Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/12/2004 2:08:24 PM EST
I watched "Cold Mountain" the other night, and it depicted a considerable level of violence against Southern women by both Union troops and fellow Southerners.

I read someplace that no actual recorded rapes occured during the Civil War, with the exception of those perpetrated by reneigade black militias (not black Union troops) lead by white radical abolitionists, and that these militias were quickly disbanded.

I believe that the movie "Ride with the Devil" more accuratly depicts the treatment of women in the Civil War by both sides.

Anyone here know anything about this subject? I think it is a fairly important academic question, I'll post later why I think that . . .
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:02:59 PM EST
Ride with the devil is a damn fine movie.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:43:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 10:26:47 AM EST by AClay47]
"Sherman, in his march across Georgia and up through Carolina, had sixty thousand men with him. I don't know what percentage of them were illiterate. I know there were very few men in there with a delicacy of manners that you'd expect nowadays. And the whole time he made that march, those sixty thousand men, I had not heard of one case of rape. And that is one of the finest compliments I know you can pay this country and the soldiers it produced that we did not engage in these usual horrendous things that are common in civil war. "

- Historian Shelby Foote, from A Visit from Historian Shelby Foote

However, other sources disagree.

"Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new."

- Thomas J. DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

I think it apparent that southern women were raped by Union soldiers. It should come as no surprise that soldiers who burned homes and farms, looted businesses, and shelled towns also raped women. Some have said that rape became a weapon of war during that period. But, see also, Rape Warfare. Wasn't it General Sherman who proclaimed "War is Hell," and wasn't it the Union army which invented the scorched earth policy? Lincoln targeted civilians from the beginning of the War with his Anaconda Plan, and when General McClelland urged him by letter "to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible," he was promptly fired. General Sherman hung civilians in retaliation of attacks on gunboats by Confederate sharpshooters. There was nothing "civil" about the war, and anyone who wants to pretend rape did not occur is casting a blind eye to harsh reality.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:26:36 AM EST
While Shelby Foote is considered a respectable source, Thomas J. DiLorenzo has ZERO credibility in the historical field. He has no historical training, and no reputation beyond being a crackpot.

It is doubtful that NO rapes occured. There is likewise no doubt that rape was never condoned, by either side, during the war.

Sherman never said "War is hell." He said, many times, that "War is cruelty, and cannot be refined." He also did not invent scorched earth warfare. You can ask the Carthaginians about Roman use of scorched earth warfare, and even that was not the first instance. It is as old as warfare itself.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 10:29:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It is doubtful that NO rapes occured. There is likewise no doubt that rape was never condoned, by either side, during the war.

Sherman never said "War is hell." He said, many times, that "War is cruelty, and cannot be refined." He also did not invent scorched earth warfare. You can ask the Carthaginians about Roman use of scorched earth warfare, and even that was not the first instance. It is as old as warfare itself.



Agreed about the rapes! Excellent point about the Carthaginians.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:27:09 PM EST
In Sherman's retreat to the sea many atrocities occured.He should have been hanged for crimes against humanity.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:41:13 PM EST
Well... I've read that 'back' then in United States the predominate rape profile was rapeing of black women by white men.

And after WWII the soviets infantry raped the hell out of the german girls/women. 10 - 20 times a day in, what seemed to be many cases.


60,000 'keep it in their pants'.. I doubt that.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 6:41:36 AM EST
I don't recall any incident of "white" southerners being raped but I do recall that "blacks" were raped by the Yankees. Not that the former didn't happen. Rather, unless you read some letter, diary or journal, it's not the type of stuff that appears in regimental histories or newspapers of the period.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 6:54:42 AM EST
Where is the fun in war if you can't rape and pillage?

Link Posted: 10/16/2004 10:12:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By M4arc:
Where is the fun in war if you can't rape and pillage?




No no, nobody said no pillaging. Go ahead and raid the fridge, and have a cold one on them. Just be wary of your tactical situation. Any number of times, a steady advance was checked when the advancing army came upon a good wine cellar or three. Counterattacks suck worse when you're hung over.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 7:04:23 PM EST
didn't the roman army seed the soil with salt, so that no carthagian could sow seed and grow food???
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 5:57:53 AM EST
Indeed, and Carthage never rose again to challenge Rome's Empire. Thank heavens the Yankees, didn't follow their lead. Still unseating duly elected governments by warfare is not exaclty one of our country's better moments in democracy.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:16:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 6:16:48 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 6:33:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The people in the SE don't remember that damn war like yesterday for nothing.



Kinda like how the French are still all pissy that the Germans overran them in 6 weeks.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 12:33:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2004 12:34:35 PM EST by AClay47]

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The people in the SE don't remember that damn war like yesterday for nothing.



Kinda like how the French are still all pissy that the Germans overran them in 6 weeks.



No, the French didn't kill more Germans in battle than vice versa. They fought for elected governments which were being attacked by a President who usurped his authority. Lincoln's War killed Jeffersonian Democracy, which was based on the provision that a government is based on consent, not force.

The French declared war on the Germans, then chose not to attack. The Confederacy did not wage a war for secession. Its democratically elected States chose what was perceived as a right to secede from the Union. Lincoln's War destroyed whatever right there was to leave the Union.

That applies today. Assume that Kerry wins the Presidency through massive voter fraud. I watched an interview with one voter in Wisconsin who boasted that he voted 40,000 times in the 2000 Presidential election. In the news today was a report that one crackhead was caught falsely registering 140 Democrat voters. In the 2000 Presidential election, there more more votes than voters in St. Louis. What would happen if Kerry appoints Hillary as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a Democrat Congress passes gun bans, registration, and confiscation. You don't like it, but what can you do about it? What could your State do about it, or other States who share common values?

No, the "Civil War" has not been forgotten in the South. It is a shame that its lessons have been forgotten everywhere else.

You want to know who was raped in the Civil War? Look at what happened to our government.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 2:52:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The people in the SE don't remember that damn war like yesterday for nothing.



Kinda like how the French are still all pissy that the Germans overran them in 6 weeks.



No, the French didn't kill more Germans in battle than vice versa. They fought for elected governments which were being attacked by a President who usurped his authority. Lincoln's War killed Jeffersonian Democracy, which was based on the provision that a government is based on consent, not force.

The French declared war on the Germans, then chose not to attack. The Confederacy did not wage a war for secession. Its democratically elected States chose what was perceived as a right to secede from the Union. Lincoln's War destroyed whatever right there was to leave the Union.

That applies today. Assume that Kerry wins the Presidency through massive voter fraud. I watched an interview with one voter in Wisconsin who boasted that he voted 40,000 times in the 2000 Presidential election. In the news today was a report that one crackhead was caught falsely registering 140 Democrat voters. In the 2000 Presidential election, there more more votes than voters in St. Louis. What would happen if Kerry appoints Hillary as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a Democrat Congress passes gun bans, registration, and confiscation. You don't like it, but what can you do about it? What could your State do about it, or other States who share common values?

No, the "Civil War" has not been forgotten in the South. It is a shame that its lessons have been forgotten everywhere else.

You want to know who was raped in the Civil War? Look at what happened to our government.



Dude!!

Go buy the Firefly series DVDs!

And.. and.. you wern't even alive then! And if you were raised a few hundered miles to the north.. you wouldn't care!





------------------------
Workin' hard to make enemies.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:20:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:

Dude!!

Go buy the Firefly series DVDs!

And.. and.. you wern't even alive then! And if you were raised a few hundered miles to the north.. you wouldn't care!



Thanks, but I don't think watching a sci-fi series is a better way to gain a perspective of history than having majoried in it in college. It would be interesting, though.

What you say about the relationship of historical perspective to place of birth is astute. That's a shame, though. Until we have a balanced view of how Lincoln's War changed our government, for better or worse, the country will remain one governed by force rather than consent. That should concern Americans wherever they are born.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:26:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
Just a touch of information, now figure the time period and disgrace envolved a good guess is 1 out of 20 cases conservatively were ever reported.

The people in the SE don't remember that damn war like yesterday for nothing.

Tj



In reading about violence during the California Gold Rush, the rape rate was about 1/30 th of what it is today. Underreporting? Well, given the ratio of men to women, the rape rate during the Gold Rush should be artificially high, and one could assume that if women back then underreported compared to women now, it likely cancels out.

Further, I doubt that many rapes during the Civil War would have been concealed. If rape is being used as a weapon, it is a weapon of terror. In order to terrorise, word must get out . . . it would be conducted in a manner where, most likely, the woman couldn't conceal what happened. Further, I don't think victorious soldiers would need to hid thier attrocities from the locals. And Southerners, for their part, would want to know what the Yankees are doing to their women.

I have heard that several black militias engaged in rape, and were quickly disbanded. IIRC, they were never official parts of the Union army.

Now, I said that I would later post why I think this is important. First, I think it shows much better behaviour on the part of Americans than most others. Second, it undercuts the radical feminist argument that white, Western males have historically used rape to keep women in line. If Union soldiers didn't rape many Southern women, they didn't rape many girls in their hometowns, either. And the culture in fact did a good job of protecting women.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 3:32:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By AClay47:
Thanks, but I don't think watching a sci-fi series is a better way to gain a perspective of history than having majoried in it in college. It would be interesting, though.

What you say about the relationship of historical perspective to place of birth is astute. That's a shame, though. Until we have a balanced view of how Lincoln's War changed our government, for better or worse, the country will remain one governed by force rather than consent. That should concern Americans wherever they are born.



One of my greatgrandfathers was a Union soldier (he married a Southern woman after the war). Another was a Southerner who was too young for the war, but his family lost the plantation and considerable wealth in the war.

I used to be pro-South, but more recent research suggests that the South was far from being an ideal of individual rights (and I'm not talking slavery, but Southern actions during the war that hardly respected the powers of the Southern states relative to the Confederation, and the individual rights of free Southerners).

Top Top