This might be a dumb question but.....

[CARLHAYDEN]

Because Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were Republicans.

First, Andrew Johnson was NOT a Republican.  Which in part explains why the Republican House impeached him.

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Second, to be more accurate about it, the brutal conquest of the south by the likes of 'pyromaniac' Sherman and his thugs combined with the the subsequent rape of the south by the carpetbaggers and thieir associates turned the south into solid Democrat for nearly a century.

Yes, but that doesn't entirely explain why the South decided to go with the Democrats.  That part can then be explained by noting that the commander-in-chief during the war was a Republican.  Had Abraham Lincoln been a Democrat, we would have seen the solid Republican South.

And sure, technically speaking Andrew Johnson was not a Republican, but he was on a ticket with Abraham Lincoln.  I don't think many Southerners would have cared about anything else; that's enough association with the Republican Party for them right there.

Well, lets look at the two different aspects, first of how the war was fought and second how the south was treated after the war.

If the south had been defeated by the north following the generally accepted western rules of warfare (adhered to by McClellan and Lee) the level of animosity would have been far less than the practice of Sherman, Sheridan, Butler et al. who launched despicable attacks on civilians and their property.

If the policy of Johnson had been followed to bring the south back into the union with as little disruption as possible, there would have been far less animosity than was the case when the carpetbaggers and their associates looted the south.

In short, the affiliation of white southerners with the Democrats would have been less extended (in terms of time) and less intense if an ethical method of making war, and occupation policy had followed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it must be acknowledged that there were incidents by low level confederate commanders (Quantrill comes to mind) where clearly violated the accepted norms at the time (there was no Geneva Convention at the time).

Further, it must be acknowledged that Andersonville was a hellhole.

Having said that, let me make a few distinctions.

First, the northern prison camps were generally as bad as the confederate camps, and unlike the confederates they did NOT have the argument of a lack of resources.

Second, not only did Sherman REPEATEDLY ignore the outrages committed by his troops (no, there is no evidence that Sherman ORDERED the outrages, but, he never did anything to stop them, and took actions to encourage them).

Third, in addition to Sherman and 'Beast' Butler, Sheridan committed himself to wrecking destruction on the south.  He once bragged that the devestation his troops inflicted on the Shenadoah valley was such that a vulture would have to carry provisions with him when crossing the valley.

Fourth, as bad as the methods employed by many major northern commanders were, the subsequent brutal occupation of the south cemented the understanding of the north for its inhumanity for many southerners.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl's correct about northern prisons on both counts.  They were almost always as bad as southern ones, occasionally worse.  And they did not suffer from lack of resources.  Camp Douglas may have been the worst, not just because Confederate soldiers were deprived of food, potable water and medical care, but because they were sometimes shamelessly subjected to sport and ridicule by the population of Chicago.  Elmira was a pit.  Johnson's Island was hideous.  And there was no excuse for this whatsoever.  Any Union man worth his blue should be ashamed.  In some prisons, Quakers and Unitarians (who were ironically the staunchest abolitionists) ministered as best they could to the needs of Confederate soldiers.

I collect Civil War documents, photographs, relics and so forth.  In my possession is a Bible carried by a Private in the 51st Georgia Infantry.  He was wounded and captured at Boonsboro, Md. just before Antietam.  Attached to the front cover of the Bible is a CDV photograph of the male nurse who attended him in the prison hospital.  The bond of friendship this Reb and Yank forged is obvious from the tender inscription on the back of the CDV.  That said, such stories -- though true -- are nonetheless individual and anecdotal. And the overarching reality is that most Northerners treated most Southerners with contempt and brutality in captivity.  And vice-versa.

With regard to Sherman, however, just about everything Carl has said has been proven to be inaccurate or misunderstood.  Sherman likely could have done more to prevent some of the wrong done by his troops.  But historians view him much more kindly today.  (I will be happy to cite references if requested.)  This is not to say he bears no blame or resposibility.  He also bears some of the blame for what part he played in the ongoing genocide against First Americans after the Civil War.  But in both conflicts, he is hardly the beast than Ben Butler was. 

I can't fault Sherman for the crimes committed by his troops unless I am also willing to fault Nathan Bedford Forrest for the crimes committed by his.  And to my knowledge, Sherman's men never massacred unarmed, surrendering and wounded soldiers.  Even at Fort Pillow however, Forrest did not order the massacre.  And accounts of his reaction to it vary too much to draw any substantive conclusion.

Well, first lets start with a list of actions that Sherman took to stop the looting and pyromania of his troops.

Go ahead Soujourner, provide a list the (general and special) orders, the officers and troops punished, etc.  I'm not going to hold my breath.

Now, I'm not reluctant to criticize any officer from taking actions to control the troops under his command and punish those guilty of violations of the rules of land warfare.  Don't care whether its Sherman, Forrest or others.

Now, it is true that there is no record or even credible evidence that either Sherman or Forrest ordered these actions.

But to again be clear, actions to prevent/stop/punish were lacking!