The Civil War was anything but "Civil". I don't think that I knew of the havoc wreaked by General Sherman in Georgia but I have always felt that the war itself was terrible in every sense of the word.
Friends and family fighting and killing each other for their freedom to believe and practice what they either wanted or didn't want. Succession was the thing that couldn't stand. We had fought for our Nation and to see it halved was not acceptable. General Sherman was a successful General. Thank you Tara for the unfiltered truth.
May have violated the 3rd Amendment, passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Since the South had seceded, could it be that the North no longer considered them to be part of the United States and thus not protected by the Constitution?
That would be funny to consider the South part of the Union for one purpose (not letting them leave), but then to consider them NOT part of the Union for other purposes (constitutional protection). (I am not saying they didn't do it. Just noting the contradiction in their own actions, if so.)
The horror of war...especially that it was among fellow countrymen 😔
But, when did Peabody arrive on the scene?
great history lesson...
The Civil War was anything but "Civil". I don't think that I knew of the havoc wreaked by General Sherman in Georgia but I have always felt that the war itself was terrible in every sense of the word.
Friends and family fighting and killing each other for their freedom to believe and practice what they either wanted or didn't want. Succession was the thing that couldn't stand. We had fought for our Nation and to see it halved was not acceptable. General Sherman was a successful General. Thank you Tara for the unfiltered truth.
Yeah, there is room for disagreement, though, on how Lincoln went about restoring the Union. Don't you think?
May have violated the 3rd Amendment, passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Since the South had seceded, could it be that the North no longer considered them to be part of the United States and thus not protected by the Constitution?
That would be funny to consider the South part of the Union for one purpose (not letting them leave), but then to consider them NOT part of the Union for other purposes (constitutional protection). (I am not saying they didn't do it. Just noting the contradiction in their own actions, if so.)