Sherman's march

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Your feelings towards Sherman remind me of mine toward Samuel Morse when I had to learn Morse Code at Ft. Devens, MA. I swore, after many a long day of hearing dits and dahs, that I would go into Boston (where I had discovered where Morse was buried) and find the graveyard of the bastard who was making me suffer countless days and nights and I too, would 'water' his grave.

I look back on that time and was glad I never carried out my version of 'biological warfare' on the poor man. It wasn't like he set out to make my own life miserable, to drive me personally insane with the constant pounding of his system of communication.

Plus the fact I was too drunk at the time to even find the man's headstone.

Now, with that said, I am pretty sure that Sherman did end the war a bit ahead of schedule. Once it was proven that there was no way to defend the South, that some of its morale must have suffered and many men had the thought cross in their minds, "What is the use?" After a while, you just want it to be over. And as I recall, there were a LOT of letters from home telling the boys to give it up and come home. That would be pretty powerful motivation for the boys to give up and come home. For most of them. And I know you are speaking for yourself in the above post, as history records a bunch did go home to stay.

But not all of them. I know of one Mississippi unit who voted to stay and fight for 'forty years' if need be, until the victory was won. Amazing when you look back at it all, but not entirely unexpected.

Until next time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 28, 2003)

[thea_447]

Sherman may have helped win the war,in the opinion of Northern sympathizers, but there is no doubt that the way he did it contributed strongly to the animosity that persists to this day.
The Mobile Tribune in January 1865 made the following prophetic comment in an editorial: "A hundred years will not wipe out the animosities and prejudices which this war leave, and if submission were to be determined on today, the past would not be buried with our bones. There would be no peace for us, except by an abandonment of all our old sense of manhood, and no field for our children, unless they were reduced to the most abject lack of manhood or womanhood. So, before us are a hundred years of agony, or emancipation from the trammels of the enemy."

And Shane, on your remark,"Us soldiers are just too ****ed tired of the killing and the dying".....I don't agree; at least, not about these particular soldiers. Their blood lust was up and to slake it,when they finished with the South, they went West and wreaked havoc on the Indians.

[thea_447]

'I know that in the beginning I, too, had the old West Point notion that pillage was a capital crime, and punished it by shooting.'
- William T. Sherman; a few years later he and president Ulysses Grant would use his
war crimes against the south as justification for the ethnic cleansing of American Indians.

[johan_steele]

Umm Thea it wasn't my quote. Though I agree w/ his sentiments. No Regular Army troops were involved in the march to the sea or the Carolinas campaign. The Regular Brigade of the west was too mauled in the battles of Atlanta to fight much further, suffering the highest casualty rates of any Union units in the campaign. They spent the rest of the war garrisoning Lookout Mtn. and after the war most regiments were no more than a shell or cadre at best. As to them going west and "cleansing" the Indians. BS and any historian w/ a modicum of sense will agree. The wars w/ the Indians were a no quarter given and none asked affair. Better than 2000 white settlers died in the 1862 war w/ the Sioux. Fighting against the various Indian tribes lasted well into the 1890's... Frankly, the former CSA states were well represented in the fighting. I might also bring your attention to the "Trail of Tears" which predates the Civil War. Now where were the Cherokee lands? I do believe they resided squarly in the heart of what would become of the Confederacy. If the people of the South were benevolant towards the Indians why did the Trail of Tears happen? A good bit of the "cleansing" as you put it was doled out by Texans against the Commanche, Kiowa etc... unless I'm grossly mistaken I believe Texas was part of the CSA. Blaming the Union alone for the plight of the Indian is... creative history at best.

Yes, the various tribes were mistreated, but it was far less one sided than you might think. How many white settlers died? Read a little bit about Red Cloud and how he soundly whipped the US Army.

Most of the men who fought the Lakota in 62-67 had never seen a Confederate... they were too busy fighting the poor innocent Indians. Who gave as good as they got I might add.

The idea that the Lakota, Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Commanche, Kiowa, Apache etc were poor innocent peace loving people is not supported by fact. They were some of the finest warriors in the world. Saying they were anything but proud fighting men diminishes them and shames their memory.

In much the same way you diminish what the Union Army accomplished before Atlanta and onm the campaign to the Sea & the Carolinas. Shermans men won the war by destroying the breadbasket of the South. When CSA soldiers knew they couldn't even defend their own states... the war was over and they knew it. It was only a matter of time.

Aphillbilly... look into the desertion rates of the Army of Northern Virginia during Shermans march to the Sea and the Carolinas campaign... They were higher than any other time of the war. At least once a Captain in a Ga regt woke to find himself and eight men all that was left of his Comapany. The rest had gone home. Desertion in the CSA was epidemic by the spring of 65.

Sherman did a fine job of cutting the CSA to pieces, He effectively removed Ga, SC & NC from the War and completely cut Fl off from the rest of the CSA. THe CSA states couldn't support each other, their logistical center was destroyed, their morale crushed, in short he won the war. From the fall of 63 the CSA didn't win a major enagagement. Hood wrecked his own army and removed the last vestige of hope for the Confederacy when he dashed his army against the entrenchments of Franklin.

The war ended w/ Appomotax and the later surrender of Johnston.

A war is won by using every dirty underhanded trick you can think of... whatever it takes to win. War is not a day at the races. It isn't fair. It's terrible and that's all there is to it. Those who thought differently went to war and learned the hard way.

"Honor is fine and good; but it fails to win battles." Bayan of the 100 eyes. Premier General of Kubli Khan... he never lost a battle.

Shane,

As to the Trail of Tears. Many, and I mean, many, southerners helped hide the Cherokees. Also many in congress opposed it. Such as Crockett. Yet I think you should do more research. The land was bought from the Cherokees. Also it was Congress under the Federalist Jackson who passed the Indian Removal Act. Jackson was the one who signed it. He may have been a southerner but he was first a Federalist. The Cherokee fought the removal in court for several years. All the way to the Supreme Court. It was the treaty that the Senate ratified that the Cherokee leader Major Ridge signed that sealed their fate. Henry Clay spoke out against it but to no avail. The first General ordered to do it refused. General Winfield Scott was the one did it instead. So to lay this event at the South’s doorstep is just absurd. What it does show is that unlike the arbitrary massacres and broken treaties instituted by Grant’s infamous “Indian Ring”, the ordeal with the Cherokees was made legal before the fact. Not justified after the fact. Now that is not creative history. Just facts.

I think the desertion rate in Va had more to do with the fact Grant had done his work, the harvest season and just plain weariness you get when fighting overwhelming odds for years than Sherman. What were these deserters going to do? Go down and lick Sherman’s boots? Fight him? I'd like to see proof of your claim. I have looked into it. I never seen it to be laid at Sherman’s door except from apologists for the man. By 65 the war was over. Grant is the one leading the Army that broke the back of the South. Thomas did all the real fighting in the west. Sherman was just doing his best to be vengeful. Just as his master wanted.

“A war is won by using every dirty underhanded trick you can think of... whatever it takes to win. War is not a day at the races. It isn't fair. It's terrible and that's all there is to it”....... Interesting view. ...I suppose you are as vehemently opposed to the Geneva Convention as I am to the worship of Sherman.

As to Bayan. Just curious but what is the source on that quote? Was Bayan not alive at the time of Kublai's invasion of Japan?

(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 28, 2003)

[johan_steele]

Asd to the Cherokee lands... I again ask you where were they? Diid there forced removal in some way benefit the evil north? there land was bought in the same way the Lakota land was bought... w/ creative truths. So now the South was innocent of even mistreatment of indians? Next you'll say slaves lived an idealic lifestyle.

As I've asked many times before... would the world be better if the CSA had won and slavery in the had been prolonged?

I don't worship Sherman, he had a lot of faults. I also try not to hate anyone that's been dead for a century...

So Sherman had nothing to do w/ the fall of Atlanta? Charleston or Savannah?

I'm not really certain it's possible to compare Thomas & Sherman... Sherman was certainly the more aggressive of the two though THomas had a steadiness that was legendary and his men idolized him... come to think of it so did Shermans.

Bayan of the hundred eyes died several years prior to the Invasion of Japan... He never cared for ships of war... except possibly destroying them. I did my thesis on the Mongol Empire, Bayan stood out in my research. As to the source... I'd have to do some looking... I've still got perhaps 75 good books on the subject. I'm not sure I could readily lay hands on the right ones that deal w/ Bayan.

The south was not innocent of mistreatment of the Indians. My point is the Trail of Tears was a Federal Government issue. One of relocation not genocide. Tried in the courts many years prior to the relocation. In fact it took 10 years start to finish. (Actually it was closer to 40 years when you considered the Fed Gov promised Georgia the Indians would be bought out and that the Land Lottery could become a fact) Not the murderous ethnic cleansing and reeducation camps started by the Grant Adminitration, where the payment, if any, came after the fact. Nor was there an Indian Ring involved. But if you feel the need to compare the two, feel free. The end result of the Trail of tears is the Cherokees fought for the South though.

As to your question. Yes.


(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 28, 2003)

[unionblue]

To All,

Just a quote I would like to inject into this thread.

"The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and <u>every claim for protection given by citizenship</u>--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result."

Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, 1885.

Unionblue

Neil,
That is basically what it boils down to. Might makes right.
YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

No, you takes your chances and you lay your money down and you live with the results.

Unionblue