past, yet

they do not want to really recollect that past accurately.

The intentional targeting of defenseless civilian populations has

been a common practice of the United States ever since World War

II. Its hideous precedent was established and codified by the United

States during Mr. Lincoln’s war against the people of the

Confederate States of America. This was a genocidal war against

both black and white Southron civilians as well as a racist exercise

in ethnic cleansing.

Lincoln was so determined to keep the South as an economic resource

that he first invaded six Northern and border States whose governors

refused to call-up their militia to support his invasion of the

sovereign Southern States. This action is now being recognized as

a radical Republican executive and military coup. Only Congress

was authorized by the Constitution to increase the number of troops

or order them to active duty. The Constitution forbade the sending

of federal troops against a member State. Lincoln deposed and arrested

dozens of democratically elected State officers and representatives

who were so vulgar as to disagree with his policies. In 1863 an

international convention held in Geneva, Switzerland codified international

law with regard to the “Conduct of War.” The convention

took the principles of “civilized” warfare that had

evolved during the previous two centuries by Christian European

nations and declared them to be international law that should be

obeyed by all civilized societies. The Geneva Convention concluded

that it should be considered a war crime, punishable by imprisonment

or death, for a military force to attack defenseless civilians and

towns, plunder civilian property, take civilians hostage or take

food from civilian populations against their will and without appropriate


These civilized (most of you know I prefer the term ruralized since

rural peoples are more peaceful than city peoples) practices were

in common use by the military of the Confederate States. Confederate

armies following classical thought, before the Geneva Convention,

already were “required to take nothing” from the civilian

population, and “to purchase” needed provisions at a

“fair price” from willing sellers, a common practice

during wartime. War was to be between opposing military forces,

soldiers, and not against civilians (that is, women, children, and

the elderly) so far as possible. Even Israel backed their tank corps

away from a strategic hill in Beirot, Lebanon when they saw that

Middle East College, a private Christian school and seminary, was

in the direct line of fire. They surrendered the hill rather than

involving civilians, not necessarily a practice they honour today.

The Lincoln administration superficially adopted the principles

of the Geneva Convention in General Order 100, known as the “Lieber

Code.” But it had a giant loophole that permitted federal

commanders to completely ignore, that means “violate”

the entire code if “in their discretion,” they felt

the events were such that they “thought” they ought

to do so. The interpretation of this code became so loose that it

was commonly acceptable and ordered for the U.S. military to kill

civilians on sight for any or no reason.

The code was written by Francis Lieber, a Columbia University law

professor. The Lieber Code was, in truth, a clever piece of propaganda

written to satisfy the few remaining northern Christians and European

governments critical of their conduct of the war. Thomas DeLorenzo,

professor of economics at Loyola College, writes:

The Code’s author was the German legal scholar Francis Lieber,

an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized

governmental power. In his writings Lieber denounced the federal

system of government created by the American founding fathers as

having created “confederacies of petty sovereigns” and

dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection

of “obsolete ideas.” In Germany he was arrested several

times for subversive activities. He was a perfect ideological fit

with Lincoln’s own political philosophy and was just the man

Lincoln wanted to outline the rules of war for his administration.

From the very beginning of the war against the Confederate States

of America, the Lincoln government intentionally and systematically

targeted defenseless civilian populations. (And, who are the civilians?

That’s right. They are the women, children, and the elderly.)

His Secretary of War Winfield Scott’s battle plan, known as

the “Anaconda Plan,” blockaded all Southern ports and

inland waterways in order to “strangle and starve” the

Southern civilians. (And, we know who they are.) The plan’s

purpose was to demoralize the women, children and elderly left at

home. Its design included keeping food, shelter (even their homes),

drugs and medicine out of the hands of all Confederate civilians

even when it meant abandoning thousands of their own soldiers in

Southern prisoner of war camps. The concept was so efficient and

demoralizing to Southern civilians that President Bush called his

plan of attack against his hated Islamic enemies, who he thinks

destroyed the Twin Towers of New York, Operation Anaconda.

Lincoln’s plan was a radical departure from Western civilized

ethics and practices of the conduct of war. Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67),

the Swiss jurist and author of The Law of Nations and world expert

on the practice and conduct of war, wrote: “The people, the

peasants, the citizens, take no part in [war], and generally have

nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy.” This remained

true for all civilians as long as they refrained from hostilities

themselves. They would continue to live their lives in a normal

manner and “live in perfect safety as if they were friends.”

Growing corn, beans and wheat was not yet considered a war activity

by civilians. Enemy or occupying soldiers who stole or destroyed

private property or harmed civilians were regarded as savage barbarians.

Thaddeus Stevens, a congressman from Pennsylvania, stated in Congress

in July 1861 that the time had come when the constitution could

no longer stand in the way of the U.S. in its conduct of the war

against the Southern States. He confidently entertained a high level

of comfort in challenging Congress: “Who pleads the Constitution

against our proposed action?” He knew that it was universally

recognized by all other civilized nations that pillage and wanton

destruction of private property was not permitted by the laws of

war. He was voicing public recognition of the great moral abyss

that separated the industrial materialistic North from its classical

European roots and the Southern States. President Davis argued publicly

against this new radical departure of the U.S. government saying:

“When prosecuting the war with Mexico, we respected private

property of the enemy,” and that the “sectional hatred”

of the North for the South and the “vain conceit” of

the North’s “newly acquired power led to the idle prophecy

of our speedy subjection, and hence the Government of the U.S. refused

to act as required by humanity and the usages of civilized warfare.”

Actual genocide and ethnic cleansing by U.S. military forces began

early in its invasion of the Confederacy at the first major battle

of the war, the battle of First Manassas in July 1861. U.S. military

forces first plundered and then burned private homes across northern

Virginia. This violation of the basic constitutional and human rights

of Virginians quickly became pervasive and the commonly accepted

practice of U.S. military commanders. It became officially established

as U.S. policy on 20 June 1862, one year into the war. Remember,

most often, military policy changes occur following the existing

changes in common practice.

So violent and savage was this practice that the Commanding General

of the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the United States, General

George McClellan, a trained and educated soldier who recognized

the character of these events from the beginning, wrote Lincoln

from Harrison’s Landing imploring him to conduct the war according

to “the highest principles known to Christian civilization”

and to “avoid knowingly” targeting the civilian population.

He wrote:

It should not be a war looking to the subjugation of the people

of any State in any event. It should not be at all a war upon populations,

but against armed forces and political organizations. Neither confiscation

of property, political executions of persons, territorial organization

of States, nor forcible abolition of slavery, should be contemplated

for a moment.

Lincoln’s response was to ignore his letter and replace McClellan

as head of the United States Armed Forces. McClellan was so convicted

concerning Lincoln’s conduct of the war that he ran against

Lincoln as the Democratic candidate for president in 1864. The war’s

goal was clearly manifested from its beginning. It was the extermination

or total subjugation of the Southern peoples.

Mark Grimsley in The Hard Hand of War observed that the U.S. Army

was full of “thieves, freelance foragers, and officers willing

to look the other way,” and that by October 1861 General Louis

Blenker’s division “was already burning houses and public

buildings along its line of march” in Virginia. Early in the

summer of 1861, before the Battle of First Manassas the Army of

the Potomac was known for “robbing hen roosts, killing hogs,

slaughtering beef cattle, cows, the burning of a house or two and

the plundering of others.”

In 1862 General Sheridan adopted the theory of “collective

responsibility” in an unethical, violent and feeble-minded

attempt to “justify” attacking innocent defenseless

civilians. (Who were these civilians? They were the ones not in

the army. They were the women, children, and the elderly.) In retaliation

for his own poor performance as a tactician and general on the field

of battle, a theory and practice won the praise of his commander-in-chief,

President Lincoln. Sheridan adopted this theory earlier articulated

by U.S. General Pope who commanded his army to plunder and kill,

at will, civilians. Sherman later termed this practice as “the

final solution.”

Sheridan was careful to not leave too much in writing, but at one

point he suggested that General Louis D. Watkins “burn ten

or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and

let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired

on from Resaca to Kingston.” He was only advising other generals

to follow what he and others had already put into practice.

Pope had commanded that “All villages and neighborhoods …

will be laid under contribution.” Any males wishing to retain

their homes were commanded to take the U.S. Loyalty Oath or be shot.

Many were not given the option. Subsequently, Sheridan, as had Pope,

burned the entire towns. He burned Randolph, Tennessee to the ground

because Confederate snipers were firing at Union gunboats on the

Mississippi River. He then took civilian hostages (who were these

hostages?3/4women, children, and the elderly) and either traded

them for federal prisoners of war, a barbaric and radical departure

from the commonly acceptable practices of civilized warfare, or

murdered them. Memphis was destroyed and left unpopulated for three

years after the war.

This practice had been universally held in contempt for hundreds

of years by European governments. Dozens of Southern towns in Southern

States no longer existed by the end of the war. At times Sheridan

summarily had unarmed civilians shot on sight. In the federal Official

Records of the War there are accounts of U.S. soldiers shooting

peaceful old men, women and children from the windows of trains

during troop transport. Some whom they shot were guilty of the high

crime of plowing their fields or walking down a sidewalk or simply

“being a Southerner.” Terrorists have no conscience.

General Sheridan saw all Southern civilians as guilty and mostly

they were guilty of being Christians and believing the South was

just in its cause. He said, “First. Deal as hard blows to

the enemy’s soldiers as possible, and cause so much suffering

to the inhabitants of the country that they will long for peace

and press their government to make it. Nothing should be left to

the people but eyes to lament the war.”

Sheridan turned the beautiful Shenandoah Valley into “the

valley of the shadow of death.” By the end of the first year

of the war, “authorized foraging,” meaning pillaging

and plundering and raping, became the plan of attack against the

Southern economy and civilian population. When a man in his army

was killed he would burn all the houses within a five-mile radius

and kill some if not all civilians in the area. So indiscriminate

were these planned massacres that some of the dead were supporters

of the U.S. war effort, but that made no difference to the quality

of men serving in and commanding the ranks of Lincoln’s war

effort. United States armed forces made certain the towns were clear

of Confederate troops and snipers before sending their “forces”

against the civilians. Their plan of attack faced the terrors of

assaulting positions held by the elderly, women and children as

they did their chores and played.

General Philip Sheridan evacuated and in some areas exterminated

the Shenandoah Valley. He burned everything. He boasted in a letter

to General Grant that in a few days he had “destroyed 2,200

barns … over 70 mills … driven in front of the army

over 4,000 head of stock … killed not less than 3,000 sheep….

Tomorrow I will continue the destruction.” Upon receiving

this report President Lincoln at the Executive Mansion in Washington,

D.C. on 22 October 1864 wrote to General Sheridan: “With great

pleasure I tender to you and your brave army the thanks of the nation

and my own personal admiration and gratitude for the month’s

operations in the Shenandoah Valley.” Earlier on 11 October

Sheridan had written, “I know of no way to exterminate them

except to burn out the whole country.” Sheridan’s troops

in letters to their families described themselves as “barn

burners” and “destroyers of homes.” One soldier

bragged of “burning 60 homes.” The main exercise of

his “military efforts” was against Southern civilians.

Nearly all were women, children, or elderly men. This continued

for four years.

In the autumn of 1864, after the withdrawal of the Confederate Army

from the devastated Shenandoah Valley, General Grant ordered Sheridan

to turn the valley into a “desert.” He did. William

T. Patterson, a sergeant in Sheridan’s army, described the

continued pillaging, plundering, and burning by Sheridan of Harrisonburg,

Bridgewater, and Dayton, Virginia:

The work of destruction is commencing in the suburbs of the town….

The whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow

with the light thereof … such mourning, such lamentations,

such crying and pleading for mercy I never saw nor never want to

see again, some were wild, crazy, mad, some cry for help while others

throw their arms around yankee soldiers necks and implore mercy.

Negroes, free and slave, were constantly targeted. Current figures

place the death total of Southern negroes at 800,000 to 1,200,000.

Negroes were targeted more often than Southern whites. Mark Grimsley

writes of these generous liberators: “With the utter disregard

for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked

the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.”

A common practice of U.S. troops was to put a hangman’s noose

around the slave’s neck and threaten to hang or, indeed, actually

hang him unless he told where the household’s jewelry, silverware,

and money were hidden. Their rape of black women was more common

than that of white women. Negroes were randomly drowned, beaten,

raped, placed in concentration camps and starved to death, or shot

by occupying U.S. military forces, a face of this war not touched

by Ken Burns and the PBS Civil War Specials. There were mass graves

around the South of large numbers of Negroes killed by the invading

U.S. military. In Sanders, Louisiana, 2,000 Negroes went to the

U.S. army asking for help. Many of them were ill. The U.S. placed

in them in a concentration camp and gave them neither food nor water

until they were all dead. National Public Television showed where

the U.S. Army drowned over 800 Negroes at bayonet point in a river

near Charleston, South Carolina, thus saving ammunition.

Mark Grimsley wrote a first hand account of the sacking of Fredericksburg,

Virginia in December of 1862:

"Great three-story houses furnished magnificently were broken

into and their contents scattered over the floors and trampled on

by the muddy feet of the solders. Splendid alabaster vases and pieces

of statuary were thrown at 6 and 700 dollar mirrors. Closets of

the very finest China were broken into and their contents smashed

… rosewood pianos piled in the street and burned…. Identical

events occurred in dozens of other Southern cities and towns for

four years." Lee Kennett, Sherman biographer, says that historians

radically downplay the horror of Lincoln’s war on civilians

and admits that Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory

put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some

sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified …

in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command

for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against


Describing Sherman’s New York regiments he adds that they

“were filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh

from the jails of the Old World.” It took coercion to get

some Northern men to do the criminal acts Lincoln and his generals

commanded. Sherman admitted after the war that what he had been

taught at West Point would indicate that he “could be hanged”

for the things he did in the war. The British and much of Europe

clearly understood the reason for the war and its true nature and

its conduct. In December of 1861 Charles Dickens wrote that he detested

slavery as most living in the North and the South did, but said:"the

northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious

humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the

Southern States. “Union” means so many millions [of

dollars] lost to the south; secession means the loss of the same

millions to the north. The love of money is the root of this as

of many other evils … the quarrel between north and south

is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

Virginia became the first victim of this genocidal Total War policy,

suffering its effects first under Generals Sheridan, Pope, Banks,

Blenker, Butler, Hunter and dozens of other U.S. generals. Virginia

suffered more plundering, the murder of her civilians en masse,

and devastation from this policy than any other State, even more

than Georgia and South Carolina.

When these memories are brought into the open some people feel that

the South is still fighting the war, but in reality the U.S. is

still trying to cleanse their culture of their Southernness, especially

her Christianity. Much to the continuing dismay of northerners the

South continues to memorialize its mass graves and holocaust in

much the same manner as the Jews remember their days of suffering

and extermination under the Nazis. Because the South lost the war

there is no public or governmental review and recognition of these

crimes against humanity.

Thomas DiLorenzo in his essay “The Other Reparations Movement”


Unable to subdue their enemy combatants, many Union officers waged

war on civilians instead, with Lincoln’s full knowledge and

approval. Grimsley describes how Union Colonel John Beatty warned

the residents of Paint Rock, Alabama, that “Every time the

telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house; every time a train

was fired upon we would hang a man; and we would continue to do

this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur

and Bridgeport.” Beatty ended up burning the entire town of

Paint Rock to the ground. These were the actions of barbarians,

not a civilized army. With the approval of President Lincoln, the

U.S. Army, DiLorenzo continues, “pillaged, plundered, burned,

and raped its way through the South for four years.” In like

manner General Sherman destroyed the cities of Jackson and Meridian,

Mississippi. In a letter to General Grant, Sherman boasted, “The

inhabitants [of Jackson] are subjugated. They cry aloud for mercy.

The land is devastated for 30 miles around.” He had to devastate

the land since he could not defeat the army. Sherman bragged about

the destruction he wrought on Meridian after the complete evacuation

of the Confederate Army. He wrote, “for five days, ten thousand

of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction,

with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars and with fire…. Meridian

no longer exists.

Sherman was advised by his chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, that

the bombardment of Atlanta would achieve no advantage since the

city was of no military significance and the Confederate Army had

withdrawn from the city. He implored Sherman to stop the destruction

after seeing the bodies of dead women and children in the streets.

Sherman responded that “their bodies were a beautiful sight”

and continued until he had destroyed 90 percent of all the buildings

in Atlanta. The movie Gone with the Wind did not show the masses

of the dead lying in the center of the city to be civilians, women,

children, and the elderly. The remaining 2,000 residents were evicted

from their homes. The scenes of the burning of Atlanta from Gone

With The Wind, as dramatic as they were, hardly portrayed the devastation

of Atlanta and its civilian population. Winter was approaching.

Sherman was more thorough than Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.For

the North this was not largely a war against an opposing army; it

was a slaughter of defenseless civilians3/4children, women and the

elderly. His men systematically burned hospitals, homes, churches,

schools, colleges, libraries and seats of city, county and state

governments. They burned Bibles, hymnals, photographs of Southern

individuals and families, and county, city, and State government

records. Sherman wrote that eighty percent of his army’s warfare

was directed against civilians and their property. He boasted that

his army destroyed $100 million in private property and carried

home $20 million more during one short period of his march to the

sea, and bragged about shooting civilians who simply disagreed with

him. No home escaped robbery and no woman escaped insult. He permitted

his men to leave women who were in the advanced state of pregnancy

lying in the snow, gang-raped, with no food, no shelter, and no

hope. Many died. Sherman wrote, “all the people are now guerrillas.”

Sherman’s biographer, John Marszalek, wrote that Sherman “saw

everyone south of the Mason-Dixon Line as an implacable enemy.”

This clearly defines the war effort as an exercise in genocide.

There is also clear evidence that this was Lincoln’s intent

from the beginning of the war. On 31 July 1862 General Sherman wrote

his wife explaining his goal and the strategy he planned to use

“against the Southern people,” against non-combatants

and not just the military, with these words: “extermination,

not of soldiers alone . . . but the people.” Sherman’s

tender wife, his source of inspiration, wrote him back, saying that

she wanted “a war of extermination and that all [Southron’s]

would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword

in their state till not one habitation is left standing.”

This dominant attitude in the North led one Northern soldier, Lt.

Thomas J. Myers, to write:

I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this

State [South Carolina]. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder

[rape and kill] was the order of the day. The chivalry have been

stripped of most of their valuables.

General Sherman has gold and silver enough to start a bank. His

share in gold watches and chains alone at Columbia was two hundred

and seventy-five.

We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels [the women

and their homes] to have redeemed their infernal currency twice


The damned niggers, as a general thing, preferred to stay at home,

particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied

men, and to tell the truth, the youngest and best looking women.

Sometimes we took them off by way of repaying influential secessionists.

But a part of these [thousands] we soon managed to lose, sometimes

in crossing rivers [drowned 800 at bayonet point at one time in

Charleston], sometimes in other ways. I shall write you again from

Wilmington, Goldsboro, or some other place in North Carolina….

Love to grandmother and Aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and

the children. Don’t show this letter out of the family.

Your affectionate husband

This sounds like the press of today as when George Will called for

a strategy of war against terrorists that includes killing their

leaders and as many of our adversaries as possible. Will wrote “U.S.

strategy [in war] should maximize fatalities among the enemy, rather

than expedite the quickest possible cessation of hostilities.”This

Shermanesque blind rage of primitive hatred and bigotry is passed

from one generation to the next. This was exactly the approach of

Sheridan, Grant, Banks, Butler and most Northern commanders. General

Sherman said: “I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion

that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must

kill three hundred thousand [more than the total number of those

left in the Confederate Army] … and the further they run the

harder for us to get them.”

In 1864, just before his March to the Sea, Sherman declared “We

must kill 300,000,” referring to civilians. Concerning the

extermination of Southern men he wrote, “that the present

class of men who rule the South must be killed outright.”

Sherman wrote, “I would not restrain the army, lest its vigor

and energy should be impaired.” There are hundreds of such

statements explicitly defining this genocidal approach to civilians

made by many northern generals, politicians, writers such as Ralph

Waldo Emerson, and news media persons before and during this war.

And if that weren’t enough the current news media praises

Sherman as a saint for these policies and actions as we recently

saw in the writings of the pseudo-conservative columnist and advocate

of genocide, George Will. Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin had such

supporters, like George Will, of their identical policies, who soothed

the ears of those who might feel a twinge of conscience at such

radical actions.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln urged and supported these radical

actions taken by his commanders from the beginning of the war. Typical

of his and congressional U.S. support of a genocidal war against

the South is the Preamble to House Resolution #97, also known as

the “Retaliatory Orders,” which was passed by both houses

of Congress in January of 1865:

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 death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation

and by mortal diseases occasioned by insignificant and unhealthy

food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the

weather. It is nearly impossible to make an accurate report concerning

the death toll of Southern civilians.

Recently, Joseph Stromberg in his essay “Strategies of Annihilation:

Total War in US History,” raises the question as to what happened

to the 50,000 missing Southern civilians who disappeared along Sherman’s

line of march to the sea. Sherman’s own account of this march

notes thousands of atrocities he permitted and ordered against both

black and white Southern civilians. It should be noted that only

“a small portion” of such actions were documented in

the federal government’s Official Records of the War (the

“O.R.”). Enough was documented to shame any barbarian

or civilized people. Wayne Carlson of Dublin, Virginia recently


It was actually Unionist armies, under generals like Sherman and

Sheridan in Virginia that most closely resemble the murderous fanaticism

we attribute to those we are presently slaughtering, referring to

the Taliban and Al-Qaida … [and that] these kinds of facts

have been too long closeted in the dark shadows of Yankee self-righteousness.

The northern news media that survived Lincoln’s period of

media-cleansing, when he destroyed 325 presses, praised this new

level of fanaticism and barbarism. Where are the unremitting condemnations

that should be burning the government-controlled media airways from

the lapdog press, the halls of Marxist academia, and our more gentle

and ever more sensitive politicians who “feel our pain”?

On 9 October 1864 General Sherman wrote General Grant at City Point,

Virginia: “Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless

to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and

people will cripple their military resources…. I can make

the march, and make Georgia howl.” Genocide on a massive scale

was the continuing war policy of the U.S. government.

U.S. General O.O. Howard on 16 October 1864 wrote: “They [his

troops] took from women and children the last morsel of food. In

some cases these things were done … in a manner as if it were


Only mentally weak and twisted men, like Adolph Hitler and Joseph

Stalin, set goals that make war on women, children and old men.

General Sherman wrote to General Kilpatrick: “Let the people

[civilians] know that the war is now against them…. It is

petty nonsense for Wheeler and Beauregard and such vain heroes to

talk of our warring against women and children. If they claim to

be men they should defend their women and children and prevent us

reaching their homes.”

The Cherokee saw the South set-up its government without violence

and without the suspension of civil law or the closing of civil

courts. They observed that military power was “nowhere placed

above civil authorities.” No one was seized and put in prison

by the arbitrary use of power. They saw a unanimous South exercising

its right to self-government separating itself from a union with

the Northern States. In the South they saw citizens voluntarily

rising almost to the man to defend against the invasion of northern

armies. They also observed that “nowhere has it been found

[by the Confederates] necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist

mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties,” as had

been done by the U.S. They witnessed the process by which the North

was hiring foreign mercenaries by the hundreds of thousands. In

their Declaration of War on the United States signed 28 October

1861, in the Northern States they witnessed:

…with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put

in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of

common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded…. Military

despotism has displaced the civil power and the law became silent

amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The

right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution,

disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the

lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common

right [common law] approved by a President sworn to support the

Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense

bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law

warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination

of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were

no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and

the scum of [Northern] cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted

and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern

States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to

burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women;

while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland

and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were

incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails,

in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by

the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while

the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended

and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken

prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal

of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they

had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed

their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern


The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism

against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial

freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States,

and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States

and utterly change the nature of the General Government.

These issues were clear to the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws,

and Chickasaws, peoples called savages in the U.S. Constitution,

in the first three months of the war. However, it seems to not be

so clear to today’s “defenders of democracy.”

By October of 1861 it had become universally clear whom the true

savages were, an opinion shared by nearly all in civilized Europe

and many of us now living.