Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Roswell Women

You all have probably heard of the Trail of Tears, when the Cherokee Indians were sent from North Carolina and Georgia to Oklahoma by force in the 1800's.

But very few people know the story of another forced exile that took place during the Civil War in Roswell, Georgia .

In 1864, at least 400 and possibly as many as 700 mill workers, nearly all women, black and white and their children, were arrested as traitors and shipped North by force, and very few of them ever made their way back home.

It was July, and the Atlanta Campaign was in full swing, General Sherman burning and slashing his way to Atlanta and his March to the Sea. Seeking a way to cross the Chattahoochee, General Kenner Garrard began his twelve-day occupation of Roswell, which was completely undefended. Everyone except the mill-workers had fled the city. The mills, two cotton mills and a woolen mill, remained in operation, making cloth for uniforms and other military needs, like rope and canvas.



The day after Garrard arrived, he sent a message to Sherman that he had discovered the mills and was in the process of destroying them. Sherman messaged back that the destruction of the mills met his "entire approval." He then added,

"I repeat my orders that you arrest all people, male and female, connected with those factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under guard, to Marietta, whence I will send them by [railroad] cars, to the North. THE POOR WOMEN WILL MAKE A HOWL�Let them [the women] take along their children and clothing, providing they have a means of hauling or you can spare them."

Then, a day later, he added, ""Whenever the people are in the way, ship them to a new country north and west."

The women and a few men who were too old or too young too fight and all the children were rounded up and marched, under guard, the ten or so miles to Marietta and brought to the abandoned Georgia Military Institute. Along the way, Garrard added more people who seemed to be "in the way."

There was another factory in the town of New Manchester on Sweet Water Creek due west of Atlanta where the women were also transported. But that city was burned to the ground and never rebuilt, so the women never returned and their fates have been lost.

From Marietta, they were loaded into boxcars, given several days' rations, and taken, not knowing where they were going or what their fate was to be, to Louisville, Kentucky, where many were unloaded, while some others were taken across the Ohio River into Indiana.

In the beginning, the women in Kentucky were fed and housed by a Louisville refugee hospital, but then they were left to find living quarters and employment on their own. The ones in Indiana struggled from the beginning, taking whatever work they could find. They were uneducated and knew nothing but mill work. There was very little possibility that they would get home, and most were illiterate and could not write to anyone to let them know where they were.

Many of the women died from disease, which reached epidemic proportions, and others of starvation or exposure.

Eventually, not knowing if their husbands were alive or dead, many of the women who survived remarried in the North. In the South, men came home from the war to find their wives and families missing, and presumed them dead, and remarried.

Some few of the women did make it back. One such case was that of Adeline Bagley Buice. She had been pregnant when she was shipped away, and it took her five years to get back to Roswell with her daughter, only to discover that her husband had given her up for dead and remarried.

In 1998 that the Roswell Mills Camp No. 1547, Sons of the Confederate Veterans, undertook a project to try to identify the victims and locate their descendents. Intensive advertising and research led to many of the descendents being located, mostly in the North, and most of the mill workers were identified. In 2000, the city of Roswell erected a monument to these exiles.

How does one justify making war on women and children? How does one ever justify it?

"War is Hell," Sherman said.

The sad thing is that the howl of the women, loud as it much have been, resounded for so short of time through the years. How can a lesson be learned, if the stories are not told?

So, people working in a mill supplying the enemy were taken. They gave them food, let them take their children and cloths and sent them to the dreaded north.
Where is the mention of rape and murdering kids?

Tuesday, March 22, 2011Behind the Curtain: Rape and Other Horrors
Throughout history, itself a story of war, wayward warriors have used rape as a weapon. The ancient Greeks even looked the other way. When it comes to the Civil War, historians � historically male � have generally assumed that rape was rare, compared to wars America has waged overseas. Does this assumption reflect facts or merely mirror 1860s sensibilities?



William Gilmore Simms, the antebellum South�s literary luminary, wrote in 1865, �There are some horrors which the historian dare not pursue. They drop the curtain over crime which humanity bleeds to contemplate.�



William G. Simms
1806-1870
Convoluted wording, indeed, but Simms wrote during the genteel Victorian era. It�s clear Simms was writing about the rapes and sexual �outrages� he witnessed during Union Gen. William T. Sherman� occupation of Columbia, South Carolina�s capital. Simms� account was first published serially in his hastily assembled newspaper, the Columbia Phoenix, an amazing feat considering Sherman�s troops had burned three-fifths of the city, including its newspaper offices.


Simms explained that most of the �horrors� against women had taken place away from Columbia. He wrote that Union soldiers and Sherman�s hangers-on might have threatened white women, but they actually targeted black women in rural areas. In the city, Simms� on-the-ground reporting, however, revealed what we can only call a gang rape:


The poor negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them . . . being left in a condition little short of death. Regiments, successive relays (emphasis by Simms), subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces, and � but we dare not farther pursue the subject � it is one of such loathing and horror.


�Two cases are described where young negresses were brutally forced by the wretches and afterwards murdered � one of them being thrust, when half dead, head down, into a mud puddle, and there held until she was suffocated.



This Harper's Weekly image during the Civil War
depicts women as angels of mercy. It's said
no war was as much a woman's war as the
American Civil War.
Did Simms witness an anomaly in Columbia, where Sherman�s soldiers� pent-up anger against the cradle of rebellion triggered especially heinous aggression, or did Civil War soldiers commonly wield weaponized sex? Facts are hard to come by. In the Victorian 1860s, sexual crimes against women were kept behind a curtain of silence to protect reputations of the delicate sex. Family males would exact punishment. Even in today�s sexually explicit society, experts estimate that more than 60 percent of rapes go unreported.


Still, we can find a few documented incidences of sexual crime in the Civil War. Most occurred during Sherman�s March to the Sea, when angry white Southerners wanted to point out Union �depredations.� Here are some examples:


In North Carolina:
- A Union soldier "ravished" a black woman in Raleigh during Sherman�s occupation, documents show.
- Pvt. James Preble of the 12th NY Cavalry was court-martialed in Kinston for the rape of Letitia Craft near Whitehall.
- A Union soldier was tried and hanged for the rape of a 58-year-old woman in Wayne County. Reports indicate army �stragglers ravished� women between Kinston and Goldsboro.


In Georgia: Near Milledgeville, two Union soldiers raped Kate Nichols, wife of a Confederate captain. Women diarists wrote that Nichols went insane and spent the rest of her life in an asylum. The rapists, possibly a pair among the horde of ravaging �bummers� following Sherman�s troops, were not captured.


In New Orleans: When the Union took New Orleans in 1862, Major Gen. Benjamin Butler ordered his men to treat the taunting Southern white women as if they were prostitutes. We might guess the results of Butler�s order.


Fear of rape surely chilled the hearts of white women in the South, where most Civil War battles erupted, but the scant documentation available indicates African-American women, usually slaves or freed slaves, suffered most. The pages of history remain largely blank on this subject.
Today, at least one female historian is attacking the blind eye cast toward sexual violence during the Civil War. In the academic journal Daedalus, Crystal N. Feimster asserts, �hundreds, perhaps thousands of women suffered rape� during the war. For details, go to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035621.
If we fail to acknowledge the sex crimes Americans commit during war, then rape and other sexual crimes � even in our own military ranks � can continue behind the curtain without proper scrutiny, punishment and binding of psychological wounds.



At minimum, we should be talking publicly and loudly about the price women pay in war, now and in the past.


RESOURCES: Simms, William Gilmore. A City Laid Waste, The Capture, Sack and Destruction of the City of Columbia, 1865. Barrett, John G. Sherman�s March Through the Carolinas. UNC Press, 1956. Catton, Bruce and McPherson, James. M. American Heritage New History of The Civil War. Barnes and Noble, 2005. Benedict, Helen. The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq. Beacon Press, 2010.

Congratulations! You finally found 6 documented cases of rape.
Anything on the broken legs or the baby Sherman shot?

That link was to book concerning lynchings and rape from 1880-1930, but her "assertion" of hundreds and possibly thousands of rapes falls well below the level of proof.

Sherman himself shot a baby? I didn't say that. Fellman writes that he read a letter in that a woman said that Sherman had his TROOPS shoot a baby, or maybe a couple, because they could not sleep in a house one night for the crying. Sherman said later they were sick and he was putting them out of their misery.

It's in his own Memoirs about the salt too. Somewhere around Charleston.

Maybe Sherman himself personally didn't commit these atrocities but he very well condoned it by letting his "Bummers" hang out with him.

Wonder how many women, children, & babies starved because of his pillaging and robbing?

I can't remember the book I read where the author had documented Sherman commanding that several men's legs be broken because they looked healthy enough to be on the battlefield. And the truth is, I'm not going to spend my time with it. Your mind is made up. There is no changing it.

Turning this inhumane monster's actions back on me for telling what I have read is frankly, sick.

And all in all, I cannot see anyone defending this monster.

Sherman's own words:
"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux," Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant (commanding general of the federal army) in 1866, "even to their extermination, men, women and children." The Sioux must "feel the superior power of the Government." Sherman vowed to remain in the West "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched."

"During an assault," he instructed his troops, "the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age."

Takes a cruel person to defend his words & deeds.

You do understand that these were war crimes even in those days and he could have been severely punished or hung?

He was never questioned, that I know of. It was never brought up, and almost forgotten.

Why? The winners got to write the history.

"The poor negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them . . . being left in a condition little short of death. Regiments, successive relays (emphasis by Simms), subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces, and � but we dare not farther pursue the subject � it is one of such loathing and horror."

This is real warfare guys. Sherman was a "Great" General.

"Scores" was definitely more than 6. You do know that a "Score" is 20?

Is this a documented quote or the author's suppositions?

THE RELIGION OF WAR


Even though war is horrible, it does happen. So to keep it from being too horrid and to get too far out of hand, rules were set up to protect the citizens. Christian ideals, then, are what lead to the "rules of war," as Christian morals dictated that there were some things that you just can't do during war.


But Sherman cared not for Christianity or Christian rules of war. Morality mattered little to Sherman. And his lack of following the rules led to his soldiers becoming not only irreligious, but sacreligious.
Soldiers under Sherman were some of the wickedest and most debauched men. As they pillaged the South, they would often sing, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," as they carried out their atrocities.
On one ocassion, soldiers of Sherman taunted nuns, and blew cigar smoke in their faces, yelling, "Oh, holy! Yes, Holy! We're just as holy as you are! Now, what do you think of God? Ain't Sherman greater?"


Of Sherman and his soldier's atrocities towards the Southern people, there is not time to write here. Death, destruction, dearth, devilment, and depravity followed him wherever he went as countless thousands of Southern people suffered unimaginable terror at his hand. Morals were thrown out the window, and for his soldiers, war became an excuse to unleash their basest depravations upon others.


SHERMAN'S LACK OF CONCERN


That Sherman was unmoved by what his soldiers did is clearly seen in his letter to Major R.M. Sawyer, in which he says, "We of the North are beyond question, right in our lawful cause...Next year your lands will be taken; for in war we can take them, and rightfully too; and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives."


Captain Daniel Oakley fo the 2nd Mass. commented: "It was sad to see the wanton destruction of property...[as they committed] every sort of outrage."


I could go on and one with the horrendous evil that Sherman and his hordes unleashed against the Southern People. And if that was all Sherman was guilty of, he would be rightfully convicted of his crimes. But that's not the worst of it. What Sherman did had not been done before in modern warfare. It was not only unlawful and immoral, but it was the first time someone did such a thing. For hundreds and thousands of years a moral conduct in war was followed, in which armies met each other face to face upon battlefields and fought only each other, not the populace. There was even "honor" in war which kept men from criminal activicty, and soldiers who engaged in misconduct were "court martialed" for their crimes.


But Sherman somehow got away with what he did. And he not only practiced "Total War" by burning, pillaging, and raping the innocent citizens of the South, but he also did things that had not been done before, and were not only unlawful but unheard of, such as: executing random civilians, using prisoners of war to clear minefields, and illegally seizing private property at his whem. And Sherman didn't seem to care that what he was doing was immoral, much less illegal.


So widespread was the terror under Sherman that many Southerners left the South for Texas. Finding and empty homes with the letters GTT (standing for "Gone to Texas") painted on the door was commonplace throughout the South, as people fled for their lives. There was no law, not even martial law. It was pandimonium and anarchy. It was terror in its evilest form. And there was no justice.


THE FRUIT OF SHERMAN'S EVIL


Because of Sherman's actions, and his not being prosecuted for his war crimes, a precedent was set, which lead to much more atrocities later. Seeing no reprucussions for what Sherman did, many of Sherman's cohorts accepted his method of total warfare and practiced it as well.


Gen. Philip Sheridan was one of those who believed in the absolute correctness of the state (known as "Statism"), and how that gave soldiers a license to do whatever they desired in war to bring the opposition to subjection or demise.


Sheridan used Sherman's methods in war agains the Indians by destroying Indians food supplies and even massacring Indians at his will. Many other soldiers bought into this method and cruelly massacred Indians without feeling.

Gen. Sherman the chief among
savages, the captain among pirates, the leader of highwaymen, the prince among scoundrels and
brutes, and the foremost villain of the world.�24 However those stories fell on deaf ears.
Expecting the criticism, Sherman concluded a letter to General Halleck with this message:
21 Richard Wheeler, Sherman�s March, (New York: HarperPerennial, 1978), 48.
22 Mills Lane, ed., Marching Through Georgia, (New York: Arno Press, 1978), 106.
23 Richard Wheeler, Sherman�s March, (New York: HarperPerennial, 1978), 28.
24 America�s Historical Newspaper, �Richmond Sentinel on Sherman,� Daily Constitutional Union: September
16, 1864, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/iwsearch/
we/HistArchive?p_product=EANX&p_action=timeframes&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=U60V5AAWMTI2OD
E5NTgyMS44NzczMTM6MToxNDoxMzEuMjE2LjE2Mi40MA&p_clear_search=yes&d_refprod=EANX&
(accessed Mar 25, 2010).
9
"If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not
popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.�25 The
Southern cries did not receive sympathy from the North. As General Lee was engaged with
Grant around Richmond, the physical and psychological impact of Sherman�s presence could not
be denied. To many, the end was near.26
Fire and brimstone became the symbol of Sherman�s presence as he ordered the
destruction of the city as he marched out. David Conyngham, a New York Herald correspondent
who accompanied Sherman throughout the campaign, commented how the buildings of Atlanta
�fed the fiery element.�27 Foundries, factories, stores, courthouses, refineries, and many more all
fell under the torch. Fire was a quick and meaningful message to any and all Confederate forces
and supporters: the destruction and burning continued until the war ended. Many more cities
and villages suffered the same fate; Atlanta was the precursor to the Georgia and Carolina
campaigns.

The author, B.J. Welborn? has it in quotations from the works of Simms, a newspaper owner/writer in South Carolina who supposedly witnessed Sherman's march through his State..

I confirmed that it is contained within Simm's work.

As you can tell, sex, rape, etc. was not written about freely & publicly in those days. It was a taboo subject.

While reading Sherman's "Memoirs", I have noticed that nothing was ever his fault. He laid the atrocities on his men or on the Rebels when events went beyond moral bankruptcy during his campaign.

You stated the HE shot children because they cried and annoyed him.
So Fellman read a letter by a lady stating that he had it done. Fellman also said he salted fields which logistically is bullshit. So I call bullshit. Essentially they may have caused some grass to brown and dick up their Croquet game.

You also tell me he broke the legs of every healthy male for 60 miles. I call bullshit.

You say the rapes were too many to count. Delorenzen or whoever tells me I can read about them in the South Carolina documents but I can find only 1 instance. You came up with about 6, most from a newspaper writer and Lord knows they were never prone to exaggeration.

So now I can add to my list of him being compared to Marques de Sade by the Europeans and now they were blowing smoke in Nun's faces. While socially unacceptable it doesn't fit a war crime.

I don't deny they wrecked havoc and he was a little careless with the matches but again, you offer no proof of these things you claim. You copy and paste opinion from some blog and a guy that studies economics. None offer footnotes or bibliography to show their work. They wouldn't even pass as acceptable if you offered them as reference on a High School Paper.

I totally understand Dustin. You defend Sherman vigorously and shoot the messenger of his atrocities.

If "Scores" by a supposed eyewitness doesn't suffice an accountable record & number of rapes, nothing will satisfy you.

I would still like to pizz on his grave.

You say "supposed" eyewitness. The definition of supposed:

sup�posed   /səˈpoʊzd, -ˈpoʊzɪd/ Show Spelled[suh-pohzd, -poh-zid] Show IPA
adjective
1. assumed as true, regardless of fact; hypothetical: a supposed case.
2. accepted or believed as true, without positive knowledge: the supposed site of an ancient temple.
3. merely thought to be such; imagined: supposed gains.

By the very definition, a supposed eyewitness does not account as a reliable source.

If the messenger of his atrocities can't verify them then what am I to do? There are "Scores" of eyewitness accounts of Black Panthers, Big Foot, UFO's and Santa Claus.

I guess I should accept the "supposed" fact based on heresay, myth and fantasy.

There is plenty in these pages from reputable sources to verify.
If DiLorenzi is not a reputable author, there is none.
I suppose you would call Sherman himself in his "Memoirs" reputable?

Did you not read his very own words on exterminating women and children?

You know danged well that when I said "He", Sherman, that I meant his troops.

Let me get this clear. Are you saying that kidnapping women and children and sending them hundreds of miles from home to who knows what fate is not an atrocity?

I ask this because it is not clear of what you call an atrocity.

Drawing on Michael Fellman's book, Citizen Sherman, the general is quoted as saying the following about the Plains Indians shortly after the war: "It is one of those irreconcilable conflicts that will end only in one way, one or the other must be exterminated . . . . We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women and children" (p. 26). According to Fellman, Sherman "had given [General Phillip] Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary . . . . Sherman would cover the political and media front" and "maintained personal deniability." "The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year," wrote Sherman. "They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers."

If he sent them to Indiana, didn't he send them out of the way of the war?

I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

But I, and others, don't believe that was his purpose. After all, he was hell bent on making them "Howl".
Plus, him being the Judge, Jury, & Executioner is/was not the way it works. Course, Lincoln did suspend Habeus Corpus several times.

An especially touching story (to me anyway) about the subject was that one woman walked home after about 5 years with her child to find her husband re-married and settled with a completely new family.

What would one do in that case?

I know what my wife would do!

My family about 5 generations back lived on a farm around Clanton Ala. Only women ,children and a few slaves were left, the men were all fighting in the war. When the yankee soldiers came through, they burned the house and the barn. They ran off or killed all the live stock. Some of the animals were thrown in the well. The only thing saved was the silverware, which was thrown in the well before the soldiers arived. This story was told to me as a child by my great aunt whoes mother was there. This is all the proof I need to dislike the Bastards.