Sherman's march

[johan_steele]

Psst take a look at the lyrics of a popular soldier song called "Kingdom Comin'" It was picked up by Union troops from freed slaves who were horribly disappointed about being freed. There are ample diary accounts of men who learned to despise the Southern Gentry after having campaigned in the South. They saw how well treated the black man was.

Yep, Sherman was a racist... I don't think there is any doubt in that... Thea... your hate for Sherman and the Union soldier is well documented. I gotta ask what military training have you had? Have you ever studied tactics or strategy? "Hit an enemy where he ain't" to quote NB Forrest. So you are saying by destroying railroads, mills, supplies etc Sherman and his men were War Criminals... you might want to see if NB Forrest or other CSA commanders did anything like that. Hint, they did.

Sherman took the war to Georgia & SC... the heartland of the CSA. He broke the back of the CSA and everyone knew it.

"More concerning his March to the Sea: What was left of the main Confederate army was in Tennessee trying to attack Sherman's supply lines and deal with two huge federal armies that were holding down the people of Tennessee and Kentucky. Sherman's advance from Chattanooga to Atlanta, opposed by a small but seasoned Confederate army, had not been so easy. The March through Georgia and Carolina was contested only by a few thousand cavalry and old men and boys of the home guard. When Sherman got to North Carolina he was met by the remnants of a genuine Southern army and was defeated by a small force at Bentonville." So Georgia & SC militia weren't genuine Southern soldiers? Wow, don't tell that to them, I think they might be prone to disagree. You might want to read:
Cox, Jacob D., Campaigns of the Civil War.-IX. Atlanta, Castle Books, 2002.
Cox, Jacob D., Campaigns of the Civil War.-X. The March to the Sea-Franklin and Nashville, Castle Books, 2002.

Both were written by a man who was there, his insight is quite interesting.

Take a drive from Chatanooga to Atlanta and look at the terrain... a smaller army w/ a competant general should be able to hold a larger army at bay. Which was skillfully done I might add. Then Jeff Davis in all of his military expertise placed Hood in command. Bragg & Hood... not what I would call terribly good choices as neither could win a fight. Franklin made Cold Harbor & Picketts Charge look like a picnic. As to Hood cutting Shermans supply lines... did a wonderful job didn't he? He wrecked his army in a bungled campaign.

Longstreet couldn't bag Burnsides Army in Tennesee, couldn't even lick it. Bentonville, is what happens when you have been facing inept leadership for so long you forget what competant leadership looks like... incidently I'm not certain I'd go so far as to call Bentonville a CSA victory. One hell of a scrap yes, but unless I'm sorely mistaken the CSA didn't carry the field or crush Shermans Army... am I missing something?

As to Kentucky being "held down"... Kentucky was largely pro Union so was eastern Tennesee.

A note as to one of the many reason Shermans men got a little irritated w/ Southern Civilians... dogs were generally shot or bayoneted on site after it became known that bloodhouds were used to chase down escaped Union troops and runaway slaves. A couple men in less than healthy shape who had escaped from Andersonville (that oh so sunny vacation spot that the CSA was so proud of) wandered into one of Shermans camps. POW camps on general weren't all that healthy...

While Sherman may not have thought highly of the black men & women who followed his army in a hope for a better future many of his men did... Apparently Wheelers Cav didn't think too highly of the ex slaves following Sherman either... how many did they slaughter when Sherman ordered the pontoons struck behind his army? A very effective saber charge I might add... of coarse the black civilians were unarmed... If you want to pick and choose atrocities commited by the beligerants... It's not difficult to do, especially in war time.

Was Sherman a saint? No, neither were his men. That is war and war is hell.

In short who won and why? Sounds like you're crying over spilt milk. Am I an XXXXXXX? Dunno.

It was easier for the CSA men who had gone to fight and had lost... they knew why. They tried valiently and lost, they got over it. It's their wives and descendents who wanted the war to continue... in short those who didn't do the fighting and dieing.


(Message edited by civilwartalk on November 23, 2003)

I think I can answer a few of the questions you pose Shane. I have studied military history, tactics, strategy, effects and consequences for 30 years. I have read Saxe, Clausewitz, Jomini, Tacticus, Vegetus, Josephus, Sun Tzu, John Alger, Thucydides, Liddell-Hart as well as Gudarian, and Von Mellenthin just to name a very few. I do not see there being justification for the majority of Sherman's actions. Burning mills, tearing up railroads and communications are one thing. But hanging civilians at random to stop the same happening to your railroads etc is scum. Burning homes, stealing everything the citizen’s own. Scum. Worse, they GOT OFF on it. The president laughed at the tales of destruction. So Sherman was not a rogue element.

As to the CSA men "getting over" it. I think you should read less northern sanctioned publications of the reaction of the CSA soldiers and more into the reconstruction. There was a good reason Judge Parker's hangman said he never hung a boy that wore the blue. Those that were not already dead.

As to your assinine statement regarding Andersonville...I guess you can lay those deaths at whoever destroyed the food stores. What excuse did the Union prisons have? I'm sure you got one.

As to your last question. I think you effortlessly make the answer blatantly obvious. You even seem inordinately proud of it in fact.

[unionblue]

Tommy & Shane,

I have read the above posts, in what I hope is my usual attitude to learn something about history. I enjoy my time on these boards and appreciate the views and research of others, who have obviously taken much time and effort to present their side of the debate.

I do not appreciate anything getting personal or vindictive. It lowers the character of this board. We all get a little bit aroused at times and sometimes more than a bit. But I believe we have never tried to insult one another or score low blows before the bell.

This is a personal opinion and I regret if I have offended anyone with it. But gentlemen, I would appreciate if we could remain such with one another and others on this board, no matter what the subject.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil, I was in the midst of a reply to Shane when I saw that you have requested that we "behave" ourselves and stick to the subject at hand. And I will gladly do so,if you will allow me just this ONCE to defend myself. I can assure you that no matter what slings and arrows are thrown in the future, I will not be a party to it and I will ignore anyone that incites it. We only diminish ourselves when we act "common", as my mother used to say.

You absolutely have my word that I won't be drawn into a verbal sparring match again. Thea

" I gotta ask what military training have you had? Have you
ever studied tactics or strategy?" Shane, I didn't know you were so prejudiced. Does this mean that if someone has not served in the armed forces they are incompetent to have an opinion or study the same history that others do?

There are thousands upon thousands of history books pertaining to the WBTS and I daresay quite a few of them were written by people who had not served in the armed forces.

As for those who practiced "total war" being War Criminals for their practice of "total war", I not only will hint at it, but I will state categorically that I believe they indeed were war criminals and should have been tried as such. (Even Sherman alluded to this about himself and some of his deeds after the war was over.) Ah, but that wouldn't have been possible, would it? I believe Ol' Abe passed a law along the way stating that neither he, nor members of his cabinet, or any of his military leaders could be held accountable for their actions during the WBTS. That's quite a little CYA policy, don't you think?

And you don't have to "hint" to me about Nathan Bedford Forrest or any other Confederate commander. In terms of who did what, I'll put my Confederates up against your Yankees any day, any time, any where. There's no comparison whatsoever with the pure destruction caused by Sherman and his ilk.

As to Andersonville, why don't you rummage in your books and look at Elmira, etc. Then check your stats on how many Confederates died in comparison to Union soldiers in these hell holes. And if you'll check back on some of my previous posts I've stated that it was US policy, endorsed, signed, sealed and delivered by the Great Father himself, Abe Lincoln, to deprive Confederate soldiers of medical attention and to starve them to death.

As to who won, that's a matter of public record. As to me crying over spilt milk, trust me, I don't cry over anything. As for your query that you might be an A------, I'm sure I wouldn't want to speculate.

For your statement: " It's their wives and descendents who wanted the war to continue... in short those who didn't do the fighting and dieing." you're fairly presumptuous to know what was in the hearts and minds of people then or now. I wish we all could have a peek in your crystal ball. On the other hand, it might be like looking through a glass darkly.

That little barb hinting that "we" should just get over it is unworthy of you. Every person on the planet has the right to study history and form their own opinions, unless of course this privilege has been denied us in some recent legislation.

It seems to upset you that Southerners don't just accept the "loser" connotation that you consign to us. Hopefully, someday in the near future, YOU will "get over it".

I bid you good evening,

[unionblue]

Thea,

To address your one point where you state a law was passed by Lincoln that stated none of his generals, cabinet, etc., could be prosecuted for acts during the War of the Rebellion, I have this reference:

"Congress did respond with legislation ratifying the president's military actions. Later, it augmented its support of the president with an immunity statute. An 1863 statute provided that "any order of the president, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defense in all courts to any action or prosecution...for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment." The statute also gave the defendant the power to remove state litigation to federal court and provided a two-year statute of limitations (even if the case remained in state court) for any action brought against an officer acting "under color of" presidential or congressional authority.

The Supreme Court upheld this statute in Mitchell v. Clark. When the Civil War began, the Court explained, no legal authority had existed to deal with dangerous, disloyal individuals, thus requiring officials to take extralegal action. "For most of these acts there was constitutional power in congress to have authorized them, if it had acted in the matter in advance." In addition, perhaps, "in a few cases, for acts performed in haste and in the presence of an overpowering emergency, there was no constitutional power anywhere to make them good." The Court had no doubt about the validity of the statute: "That an act passed after the event, which, in effect, ratifies what has been done, and declares that no suit shall be sustained against the party acting under color of authority, is valid, so far as congress could have conferred such authority before, admits of no reasonable doubt." For "these are ordinary acts of indemnity passed by all governments when the occasion requires it."

YMOS,
Unionblue

"When the Civil War began, the Court explained, no legal authority had existed to deal with dangerous, disloyal individuals, thus requiring officials to take extralegal action."

That is odd. I thought there were all sorts of laws on the books that allowed you to arrest those who had committed crimes.


For "these are ordinary acts of indemnity passed by all governments when the occasion requires it"...Occasion meaning being guilty of war crimes you mean? Carte Blanche with zero accountability to the victims?

BTW, The Congress also made political prisoners swear an oath of alligence as a condition of their release. Oddly enough they also had to swear and oath they would not bring suit against the government for their arrest or treatment or anything the government had done or they would not be released.

My opinion is if you are not doing anything wrong you do not need such statutes of protection. Only if you know you are guilty. On the other hand it sure does set the stage for just what happened.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I'm just telling it like I saw it. That was Congress and the Supreme Court, not Neil Hamilton giving you the reasons.

Just as a matter of, oh, what the hell, point or such, why do States have laws on the books about firemen and ambulance workers, etc., that protect them from law suits? Doesn't that present certain victims who want to sue with zero accountability?

I know about the oath of alligence as I have had to reenact it at events. The Southern troops called it 'swallowing the eagle' and it was just about as enjoyable as the description.

As for your observation if you are not doing anything wrong you do not need such statutes of protection, I don't know about that one.

You see, for 13 years of my 20 years in the military, by international law, I was a war criminal. It was illegal by international law and during the Vietnam War that I esvse dropped on other nations international communications, to include our allies and the Vatican. But, I felt then, and I do now, I was doing the best by my country, trying to find out information that would protect it and keep it 'ahead' of the game.

Just an observation, not a judgment. And by the way, the statute of limitations on me is over and I'm in the clear now! <grin>

Talk at you soon,
Unionblue

Neil,

I know where I live we have immunities on the books saying cops, firemen and emts cannot be sued. BUT...only in cases where true accidents are involved. If the damage occurs during illegal actions or negligence. In other words, if it is an honest mistake or accident, then ok. Otherwise they have perfect right to sue the city. Either way, the individual can be sued or even charges brought against him. He is not protected by the can't sue ordinances....


Just curious but I thought it was a soldier's duty to not knowingly commit an illegal act regardless of his orders. To only obey lawfull orders. That there is a presumption that orders given by a superior officer should be deemed to be lawful. But to knowingly do so was wrong. Regardless of cause. Granted it has been a long time since I read the US Uniform Code. Is that not correct?

YMOS
tommy



(Message edited by aphillbilly on November 21, 2003)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Yep, I see your point concerning the true accidents clause, but what happened before that law was on the books? Even at the scene of 'true accidents?' Even if those firemen, emts and police officers weren't doing anything wrong?

And you are right, it is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice to knowingly commit an illegal act. So when you are inducted into the United States Army, then assigned to the United States Army Security Agency and then work directly under the tasking and direction of the National Security Agency, who in turn is commanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who in turn work directly for the President of the United States, WHO, by the way, created the National Security Agency by Presidential directive, NOT by legislation through Congress as the CIA was, you have an interesting set of circumstances.

At one time, the United States did exactly what you infer it should. It did not read 'other gentlemen's mail' as the term was used in the time frame after WWI. And it was at a terrible disadvantage when it came to protecting its diplomatic and military communications or at finding out the intentions and secrets of its potential enemies.

When I was inducted into the Army Security Agency, I was told up front that my job was illegal by international law and that I could be treated as a spy under that law. I was sworn to secrecy and that if I revealed any part of my job or the way in which my service or country conducted its collection of 'national level' intelligence, I would be fined $10,000.00 and/or serve up to 10 years in prison. Now, I don't want to give the impression that I was forced to do this, I was not.

I also discovered that EVERY nation on the face of the does the earth does exactly the same thing, to everyone else, illegally monitor's everyone's communications. Now, does that make it right for me to do a job for my country that is described by international law as a war crime?

Another thing of interest. I had classes on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (and gave them too, during my career) and was bound by oath to obey them, and the section on obeying illegal orders was covered VERY well, i.e., don't commit war crimes by shooting unarmed civilians, no looting, etc.

Kind of a quandry, don't you think? Maybe there are times that your troops or military officers HAVE to be covered by some kind of statute, even if they don't commit war crimes? Or, if by international law, they do?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 21, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 21, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 21, 2003)

Neil,

US Uniform Code of Justice. I was beating my head trying to think the full title. I also could not think of the word negligence. I had written neglect and asked you what was it I meant lol. I thought of it and edited it. God I love the edit feature.

I do not think lawsuits were a problem in the past. Generally speaking of course. I do not think in the past lawyers would waste their time filing frivolous suits. But nowadays with the number of lawyers doubling every few years it is a must have. Kinda like those stupidity labels on products. There are just so many lawyers in competition.

As to your time as a spook. Hmmmmmmm...although aren't spooks CIA field agents? hmmmm anyway I hope you can understand I am incredibly sensitive to government powers of surveillance. I know too well it is too easy for people like Hoover to .... be like Hoover. I think there needs to be accountability. Not just token accountability from people who have no interest in enforcing it.

As to your teaching the US Uni Code. My father taught NBC warfare for several years. He also helped store and load nukes as well as part of Broken Arrow. I remember for years after he retired they checked up on him. But funny thing. He used to teach and teach what to do in a nuclear attack to survive. He used to think it was pretty much a total waste of time. (Not the Chemical &amp; biological parts) I used to ask him what to do etc in case of nuclear attack. We had to do the exercises at school. Oh the good ole days lol. Anyway, he said to me. If a full scale nuclear war breaks out with missiles flying then best thing I could do was kiss mom good bye and tell her I loved her.

He said he HAD to teach soldiers how to survive a nuclear war in order to maintain morale. I guess he was not worried about my morale. Lol

I guess my point is I guess the military teaches you things cause it is what they do. Following orders even if the make little sense.

Personally as a soldier, military law would be what I would be most interested in. They are telling you what you can get away with by default. Always a good thing to know.

Ok my brain is going fast. I’m off to bed. Be careful heading home.

YMOS
tommy

btw I hope you are proud of how we have avoided military intelligence remarks or going postal.