Michaela is back in New Orleans, this time on much better terms. I am doing some online research, making myself sick to my stomach.
I was never much of a historian. I did well in school, but that was a long, long time ago. I remember reading about Sherman's march through the south. And I knew about the burning of Atlanta, although I suspect I know more about it from Gone with the Wind
than history class. But as I am not much of a historian, I presumed that what Sherman did through Georgia and the Carolinas was how the entire south was treated.
New Orleans was captured early in the war, and it had its own difficulties, but being burned wasn't amongst them. Other than some information about General Butler, I haven't found a lot to use. Other than, "New Orleans didn't burn", and thus many of the original plantations would have remained physically intact.
But then I was writing this:
This was a working plantation prior to the War of
Northern Aggression. Unlike Atlanta and other major cities across the south,
New Orleans was not burned by Sherman and his marauding hordes.
This is spoken by one of Clarissa's thralls while describing a plantation the fox is about to visit. I wanted to know if the way I wrote this is consistent with a southern outlook, and so I did a search, and then another, and another.
I'm not a southerner, and I don't have one handy to ask about this, but let's just say, from what I've been reading, if that's what a southerner would say, then it's a mild reaction to events.
And there are even apologists who try to contest this view. It wasn't Sherman, it was his men. Sorry, I don't buy it.
If you're from south of the Mason-Dixon line, especially if you're from in or around New Orleans, drop me a note. I'd love to do some fact-checking. Well, attitude-checking.